I stopped having anything to do with them (Oathkeepers) after they sent me emails talking about all the “godless” people in Washington D.C. being the enemy.

As an atheist that supported them, I’m not sure how to respond to something like that. I’m not sure what my view on religion had to do with anything.

I’ve been having the exact same thoughts about Oath Keepers of late, and am a life member.
Out the door and disappointed right along with you man.

Also some Throat Coat tea, or an herbal like it with slippery elm and licorice will clear your voice right up – old radio man cure.

If you hook up to utilities and refuse to pay even the service fee eventually they with punish you by turning off your power and water. Also, a water tap is around $6000. Setting a pole with a meter base and junction box I another could grand if it’s not there.

Hey Jack, How is that hurricane treating you? We are supposed to get it tomorrow. I am guessing your swales are good and full now. Mine should be following shortly.

Great info on the minimum wage in 1964 and how our money has changed since then. It’s amazing to think that my grandpa could have supported his family on 5 quarters a day, and that they could have had a reasonable standard of living. This is one I’m definitely going to share.

A couple of minor complaints of this section:

1. Calling global warming a “nutism” is simply a ad hominem attack. You can say human caused global warming is wrong, but you can’t claim that there isn’t some published evidence from vaguely reputable sources that points to these conclusions. Anthropomorphic Global Warming isn’t like believing in a 6000 year old Earth, it may be wrong but it isn’t stupid. It is stupid to proselytize it and I’m sorry people do that to you but there are informed people who have read extensively that believe in Global Warming, maybe incorrectly, but to claim they are all nuts because you don’t is just ad hominem and you are better than that.

2. My second complaint is you saying “only a theory” in this context. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is proven when new forecasted information is found to be true. The hypothesis that gravity is a force that curves space time is part of Einstein’s General Relativity from 1915 which correctly explains the orbit of Mercury, but what made it an accepted theory is the 1919 evidence of gravitational lensing. I don’t expect you to know the physics, but you do know the scientific method and shouldn’t say “only a theory” when you are talking about scientific theories. Gravity is well understood and accepted by every real scientist. There is some questions to be answered like the graviton/quantum gravitation, detecting a gravity wave, etc., but to claim you don’t know something because there is still some tiny gray areas says that we don’t really know anything. Yes, maybe String theory or any other the other unified field theories will modify our knowledge of gravity, but not by much. We still teach Newtonian physics, because for most of life, it is accurate. We accept General Relativity because without it you can’t have GPS or many other modern technologies.

“…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.:

-Stephan Jay Gould

I never agree with anyone 100 percent. I support the Oath Keepers mission, I support Alex Jones, and support Jack Spirko. I probably agree more with Jones than Spirko on many issues.

I believe the disagreements are over pure politics. The Glenn Beck crying, Jones screaming, Oath Keepers emails, and yes even Spirko are capitalists and must fund their operations by dare I say making money to pay for their efforts by spreading their message out to their audience.

I would state questioning people’s motives is often where many good people have gone astray. I have been guilty of such tactics and have learned from my mistakes.

The founders often engaged in what Jack would label as alarmist and BS Alex Jones sensationalism conspiracies not founded in truth.

Thomas Jefferson was fueled by a conspiracy that the British government would enslave the colonists and that perhaps everything the framers were working for would all be for nothing much to the discontentment of Madison. The founders attacked British loyalists calling for compromise and dialogue, appeasement, rather than calling for independence.

The founders of our nation spoke of fear and alarmist propaganda regarding standing armies, and the monstrosity of government. They were also flawed by their hypocrisy which often tore at their conscience. Nobody is perfect.

Writing off Oath Keepers because you disagree with their politics and the way they spread their messages like every one in this field, is short sighted.

However, I am not writing off anyone yet.