No products in the cart.


What If Another Attack Happens Where There Are No Oath Keepers?

ScreenHunter_03 Jul. 17 15.02
An unguarded career center… so what will happen if another one is attacked and no one is there to Protect the Protectors? — Photo via Michael Ball/Twitter

“We don’t stop protecting the protectors just because sell outs in the Pentagon are acting as puppets for Obama and trying to order recruiters to call the cops and report people guarding them or because DOD mouthpieces publish a statement asking us to stand down,”  Stewart Rhodes asserted in a “critical update and clarification” regarding government attempts to dissuade “Protect the Protectors” operations..  “If we were to stand down and stop protecting the recruiters, that would just put them back where they were – unarmed and defenseless.

“We WILL continue to guard recruiting and reserve centers,” Rhodes pledged. “Until and unless we have rank and file local recruiters telling you THEY personally don’t want you there, we need to be there.  So long as we have volunteers willing to post guard we need to be there. 

The reality now is, until such time as the Pentagon completes whatever reviews it is conducting, and/or until Congress or the administration (fat chance with the latter!) ensures that the protectors can protect themselves, removal of Oath Keepers volunteers will once more render facilities vulnerable. The irony is, those taking their sweet time dithering around with such decisions all work in facilities secured by armed guards.

It would be especially ironic if, after being characterized by the government and media as “security threats,” the departure of Oath Keepers protecting the protectors is perceived by true security threats as an exploitable target opportunity.  Actually, it would be more than ironic. If another undefended recruiting center is attacked, it will be inexcusable. If a lethal attack happens at a center where Oath Keepers have been told to leave, it will be unforgivable.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. Judging by the response here in southern New York, we will never see the day when the recruiters ask us to leave. And, just as we did with New Mexico Border Watch, we have to show up as often as possible until they meet our demands for US Military personnel being ordered to carry weapons both on and off duty just as the IDF does in Isreal. When that happens then we can go home. Until then, we need to be there.

  2. I think OathKeepers protecting these recruiting facilities is an excellent move. It shows our soldiers that the American people are not their enemies. That said, I take the position that this was another false flag attack created and instituted by the US government to set the military against “We the People” just like they did with our police departments. Whether you realize it or not OathKeepers used a counter-terrorism operation to negate the evil goals of the US government. Well done OathKeepers, I salute you.

  3. “What If Another Attack Happens Where There Are No Oath Keepers?”

    For starters, it’s not a case of ‘If’ – the only questions are “How soon?”, and “Where next?”

    As to what will happen – more loyal Americans will die.

  4. A great opinion article. The title itself makes worth reading the whole article and it poses a very good question: What If Another Attack Happens Where There Are No Oath Keepers? It’s great to have Oath Keeper voluneetrs who want to keep guard and are there where needed to protect undefended recruiting centers. Departure of Oath Keepers would be a very bad move.

  5. “Protecting the protectors…” Sorry, but I have to ask: exactly what are “our” troops protecting us from? Was the Taliban going to cross the ocean in its nonexistent naval fleet and air force to invade US cities? Were the Iraqis going to launch ICBMs at us if we didn’t invade and occupy their land? Did I ask for protection from people who live on the other side of the world? Was I given a choice? Or am I expected to simply trust in the judgment and moral rectitude of my “betters” who walk the halls of government, as a good authoritarian state-worshipper would?

    Time for a reality check. Our national security comes from our nuclear deterrent and from the fact that we’re bordered by massive oceans. America’s overseas conflicts serve NO purpose except to appease the PNAC/Zionist fifth column and to make the “defense” industry filthy rich.

    These wars have actually made Americans LESS safe and LESS free:

    They make us less safe because they incite hatred in people all around the world, some of whom are bound to seek revenge. If a foreign drone blew up members of YOUR family while they were celebrating a wedding or mourning at a funeral just because a suspected militant happened to be in the area, how would you feel? Would you tell yourself, “Well they’re the ‘good guys,’ so it’s okay”? And if a foreign country invaded and occupied your land and set up a puppet government to control you, would you be a “terrorist” if you resisted? Would foreign soldiers be “heroes” for killing you on your own soil?

    Beyond the moral implications, counterinsurgencies divert the military budget away from projects that can possibly defend us against genuine national security threats (like ICBMs) and funnel it into creating new ways to hunt and target tiny militant groups and individuals who pose ZERO threat to the existence of the US and a negligible threat to the safety of Americans on US soil. (Granted, the latter threat is increasing, but that’s due to US incitement as described above.)

    Overseas counterinsurgency warfare also unquestionably makes us less free here in the “homeland” (yes, I had to use that fascist term). First, the inevitable revenge attacks in response to our wars of aggression give government officials a pretext for imposing police-state measures and suspending constitution protections. (Obviously this has already been done in the US, albeit unofficially.) Second, the development of new military technology geared toward anti-guerrilla operations poses a grave threat to the relevance of the Second Amendment. Simply put, the more effective the US military becomes at fighting “insurgents” abroad due to improvements in surveillance and weaponry, the more effective it will be at confiscating guns and killing pro-Constitution dissidents at home (and the overwhelming majority of “our” troops WILL obey orders to do so). There is a reason why the Founders disapproved of standing armies.

    WAKE UP and learn to see through the propaganda. Look at what’s happened to the country over the past 15 years. Are we any safer? No. We’re just much less free than we were!

    No one who serves in the armed forces of the US Imperial Oligarchy is defending the Constitution. The Constitution is dead. Each and every part of the Bill of Rights is violated daily by law enforcement, who are backed up by the military. Millions of Americans suffer persecution for victimless offenses, and just about everyone is subjected to surveillance on a level that didn’t even exist in prisons a few decades ago. No, there’s no Bill of Rights in force today. And from the violence against the Bonus Marchers to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, the US military has NEVER failed to obey orders and impose the will of the ruling class on the civilian population. The few individual exceptions don’t change the general rule. This is why the Constitution lies dead and our free Republic in ruins.

    [Editor’s Note: Painful Truth, please check your email.
    Elias Alias, editor]

    1. @ PainfulTruth

      You have made some excellent salient points and I would not argue against any of them, however, consider this. The American people are in the middle of a psy-op war against the US government. This government is operating in violation of all existing US laws. It is directly under the influence of a global crime syndicate and virtually all parties in DC are complicit in this undertaking (traitors). They have already turned the police forces against the American people and the US military is next. What Oathkeepers has done was successfully counter (at least for now) this move. This corrupt and illegal US government needs to be revamped in accordance with the constitution to start with and the members of the executive, judicial and legislative branches tried for treason.

  6. We have had the question; ‘What would happen if another attach took place and NO OK members were guarding’?

    Well I have a different question; ‘What would happen if another attach took place at a facility where OK was guarding’?

    Seems to me this is a legal cesspool for any member that turns to force resistance. What if there is collateral damage, (Innocent People), what about an OK member being taken out? Where is this question addressed?

    I would love to do my part and help where I can, but I want the legal issues addressed first. Does anyone really think that (THEY) would not stop in the prosecution and denomination if it all went south? Hell even if it went well I feel sure they will blow their gaskets.

    1. ROn to be an official member of OK you need to have prior military or LEO training, as a result, ability respond to an active shooter is theoretically better, then again high stress circumstances have proven the likely hood of collateral damage to be rather high.. with many LEO’s having a lower target score then the average armed citizen.. so it does beg the question on what do you do regarding legality, “if”.

  7. just a thought, but with jade helm going on, and how many service members went along with it, is arming the military bases a good idea if say.. suddenly martial law was declared? as the troops would already be ready and capable of immediate mobilization.

  8. Moman, do you have ANY idea what JADE HELM 15 is?

    Are you aware there is NO law that says federal troops cannot deploy within the CONUS? Let me ask you, god forbid DAESH gains a foothold within the CONUS, who do you expect to root them out? Oath Keepers? NO!!!!!!!! It will be JSOC, it will be USASF, along with our special operations and special forces units……..

    (for those who don’t know when you call these guys ISIS/ISIL, you are inferring they have successfully established an Islamic State, STOP)

    1. First, I would invite you to read my take on JADE HELM 2015, preferably read all four parts, linked at bottom of each part, starting here —

      If you do take time to read all four parts of that series on JADE HELM 2015 you will be ready to grok what I’m going to say next. But first, for a chuckle, let’s play with the word thingy, the ISIS, ISIL, IS, DAESH thingy, as you’ve requested Moman to do…. As an illustrious President once told us, “It depends on what the meaning of IS is.”

      ISIS, ISIL, or IS, or DAESH – whatever one chooses to call the illusion – is a creation of cooperating Intelligence agencies from several countries including England, Israel, and the United States — MI-6, MOSSAD, and the ever-lovin’ CIA. Please understand this. The damned governments which employ Intelligence agencies use those agencies to create “the enemy”. If DAESH were to, as you stated could be possible, establish a foothold in CONUS, it will be because the CIA invited them into our country, placed them here, helped them get here, and supported them here as they developed their cells. I know you will want to argue with me about that, but to prove me wrong you’ll need to deny that the CIA created a 30,000+ man clandestine army in Laos and Cambodia in the 1950s; that the CIA created a 30,000+ man clandestine army in Afghanistan in the 1980s (the Mujahedin – spell that any of several ways); that the CIA morphed their Mujahedin into Al Qaeda in the 1990s, and that the CIA, with help from MOSSAD, the Pakistani ISI, and MI-6 then morphed Al Qaeda into ISIS in the 2000s. If you really want to deny that, I’ll just know that you failed to comprehend what I’ve packed into those four articles of my JADE HELM 2015 series, or perhaps just did not take time to read them, follow the links, and view all the videos I placed in those articles.
      The proof is now abundantly clear and omnipresent, my Friend. The dark underbelly of our corrupted government’s top-secret Intel agencies literally have created, empowered, funded, inspired, transported, and motivated the “terrorists”, by whatever name they’re going by at any given day. Please try to comprehend that, embrace the truth of it, reflect upon it, give yourself permission to understand what it means. Here is what it means —

      When Daesh is found in America, it will be because the CIA, in conjunction with numerous other American Intel agencies, will have placed them here, period. There are reasons why CIA feels it must create terrorists and manipulate or “handle” them. It is explained in the Army’s Field Manual of 2008 on Unconventional Warfare. The “terrorists” are called, in Army doctrine, “surrogates”.

      And that is where “compartmentalization” comes into play. The bastards at CIA who create the terrorists/terrorism do so in secret, so the military brass of the Joint Chiefs then have plausible marching orders from the White House to go forth and defeat this new “enemy”, and the less that they know about where that “enemy” came from, how that “enemy” evolved into being, who funded and armed and trained that “enemy”, the better. The media is of course complicit in the popular propaganda, and the game is “on”. Gotta get those darned “terrorists”! Then all the talking heads can discuss strategy, national security strategy, domestic and foreign policy, political implications, etc etc. And the collective public perception is molded, forged, and animated in a nationalistic fervor to insist the government get rid of those danged “terrorists”. This is all a damned game being played at the American people’s expense while it fattens the coffers of the military industrial complex and helps keep the Wall Street bubble afloat. It is a deadly game, and players like ARSOF or JSOC or USASF, who are dedicated warrior types who loyally follow orders to do their best to eradicate the “enemy”, are never told that the enemy they fight was deliberately created by dark secret elements inside top secret offices within DOD, CIA, DIA, NRO, NSA, etc etc etc. (I think that there are 16 primary Intelligence agencies, each of which contracts with private sector corporations for “PSYOP” services, as shown by the Washington Posts massive compilation called “Top Secret America”.)

      So when you imply that Special Forces and/or JSOC or ARSOF will be called upon to fight this “enemy” here in CONUS, you are buying into the great game like the rest of the sleep-walking public which takes its perceptions from the mainstream media. To defeat DAESH, we simply stop importing it, stop funding it, stop meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign nation-states abroad, bring our damned troops home where they belong, put them on military bases inside U.S. borders and keep them there on their bases, not allowing them to train or exercise or otherwise set foot on U.S. soil in our towns, cities, Counties, and States. That is how we defeat terrorism, and is a good first step toward returning this national government back to the limits placed on it by its founding legal charter, the US Constitution.

      Regarding your comment about there being no law to prevent U.S. troops from deploying on U.S. soil, I’m afraid you’ve overlooked the 1878 Federal law called Posse Comitatus, which flat-out denies that privilege to our standing army. The law is real, and you’ll see former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen mention it in his infamous 1999 speech about his vision of a “Grave New World” — he says that Posse Comitatus need not be violated in order for the military to establish itself at the top level of a chain of command which reaches from the Pentagon down through the States and into all Counties and finally into your local police department. That was 1999, two years before 9/11. So yes, there is a law against U.S. troops deploying on U.S. soil.

      The only authorized military power allowed by our Constitution to operate on U.S. soil is the Constitutionally required Militia of the several States — remember?

      Thanks for reading.
      Elias Alias, editor

Comments are closed.