No products in the cart.


Robert George on US Society: ‘Our Divisions Are Very Deep’

Read more at:  NC Register

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, 
please consider making a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.





  1. (or most, or at least many, of their opponents) as reasonable people of goodwill who, doing their best, have arrived at different conclusions about fundamental moral questions — including basic questions of justice and human rights. If that is to happen, political and intellectual leaders, as well as people in the media, are going to have to model treating their adversaries with respect — and not demonizing them.)

    That one quote tells me all I need to know. There cannot be a bended knee any longer or we risk losing everything. The Marxist will never respect our views, period.

    1. I do not think he is saying we need a “bended knee”. When he says to “respect” our adversaries, he is not speaking of admiring them, but of understanding and acknowledging that the tactics they use (though I find them high schoolish, bullying and name calling) is working.

      It is, but only because the people have been attacked on all sides, and a huge part by those that serve within the “intelligence agencies”, the military, corporations and other domestic enemies of the American people, the US Constitution. Think about it, who else can use against the American people, as Bertrand Russell, in1953 advocated: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953).

      Honor, morality, etc must be brought back, but to do so the people have to be taught them, and why they are important. When one is an enforcer and is told to ticket a child operating a lemonade stand, kick out homeless and destroy what possessions they have left, stop someone who is “*LAWFULLY traveling” on their way, to spy on Americans without a Lawful warrant, use civil forfeiture against the American people when your LAWFUL duty is to defend it from ALL who might take it (not color of law, Law), etc one must refuse to do those things.

      When you are military and ordered to go attack a nation when there is no Lawful declaration of war by those that serve within the Congress, to spy on Americans without a Lawful warrant, to go in force throughout America as if you were attacking her – all that and more must be refused.

      If you are working in an agency that has no Lawful authority for that agency, transfer to one that does and expose the one that does not. Or if told to go and give some people problems because they are not “up to code”, make sure that code is LAWFUL and Constitutional – because there are very few things that concern the property of the people (of all types) that is under the jurisdiction of those that serve within our governments.

      All of those are reasons that we are in trouble within our nation, because all of those things are at work to DESTROY OUR NATION FROM WITHIN. Stop it, or when it falls and YOU lose everything you own also (and that includes the clothes on your back or you do NOT know our enemy well enough to do those things for them) look in the mirror and KNOW you did these things.

      For all who do NOT know our legitimate government does NOT allow anyone – particularly those who serve within our government – to LAWFULLY mess in anyway with their property of all types, start to study this so that you will start to understand WHY Americans are starting to fight back. I agree, many are doing so in the wrong way, because charges should always be brought against those who commit those actions against the American people and our nation (unless attacked by outside enemies, then it is war) first. But that is WHY it is happening. Think not, go read comments everywhere and see what the people say.

      Think that Americans like their homes broken into by ANYONE unLawfully, including corrupt people working within our governments? They do not, and it is NEVER LAWFUL when it is not done as is described in the supreme LAW of this nation.

      Civil forfeiture is theft, pure and simple, the US Constitution requires that all who serve within our governments PROTECT the peoples property of all types, not steal it from them.

      Do not follow unLawful orders (capital “L” denotes constitutional Laws).

      * “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

      “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

      “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

      “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

      “Traveling is passing from place to place — act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

      “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

      “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

      “Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

      Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S.277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared: “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breads contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face.”

      “But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.” (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.


  2. I loved the balance, the policy-centric, and above all the Constitutional and moral message in his words…coming from an academic.

Comments are closed.