NavyJack – Black Lives Matter Leader Redirects the Milwaukee Unrest Against Political Adversaries (Updated 08/16/2016)

NavyJack – Black Lives Matter Leader Redirects the Milwaukee Unrest Against Political Adversaries (Updated 08/16/2016)

David Clarke is the outspoken and popular Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. In 2002, Clarke was appointed to a vacancy by Governor Scott McCallum, and later elected that same year to his first four-year term. He was re-elected in November 2006, 2010, and 2014, and is currently serving his fourth full term. Sheriff Clarke is a strong constitutionalist and was a featured speaker at the New York Oath Keepers 2016 Annual Banquet.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader DeRay McKesson has made no secret of his dislike of Sheriff Clarke. Over the past two years, McKesson has criticized Clarke at every opportunity on his policies, his concerns regarding the escalating violence of the BLM movement and his leadership.

One hour before the start of the recent riots in Milwaukee, McKesson used his BLM leadership position to encourage his 500,000 loyal followers to engage and participate:

Once the riots commenced, McKesson used the unrest to criticize Sheriff Clarke for his efforts to restore law and order:

McKesson then used the mayhem that he helped generate to encourage members of the BLM movement to oppose the reelection of Sheriff Clarke:

This is classic “Order out of Chaos” manipulation, also known as the “Problem – Reaction – Solution” control system. It is used by Governments and social movements to invoke change that citizens would not accept otherwise. The system has three steps:

  1. Create or leverage a problem (like the recent police involved shooting that occurred in Milwaukee);
  2. Manufacture or promote a reaction (like the protests and subsequent riots) and then;
  3. Provide a solution (blame law enforcement and in this case isolate blame on Sheriff Clarke).

The Trifecta

McKesson and the BLM movement also strongly oppose the politics and policies of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump:

In addition to Sheriff Clarke, the timing of the Milwaukee riots may provide McKesson and the BLM movement with a mechanism to inflict political damage on two additional high profile targets of their movement. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is scheduled to host two campaign rallies in the Milwaukee area tomorrow, Tuesday August 16, 2016. He will appear first at 6 p.m. at the Pabst Theater in an event hosted by Fox News and conservative political commentator Sean Hannity. Trump will then head to West Bend for a rally at 7:30 p.m. at the Washington County Fair Park and Conference Center. Governor Scott Walker introduced and endorsed Trump running mate Mike Pence at a rally in Milwaukee only last week.

Designated Oath Keepers will be monitoring social media and other communications channels to provide reports to local law enforcement should there be an attempt by BLM or other agents to instigate activities that could jeopardize the safety of citizens attending either event.

The Black Lives Matter movement is just one of the Social Movements involved with the destabilization of the United States of America. Others include La Raza, The Revolutionary Communist Party, the World Workers Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and the Islamic Jihadist movements. To learn more about the Black Lives Matter movement, please review my previous articles on this subject:

Understanding the Campaign to Destabilize the United States

When the Obama Administration and the Government Controlled Media Lie, People Die

The Main Stream Media and President Obama Strike Again: Alton Sterling and the Baton Rouge Unrest

President Obama Invites Black Lives Matter Leaders to the White House

President Obama Encourages Police to Warm-up to the “Legitimate” Concerns of the Black Lives Matter Movement and a Daytona Police Squad Car is Firebombed

Shooter Targets Baltimore Police Officers

Another Victim Of Black Lives Matter, This Time Its One Of Their Own

Chicago Police Warn of Nationwide Protests Over Paul O’Neil Shooting

Black Lives Matter Strikes Again: The Milwaukee Riots

Update 08/16/2016 – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will attend both Trump campaign rallies in Milwaukee today according to FoxNews. Also, please note that this article is not an endorsement of any political candidate.  Those of you that have read my earlier articles know that I believe that both major political parties are totally corrupted.  The intent of this article is to show how BLM leadership encouraged the escalation of protests in Milwaukee and then used the events to leverage attacks against Sheriff Clarke. With regard to the upcoming Milwaukee Trump rallies, the concern is for the safety of citizens that will be attending and to avoid a repeat of the violence that was encountered in San Jose, CA and Albuquerque, NM. BLM supporters are attempting to organize for protests at both Trump rallies in Milwaukee later today.

 

navyjack

 

 

 

About Author

Navy Jack

During my service I deployed on various platforms, including submarines, amphibious assault units and special boats. I participated in expeditionary and humanitarian missions to the North Atlantic, Iran, Beirut, Libya, and the Caribbean. I am a Patron Life Member of the NRA. I am an Oath Keeper Life Member.

Comments

  1. motljoe 16 August, 2016, 04:13

    You seem to be very connected to the very politically connected jack – booted law enforcement that is run by the Bush family and refers to state nationals ( Americans ) as FDR did ” enemies ” ; ” American citizens are enemies of the United Stares ” . Mike V. and his 3% must have been really having a problem with your politics .

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 16 August, 2016, 06:43

      motjoe, Navy Jack is fairly new to Oathkeepers management level. He did serve for decades in various aspects of government. He then contracted with them, which is of itself not a crime. But it does color his views of the US Constitution and its meaning, and his own Oath strongly.

      From what I have been able to discern is he was heavily involved in governmental enforcement and that has to color ones views. If we always remind him, and others of who also served/are serving of the required Oath, that the US Constitution is the document that he and the various agencies (I am including the military as a government agency instead of as its own branch of our government which it seems to view itself) are all oath bound to and supposed to be supporting, defending, and (depending on what agency) enforcing – doing the constitutionally assigned duties of the Militia. That it is the US Constitution and each state Constitution that are our government and that they were in the service of it/them and in the service of the American people, NOT in service to, but employees OF, those agencies that are so unlawful and working to destroy our nation from within that were supposedly developed to DEFEND the natural rights of the people.

      I too was very surprised at how often he seems to support the governmental view instead of his Oath and the constitutional view. But in fairness, it is very hard to step away form that training and mis-education and strictly follow the US Constitution for most. it is almost impossible for those still serving as that indoctrination and training against the US Constitution is almost, if not, daily. So, if he truly means well, do as I do and call him specifically on where he strays from the US Constitution and stands with the indoctrination of the agencies he was/maybe still is involved with. It will greatly assist his transformation into a true American under the US Constitution, not under the domestic enemies at best, traitors likely.

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      PS, Yes navy Jack that was me in defense of you, though you may not recognize it as such. /grin

      God Bless, and Stay Safe All

      Reply this comment
      • Navy Jack Author 16 August, 2016, 07:55

        Cal – I would be happy to debate you live on video on the Internet regarding any issue related to the U.S. Constitution. I am sure that Elias can help us set this up and we can even invite Stewart if you want. Tell your followers to bring the popcorn! I think once you get to know me, you will find that I am no lightweight on constitutional issues.

        As for my articles, I try to stay away from opinion and just present the facts. If I stray, it is unintentional. I never “support the governmental view”. In most cases I am severely skeptical of the government. I do present the current laws and how they may impact the events in my articles. I always preface these discussions with a disclaimer (I am not defending the officers’ actions… I am not endorsing the current law…).

        I have never been involved with “governmental enforcement”. During my post military career (1987 thru 2001) I was involved with training active duty military personnel on the use of newly procured weapons systems. I founded an Internet services company in 2002 that provides support to commercial companies. I am still with this company.

        I know you and I will continue to disagree and I take no offense to your comments. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I do not respect you. I hope you feel the same.

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 20 August, 2016, 16:42

          “Cal – I would be happy to debate you live on video on the Internet regarding any issue related to the U.S. Constitution.”

          Why do we not do it (debate) as the US Constitution and each state Constitution was done, in writing. I cannot always guarantee that I will be okay on any set day and able to debate. But I am willing to put what I believe our US Government lawfully is and back what I say – as I most always do, in writing.

          I do disagree with you. To me, and this is my PERSONAL opinion, you seem to have those who serve within our governments version of the Constitution of the United States of America, with a sprinkling of the framers/founders/etc.

          You (generic “you”) are supposed to take (minor) offense when they do not match your view(s) and belief; and counter with a response to counter or change my view – which you may or may not do. That is what Freedom of Speech is all about. That is how we learn. Then if your actions back what you say, my actions back what I say I believe in we earn each others respect. Respect, I believe, is earned not doled out like candy to pacify or whatever. If you offend me, I will say so, and I expect the same from you – but then we get back to the business of debating the subject we are on at that time.

          I do not respect you yet. How can I, and you cannot respect me either as I have not earned that from you yet or at least I do not see how you can. But I will defend your right to your opinion – of me or anything – while I am “fighting” you over it/them. It is your God given right to be (in my opinion) wrong about something, just like I also have that same right (in your opinion) to be wrong. We can work at proving through reasoned debates that the other is wrong, or find out that we both are correct, but looking at things from different angles and views, or whatever we do discover. That is the American way.

          I admit that I am heavily prejudiced that you were in the DoD – contracted or not, you are required to be Oath bound and, in my opinion did a pizza poor job of keeping your Oath if you took it then as a contractor – and you are not alone in that/those non actions in support of, and defense of the US Constitution. That is a big reason why we are where we are today in this nation, in my opinion.

          I like that you challenged me, and if it had been even a couple or few years ago I could have done that debate, it would have been fun and educational – hopefully for both of us; plus you started UP the road of my respecting you. You did this challenge OPENLY, and that is exactly what you should do as an American and as an Oath taker. I have been challenging you enough.

          If we do this, bring a sense of humor – we both will need it.

          I am strictly constitutional in my beliefs, as it was put into writing for us to read and LEARN from; and believe that for all Oath takers it is critical that they have at least a basic understanding of the document(s) they are sworn to “Support and Defend” above and before the orders of any superior; and above and before the duties of the position they occupy.

          BTW, the DoD is an enforcement agency, and any position within it is “enforcement”, even if not yourself physically doing the actual physical enforcement.

          Reply this comment
          • Navy Jack Author 20 August, 2016, 21:23

            Cal – The reason I choose to respect you is because you put forth serious effort; effort that others do not put forward. The effort you apply from our interactions is always for a good cause, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions. We are going to agree far more often that we will disagree. Both of us are originalists in our reading of the Constitution. We take every word for what is says and what it meant at the time, not what we want it to say now.

            I think many arguments get gummed up when people try to “constitutionalize” the Declaration of Independence, as if this document is somehow part of the constitution. This is where all of the “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” arguments get off-track. The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. The U.S. Constitution did not incorporate the text of the Declaration of Independence for ratification. So for originalists, when someone tries to incorporate Laws of Nature” ideals and text from the Declaration of Independence into their argument regarding the U.S. Constitution, I will reject that argument every time because it is not supported by the U.S. Constitution, it was taken from a document that was never intended to have legal weight and the Declaration of Independence was never subject to ratification by the States.

            Just to be perfectly clear, the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight with respect to the U.S. Constitution. The Resolution of Independence is the legal document that was submitted by Richard Henry Lee II to the 2nd Continental Congress on June 7th, 1776. It was seconded by John Adams and read:

            “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

            The introduction of this resolution led to the junior representative from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, being assigned the task of initially drafting a list of grievances against King George III that we now call the Declaration of Independence. The final vote on the Resolution of Independence was held on July 2, 1776. Independence from the British Crown and the full text of the resolution was announced in the Pennsylvania Gazette on July 3, 1776. The list of grievances against King George III, now known as the Declaration of Independence, was approved by the congress for distribution on July 4, 1776.

            As for my time as a DoD contractor, the company would submit a bid to the DoD to provide services for acquisition of some new weapons system. We would team with other contractors that would build the weapons. Together, the DoD would get a new weapon with a team of people that could show the soldiers how to use it effectively. In the DoD world, this is known as factory training. I’m not sure how this fits into your “enforcement agency” narrative, but that’s what I did for a living between 1987 and 2001.

            If you want to talk about this offline, I can ask Elias to forward my personal email address to you. If you want to do it online in a forum, that’s fine with me too.

    • Navy Jack Author 16 August, 2016, 09:22

      motljoe – I do have several senior military connections. Many are flag officers and most are now retired. I have testified many, many times in front of various legislative bodies and found liberty minded representatives to work with on legislative issues. I have focused my time on defeating legislation that would further erode the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments. I have no idea what you are referring to with your “American citizens are enemies of the United Stares” comment. I despise the Bush/Clinton cartel. I suggest you read my earlier article titled “Understanding the Campaign to Destabilize the United States” to learn more. I have read a great many of Mike Vanderboegh’s articles and participated in several of his events. I doubt Mike would have had any issues with “my politics”. Just because I do not want to see old ladies and children beaten by leftist thugs at a political campaign rally, does not mean I agree with the candidates’ positions.

      Reply this comment
      • Ivan Berry 16 August, 2016, 15:18

        NJ, it’s not evident what either Cal or Motljoe were talking about unless the Mot thought incorrectly that the Black Lives Matter bunch were being judged as less than worthy citizens since Clark was positioning for police brutality against them without cause.
        Maybe Cal mistakenly thinks you cannot learn from possible past mistakes and improve both in actions and understanding. His chip on shoulder seems to relate to anything that resembles officialdom. Nothing that you have written is, to my awareness deserving of their comments.
        Also, the Communist dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis only is repeated in the Blm dialectic by way of the problem, reaction and solution. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, There is no reason to criticize you for your efforts, but rather, you are due thanks for keeping us aware and informed of what is going on in the world around us. Thank you.

        Reply this comment
  2. Bronson 16 August, 2016, 04:38

    73% of America’s population is white and 17% is Black. Do the math. Do they really want a race war?

    Reply this comment
    • Mr Grouch 16 August, 2016, 13:36

      Especially since legal gun and ammunition sales have never been higher.
      Obama is the best firearms salesman ever.

      Reply this comment
    • Vinny 16 August, 2016, 13:43

      Bronson….Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, The New Black Panther Party, The SPLC, Attorney Genera;l Lynch, George Soros along with many other Marxist / Communist groups have instigated, supported and financed this race war, and yes, as a matter of fact that is what this BLM crap is all about. Even the blind could read between the lines on this debacle.This was simply a black policeman that shot a black thug with a gun that couldn’t follow orders. Soetoro Sobarkah wants a race war so he can implement Martial Law and remain in the Presidency because the Democrats don’t want that scorpion Clinton as President. It is all about control and Soetoro Sobarkah is now “all in” with his agenda and ultimate goal. A race war ? Who knows, but if it does get started, Bozo will declare Martial Law which could evolve into an all out civil war. To say that this Sovereign Constitutional Republic is in trouble is an understatement. Stay connected, in communication and prepared, I think it’s coming !!

      Reply this comment
    • Imperator 17 August, 2016, 15:58

      The census figures on the percentage of total U.S. population that is black are actually lower than that – I believe it is at/under 14.5%.

      More than that, while the majority live in urban areas, not all do. While many are lawbreakers, violent, hateful toward other races, again, not all are.

      Many are either too old, or too young, or too limited by physical infirmities to engage a role in a so-called “race war”, or other type of violent, unconstitutional insurrection. About 800,000 to 1.1 million adult male black Americans are incarcerated, and roughly 150,000 to 200,000 black women likewise. Then there are those who are LEO, or deployed U.S. military…

      By my best reckoning, that means much less than half of the 14.5% (or less) possess the freedom, the age, the physical capacity, etcetera – to embark upon such a self-destructive and unadvisable path.

      All that said – yes, there are many of these radicalized individuals who are that full of anger, while lacking in restraint, or “impulse control” if you prefer – that they do want a race war. They are the targets – the subjects for recruitment, further radicalization/brainwashing, and full-on training by the higher-up, paid agitators, provocateurs, and “community organizers” – one of who occupies the W.H., doing his part to divide, facilitate, create emnity, spur “lone wolves” into motion.

      This is NOT a “grassroots” movement, it is overwhelmingly “astro-turf”. BLM did not spring to life out of nowhere; they received $33 million from “Spooky Dude” George Soros, and they now sit atop a “war chest” of $100 million or more. Mr. McKesson himself is a handsomely remunerated professional, street-level sh*t – stirrer, and social media persona. He travels frequently, almost at – will, eats well, and whenever arrested, is invariably quickly bailed out.

      There is no hope whatever of BLM, Nation of Islam, & their affiliates fighting and winning a “black versus white” ‘race war’ in America…not on a head-to-head basis. I doubt that most among them believe such is achievable…

      So we ought to ask ourselves the follow-up question: what would come next? (After a failed attempt at such.) How would it be brought to an end, and by whom? What could/would the U.S. look like at that point? Would other “forces” have conveniently aligned themselves with the BLM types?

      There are many more questions – uncomfortably more than I have answers for…but this is a “jumping off” point into further, open discussion.

      Reply this comment
      • WGP 18 August, 2016, 17:50

        Great comments.

        The BLM movement is pale compared to the impending islamic terror. The ‘other” than muslim population will require a purging of islam in its entirety.That is a fact and reality. Prepare.

        Reply this comment
        • Navy Jack Author 18 August, 2016, 18:11

          WGP – In some cases, both movements work together (BLM/Radical Islam). Orlando Jihadist Omar Mateen, responsible for the recent Pulse Nightclub mass shooting, was radicalized by New Black Panther Party Leader Marcus Dwayne Robertson. Marcus Dwayne Robinson is not only an advocate of radical Islam in Florida he is also famous for being a bodyguard for the Blind Sheik of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. The Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is the leading cleric within the Muslim Brotherhood. Marcus Dwayne Robertson is a Muslim activist, and provides radicalization training via his Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary in Florida. Orlando Jihadist Omar Mateen was his student.

          Other high profile participants in Marcus Dwayne Robertson’s classes include Eric Sheppard. Sheppard was charged with carrying a weapon within a school safety zone in connection with an April 2015 “F**k The Flag” protest incident in which he allegedly left a firearm inside a backpack on campus. The “F**k The Flag” movement leverages participants from the Black Lives Matter movement in nearly all of thier protests.

          See my earlier article titled “Understanding the Campaign to Destabilize the United States” to learn more.

          Reply this comment
          • WGP 18 August, 2016, 18:35

            Our group needs, in my opinion, to denounce all groups that trample our federation and constitution, which for the most part we do well. In the bigger more dangerous picture are the muslims. There is no room for any muslims in western culture, period. There are no Christian or Jewish values in islam. The muslim is our greatest enemy to our freedom. Keep watching as Europe flushes itself into middle east culture of islamic hate and stench. Just as they rape Europe, they will rape the USA. It is no time to be wearing blinders to the end game islam has for us.

  3. dadio 16 August, 2016, 04:51

    None of this is any surprise to those of us who paid attention to obama’s initial campaign in 2008. His influence and perspective was obvious and is now playing out. As Dr. Keith Ablow said, this chaos is a direct result of “the head office” and obama directly. When pissants like mckesson rise to national prominence we have fallen to the lowest level I couldn’t have ever imagined in this country. Fortunately we have leaders like Sheriff Clarke who not only have a record of accomplishment but also have the courage to stand strong in spite of the deranged criticism from the anarchists and racists on the left.

    Reply this comment
  4. Obbop 16 August, 2016, 07:27

    A large view of trials and woes confronting society; is the USA too large in scope and numbers of people to be effectively operated by one central government? Does the USA need to be divided into two or more separate but connected entities? Band together for common defense against outsiders. Open borders and free movement between the new entities. But, separate federal-level governing systems.

    An opportunity for Blacks to create their own sub-nation and prove to all how successful their unique culture will be at creating a viable thriving country/culture that folks flock to enter.

    Sure, there will be a LOT of work involved to create the United Countries of America but can we continue on the path we are on now? A path that could possibly lead to an abyss the USA falls into where a tyrannical elite and its army of well-paid lackeys lord over the masses of bickering diverse and multicultural subjects of the overlords? Do you see much “united” in the USA of today?

    Divide and conquer has been an effective tactic of the elite class and their many lackeys and the ongoing invasive and pervasive indoctrination via their many propaganda systems continues to convince too many folks that as things are is correct and proper.

    Reply this comment
    • Jeanette 16 August, 2016, 09:16

      I don’t think we can afford to hand out chunks of the country to every group that claims to deserve special treatment – blacks, latinos (who seem to believe that they constitute a race of their own), Arabs (mostly Muslim), liberals/communists, etc.
      We simply need legislators who respect the Constitution and make law that is constitutional, and law enforcement that respects the Constitution.
      Equal treatment of all under the Constitution (and the law) would shut down the self-proclaimed “special” groups and their demands for special treatment.

      Reply this comment
  5. lc65 16 August, 2016, 10:13

    My opinion – This whole Milwaukee trumped up protest is an effort to oust Sheriff Clarke.
    Obama hates him and his kind. They had standing orders to start a riot at the first opportunity. Now there will be a Federal investigation and Clarke will be accused of ” WHATEVER “, then TPTB will try to have him removed.
    Same gameplan as used in Ferguson. Notice there were no leaders criticized in Baltimore. They were all in on the Faux Outrage ( and let the people burn and loot whatever they like ).
    Expect this strategy to be used on other known ” PATRIOTS”.

    Reply this comment
    • Navy Jack Author 16 August, 2016, 14:07

      lc65 – I think you are correct. I think this in only the beginning. There are a lot of Sheriff Clarke’s out there that will need to be dealt with in order for their agenda to move forward.

      Reply this comment
    • Imperator 17 August, 2016, 23:55

      I agree that the hon. Sheriff Clarke IS one target of this well-calculated (perhaps even partially “scripted”…) ‘uprising’. I don’t believe he is the only one, however. He may not be the first, but he will absolutely not be the last.

      We should also remember that the left has made not one, but THREE unsuccessful ‘runs’ at Governor Scott Walker: the first was when he was initially elected, laying waste to their quaint, fondly held notion that the Gov.’s office in Wisconsin was a legacy seat, practically their playground by birthright. The second, following his success in restoring the state budget from long-running deficit to surplus, was the abject failure of the recall effort mounted against Walker – an effort heavily bankrolled from outside Wisconsin. The third thumb in their eye was his strong margin of victory in re-election – again, achieved in spite of being beaten up by the media and heavily outspent in the campaign, with much of the money – along with prominent national political figures – being funneled in from out of state once more. Even their well-oiled voter fraud machine was stymied.

      Their defeat has left them extraordinarily, deeply bitter, resentful and rancorous; it is for them, like a stomach full of ipecac. They don’t like losing – three times in a row, in “their own back yard”, a U.S. epicenter of progressivism. So Walker, IMHO, is definitely another target.

      They want revenge, payback, and they have no morals to limit what they will consider as possible options to achieve vengeance AND THEN regain their “rightful” power and control. No – seriously, they really believe that, and, of course they have been planning their hostile re-taking of the state ever since.

      There may also be other targets (Paul Ryan comes to mind, even though he is a U.S. Congressional rep…) but they may be targets of convenience…possible “collateral damage” that will “sweeten the pot”, make them all the happier, because they DO revel in others’ misery.

      Beyond that, we need to see this from yet another perspective, I believe.

      Like other examples, this is a test. “They” are constantly trying things out, experimenting, “fine-tuning” their tactics, adjusting strategy based upon results – what “works” in the grand scheme of overturning our system in order to install theirs…Milwaukee had roots in Ferguson & Baltimore, which had roots in other places in turn; Milwaukee appears to have been “successful”: look for repeats elsewhere, with perhaps some twists or subtle variations, no?! This is at least a template for future use, plain & simple.

      We must anticipate their “ground troops” to do more of this, soon, in other major U.S. cities, before the general elections, and as Stewart, Elias, Navy Jack, & others have repeatedly counseled, Oath keepers must be ready, “networked”, agile/flexible, leaders when the SHTF in our area or region, gatherers/keepers of vital intel, able to discern oath keeping LEOs from poseurs, (and always “watch the six” of the good ones – they will be made targets by the left!)

      It would be nice to outmaneuver “them”, for once…to get ahead of the curve, rather than feel like we’re always on defense, always playing “catch up” with these traitorous b*st*rds, wouldn’t it?! Hard, because honor and moral standards dictate for us that we play by certain rules, where, by their very nature, they have few/no such compunctions & will resort to any means to “win”.

      As NavyJack mentions, there are many “Sheriff Clarke”s out there. Count on the left to deal with them as underhandedly as they can. Violence won’t be the first line of attack, but this is the left; of course it will remain a tool on their table.

      First they will try to compromise them, then they will attempt to deceive, followed by behind-the-scenes efforts to bully & intimidate. If those tactics fail, next they will pull out the Saul Alinski playbook, and work to discredit their target, polarize public opinion against them, generate lies, fabricate a false scandal…Fight back if/when you see this happening…encourage others NOT to believe lies that SHOULD be quite obvious…(they are still trying this garbage with Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer in Oregon, for instance…)

      Reply this comment
    • WGP 18 August, 2016, 18:13

      Considering “killery” might win the oval office, there will be a plethora of sudden suicides (sarc) of “killery” enemies, such as constitutional sheriffs and YOU and I. The killery machine wrote the book on disposing of enemies….openly…without consequence…think 20th century tyrants. The media, the courts, the FBI, the DOJ, federal marshals, the IRS, the “all inclusive” combined federal, state, local agencies with unbridled power will be killery’s allies. History shows how the nice guys don’t act till it’s beyond repair.

      Reply this comment
  6. Yoda 16 August, 2016, 13:20

    When Navy Jack’s articles began to be published here on the main page, I got pretty excited. I still am. The man is extremely prolific at gathering and presenting data. I have never seen him try to force his views through his articles. The only time that comes out is when he is forced to respond to attacks. From what I have seen, he has been a sheep dog for the people, PERIOD. I’m sure that I could find something to disagree with him on. That’s life. I’ve disagreed with Stewart on a few things. I know folks disagree with me on some things.
    What is the point? I say take the best of what folks have to offer and don’t get bogged down with controversy. I also say this. Oath Keepers is better off since Navy Jack came on board. Cal and Jack, I don’t think it does the patriot movement good for you two to square off. I think that personal correspondence would profit both of you. Cal is a hard core Constitutionalist while Jack is tempered by experience in operations. I see great value in both.
    Take the ‘bad cop shooting’ issue. We are never going to get anywhere with LE if we get all up in their face with the issue. We have to be firm but we have to show them the facts and allow them to see for themselves and come to the right conclusions. They are the ones who will have to make the changes and not us non-LE. I see Navy Jack showing the facts and he is really good at it. I don’t see an agenda of any kind in Jack’s articles. Good job. Thanks Jack.

    Reply this comment
    • Navy Jack Author 16 August, 2016, 13:59

      Yoda – Thank you for the kind words. Please know that my offer to debate Cal was not meant to infer that his opinions are wrong. I think that there is room for honest debate and I know there are many Oath Keepers that could benefit from the exchange. We need more people willing to speak up and engage politicians with informed arguments; Constitutional arguments.

      I certainly do not believe that my opinions are in any way superior to those expressed by others. I do have a foundation for my opinions that I believe is valid. After arguing against dozens and dozens of legislative actions, nearly all of them because the legislative actions were clearly unconstitutional, I have learned a lot. This doesn’t mean that Cal or any other Oath Keeper can’t teach me a thing or two. Everything I learn makes me that much stronger the next time I go to Capitol Hill or a State legislature.

      As for my agenda, I know the members of this organization are the most Patriotic Americans that exist anywhere. I want to promote that and make sure that anyone who feels as strongly as we do about rescuing our country does not have to look any further than Oath Keepers.

      Reply this comment
      • Yoda 17 August, 2016, 08:04

        I can understand having a debate about subsequent laws, regulations, etc. as to their constitutionality. I can’t understand debating the Constitution. That would be an admission that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. I believe that the Constitution is the standard for all laws of this nation and therefore, “is what it is”. I will never accept that the document can only be understood by a class of nobles and scholars. Once we acquiesce to the position that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, we place our liberty in the hands of others. That is why I firmly believe that the Constitution was written for the common man.

        Reply this comment
        • Navy Jack Author 17 August, 2016, 09:31

          Yoda – Please consider that each of the colonies, which became States, had their own laws and constitutions at the time of the passage of the U.S. Constitution. These State laws and constitutions were still in full force and effect the day after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The 10th Amendment is perfectly clear:

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          A great number of the debates on the Oath Keepers site have to do with whether the States are prohibited from enacting certain laws by the U.S. Constitution. Driver’s licenses and registration requirements are one of those debates.

          I contend that since the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the States from requiring driver’s licenses and vehicle registration to protect citizens from drivers that are blind, drivers that repeatedly drive recklessly, driver’s that repeatedly drive while intoxicated, automobiles without proper lighting, automobiles that don’t have brakes, automobiles that have no tread on their tires, automobiles that use state roads that have no insurance, etc; that the States have the right under the 10th Amendment to enforce those laws.

          The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on this issue in 1914. In 1915 they issued their decision that the States do have the right under the 10th Amendment to enforce those laws. This ruling has never been overturned or modified.

          The “free traveler” folk believe that this ruling is unconstitutional. This argument all turns on what powers are prohibited to the States. I contend that the enumerated powers are crystal clear in the U.S. Construction. The “free traveler” folk believe that the Federal Government has the right/duty to prevent the States from enacting laws that infringe on “natural rights” even if this Federal Government right is not specifically enumerated. This is one of many of these types of arguments we see repeatedly on this site.

          The following link is the full text of the U.S. Constitution:
          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

          If you read it carefully, there is no leeway for the inference of Federal rights that are not specifically enumerated in this document. There was a good reason for this approach. The States were fearful that if the Federal Government could obtain power that was not specifically given to it, enumerated, that it would eventually seize that power. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          The U.S Constitution does not restrict the States from issuing their own constitutions (which all 50 States have done) that prescribe the rights of that State with the acceptance of the people. The constitutions of all 50 States provide the State with the ability to issue laws to protect citizens from predictable hazards. For example, all 50 States regulate, license and inspect food and beverage establishments. All 50 States regulate, license and inspect hospitals and clinics. All 50 States regulate, license and inspect large constructions projects like bridges, tall building, etc. All 50 States regulate, license and inspect motor vehicles that are driven on State roads. Farm vehicles are largely exempted.

          This is why the “free traveler” arguments fail in my opinion. The “free traveler” proponents seem to believe that somehow the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the right and/or duty to prohibit the State from enacting these laws. The U.S. Supreme Court says that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with the States regarding these laws. It is a worthwhile debate in my opinion.

          Reply this comment
          • Yoda 17 August, 2016, 10:28

            Jack, I had to laugh when I read your reply because it confirmed exactly what I was saying. You do not interpret the US Constitution. You use it to confirm the constitutionality of everything else. You look at everything else and determine whether or not they are constitutional. The debates therefore would not be about an interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is the constant. Everything else is based on its relationship to the constant. I liken it to the term “true north”. Every other direction is determined by its relationship to true north. Without true north as a constant, you could never find your way.

          • Navy Jack Author 17 August, 2016, 13:34

            Yoda – I agree with you but then what do we do with those Patriots that are not comfortable with an absolute “the Constitution either says it or it doesn’t” approach? My sense is this is an education process that just needs to happen at some point. We also have a fairly large number of folks that like to argue that anarcho-capitalism is consistent with the ideals of the founder’s republic. These people are of course wrong because at no point during the meetings of the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention was there any representative willing to even consider an anarcho-capitalist form of society. So again, I suggest that without education I don’t see a way to get everyone focused on restoration. This organization is called Oath Keepers for a reason, right?

          • Strong Horse 20 August, 2016, 07:56

            Jack,
            The “Free Travel” issue, in my opinion, is not one of constitutional vs. State rights to enact laws. It is an issue of doing it properly. Try looking at it as a corporate vs. constitutional issue.
            As you said, each state has it’s own constitution, and rightly so. However, the “Statutes” that are being used to regulate these issues, violate not just the U.S. constitution, but also the state constitutions.
            If you read the statutes, all of them regulate “Commercial” traffic only. The average person is not engaged in commerce and therefore is not subject to these statutes.
            As such, the corporate court system lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
            I’m not saying that the states can’t regulate it, I’m just saying that they are doing it wrong.

          • Navy Jack Author 20 August, 2016, 10:31

            Strong Horse – If it is not a States right/constitutional issue, who should be the authority that tells the States they are doing it wrong? State courts? State legislatures? Both good answers. In each case these are elected officials, so if it’s change you want, vote for change or run for office!

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*