ATS News With Johnny Anonymous: "The CIA Invests In Spying On You!", page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:05 AM by GoldenFleece
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

Thanks for your response. I think it would be more accurate to say that ONE organization -- the wealthy establishment hate-mongers at Southern Poverty Law Center (who spends their $200 million-dollar endowment primarily attacking rather than defending civil rights groups), not to mention being the source of Return of the Militias report for Homeland Security which suggests that former military members, gun owners, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Ron Paul and Chuck Barr supporters, etc., are the new "home-grown terrorists." The despicable SPLC was also the source of that Missouri MIAC "fusion center" report that was quickly discredited and retracted.

In a July report titled "Return of the Militias," the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival."


...Oath Keepers is not preaching violence or government overthrow, Rhodes said. On the contrary, it is asking police and the military to lay down their arms in response to unlawful orders.

Thanks Johnny -- feel free to follow my links above and tell me who the real terrorists are.

Here's a hint, it's not Oath Keepers or any "right-wing extremists" -- it's the same guys responsible for Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, TWA 800, the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK, the USS Liberty, 9/11, the "Patriot Act" and the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

Oh yeah, don't forget spying on people like me who tell the truth about our government.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:30 AM by GoldenFleece
Johnny, I'm passionate because I know many of these people (I'm not a member of Oath Keepers myself) and they are NOT "right-wing radicals" like the Southern Poverty Law Center makes them out to be.

Oath Keepers is a group of fine, patriotic Americans and it's unfair that the sleazy accusations and innuendo of ONE despicable "civil rights" organization is endlessly repeated and even becomes the primary source of regional "fusion centers" and Homeland Security reports:

A national scandal emerged in Missouri, after their MIAC Fusion Center issued an eight page document which made many false claims. The documents attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The 'Missouri Documents', as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.

Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey Novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!

The Southern Poverty Law Center was cited as a research source for the 'Missouri Documents'. Furthermore, the attempt of these documents to cast suspicion of violent and life-threatening behavior on millions of Americans who are concerned about these issues is consistent with the regularly released political materials of both the SPLC and ADL.

A more balanced article that doesn't repeat SPLC's lies:

Ready to Protect

Keepers vow to uphold rights, and the Constitution


[edit on 23-10-2009 by GoldenFleece]



reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:36 AM by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If they're not "extreme right wing," then where were they during republican administrations?

Your definition of "extreme right wing" is determined by when an organization is founded?

Allow me to quote from the Oath Keepers website:

About OathKeeper Founder Stewart Rhodes

Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.

He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.

Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and has written for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; for www.moreliberty.org; and for JPFO.

As you can see, Stewart was attending Yale law school and working in Ron Paul's DC office during the Bush administrations. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that Stewart was appalled by the Bush administration's abuse of executive power, e.g. signing statements, shredding of the Constitution and passage of the "Patriot" and Military Commissions Acts.

SO, I'm surprised that a co-founder of ATS doesn't realize the phoniness of the left/right political paradigm. As we've seen in everything from bankster bailouts to ending the war in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats are essentially two sides of the same coin.

"Say hello to the new boss -- same as the old boss."


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:49 AM by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
SO, I'm surprised that a co-founder of ATS doesn't realize the phoniness of the left/right political paradigm.

I most certainly have... case in point.

But I also don't pull punches. Being overtly concerned that "the other" political party may somehow subvert the constitution to the extent expressed on their site is an extreme response, no matter how you look at it.

Their claim of "non-partisan" is as accurate as Fox News' "fair and balanced" tag line.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:32 AM by SkepticOverlord
A new Low Bandwidth Version has been released for people with slower Internet connection speeds.



reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:39 AM by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Being overtly concerned that "the other" political party may somehow subvert the constitution to the extent expressed on their site is an extreme response, no matter how you look at it.

Their claim of "non-partisan" is as accurate as Fox News' "fair and balanced" tag line.

Can't disagree about Faux News being "fair and balanced", but please tell me which of Oath Keepers' Orders We Will Not Obey could be considered "extreme" or "subversive" to the Constitution:

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

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

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I will never understand how defending the tatters of what's left of our Constitution, including our fundamental rights, freedoms and civil liberties could be considered "extreme" or "radical", let alone "subversive."


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:15 PM by Flighty
reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That'd be people like me.
Thanks for the loband alternative.


reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 01:37 AM by glitchinmymatrix
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


I'm sure there's a lot more than this going on. They probably have paid agents who post messages to confuse you...to counter arguements and keep the secrets secret.

I mean, what good is a secret if you share it with everyone? At that point, it's useless because now your "enemies" know it.

That said, any "secrets" you get on this website are by my reasoning, useless secrets.

The best secrets are just that...secrets. They don't share 'em with you. And, as far as these "secret societies" go, I would bet that its member maybe even don't know they are members...that way they don't compromise the entire system by exploiting it. Just a thought...because the most powerful in these societies hold the knowledge of the inner workings of it, so they could in theory betray the entire society in order to make it collapse.

So, think you aren't part of a secret society? Think again. Maybe you are and don't know it! Ha!
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Truth is Viral - FEMA Camps
  Posted 15 days ago with 60 member flags
ATS RECAP 19: Iran War Healing Teen Illness
  Posted 7 days ago with 35 member flags
ATS RECAP 18: Fake Moon Photos Rare Creature Noise
  Posted 11 days ago with 27 member flags
ATS RECAP 20: Recap Bloopers Brian
  Posted 3 days ago with 18 member flags
ATS RECAP 17: Anonymous Werewolf Sinkhole
  Posted 14 days ago with 16 member flags
ATS RECAP 16: Al Jazeera Fluoride Death
  Posted 18 days ago with 14 member flags
ATS RECAP 21: Paranormal Decker Rain Blob
  Posted 1 days ago with 4 member flags