Dear Harry Riley, et al.
I see you have gone the route of attacking the messenger, while ignoring the message, in your most recent "OAS Update 20" emailing, repeated below.
Such an unfortunate tactic seems to have become a habit of yours since your PM to me calling me an "ass" and saying I am "abrasive", but when asked why you would say such a thing, you refused any further response in your PM. My "crime" that day was to only question why someone would want us to join a "Freedom Army" and don uniforms, when this did not serve the OAS mission in any way. Then when a woman repeatedly indicated her objectionable assertions that I was not religious, was lacking God and Jesus, and needed God’s love, my only reply back was "perhaps you do too, Kelly" (need God’s love). For merely asking a legit question, and defending my own faith, all in very mild and civil terms, I was first personally attacked by you, called an "ass" while your own approach was itself hypocritically "abrasive", and then banned.
In obvious reference to me, you indicated that I was "demanding, combative, attacking, discourteous, and disagreeable." I have never been demanding, but rather consistent and persistent in indicating that the terms for OAS, as currently framed, cannot possibly be met by any member or body of the federal government, and rather are exceedingly dangerous in the fact those demands as stated are entirely outside of any Constitutional support, even involving the the institution of a "tribunal" (your word) dictate, led by a few hand chosen men themselves without any constitutional warrant, and all in conflict with the Constitution, and necessitating that Constitution’s absolute overthrow to usurp powers nowhere granted thereby!
While demands to adhere to the Constitution cannot reasonably be attacked as being insurrection, given that such is calling for adherence to the terms of legit government, the current demands of OAS involve action entirely unsupported by that constitution, and indicate the creation of a tribunal, directed by the philosophies of men, not the agreed terms of government, entirely outside the Constitution, and this can and WILL be recognized to be that insurrection. Those high-placed members of government that have been named for removal, would be within their legitimate authority to put down the OAS movement using military force, and to label those involved, particularly OAS leadership, as intending government overthrow, and traitorous. And under the foul terms instituted by the NDAA, such persons can be held as enemy combatants, without trial, without due process, without any right to counsel, without any speedy trial at all – held indefinitely.
That’s the reality. Truly, It does not get any more serious than this.
Ron, Rich, Roberto, Alex, and many unnamed others, you should be paying particularly attention, as this would undoubtedly include you, as movement and State leadership.
Perhaps many believe such an outcome is extremely unlikely, a long shot. While this may appear true as movement ideally envisioned, the reality is this movement relies on that rose-colored outcome, not from its own terms which the movement itself has set, but rather with that outcome resting firmly in the hands of what a few dissidents might do among millions, and what those in the federal government particularly recognized for its absent restraint and ever-increasing militarism might do. Our very reason for going to D.C. is the government’s conspicuous disregard for restraint, making such a belief that use of force against OAS is an unlikely outcome, an extremely hazardous, and even foolhardy supposition.
Most certainly those named persons in leadership will not simply lay down and "resign" on their own, as Harry postulates in his letter. They certainly have nothing to resign over without each person having explicit and constitutionally-referenced list of transgressions tied to them. Stating these resignations to be part of the OAS "plan" is nothing more than a rose-colored wish list, and no plan at all.
Beyond that, the removal of specifically named individuals is only a salve applied to a sore, while ignoring the cancer that is the root cause, and would not accomplish anything at all long term, even were they removed. Just as I indicated in my email on Sunday, the problem in government is not simply just individuals themselves, but the systemic corruption of government overall, incorporated into bureaucratized process, and present throughout all three branches of government.
We saw that systemic corruption in the DOMA Court opinion. We saw it in the ObamaCare Court opinion. And we even saw it most recently in Rand Paul’s speech before CPAC, where Rand lauded the abolitionist actions of William Lloyd Garrison. Rand failed to mention that Garrison was a great advocate of the federal government dictating the emancipation of blacks, even though this nation’s founders recognized that doing so would create the very form of government that they fought to free themselves from, a government capable of dictating every aspect of their lives, a government which these United States were built to prohibit, but sadly what our government has now become.
While simply removing specified people may make us feel good, having accomplished something, it will not change anything. The problem with our government is not simply particular criminal people, but the systemic corruption of the government itself, having entirely unfettered itself from the constraints provided by the Constitution.
Not even if "20/30 million patriots show up in D.C.", as you state, Harry, will there be any legitimate authority to remove those specified people from office by the terms indicated. We are deliberately not a Democracy, and what you’re unashamedly calling for is nothing but ugly unrestrained mob rule, and entirely against the Constitution and its principles. This sort of populist majority reliance is what got Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood government, and what turned revolutionary France into a bloodbath, shortly after our own more rational revolution. Membership here should be extremely alarmed by your clear reliance on just such mob rule. It is just such references as this, which will be due cause to label the movement insurrection, and treasonous. And if even those people should be removed, then the Constitution itself will not be strengthened, but rather only more grievously weakened.
I have never anticipated, much less demanded, that my own perspective be recognized and accepted, and my posts on OAS.org stand as proof of this, making reference to the likelihood of people disagreeing me, and welcoming that disagreement. In fact the most viewed thread discussion on OAS, with more than 2,000 views, which I myself began, is addressing "OAS Specific Demands" and specifically polling the membership for their own view on what is most mission critical, asking them to phrase these demands in terms of the Constitution, with sometimes limited success.
Saturday I had my own meeting with a legal and constitutional experts, in the private alcove of an Irish pub in Philadelphia, consisting of two attorneys, one of whom was with the military and assisted in writing Iraq’s constitution, and a third constitutional expert. While viewing OAS’s sites on a laptop, I asked them what they thought of the OAS plan and demands, and I myself played the role of defending OAS. While sympathetic with OAS’s underlying motivation, their adamant and unanimous conclusion was entirely consistent with the email I sent out Sunday; they agreed that OAS’s plan and objectives show deliberate abandonment of the Constitution, and would result in the movement being labeled as insurrection, and treasonous.
Harry Riley, it is not me with whom you battle, but rather the Constitution itself, which you seem curiously intent on ignoring. I Obviously did not write the Constitution, but that document does in fact establish the terms of legitimate government, and provide a guarantee of our expectation for its adherence.
Disagreement for due cause, and cause that is extremely serious, done in civil terms, while it may be uncomfortable to hear, is not being "disagreeable."
While I have "found fault", I believe that fault to be extremely serious, but can be remedied, and must be remedied, in order to both ALLOW OAS any opportunity for success, and to prohibit the very likely probability, even certainty, of disastrous outcome.
I have not slandered anyone, not even you, Harry. I was approached by Roberto, Alex and others, to rewrite the mission goals, and the list of demands tied to the Constitution. While I was told that, if necessary these demands would be presented to Congress individually by each State leadership, and the word "coup" within OAS was applied by one among them to this action, I believe it was tongue-in-cheek, and involved an overall positive intent for the movement to have even a chance to succeed. While Alex, Roberto and I are somewhat at odds at this moment, that came about when Alex himself made the unfortunate spontaneous choice, in the heat of the moment, to hang up, and then publicly air the disagreement resulting from their insistence that I alone rewrite the mission statement and demands, and not any expectation I had that they meet demands I never placed upon them. Nothing I’ve said has maligned either of them. I simple refused to single-handedly take on the task of rewriting those demands, and thereby set myself up as the scapegoat for any criticism of those demands.
Most certainly, the actions of Alex, Roberto, and others, did not involve any sort of intent of "derailing OAS", inclusive of myself. Harry Riley is evidently the only one to entertain the that any intent to derail OAS might be true, and I submit this reference is solely Harry in service of Harry. What you are doing here, Harry, is intending to play me as the scapegoat, so as to consolidate your leadership, and not any benefit to OAS, and this is precisely why I rejected the insistence Sunday by Alex and Roberto that I write those OAS demands myself. It is a scurrilous insinuation, showing little integrity and ethic. Despite my disagreement with Alex and Roberto, I would never imagine to assert they are trying to derail OAS, as you have done with me.
While accusing me of slander, you have yourself slandered me, without even the slightest reference, just as you hypocritically and abrasively called me an "ass", while accusing of of being "abrasive".
Harry, thus far you have created a House of Straw, perhaps with good intent, but straw nonetheless, and frightened people have sought refuge there without thought, desperate to believe those straw walls would provide them sanctuary, and even salvation. However in this season where heavy fire is assured, those straw walls need to be replaced with the Stone provided by the Constitution, so those seeking sanctuary are not consumed in conflagration.
I am not "simply finding fault", as you claim, Harry, but rather finding the only route to success.
The road to Hell is paved by good intentions, but poor execution.
Undeniably we have tremendous obstacles before us. Making those obstacles even more insurmountable, and even threatening unto us, by promoting a poorly conceived plan that invites a government noted for its absent restraint to use its full force against us, while itself having the only legitimate claim to lawfulness in that action, is not a wise path to follow.
Harry, in your last full paragraph you indicate that you have been seeking answers from legal consultants, and in prayer, but have not received those answers. Perhaps those prayerful answers have already been provided, and your own arrogance prohibits you from recognizing them.