No products in the cart.


Missouri Governor Wants National Guard To Quell Protests

Missouri Governor Wants National Guard To Quell Protests

Missouri’s governor said on Monday he would send the National Guard into the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson to restore calm after authorities forcibly dispersed a crowd protesting last week’s fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by police.

Gov. Jay Nixon signed an executive order deploying the U.S. state militia, saying demonstrators had thrown Molotov cocktails and shot at police as well as a civilian, a description of the night’s events diverging widely from some eyewitness accounts.

“Tonight, a day of hope, prayers, and peaceful protests was marred by the violent criminal acts of an organized and growing number of individuals, many from outside the community and state, whose actions are putting the residents and businesses of Ferguson at risk,” Nixon said in a statement on his website.

A midnight curfew was imposed for the second night in the tense St. Louis suburb hit by racially charged demonstrations, violence and looting since Michael Brown, 18, was shot to death on Aug. 9 by white police officer Darren Wilson.

At around dusk on Sunday, hundreds of protesters in Ferguson including families with young children fled to safety after police wearing gas masks and body armor fired tear gas and smoke canisters to scatter them hours ahead of the curfew.

“The smoke bombs were completely unprovoked,” said Anthony Ellis, 45. “It (the protest) was led by kids on bikes. Next you know they’re saying, ‘Go home, Go home!'”

The Missouri Highway Patrol said “aggressors” were trying to infiltrate a law enforcement command post and that armored vehicles were deployed to ensure public safety.





  1. A black kid shoplifted a cigar so they shot him twice in the head and 5 times in the body. Then they brought in tanks and machine gun emplacements along with SWAT team and armored officers to ensure public safety the next step to restore law and order is the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the protesters it’s the only way to keep the peace

  2. If not kept in check this government, and its militarized police forces, will continue to do what they are doing in Missouri, in every state; if we allow it. At what cost does freedom come? If the Missouri national guard fires one shot there we have another Boston massacre two hundred years later. If color is going to hold people back let us remember a black man was a victim in Boston. Oath keepers nation wide should be listening and watching for Paul Revere. We should stand as one nation of people and show the net Sayers that Oath keepers are color blind and stand for all people !!!,, ,,,,!,,

  3. If there is one shot fired by the national guard in ferguson, I will be driving from New York in support of those fellow Americans. We were at Bundy ranch why are we not here. This retired navy chief petty officer will be there as soon as the shot is fired. Remember Kent state I do!!!!!!

  4. It is pretty clear to me that anyone who serves within our governments are FORBIDDEN to interfere with the people protesting as long as it is peaceable. But how do we separate the paid agitators from the rest of the protesters? We know that so far in EVERY demonstration there has been FBI and other agitators to “give reason” to stop the protests.

    We also know that those who do not keep their Oaths, and try to restrict the people from exercising their unalienable rights are committing terrorist, and quite possible treasonous activities agaisnt the USA and her people:

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    James Madison: “Because if.. [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men]… be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, MORE NECESSARILY IS IT LIMITED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUENTS. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but MORE IMPORTANTLY ESPECIALLY THAT NEITHER OF THEM BE SUFFERED TO OVERLEAP THE GREAT BARRIER WHICH DEFENDS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. THE RULERS WHO ARE GUILTY OF SUCH AN ENCROACHMENT, EXCEED THE COMMISSION FROM WHICH THEY DERIVE THEIR AUTHORITY, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves.” (caps are mine for emphasis)

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “… What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power…”

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.
    The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers…
    The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.” “We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters””. (Dr. Edwin Vieira, )

    Notice that it was the Supreme courts “gave” “emergency powers”, though it was not, and still is not, a power granted to them to give or use.

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”.

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “… THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

  5. Michael Brown did not steal the cigar, there is a video showing the whole incident of Michael Brown paying for the cigar. I will say this……you may not like or care for people of color (i.e. Blacks, etc.), but believe what is happening in Ferguson, MO will happen across the US against all peoples concerning the corporate government. Divide/conquer is how corporate elite makes money. When one group of people are no longer around, then the harassments/profiling will go to the next group. If you think government law enforcement is bad, wait until corporate law enforcement, aka security consulting comes on the scene, i.e. Blackwater.

  6. Check this out.
    Oathkeepers should have a FRONT page post of these incidents.

    Like Brett said above, “Oath Keeper’s silence on this is deafening.”

    We can NOT defend those that are wrong.
    I’m sick of excuses for poor behavior.
    If you mess up, “then own up to it and pay the price.”

    I have ALWAYS stood up for those under my command.
    But they had damn well be on the “Right Side” of the situation.
    If not, then there are consequences to be paid.
    Mistakes are how we sometimes learn. But just because we have learned does not mitigate poor actions or decisions.
    I made plenty of mistakes. I also paid the price IN FULL. So did others involved.
    No excuses. Choices were made. Consequences are result of choices. Few regrets.

    US law enforcement and Politicians are ABOVE the Law. This MUST CHANGE.
    Video Tape EVERYTHING. ACCOUNTABILITY for actions and choices.

  7. “Gov. Jay Nixon signed an executive order deploying the U.S. state militia”

    First, there is no such thing as a governmental agency being a “Militia”. So this is another technique to make the unknowing public fall for “the Militia” is there. If that “Militia” commits any bad or corrupt acts while there it will blacken all Militia’s who are the PEOPLE. I believe that is the idea or why use the term “Militia” when referring to a governmental body?

    These are from the people for whom the Militia was the norm;

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people EXCEPT FOR A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (caps mine in all these)

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that THE PEOPLE, FROM WHOM THE MILITIA MUST BE TAKEN, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.”

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … THE MILITIA IS COMPOSED OF FREE CITIZENS. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    There are a lot of live cams going on there so that people can watch and see for themselves what is going on like this one where an officer threatened to shoot people walking down the street for walking down the street. The scene was witnessed by Infowars reporter Joe Biggs who was also filming the incident. The clip shows a Ferguson officer with his gun raised pointing it directly at a citizen journalist who was live streaming at the time.

    “Oh my God, gun raised, gun raised,” states the journalist, before Biggs remarks, “gun pointed.”

    “My hands are up bro, my hands are up,” states the journalist before the cop responds, “I’m going to f***ing kill you, get back, get back!”

    “You’re going to kill him?” asks another individual before the journalist asks, “did he just threaten to kill me?”

    When the cop is asked for his name he responds, “go fuck yourself.”;

    Another clip shows the officer pointing his gun as protesters demand he lower the weapon. A second cop intervenes to make the officer lower his weapon as more irate demonstrators demand to know the officer’s name.

    The officer’s response to people asking for his name almost immediately prompted the launch of the Twitter hashtag #officergofuckyourself.

    Biggs live tweeted the incident, while Infowars reporter Mikael Thalen also had guns pointed at him during a separate incident.


    Cohen/MCT/ZUMA Press

    In 2009, police in Ferguson, Missouri, arrested Henry M. Davis on suspicion of driving under the influence and took him to jail. What followed is described in court documents as “physical contact between the officers and Mr. Davis.” One officer, Kim Tihen, allegedly “struck [Davis] in his head with a closed fist and hit [him] in the head with handcuffs.” Davis suffered a concussion and severe facial lacerations, while an officer was left with a broken nose. Afterwards, prosecutors charged Davis with four counts of destruction of property—because his blood had dirtied the officers’ uniforms.

    Davis pleaded guilty to reduced charges and ended up moving to Mississippi. Officer Tihen, for her part, is no longer with the Ferguson Police Department. In 2012, after four years on the force, she won election to the city council, becoming one of the six-person body’s five white members. (The sixth is Latino.) Two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black, but the city holds elections in the spring, making for low turnout—in April 2012, when Tihen was elected, less than 9 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. (The Ferguson police force is even less representative of the city’s African American majority: Just 4 percent of its members are black.) Last week, after police cracked down on residents protesting the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed teen, Tihen and the rest of the city council issued a statement calling on demonstrations to cease at dusk.

    Davis’ alleged beating, first reported by the Daily Beast, has been cited as a particularly notorious episode in the history of the Ferguson Police Department

  8. I am retired military and was thinking of joining Oathkeepers; however, after viewing some of the comments here, which appear to be echoing the irresponsible, knee-jerk rhetoric of some conspiracy hustlers on talk radio, such as Clyde Lewis, who confuse Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Bundy ranch standoff with the Ferguson mob violence and looting. The first 3 were cases of people minding their own business on their own property, while the Ferguson mob activity involved a thug escapinging the scene of a crime, and the ensuing violence posed a threat to life, limb, and property. The police are there to protect the law-abiding citizens, which includes the shop owners. The protesters, who should know better than to protest legitimate police activity, served to add to the problem by attracting provocateurs. Those who should know better and are so quick to holler police brutality, police state, and tyranny are like the boy who cried wolf. The punk, who used force against the shop owner and the cop got what he deserved. Those who initiate physical force against others are the very reason we have police to protect and serve the LAW-ABIDING citizens. Uncivil rights to demonstrate and encourage mahem in the streets is not a Constitution right. Live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot exist in a state of anarchy. The cities in America have become war zones, no thanks to the liberal coddling, so it should be of no surprise to the intellectually honest person that the police should have military gear to quell the crime and violence. Those who cannot discern the difference between lawful actions and unlawful actions by the police, and who do not consider the circumstances and likely consequences of their action and the actions of others, are irresponsible and culpable to the degree they inflame and blow out of proportion and context the shooting of a thug at Ferguson.

    [Editor’s Note: Franz, please understand that many people who leave comments here are NOT members in Oath Keepers. Comments here are open to the public. Also I’d appreciate it if you note that Oath Keepers does not condone the destruction of property. Nor do we condone violence. We do advocate for the right of the people to *peacefully* assemble on public streets. We also do condemn the militarization of local police. When Oath Keepers completes our investigation of what happened at Ferguson, I hope you’ll still be around to read it. I think you will be proud of the Constitutional stance Oath Keepers will put on the record. Thank you for reading.
    Elias Alias, editor]

  9. I believe we as an organization made of former law enforcement and military have a duty to see that this officer receives a fair and impartial investigation. This officer was injured,a cracked eye socket, fearing for his life.please he deserves our help.

    [Editor’s Note: Mike, we totally agree with you. We have not condemned the officer in any way. We think there are more facts to surface, and they will. What we are concerned about is the stand-down orders the police were given – the orders to not arrest the looters, while at the same time gassing the peaceful demonstrators. There is something very wrong with how this has been handled, and Oath Keepers intends to get to the bottom of it. We will publish our findings and some of what we’ve learned will upset most Americans if they read our report. There is more to how this whole thing has evolved than meets the eye. As to the officer’s wounds, that is verified. He’s been hurt, and he and his family deserve our sympathy and support while we await a final disposition of the differing sides of this argument to be resolved by an honest report. We do have people there, and “inside” connections, so I’m confident the truth will out.

    Thank you for your comment.
    Elias Alias, editor]

  10. Hey Oathkeepers. I know you guys go on sometimes. Please see if you can get on that show and make a statement about what is happening in Missouri. Are the law enforcement there oath keepers?

  11. I agree with Franz .

    Some of you guys sound like tin foil hat wearers. The link that DB posted (#6) is not even legit. The cop was beaten within inches of losing consciousness and had to protect himself. This poor officer has a family too. The criminal and the honest cop trying to do his duty are NOT moral equals. Remember that us police officers did not forfeit the constitution we swore to protect.

  12. “Tin hat foil wearers” is a slur that often comes from government agents that troll the Internet attempting to mitigate anyone that does NOT stay on official “Narrative/Message.”
    Just as anyone that questions the “official” 9/11 government “Narrative”, is a “Conspiracy Nut”.
    By the way. 9/11 was likely a False Flag STAGED event. Did NOT occur as stated officially. NO WAY.

    When a John Q Citizen goes outside and gets rained on. He gets wet. It is NOT a theory. It is REALITY.

    Just because the “hottie weather girl”, or the serious official authoritative “Meteorologist”, calls for “Clear skies with No Rain.”” Does not change the fact that John Q Citizen got rained on and is wet. It is a OBSERVED FACT.

    But I’m sure there are those that would not believe John Q Citizen is wet. Because “They heard on TV that no rain is in forecast. So John Q Citizen must be a “tin foil hat” wearer. Or a conspiracy theorist?

    Because after all he is saying something not on TV. Goes against official bought off mouth pieces on TV.

    Deductive reasoning.
    Objective reasoning.
    Being Alert. Being Aware.
    Not being Naive, Gullible, Child like.
    Not being a FOOL for Psy-ops or Propaganda.
    Does NOT make one a “conspiracy theorist” or “tin foil hat wearer.”

    It is called THINKING. More people should try it on for size.
    If they did. THEN they would IMPEACH and ARREST ALL anti American politicians who are TREASONOUS.

  13. Wow. I have read a lot of things on the internet over the last several days and have managed to reframe from commenting, that is until now. Casey, with all due respect if officer Wilson was beaten near unconsciousness how exactly did he manage to shoot a running young man 9…10 times and corral other officers to the scene. Have you seen the video of officer Wilson pacing and then standing (at a distance) over Michael Brown. If zoomed in on, you get some pretty good facial shots. From a distance, I didn’t see any marks on his face and he didn’t seem off balance. And as far as the store video is concerned, that could have played out a hundred different ways. Without audio or anyone else talking about it, other than people who are trying to protect themselves, who really knows what. I support our law enforcement but just like any other professions there those who cross the line.

  14. How do we know this isn’t some B.S. gov’t shadow website collecting names?

    (Associate Editor’s note: How do we know you aren’t a paid provocateur?)

  15. I am not an oath keeper but my relatives served in VietNam Korea and WWII in combat and they took the same oath you did. Whether Mike Brown was a thug or not has nothing to do with the police and military abusing their authority. The reports I have received from friends of mine who were there in Ferguson say that people were protesting peaceably and had tear gas released on them and the outsiders looting were not stopped. When one of the youngsters got angry and resistes as our constitution said he had every right to do and threw the tear gas back at the officers they reported only him tossing something at that officer instead of the fact that his First Amendment right to peaceably assemble etc. had been violated by force. I also am being told that reporters were threatened with death or rounded up and arrested for filming what was occuring which is a violation of the First Amendment as well. Finally a U.S. Senator was blocked by armed police officers fom entering a public courthouse to deliver a petition which to me is also a violation of the peoples right to petition the government for redress of greivances. I happen to be nonwhite. My family fought alongside all of you took the same oath you did. If I disagree with the actions of a police officer I have the right to say so. You dont have to like me or my color or agree with what I am saying. The Constitution covers me too. And it covers the people of Ferguson. You can debate all you want on Mike Brown etc. call us thugs and welfare recipients and criminals if you will. These are all red herrings. When they are done with us they will come for you next. If you love this country you will not allow this to stand.

  16. You say in number 10 of the principles you were sworn to defend that you will defend the first amendment. I am not asking you to defend Mike Brown or defend the officer who shot him. I am not asking you to condone those rioters and looters. I am not saying it was wise of that young man to throw the tear gas container back at the officer although I understand his anger. I am asking you to defend the rights of the people who peacefully exercised their First Amendment rights. You say you took an oath and you will keep it. That oath did not say you would only defend the constitutional rights of those who you deemed your to be moral equals or of similar public opinion nor does the First Amendment make any such qualification.

  17. They have already fired the first shot and we have done nothing. They will take us region by region and nothing will be done!

Comments are closed.