![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

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)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 15:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 18:19 (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 20:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 22:22 (UTC)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)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)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 08:17 (UTC)It's funny that you think that's true.
(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 14:50 (UTC)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)mostpretty 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)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/13 18:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 02:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 21:49 (UTC)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 22:08 (UTC)You know, I never heard of that series, and I watch NBC all the time. So thanks for that reference!
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 22:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 22:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/13 22:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 02:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/13 22:06 (UTC)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.