talkpolitics | The 3 percent militia movement / Oath Keepers

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.