Below are two inquiries sent in to Oath Keepers by readers. The names of the individuals sending in the queries are protected. Replying to their questions is Stewart Rhodes:
Question Number One:
Date: Wed, October 3, 2012 11:52 am
Last Sunday I heard on the car radio that the “Obama government has issued a
warning to private militias that they must come under the control of the
federal government”. What has OathKeepers to say about this since it is the
Constitution which grants special rights to militias to be formed as
citizen’s protection against errant government leaders?
Stewart Rhodes in reply:
I’d love to listen to the broadcast if you can tell us which show it was. I can look for an archive of it.
My first response is that private associations of Americans are not subject to government control. But the second response would be that the militia of the several states are a STATE organization which answers first and foremost to the governor of the state, under t he statutes and state constitution of that state, and are only subject to federal call up for three very carefully enumerated purposes, as articulated in Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution, where it states that Congress shall have the power:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
And, whenever an attempt is made to call forth the militia for any other purpose, or to call them forth in an instance which is not a valid execution of CONSTITUTIONAL laws of the Union (any unconstitutional law or decree is null and void), or in an instance in which the resistance to federal oppression is justified because the federal government has stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution (and thus that resistance is not an insurrection) then it is the duty and the right of the militia members to refuse the call up, and it is the duty and the right of the Governor of that state to refuse to turn his militia troops over to the feds.
And that is the beauty of the militia system – because the military force of the state is in the hands of the state, and made up of the people of that state, they hold in their hands the very real capacity to refuse to serve under unjust federal command, and they hold in their hands the very real capacity to resist federal violation of the rights of the people.
So, any blanket declaration that militia should be always under control of the federal government is itself null and void from inception, because in direct violation of the very structure of our constitutional republic, and contrary to the express commands of Article 1, Section 8.
The militias, of any type, should tell Obama and the rest of the Washington DC boys to go pound sand.
Question Number Two
Hello, I would first like to thank the Oath-Keepers for everything you guys are doing and I hope to become a member soon (I’m an Army veteran). However, I had a quick question regarding something that I have been hearing lately. I have been hearing a lot about Russian troops on our troops on our soil and have been pretty much been dismissing it as paranoid conspiracy theory up until now. However, I watched a video this morning with an Oath Keeper talking about it, which made me pay a little
bit more attention
Does this guy speak for the Oath Keepers? What is the stance of the Oath
Keepers on this issue? I know that the US military often trains /with
foreign troops and never really saw that as a big deal, especially with an
industrialized country like Russia. However, I’m not sure what to think
about it and I was wondering if this guy’s views are representative of the
Oath Keepers on this issue. Thanks!
Stewart Rhodes in reply:
Thanks for writing. Well, I listened to the interview, and the Oath Keeper, Donald Rutledge (the guy in the Oath Keepers T-shirt), hardly even got a word in edge-wise with the silly host rambling on and on, and making many logical leaps. I didn’t hear Donald say anything that was not our standard message about honoring the oath, when he finally got a chance to talk….
I think the host of the show jumped to some conclusions, such as going from there being training, to saying this is “proof that foreign troops are STATIONED HERE for the purpose of controlling the population.” That is a leap. I have seen no confirmation of that, and I don’t think Donald was taking that position – the host was.
Donald is one of our Texas regional coordinators, and a solid retired Army Sgt. He is good to go. He was just being polite.
So, no, the host’s assertions that there is absolute proof that foreign troops are stationed here to be used against us is not our position ,and I don’t think Donald was making that claim.
Now, do we have a concern that foreign troops could be used against us in the future? Absolutely. Hence our Order #8, in our declaration of orders we will not obey (active duty):
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.
Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.
We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.
That was published back in 2009, and we included that plank for very good reasons – there is a historic pattern of governments using foreign troops against their own people. Heck, as noted above, the British used the Hessians against our Forefathers for much the same reasons – more compliant and less sympathetic enforcers.
Also, there are mutual aid agreements that have been signed between US Army North and military leaders in Canada, and if I recall correctly, something similar was signed with Mexico, all under the banner of NORTHCOM, which encompasses all of North America. So, we are concerned about that coming down the road.
And, thus we do pay attention when there are foreign troops training here. Yes, it has been going on for decades. When I was a young Paratrooper, I saw plenty of foreign troops on post – South Korean ROKs, and guys from Central and South America (at the School of the Americas), and so on.
But now we are increasingly concerned that such troops are not merely being trained to go home and do their work in their home countries, but that they could be used here, against us. Why? Because our own government is increasingly portraying conservative, liberty loving Americans as a future military enemy in the “war on terror.” And the Russians, among others, are now allies in that war on terrorism.
Do I have proof that this is the plan, aside from those mutual aid agreements with Canada and Mexico? Proof that they plan to use Russian Spetznatz against us? No. No hard proof. Yet. But i have concerns about “dual use” from such training. Sure, they are here to just learn from each other, but that will also help if and when they are used here. They learn the roads, the terrain, the people, the culture, and they learn to work with American counterparts, and those Americans are getting used to, and conditioned, to working with those Russians, here on US soil. And likewise for all of the other foreign troops that have trained here in the US recently. And there have been plenty, including Uzbekistani troops training right here in Montana, where I live, alongside Montana National Guard.
Can I prove it is all for evil intent? No. But i worry about that dual use of such training. And I don’t trust the current powers that be in charge of our national government. Not one bit. I can see them going down the same road as King George of Britain did, and being tempted to try to use foreigners to do what our own troops may not.
I will remain vigilant, as we all should.
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!