about how the left will view Oathkeepers. How many references to “anti-government,” “militia,” “racism,” and “white supremacist group” does it take? Those people will have their own personal, private FBI agents - if they don’t already.

To me its kinda like the difference between being an alcoholic and being a drunk; a drunk doesn’t have to go to all those meetings. A patriot that doesn’t go to meetings doesn’t get on lists. As I’ve said in other posts, there are not enough activists yet that they can’t be marginalized, branded extremists, and simply exterminated if necessary, e.g., Waco and Ruby Ridge.

We reserve the right of all people everywhere to armed insurrection against tyranny.

For now, my motto is this: the pen and the sword are two sides of the same coin. Choose which one you will face.

From what I gather this is a non-violent movement. Portraying it as something else will be difficult. They should stick to a narrow focused mission statement and not let kooks and nuts spoil the well.

A simple pledge amonst the military and police classes that they will not take arms against their countrymen to follow orders deemed unconstitutional seems welcome to me. Whose the arbiter of what is unconstitutional is difficult, but I think some obvious cases.

I doubt anything will ever come. I also doubt the second amendment will ever be needed, but they are symbolic statements not to just of beaurocratic elite, but to the world. Its also a psychological blow to those with nefarious motives. Obama’s minions have a new domestic army in mind (remember that bombshell, I’m convinced Obama forgot where he was)

America is a free country, born from the bottom up, protected from the bottom up. That’s the way we’ve always protected ourselves. Our pioneer spirit lives.

Gives some Ivy Leaguers and UN beaurocrats something to think about. Plus, it will give Morris Dees a heart attack

and from what I read, they are peaceful, and not looking to start any unnecessary riots. They denounced the McVeigh type of radicalism. They are former/current police officers and military. Of course they would be on the Obama radar, and I feel certain that they are also on Nepolitano’s lists of right wing radicals. While they attract more members they need to be very aware of the nut cases out there that would do something stupid, and then the whole group would be poisned and destroyed. Then again, anyone who belongs to any of Becks groups, such as the 9/12 project, could do some stupid things and that would be reason for them to shut him up. I do get a small sense of comfort knowing that there would be police and military that would be on our side in case Obama does pull off some bad things I believe he will try to accomplish. In the town next to me, the Chief of Police was suspended, indefinately, pending an investigation. No one has a clue what he did, and there have been no leaks as to what it might be. That’s scary.

In the Drudge article, they made some reference to Ron Paul, yikes. On their website they referenced the 9/12 project, which is Becks, and, Beck has strong Libertarian leanings. They claim to be non-partisan. In a time of trouble, I wouldn’t care if they were martians, I would welcome all the help they could give. I think they are legit, and, I hope they grow across the nation.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.

Bill “Pay or Play” Richardson

Tom “I didn’t know the limo was a perk” Daschle

“TurboTax” Geithner

Nancy “I didn’t know I had to pay taxes” Killefer

Vann “Because They’re ***holes” Jones

Luis (Louis) “Why Tell The New Yorkers” Caldera

Kevin “I hope you used a condom” Jennings

Yosi “Let’s Set Up A Propaganda Mill Via The Arts” Sergant

Anita “I love Chairman Mao and we control the media” Dunn

Lobbyists: (H/T http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/STAFFING.html )
- Jan 26, 2009 - To date at least a dozen former lobbyists have been appointed top jobs in President Obama’s administration. A list of these people are
-Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby for Global Crossing Co.
-Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005
-Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as on behalf of the National Education Association.
-William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby for defense contractor Raytheon.
-Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union
-William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
-David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
-Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby Goldman Sachs.
-Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby for Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
-Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for Angliss International in 2003.
-Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
-Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Joe “I Know I Have A Much Higher IQ Than You” Biden

This list could go on, and on, and on.

Oh, and I’m an Oath Keeper. My oath to support the Constitution of the United States and to obey the legal orders of my superior officers came with no expiration date.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

is that so many of my fellow citizens feel this is necessary. And that others, while not members, can see the clear rationale behind it.

Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

That would be the United States Armed Forces, commonly referred to as “the greatest military force in human history.” It’s not as black and white as it appears but, its still capable of sending a chill down my spine. The only thing standing between that force and our liberty is their Oath to the Constitution of these United States and their loyalty to that Oath.

Where do Obama’s Czars loyalties lie? Who would you trust, one of the Czars or a member of the Oath Keepers? Would you invite Kevin Jennings into your home to have supper with your family? How about a Soldier, policeman, firefighter who also happens to believe in the principals that made us free?

Let’s take the military, for instance.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

Your oath reads:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

If you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath taker” but an “oath breaker.”

For enlisted men the rules are even clearer.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Note there isn’t an exception here for “except what some Ron Paul acolyte tells me I shouldn’t do because he thinks it is unconstitutional.”

This movement, to the extent that it is one, strikes at the heart of the relationship our military has had with the nation since 1775. Nothing good can come out of it.

Politically, giving this “movement” anything other than the boot is going to link our candidates to troofers, birthers, the black helicopter/ZOG aficionados, the Bilderburgs, the Illuminati, and heaven knows what else.

Just read what these clowns profess

and imagine a smallpox epidemic breaking out in a large city where logic dictates, and law permits, that you quarantine the city. Imagine a nuclear weapon going off and the necessity for quarantining a city to prevent radioactive materials being tracked about. How about a freakin insurrection? Jose Padilla?

We haven’t made a site decision, yet, on how to treat this phenomenon. My vote will be that we treat it the same way we treat racists and Paul-for-president types.

I think the left will hate the Oath Keepers for the wrong reasons, but that won’t stop me from avoiding them myself.

are are already constrained by law from following unlawful orders. Of course in practical terms, those giving the orders are most likely to be the judge of whether or not the order was unlawful. At least in the short run.

I see the mere existence of the Oath Keepers as not so much a preparation for an imminent Constitutional crisis as it is a political statement that there are going to be limits to the authority that the government will be allowed to exercise. It’s a little like someone saying, “We oppose the government in power, but we will use the ballot box to effect change rather than violence, unless you use force on us or try to take away our means of self defense, in which case we will use force on you.”

Chris Matthews tried on Hardball yesterday to paint them as a militia group, asking under what circumstances the Oath Keepers would be called together to oppose the government: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#33404543

I think this phenomenon ties in with what Glenn Beck referred-to as “the Bubba Effect”, a situation in which GIs have been using the Internet to tell each other that if they are ever called-on to fire on US citizens, they will refuse.

If you look at the radical changes that have been perpetrated on this country in the past couple of years, fears by many that the worst is yet to come and that a point may be reached where a significant number of people think that the country has been subverted to the point of being lost are growing, not receding.

In a way, the Oath Keepers can be viewed as something of a safety valve. If the public thinks the enforcement arm of the government will think twice before acting against them, they are less likely to become paranoid about the situation.

The “Oath” law enforcement or military members make is to the constitution. Not to the occupant of the White House or the governors mansion or the mayors office.

Any soldier or law enforcement officer that follows an order they personally believe is unconstitutional is in fact an oath breaker. No matter who tells them to do it. A government that would ask them to defer all thinking to a person instead of the law is laying the groundwork for tyranny.

Practically anybody will act in ways both unlawful or just plain stupid if ordered to do so by someone in authority. This has been proven time after time in study after study. People almost always defer to authority unless they have reached a predetermined decision contrary to the order in advance of the order.

That seems to be the purpose of Oath Keepers. Whether you agree with every point they make or not; the people in and out of law enforcement and/or the military better be asking themselves the same kinds of questions as the Oath Keepers.

Whether or not you sign their pledge you better know your answers to the questions.

It is highly unlikely Hitler could have done what he was able to do if the people of Germany had been asking and answering questions like these in advance.

With the choices he has made in appointments and statements he has made Obama has made his intentions pretty clear.

I am very heartened that others are doing the same.

If the civil officers of the federal government had been asking and acting on questions like these we would not have the mess we have today.

Instead we are stuck with a federal government that no longer bothers to even try to defend it’s unconstitutional acts.

Which branch of the federal government can be trusted to adhere to the constitution?
Not One.

Would but that every government employee would hold the constitution up as a guide.