[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics


Several officers in the Jersey City, New Jersey police department have been disciplined for their wearing a modified patch signifying the officers' participation in the pro-militia movement known as "The 3 percent."





The movement's name originates from the notion only 3 percent of the American colonists took up arms against the British. The three-percent movement promotes the idea that the federal government is plotting to take away the rights of American citizens and must be resisted, the ADL says on its website.1 They're a close knit group; and like any good right wing extremists, they even have their own flag and Facebook page!

The Jersey City group of 3 percenters lends some credence that far right extremist groups want a presence in law enforcement (cf. this maybe unsafe for work "advertisement"), state militias or even the United States military. The 3 percent movement also tends to identify with what's called the Oath Keepers movement, established in 2009 by Elmer Rhodes, a retired Army officer. Participants who are currently in law enforcement, or state militias or the US military swear an oath on ten specific commands they will not obey, including 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. . *BLINK* Oath Keepers was started in 2009 by Elmer Stewart Rhodes, a retired Army officer.




Elmer Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers

Rhodes' vision is simple—"It's the Constitution, stupid." He views the founding blueprint the way fundamentalist Christians view the Bible. In Rhodes' America, sovereign states—"like little labs of freedom"—would have their own militias and zero gun restrictions. He would limit federal power to what's stated explicitly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; any new federal law affecting the states would require a constitutional amendment. "If your state goes retarded," he says, "you can move to another state and vote with your feet." The president would be stripped of emergency powers that allow him to seize property, restrict travel, institute martial law, and otherwise (as the Congressional Research Service has put it) "control the lives of United States citizens." The Constitution, Rhodes explains, "was created to check us in times of emergency when we are freaking out."

Much of this is familiar rhetoric, part of a continuous strain in American politics that reemerged most recently during the 1990s. Back then, a similar combination of recession and Democratic rule led to the rise of citizen militias, the Posse Comitatus movement, and Oath Keepers-type groups like Police & Military Against the New World Order. But those groups had little reach. Nowadays, through the power of YouTube and social networking, and with a boost from the cable punditry, Oath Keepers can reach millions and make its message part of the national conversation—furthering the notion that citizens can simply disregard a government they loathe. "The underlying sentiment is an attack on government dating back to the New Deal and before," says author Neiwert. "Ron Paul has been a significant conduit in recent years, but nothing like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin—all of whom share that innate animus."2


Mother Jones' reporter Justine Sharrock interviewed a U.S Army participant in the Oath Keepers, a gentleman who wanted to be only IDed by his middle name of "Pray,"




Pfc. Lee Pray vows he'll fight to the death if a rogue US government "forces us to engage."

Pray (who asked me to use his middle name rather than his first) and five fellow soldiers based at Fort Drum take this directive very seriously. In the belief that the government is already turning on its citizens, they are recruiting military buddies, stashing weapons, running drills, and outlining a plan of action. For years, they say, police and military have trained side by side in local anti-terrorism exercises around the nation. In September 2008, the Army began training the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team to provide humanitarian aid following a domestic disaster or terror attack—and to help with crowd control and civil unrest if need be. (The ACLU has expressed concern about this deployment.) And some of Pray's comrades were guinea pigs for military-grade sonic weapons, only to see them used by Pittsburgh police against protesters last fall.

Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. Maybe you said, I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists.* But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"

In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."2


The Jersey City story this AM was a surprise to me. While I was pretty familiar with the Sovereign Rights movement, as well as the Oath Keepers, this was a new one. And for whatever and more than likely unfair reasons, I wouldn't have expected such a group in a large urban area like northern New Jersey. The nature of the lexicon of all these right wing groups is interesting to follow. It's like a trip into a Twilight Zone episode, bizzaro land. Sure, some of the Alex Jones conspiracy stuff is easy to laugh off, and I'm not sure if Mr. Rhodes is just a good snake-oil salesman who found a quick and easy way to make a lot of money. From what I have read so far, I agree with the assessment reached by Justine Sharrock: I've toggled between viewing them either as potentially dangerous conspiracy theorists or as crafty intellectuals with the savvy to rally politicians to their side. The answer, I came to realize, is that they cover the whole spectrum.



For a fun read, check out this 3 percent blog "The Sipsey Street Irregulars."

1. Jersey City police brass identify a pro-militia clique in the department and say they've been stopped by Michaelangelo Conte, published on New Jersey.com on April 29, 2013.

2. Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason
by Justine Sharrock, published on Mother Jones March 2010.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 17:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
I am tempted to start my own 3% club. One of our oaths would be to never to be incarcerated in the Jersey City urban concentration camp.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 15:11 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
He looks like he belongs on the Sopranos.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 18:19 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malasadas.livejournal.com
*pokes my head out of my hiding hole*

Oh, yeah, that's gonna end well for everyone involved.

*crawls back in to my hiding hole*

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 19:59 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aviv-b.livejournal.com
o.....O for having people in the military (who have sworn to defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them) who then say they won't. They should be dismissed from their positions.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 21:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
seems legit to me

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 22:22 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Specifically, they're saying that the Constitution is what has the most prominence. As it should be - "I was just following orders" is never a good defense.

The hype about the Oath Keepers is really just that, and the SPLC does itself a disservice by even giving them a bit of attention, it makes them look even more unserious than they are.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 23:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aviv-b.livejournal.com
You are absolutely correct about 'I was just following orders.'

It's funny though that the only orders they don't want to follow is when a black man is giving them. And that's not a conscientious objection. That's grounds for getting your butt kicked out at the very least.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 23:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
I'll give more credence to the knee-jerk race baiting when they disband in 2017.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 08:17 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
It's funny though that the only orders they don't want to follow is when a black man is giving them

It's funny that you think that's true.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 14:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aviv-b.livejournal.com
If these groups had started/expanded after the passing of the Patriot Act which is an obvious infringement on individual liberty or the invasion of Iraq which was clearly in violation of the separation of powers, I'd feel differently. But no, not supporting Bush or the invasion of Iraq was deemed un-American and un-patriotic by these fine folks.

The huge expansion in Patriot groups and military people asserting that they don't have to follow the President's orders has come since the election of Obama in reaction to the drumbeat of the birthers/Tea Party: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/03/06/troops-are-beginning-to-refuse-to-follow-unlawful-orders/ (http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/03/06/troops-are-beginning-to-refuse-to-follow-unlawful-orders/)
along with the ginning up of ridiculous fears of taking everyone's guns away, the belief in FEMA concentration camps and just plain old racism.

I can see only two reasons why a person would sit silent during the Bush Administration's passage of the Patriot Act, use of warrentless wiretapping and email searches, and illegal invasion of Iraq but now wants to be able to refuse orders of the Commander in Chief for continuing the same practices - stupidity or racism, probably some of both.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 21:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vehemencet-t.livejournal.com
Isn't it true that most pretty much all Congresspeople and Senators supported, passed or failed to effectively criticize those measures as well? Not to take away from their clear naivete in trusting a "conservative" politician like Bush Jr's "character" to not use powers supposedly created for terrorists against domestic opponents as well as just general people.

I can see only two reasons why a person would sit silent during the Bush Administration's passage of the Patriot Act, use of warrentless wiretapping and email searches, and illegal invasion of Iraq but now wants to be able to refuse orders of the Commander in Chief for continuing the same practices - stupidity or racism

While I am sure you are right in some cases, I can see at least one other option. As political discussion on these issues has grown and expanded, some could have simply become more aware and uneasy. It's like how some liberals today refuse to acknowledge the Obama Administration's clear violations and expansions in that same vein--assassinations, drone bombings, expansion of the use of government secrecy, bailouts of capitalist financial institutions (started under Bush) etc. When one considers the "home team" is in power, the blinders come on.

It's no different.

This is a typical danger of partisanship rather than individual conscience.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 23:40 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aviv-b.livejournal.com
You raise a good point on partisanship. And some on the left are as guilty as some on the right when it comes to things like the Patriot Act, use of drones, and wiretapping.

(no subject)

Date: 2/5/13 18:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
Plus, you aren't accounting for how the media hasn't reported the situation accurately, both in terms of the framing of the Patriot Act and the other things Bush enacted and Obama has continued and expanded, and in terms of the number of people who opposed them from the beginning, just not in organized groups. Those take time to come together. So, your perspective on the issue is a bit skewed.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 02:44 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Actually it isn't. As is judged by people accepting a Standing Army and a SCOTUS able to rule what is or isn't Constitutional. And a popular vote.
Edited Date: 1/5/13 02:44 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 20:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
Maybe I don't trust politicians, but if I have to pick between them running things or the police - I'm okay with the way things are now.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 21:49 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] musicpsych.livejournal.com
Months, perhaps a year, to "impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse"? They must have been going nuts during the police lockdown in Boston, since arguably all three happened to some extent (detaining citizens inside their homes, putting a halt to public transportation out of the state, increased police/military presence on the street). Especially seeing some of the oaths they take - like number 2, which arguably was what happened in Boston (though with consent of the homeowners), or, with number 3, how some members of Congress did want the captured terrorist suspect treated as an enemy combatant.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.


Funny how I'd sooner imagine one of these so-called maverick politicians leading a rogue government against its people than a member of the establishment. But maybe that's just what they want me to think.

I bet they love the show Revolution.

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 22:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
I will support them if they promise to wear an "I AM A PARANOID TOOL" patch for one year after Obama doesn't order the military to put us into concentration camps.
Edited Date: 30/4/13 22:15 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 30/4/13 22:16 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
I aint touching this one with 98 ft pole.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 02:15 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Oh, Dave Neiwert, the guy who defended Woodrow Wilson as a not-a-racist and a civil liberties champion. It's a pity that there;s nobody better to point out that movements like the 3 Percenters are going to get a lot of people killed to relearn all the lessons of 150 years ago if those wannabes ever put their money where their mouth is.

(no subject)

Date: 1/5/13 22:06 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vehemencet-t.livejournal.com
So I've heard of them before, but just going with reading this article I have to ask: Sure some of their members no doubt have some nutty beliefs, prior conservative blinders when it came to Bush, belief in some unproven conspiracy theories like FEMA camps, and almost religious veneration for "the Constitution", is it REALLY a bad thing or a problem if some police officers, military personnel, national guardsmen etc. feel motivated to swear an oath saying something like "I will not fire upon American citizens if ordered" (that's not a direct quote--just a paraphrase)?

Even if you think the notion that the scenarios they fear would happen is silly, pre-WW2 Germans probably would have told you the same thing if you told them exactly what was going to happen with the rise of Hiter and the Nazi Party and the atrocities and shame Germany would commit under them. They would have thought "It Could Never Happen Here". It's a typical thought

So regardless of the veracity of those fears, is it really a bad thing if these people in these authority groups (police, military etc.), which have a history of misconduct and getting away with what many feel to be are abuses, have thought about such scenarios and decided, "I will not take part in that if ordered to down the road"?

Even if if you feel they would realistically be powerless to stop it, I fail to understand why one would see this as something that should be stopped (such as the suggestion to fire them all).

Maybe this would lead to more accountability or exposure by the police. That would be nice.
Edited Date: 1/5/13 22:08 (UTC)

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
OSZAR »