No products in the cart.


Rule of Law in Ferguson?


Rule of Law in Ferguson?

by Jason Van Tatenhove


This last week in Ferguson, Missouri, we saw a perfect example of just how little regard some of our top law enforcement officials hold the actual rule of law in. Especially when that rule of law contradicts the narrative that has been pushed upon us across this country, from all outlets of mainstream media. A narrative that tells us that we should not be able to defend ourselves with firearms unless The Powers That Be have given us the okay to do so. It is even more of an imperative in a time of emergency and civil unrest that we are able to defend ourselves. In Ferguson, we saw that The Powers That Be will stick to this narrative even if it completely goes against the laws that our good citizens have recently enacted. Recently, Missouri passed a couple of laws that pertain directly to what transpired this last week: Missouri Revised Statutes 21.750.3 and 44.101 (please follow the links to read the laws.)

This is brought to light in a video captured by, when the senior law enforcement officer of St. Louis County, Chief Jon Belmer, detained the MO Oath Keepers and demanded that they not open carry their long rifles. Hence leaving them unable to adequately protect the reporters of, who were there covering the unrest in Ferguson. Chief Belmer has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of knowledge, of not just state law, but of how state law trumps county ordinance. We also see the Chief lie about the state of emergency that was declared by St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger. When questioned about their state legislation that specifically bans his ability to detain or request that individuals not open carry during a declared emergency, the chief answered with: “I have attorneys. I didn’t go to law school.” Sam Andrews, head of the MO Oath Keepers told the Free Thought Project: “He (Belmar) was thumbing his nose at the legislature of the State of Missouri. It was like he couldn’t give a crap about the Bill of Rights or state law.”

It was during the organic uprising of patriots at Bundy Ranch, that we first saw the combination of the First and Second Amendments practiced at the same time; and in this we saw a dynamic shift from protesters being jackbooted and silenced with threats of violence to, those same protesters being able to peaceably assemble and exercise their freedom of speech. It truly illustrates the deep well of wisdom our forefathers drew from when they placed those two amendments, not only as first and second, but side-by-side when they constructed our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as they must work hand-in-hand. It is up to us to safeguard these rights the responsibilities so that our children’s children will also be able to stand up to whatever rises to oppose their freedoms in their own time.

In the video below you will see all of this first hand.

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]




Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net



  1. Epicfail. His rationale is that he doesn’t need to know the laws of his state as a senior LEO, as he has attorneys for that. Sir, respectfully.. how are you supposed to enforce the laws of your state when you feel you don’t have to know them?

    1. I think you will have to look to the supreme court for that crap ball of a ruling, LEO’s don’t need to know the law, they just have to use certain magic words like “I believed he was in violation of”

  2. Why are ex military, ex police and first responders who are patriots and constitution protectors considered a threat by the local police and the chief in Ferguson? It seems to me that there are a lot more pressing matters to worry about than the oathkeepers who are there to help the people who can’t help themselves. One must be very weary whenever someone tries to take away the very arms that allow you to protect the weak. Are we not all on the same team? Ask yourself if you truly are faithful to your oath would you ask another Patriot to disarm himself? Continue pressing on oathkeepers.

  3. Sounds to me that chief Belmer is nothing more than a puppet for club fed. It seems pretty obvious that he is taking his orders from them instead of the people. It would also seem that since chief Belmer has no intetsion to keep the oath he swore to the constitution, That chief Belmer is no chief at all. His office at this point is vacated due to his utter contempt for the oath of office that he swore.
    He is a felon. arrest him and throw his anti American ass in jail. He is nothing more than a badge with a traitor pinned on it.

  4. “God bless you guy’s”…He should not use the Lords name in vain. The Constitution, liberty, justice & truth go hand in hand with God!
    Can you say heathen lapdog???

  5. As a member of the St. Louis Chapter, I’m getting bombarded with Questions about the Upcoming planned Armed march. SO far, there is NO INTEL on this,, and all to many people are slamming me for information as to the accuracy and details oof what this is about and the details of 5-W’s for the march..
    Can I get some answers please?….

    [Editor’s Note: Grimm, hold the line Brother. Stewart is working a statement which may be posted here at national as early as Tuesday Aug. 18. All shall be well, Bro. Thanks for your comment.
    Elias Alias, editor]

  6. It is going to get messy. People in the streets wielding rifles. Discipline against discipline. Right. It is only a matter of time before Martial Law is enforced. Standing on the side lines makes it easy to see what the motivations are. These citizens are looking for a fight and a fight is what they will get.

    1. “It is only a matter of time before Martial Law is enforced. ”

      No, they will call it “Martial Law”, but in reality it is those who serve within our governments openly declaring their Treason. Here in America there is no such thing as “martial law” or “emergency powers”; and anyone who serves within our governments who declares either is just openly declaring their own willingness and openly going to try using Treason (again) to bring our nation down.

      Read the US Constitution. No branch within was ever given the authority to do such a thing.

      That is a thing a Monarch, Dictator, etc can declare because they are the government. That is not so here, as those who SERVE within our government are nothing, exchangeable for another at any time “We the People of the united States” decide to no longer put up with any more shenanigans from them.

      Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.”

      The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

      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 BE INVARIABLY MAINTAINED: BUT MORE ESPECIALLY THAT NEITHER OF THEM BE SUFFERED TO OVERLEAP THE GREATER 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”

      James Madison: “… the equal right of every citizen … is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.”

      James Madison: “Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”

      James Madison: “Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.”

      Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
      The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
      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. That’s a statement of a disability.

      If we go to the doctrine of “Emergency Powers,”… what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War.

      … read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872. He wrote, “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.”

      You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. It was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government…

      The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest banking collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. In that period what happened? The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then.

      How should that have been done? Well, 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, (End Quote)

    2. We seem to be calling the game before the end of the game. I have no doubt that Stewart is fully aware of the dangers. He is in the process of developing an operational plan for the armed march. We may all be surprised at what he comes up with. He is a very smart man who also possesses a substantial portion of wisdom as well as common sense. So before we call the game, let’s wait and see what plays the coach comes up with. I have faith in the Oath Keepers national command and staff. Right now, I don’t know the total strategy of the march but I feel pretty good.

  7. Hey Cal,
    Why don’t you run for Congress? with all that you know, you could get a national audience this way and maybe, just maybe more people could see what we really have. With the several administrations since I have been of age to vote, they could have all learned a few lessons from you.I really think when someone takes office and swears an oath, that they should know the Constitution. If that were the case you would be a shoe in.
    Thanks again for helping ME to understand a little more today than I understood yesterday.

  8. so the MSM is going around saying OK is going to arm up 50 colored folk in ferguson and go on a armed protest march.

    if this is true it gives me MANY concerns.

    1: several people have already stated non leo/military types should leave the toys at home, yet OK is doing the exact opposite of this statement, I would expect some discord among your own.

    second, SOME of the protesters have already taken pot shots at the law enforcement in ferguson, and the LEO’s are now ramped up for it, this could easily turn into a blood bath.

    I have also read your statutes but to get the full picture requires also reading the entirety of the quoted law sections such as rsMO 570 as amended by SB 656, and all subsections. they COULD require you and the protestors to produce a CCW permit to OC the long guns. although if you choose to go against this in 570, you may have to have an attorney that will put the letter of article 1 section 23 of the MO constitution as amended to the test.. just some food for thought as I have studied both state, county and municipal law, just to keep myself from being on the wrong side of the law.

  9. I am now a former Oath Keepers supporter. This is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in a while. If this march goes down, Oath Keepers as an organization will be relegated to their appropriate place in the lunatic fringe. This is over the top. Stewart, you will lose a lot of support if you go through with this. Oath Keepers was a source of hope. Truly disappointed.

    1. What OK is doing is exactly what this country needs more of en masse. Several armed protests occurred in the Washington State Capital with support from state legislators who were also armed.

      State Reps. Elizabeth Scott and Matt Shea addressed the crowd. Shea, R-Spokane Valley, gave a fiery speech that included a list of more than 20 grievances against the government, including militarization of police, high taxes, surveillance programs, Sharia law and restrictions on guns. Scott, R-Monroe, opened her coat to show the crowd her pistol. “I carry at least one gun every day,” Scott said, “because a cop is too heavy and a guard is too heavy.”


      1. No offense, but the maturity level of the ferguson protestors is what is being brought into question, as they are essentially a powder keg with lit fuse, and arming them could cause the whole thing to blow up in EVERYONE’S FACE.

        many protestor’s have engaged inc riminal activity that has ROBBED another individual of their freedoms, such as business ownership, or property ownership, in their pursuit of happiness, several other have taken shots at the LEO’s.

        now you want to give them a rifle with an effective kill range of 500 meters with xm855 rounds!? that is NOT what this country needs, this will ssimply spark MORE restrictions on every LAW ABIDING citizens freedoms. no, EVERYONE must feel oppressed before you decide to go arming people, THEN you can have your march.

  10. Brother I understand what your saying. But when those that violate the laws themselves make the laws then what???? Also’please remember my friend even our Founding Fathers were considered terrorists. And there came a time when they drew a line in the sand and said this is it no more. We in today’s age do this. We draw a line in the sand and say if they cross this then that’s it. Then it’s crossed and we draw another line in the sand so on and so on. You get my point. Only to constantly have more and more of our freedoms stripped away. So the question is when will the PATRIOTS not the rest of America draw a line and it be the final line. If it keeps up this way our children and grand children will not live in a free Republic. Listen in all do respect please hear me. We must all sacrifice . We will lose things we love and those we love. We can’t ride on the coat tails of our Fore Fathers forever. Or those that have sacrificed their very souls so that we can be free today. There comes a time laws or no laws when we ourselves must stand up and make our own sacrifices for freedoms. And yes many of us will be put in prison. Many of us will lose our loved ones and our lands and houses, 401 k’s etc. etc. but isn’t it worth it to ensure our kids have freedom and that they to know how to fight for it so that their children inherit it to. We are all way to comfortable in this country. And I’m sure there was a time our Fore Fathers felt the same way. But they realized there was something greater than their land and livelyhoods and even their Lives. There comes a day we have to say I’m willing to stand no matter what the law says. Just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional . If a law or a order given is against the Constitution then why do people follow it. Sam Andrews told me in Oregon and I never thought of things this way. But Sam said if when I travel from state to state and my 1st amendment 4th amendment etc.etc. doesn’t change then why does the second amendment change….. That’s a very powerful thought. And it shows that the Constitution doesn’t mean any thing to those who make and violate the law. I know folks are scared I know people don’t want to lose what they have worked a life time to get. But brother Freedom is worth it and we can’t look at our kids on our death beds and say to them I loved my land and carrer and my stuff more than Freedom… Stand strong , Stand with resolve and let us stand for the future of our Republic…..Anthony

  11. Police chief seems lame. Perhaps he is “handcuffed by local powers that be? By laws which protect others of color? Which seemingly have rights in which whites are denied.

    [Editor’s Note: Rick, it’s more like the Chief is “handcuffed” by the Federal government, not local powers. All local law enforcement which takes money from the Federal government is in a state of compromise, owing to Federal agendas and policies. Thanks for your comment.
    Elias Alias, editor]

    Another incident has occurred, this time in the Fountain Park neighborhood of St Louis, where two white police officers shot and killed a young black man. Protests turned to rioting. Over and over again, this is happening in cities all across our nation. Fountain Park is a predominately black neighborhood with a very high crime rate. My last statement was simply a statement of facts; not a statement of prejudice or race baiting; not declared to divide or ‘label’ a particular race as more violent or less civilized than another. Just a statistical fact. By the way, there was no Oath Keepers presence at this one.
    The citizens of areas like Fountain Park (similar areas are located all over America) are sick and tired of having to go through life, day after day, with this type of existence. No civilized community wants THIS. They hate the drive by shootings and the gang violence. They hate the crack houses and all that goes with that. Do you not realize that they hate the equation that black equals crime? There is constant tension in these areas. Gang rule and gang war, police brutality (and, yes, there is that), death and destruction hang over these neighborhoods like a dark cloud. Are they victims? I say yes. The great majority of them are victims. Would you be depressed to live there? How would you react to being subjected to that kind of existence?
    Do you believe that they would welcome a solution? You may not and, if that is the case, I would have to label you a racist. Are they less moral? Look at the entire world. Evil is overcoming good in virtually every part of the globe. Are they just stupid and that is why they can’t solve this persistent problem? Well, if that is it, then all of society is stupid because throughout all of society no workable solution that has been tried has worked. Will arming everyone solve the problem? I think not (plenty of guns in the ghetto). Here is a novel concept. Why not revert back to the way our forefathers ensured the safety of their communities. I’m not going to expand on this here. You folks know what I’m talking about. I will say this. It was not just about everyone owning a gun. It wasn’t just about open carry. It was about citizens taking the responsibility to control their own communities by force. That is true ‘power to the people’. I think that Oath Keepers can play a major role in making that happen.

  13. Just learned that the activist group Black Lives Matter has adopted a campaign titled ‘Campaign Zero’. Basically it calls for more government intervention at all levels to provide new legislation, funding for new programs, and committees for police oversight. Doesn’t that just place a heavier jackboot from the government on our necks? Could it be that Black Lives Matter is nothing more than another leftist creation? Looks like it to me. More power to the politician equals less power to the people. WILL WE EVER LEARN? Does wanting less government make me anti-government. I think not. It only makes me a believer in the Constitution and the warnings of our founding fathers. Obama, however, states that it makes me a terrorist.

  14. I’m sorry, folks, but I don’t know of another way to put this out. Congressman Mike Rogers has introduced a bill to get the US out of the UN. It should but it probably won’t pass. However, the article is extremely informative. I hope at least some of you will go to the site and read it. Doing so will also give many of you another source of info. Well, do yourself a favor and check it out. The address is:

  15. Okay I have to ask. If the police chief Belmar is breaking state law-then why don’t the Oath Keepers place him under citizens arrest?

  16. Where were the OK’ers Cops in Fergusun? You mean there aren’t any? Hell, of the 800,000 plus LEO’s in the U.S., how many are OK’ers? And I am not talking about ex-Leo’s who now feel safe being OK’ers.

Comments are closed.