« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement

Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers

By: streiff (Diary)  |  October 21st, 2009 at 02:22 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA


Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.

At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

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

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

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” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

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

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.

In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high. But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

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.”

Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, 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 keeper” but an “oath breaker.”

For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.

“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.”

Read it again, slowly and carefully:

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.

As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored. The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?

In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.

My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d never have thought of the oath breaking aspect, which changes the tone of the whole website.

    • http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamgainey billg

      of the United States and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. The enlisted take an oath to support the officers appointed above them. The Constitution is the object of the military to defend, not George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush or Barrack H Obama! And if one of those individuals act extra constitutionally beyond Article 2 or the Amendments thereto, then Officers and Enlisted have a moral obligation to ignore “Unlawful” orders. This is where a Politician becomes extra constitutional and tries to “dictate” beyond the consitution and therefore is now an unconstitutional entity of our Constitutional Republic Form of Government. To quote Charlton Heston, “from my cold dead hand”! Bring them home!!!

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        You’re not one of those pacifist creeps are you?

        • http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamgainey billg

          Just one of those “patriotic creeps” who believes that if you have troops in the field to fight, you fight to win! Remember the POLITICAL WAR in South Vietnam, the Police Action in S. Korea, etc, etc, etc. The last real war the USA fought to win was WWII. I’ve seen the death and destruction and don’t wish to attend another funeral that the person died in vain for some stupid, inept, cowardly, politican. NOT ANOTHER DROP, YOU HEAR?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Get a haircut you hippy. Some of us don’t want 9/11 to happen again.

          • http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamgainey billg

            I wear a slick side GI cut the same as I did 40 years ago on active duty! Do you not understand that our DOJ now is the primary interrogator of any “criminals who are found at home or abroad on the field of battle”. No more terrorism, Neil! Just criminals who hope to hurt us because of all the terrible things the USA has done to the downtrodden of the world! Do you wear a “blue beret of the UN”, Neil? Politics, Neil, politics, and to bring the USA into the New World Order of the one world government of the UN where the USA is just another 3rd world country, Neil.

            Bring our military and intelligence forces home to the good ole USA. We need them here and now to remove the communists which have infiltrated our Federal government.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Yeah, I had that game too when I was in high school. But I realized it was a game.

    • farstar99

      “(we?ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to ?disarm? Americans).”

      Sorry, but did you consult a history book before writing that?

      • Streiff

        it is discussed downthread in detail. There was never any attempt by the Brits to disarm Americans.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    On almost all counts. Thank God there are some people who will refuse an unlawful order.

    oh BTW the mission of the Redcoat army that marched on Concord was indeed to confiscate weapons.

    • Streiff

      1. You disobey a lawful order at your own risk. None of the activities on the Oath Keeper website are illegal.

      2. If you want large bodies of armed men deciding on their own which orders are legal and which are not that’s fine. Just don’t inflict that kind of Third World army on the rest of us.

      3. Your history jujitsu is very weak. The British were going to confiscate an arsenal owned by the state of Massachusetts. At no point during the American Revolution did the British try to confiscate individual weapons.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        the well regulated militia and all that.

        You say these people are extreme but your arguments are really the extreme ones. You give the example of what would happen in an emergency like a hurricane but that is a red herring.

        In a natural disaster all of the soldiers will do as they are told because there is no obvious attempt by people in power of acting unconstitutionally.

        So tell me, was that Chinese tank driver wrong to disobey orders when he didn’t crush that guy with the grocery bags flat?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Double Facepalm

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            nt

        • Streiff

          which are included for the purposes of discussion, not to amuse me by playing with html, you’d see what you call “red herrings” are only red herrings if you’ve just come out of a multi-year coma or are being willfully ignorant.

          The Civil War established states can’t secede from the Union contra “oath keeper” point 5.

          The Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded without the direct use of federal troops without the consent of the state government, contra “oath keeper” point 4.

          If you are comfortable taking the left’s point of view on Jose Padilla while taking the side of Orval Faubus on segregation and Jeff Davis on slavery feel free because that is what this group is doing.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            I do think that the civil war was entirely unlawful and non constitutional. And that puts me in the same boat with a very large group of scholars.

            But your example of what happens in a natural disaster was a red herring. It would just not happen the way you laid it out, that is fantastical.

            Really we are arguing about all manner of things that are highly unlikely to happen. I just would like to think that if worse came to worse and the lefties decide that they had to get hard, that a majority of our people would disobey them.

          • Streiff

            showed what happens when the federal government waits until a state government agrees to ask for federal troops.

            C’mon that was only a few years ago. Blanco wouldn’t ask for federal troops for political reasons and Bush wouldn’t send them in without her asking. You think that was a good idea? I’ll bet there are thousands of folks in Louisiana who’d disagree with you.

            Really we are arguing about all manner of things that are highly unlikely to happen. I just would like to think that if worse came to worse and the lefties decide that they had to get hard, that a majority of our people would disobey them.

            Bingo. The “oath keeper” notion is nothing more than another Ron Paul conspiracy theory in more socially acceptable garb. The crap they are taking an oath against either can’t happen or it is settled law and you’re going to go to jail if you disobey an order to do it. It is a scam but it is a scam that is going to get us tarred the way the militia movement in the early 90s let the Clintons label anyone who opposed them an extremist.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            whether troops are called out in an emergency or not is a matter of either a political decision or just a mistake, it has nothing to do with
            crushing political opposition or killing civilians (who are not looters or firing at you).

            Again, you say it is a kook movement that will embarrass us, I say you are the one who is making a big deal about it and overreacting.

          • Streiff

            I think the people who are going along with this kookery who are the danger to us and by not calling this bunch out on the fundamental wrongness of what they are doing we are going to be stuck with this tarbaby before 2012.

            You know they have been on several TV news shows, right? It isn’t like they’re trying to keep a low profile.

          • Bob_Frazier

            All the Civil War proved is that the Confederacy could not secede from the Union in 1865 because it lacked the military power. It proves nothing else. If Massachusetts was to declare its independence today, I would take my Bonnie Blue Flag up there and support their right to leave the union. NYC too. So #5 works.

            As for #4, then you support the use of military force to impose the values of the governing class on others? No matter how you feel about discrimination in the south at that time, that is really what happened. So you are ok with that, even if its for a “cause” you disagree with?

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited t it by the States, are reserved to it by the States respectively, or the people”

            The civil war proved nothing other than the South elected to prosecute war based on the false premise that only “certain” men were born free and thus the laws of Nature and Nature’s God were not aligned with them…period.. Lincoln himself believed that ultimately the Right of Secession was secure to the individual and thus the state that arose from those individuals to quote:

            ?Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right ? a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any such portion may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or old laws; but to break up both and make new ones.? – Abraham Lincoln

            You also look to the primary foundational document, The Declaration of Independence” which states:

            When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            This preamble specifically recognizes the right for individuals to cast off bonds between them when these bonds become no longer acceptable among them. It further recognizes this as a right granted by the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God”. In other words, there is no supremacy over individual rights formed on the foundation of the acts of the Federal Government nor the document giving it rise.

            The Federal Government, all three Branches have been acting extra-constitutionally for quite some time. I agree that the better course of action at this point is a Constitutional Convention to reign in these usurpations and install controls to prevent them recurring.

            That said, the ultimate decision to maintain the Union falls to the citizens, which the founders, to a man believed would always be more posessed of good intention than an all powerful government. They further recognized that the common citizen must be made responsible for maintaining there rights and freedoms within a government acting constitutionally and without that is why the oath is to the Constitution and thus, while you see a specific reference in the oath sworn by enlisted men to “obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me”, there is no similar bond to the Officers in the oath that they swear. Officers were left to understand that ultimately the Constitution, in it’s pure form, not “interpreted” to the benefit of those issuing forth on self interest, was to be their ultimate guide. Restating Lincoln:

            “

            Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government”

            The arrogant and powerful elite in this country are placing far too value and stock in that word “power”. They arrogantly believe in the supremacy of their poisoned self philosophy. Such it has been the permanent bane of man thruout history that the majority of its troubles result from the few trying to assert their arrogant self proclaimed power on the whole.

            It is also true that the ultimate strength of the rights of the individual has been its’ success in (albeit slowly) casting off the brutality of that same arrogant oppression. That same truth will prevail here.

            However, in the end…all individuals and the states that arise from the agreements that may arise between them and specifically inform the foundation of the rights of the Federal Government (not the other way around) have the ultimate and supreme right of secession. They only need be possessed of the will.

          • Streiff

            the issue of federalism was decided in 1865. States can’t secede. You may not like it but making this argument doesn’t make it seem like you keep up much on current affairs.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            I assure you, Federalism was decided for me by the Constitution, not the Civil War and if the Federal Government does not receed back to its role as defined by the Constitution (not any government entity acting extra-constitutionally) it will face another crisis of Secession. So you are saying that the Federal Government is all powerful because it won the Civil War?

            So what you mean is that in the act of defeating the notion that owning slaves was an issue to be determined by the States, that the Tenth Amendment was rendered irrelevant thus making us all slaves to the Federal Government? WTF?

            I can assure you that I am positive that there are more than 165 million people in this country that would not subscribe to that view. Additionally, a great many of them are in the Military and a HUGE majority of them own multiple guns.

          • Streiff

            who are totally ignorant of American jurisprudence since 1865.

            I don’t think you’re an idiot but you are certainly acting like one by pretending that any significant number of people believe states are autonomous entities. They aren’t. You know it. I know it. So stop making stupid arguments that really reflect poorly on you.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            your response is to start to disparage the right of free speech and thought. You have revealed yourself to be malignantly corroded by the oppressive logic cast by enemies of freedom.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            there are indeed a great many people “who are totally ignorant of American jurisprudence since 1865.” A great many of them (who would make your same argument) among them.

            You want to cast the role of Positive law as superior to that of Natural Law or the God of Natures law. So clearly, you do not believe in the Constitution nor any of its foundational basis enumerated by the Jefferson, Madison et. al. So you are basing your argument on the superiority of the Federal Government over the Constitution on the basis of the positive law that only finds legitimacy under the Constitution. You also ignore the history of man prior to the writing of the Constitution. Do you subscribe that the “superiority of the Federal Government” over the States now ends history, the world will now forever live in stasis?

          • Streiff

            the weakness is that your argument stopped being valid at Appomattox and outside of a few militia groups no one reads the 10th amendment the way you do. And instead of having the courage to admit that is the case, you simply become more strident defending a profoundly silly and historically false belief set.

            You are free to believe whatever you wish and I am free to laugh at you for believing it.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            I remained a gentleman throughout the argument while you chose the course more expectant of a Democrat.

        • Joshua Persons

          I’m confident that right or wrong, the tank driver broke his oath as a member of the Chinese military.

          Streiff is correct to point out that the “Oath Keeper” organization advocates the opposite of its name. Is it right or wrong to break an oath? Depends on the situation at hand. But a promise to break an oath is just cognitive dissonance.

      • rwalkerg

        ?I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

        While I think they are over zealous, and have their wires crossed, this is probably the basis for all this.

        • Streiff

          but if the Reformation proved anything it is that the “every man a Pope” idea isn’t all that great in practice.

          The idea that anyone, unlike the Oath Keeper founder and his board of directors, who is bound by an oath can ignore the oath because of another oath is simply a license for anarchy.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            besides you ignore another possible good outcome of the oath keeper movement.

            It might make would be power abusers in government thin twice before they issue unlawful orders.

          • Streiff

            I guess 40,000 protestant denominations proves that was a good idea, eh?

            To the point, why wouldn’t they just throw you in jail and get someone who would obey the orders? You think they’re going to be restrained by a bunch of Walter Mittys woofing about their “oath”?

          • aesthete

            Not to make this a religious argument, but your throwaway line on Protestants is akin to a communist sneering, “I guess the 4,000 retailers in America is proof positive that capitalism works!”

          • sargeantshooter

            If you accept the fact that nobody else will stand with you at the Lord’s Judgement, then it is in your interest, indeed the most important thing you decide in your life what the Lord has told you to do. This isn’t something that gets changed by telling the Lord “the Pope told me it was alright to do what I did”. The same holds true of the Oath Keepers. This is a decision they must reach on their own. Just ask the courts at Nuremberg if each German wasn’t responsible for his actions.

          • Finrod

            But you’re out of line with this one, Streiff:

            I guess 40,000 protestant denominations proves that was a good idea, eh?

            Every man stands before God on Judgement Day by himself, not as a member of any denomination or religion. Do you really think you could stand before the Almighty and use ‘The Pope told me to (do/not do) X’ as an excuse?

          • nessa

            “It might make would be power abusers in government think twice before they issue unlawful orders.”

            Your analogy using Washington and the post revolution Continental Army is apt but I would use another time and place. In 1861 President Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to then LTC Robert E. Lee. A 30 year veteran of the United States Army, Lee had begun his career under General Winfield Scott in the Mexican American War and most recently had led the troops that quashed John Brown’s Rebellion in 1959. His native State of Virginia had seceded from the Union and two days after Lincoln’s offer Lee penned the following missive to his mentor and former Commander, General Scott:

            “Genl,
            Since my interview with you on the 18th Inst: I have felt that I ought not longer to retain any Commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has Cost me to separate myself from a Service to which I have divoted all the best years of my life, & all the ability I possessed. During the whole of that time, more than a quarter of a century, I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors & the most Cordial friendships from any Comrades. To no one Genl have I been as much indebted as to yourself for kindness & Consideration & it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry with me, to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind Consideration, & your name & fame will always be dear to me. Save in the defense of my native state shall I never again draw my sword. Be pleased to accept any more [illegible] wishes for ?the Continuance of your happiness & prosperity & believe me

            Most truly yours
            R E Lee

            I hope no member of the US Armed Forces is ever faced with such a decision again. But if they are, if the military is used in any politically questionable method, inside the United States, member of the Oath Keepers or not, each Soldier would be forced to make their own decision. My g/g/great grandfather fought for the Union and I couldn’t bring myself to denigrate Lee for his decision.

            If the Oath Keepers warn a few avaricious politicians that such an act will not be blindly accepted I will gladly support their quest.

          • Streiff

            he being part of the Holy Trinity of my home state (along with Jackson and Stuart).

            And he did that before a Ron Paul acolyte formed a group to tell him his duty. I don’t think our troops today have devolved to a level of imbecility where the oath keepers are going to be all that useful

          • nessa

            You know as well as I, that our Citizen Soldiers have never been big on blindly following orders. I don’t foresee that changing any time soon.

            Thanks for posting and sponsoring this dust up, it’s been the liveliest thread I’ve seen in a while. It made us think, that’s never a bad thing and I haven’t had a disagreement with a LTC since I retired, I forgot how much fun that could be!

            I guess you don’t get to choose your home State’s Holy Trinity, I like Stuart as much as the next guy but he was cavalry. “10,000 Cavalrymen haven’t been born who don’t quake with fear at the sight of a dozen Infantry bayonets” WT Sherman.

          • Achance

            changed the relationship of infantry to cavalry. See, e.g., Heth v. Buford at Gettysburg.

          • nessa

            …10,000 years ago when the first Neanderthal picked up a rock and killed his neighbor for the bigger cave, he invented the Infantry. Then some damn Greek has a bright idea and puts a few of his buddies on horses, and the next thing you know they ride in on pretty horses with feathers in their hats and we’re left walking down the trail all dusty, dirty, sweaty, tired and angry. It just ain’t right.

          • Achance

            I might take trudging in the dust over that.

            The repeating rifle essentially turned the Union cavalry into mounted infantry that used the horse for transport and fought dismounted; they got pretty good at it even if it lacked the glamour of the saber and all that. The once dashing CS Cavalry died a slow painful death in the face of mounted infantry tactics, repeating rifles, and the dearth of serviceable horses after ’63 and the closure of the Mississippi to most CS supply.

          • Achance

            resignations. I’ve always been loyal to whoever was signing my paycheck but when I decided I no longer could accept their paycheck I resigned and I was more than happy to unleash Hell on them.

      • Vegas_Rick

        As a veteran, I am more than a little insulted to learn that if my brothers and sisters in arms refuse to obey an unlawful order, they will be no better than a Third world army.

        IF the military were ordered to shut down Fox News, should they obey? Would they? Is that REALLY so far fetched, based on Obama’s actions and history?

        Remember, IF this were ever to happen, it would be because of a manufactured crisis. Our troops are smarter than that.

        • Vegas_Rick

          is their ability to improvise and think on their feet. The military wants people who ask why and undertake critical reasoning. We don’t want an army of mindless autobots. What happens when they get cut off from communication? Walk in circles?

          As to the oath:

          “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.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

          You’ll notice it says “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

          No if you READ the UCMJ, you’ll see that it, VERY CLEARLY, deliniates what consitutes an unlawfull order. If you were to READ it, it would sound very similar to the 10 orders listed in this diary. The wording is far different, but the meanings are the same.

          • Streiff

            No if you READ the UCMJ, you?ll see that it, VERY CLEARLY, deliniates what consitutes an unlawfull order. If you were to READ it, it would sound very similar to the 10 orders listed in this diary. The wording is far different, but the meanings are the same.

            That is just crap.

            The UCMJ does no such thing. What the UC MJ is clear on is the presumption that every order you receive is legal and you place yourself in grave jeopardy if you play the role of constitutional scholar and disobey an order.

            There is a clear regime established for challenging an illegal order but the UCMJ is also clear that if you challenge the order and are still told it is legal you are obligated to comply with the order while you appear further up the chain.

          • MNConservative

            More than once you’ve used the phrase “play the role of constitutional scholar”. This is America… we are ALL constitutional scholars, whether we realize it or not. The Constitution wasn’t written in some sort of code accessible only to the priestly class. It was written in plain English so that everyone can understand, and hold their government accountable.

            This is actually reminiscent of the debate between Catholics and Protestants on the accessibility of the Bible…

          • Streiff

            is that all scholars are not equal.

            The Constitution is pretty clear on who makes the laws (see Article I) and we’ve pretty well agreed since Marbury v Madison that the courts are allowed to review those laws. There is no place in our political tradition that you’ll find the idea of each person deciding which laws they will and will not obey because of their own views of their constitutionality.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            is foolish and dangerous. Cast your self as a slave but leave me out of it. So if you think the Supreme Court is infallable? How about Dred Scott, How about MCain-Feingold.

            They are as human as all of the rest of us. Your argument is best refuted by the election of Obama. Today he would not receive even 44 percent of the vote. I will again point to the word of Lincoln regarding the right of peoples to seced. If he has not the experience to pronounce on the subject, no one in this government can claim it. I will also cite this:

            “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,1789)

            The only perpetuity of a federation of states or individuals is the perpetuity of the day. Once the faith of the governed is lost, I assure you the “all powerful” Federal Government of your fantasy becomes impotent.

            Your logic lays on the foundation that because the Federal Government fought the Civil War and won, that now, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is now made irrelevant. Are you saying now that the Constitution is irrelevent and made subservient to a supposedly “all powerful” Federal Government.

            You will see the folly of that revealed in the coming years when the “all powerful” Federal Government you have so much faith in is so broke it can no longer pay it soldiers and, according to some factions plans and wishes runs to the arms of the United Nations to cast itself into obeiscence. I for one will not follow it at that moment. I think a majority in this country will not. I hope that is true.

          • Streiff

            1. Dred Scott was a triumph of states rights. If you read the Constitution. I quote here from Article IV Section 2 of the pre Civil War Constitution

            No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

            So if you like Dred Scott, then you are on the right track. If you don’t like it and don’t like Jim Crow then you are advocating a belief system that supported both slavery and segregation.

            2. My logic says that we have 140 years of case law since the Civil War, law that exists despite the fact that you don’t like it, that says federal laws and the federal constitution trump state sovereignty. To argue otherwise marks oneself as a flipping idiot..

            3. I have said nothing about th 10th Amendment other than observe that it doesn’t mean what you say it means and it hasn’t since the Reconstruction.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            Particularly in that it ignored the natural right of all men to be free. You still want to lay your arguments on the positive law established in Case Law and ignore the Natural Law of men to be free to the exclusion of all other laws.

            When I cite Lincolns affirmation of that (even though you chose to base your entire argument on Lincoln’s winning of the Civil war, you strangely ignore those same words. Hmmm. Again, you devolve into non-civil discourse. Your behavior is more akin to those of a troll.

            As to what the 10h Amendment says – what language do your speak? The written version is clear enough to me. I am assuming you are a lawyer who only wishes to argue over any meaning not your own interpretation.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            apparently, based on his comments to me..he thinks that all of us who have a different view than him are to quote, “idiots”.

          • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

            This is the statement issued by Virginai on acceptance of the Constitution:

            WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

            Seems there were a great many people that reserved this view, the Representatives of Virginia and Lincoln himself that you should give some pause to pronouncing the Constitution dead and subservient to the Federal Government.

          • Streiff

            reserved the right to secede from the Union. I had a couple of dozen male ancestors who fought to defend that right.

            Regardless of how right they may have been at the time, that train has long since pulled out of the station and the facts have changed.

            This, actually, is an excellent case in point. Some states thought they could secede. Depending on which Founding Father you like they were either right or wrong. The Federal government contested their decision on the battlefield and prevailed. The view that they can secede today is a fringe view with no legal scholarship or cases underpinning it.

        • Streiff

          of members of the military taking any oath other than the oath of enlistment/commissioning you really have no reason to be insulted. In Third World countries you find the armies aligned with political factions. That is what this group is doing for reasons that aren’t all that clear beyond media whoring.

      • Achance

        I’ve fired a fair share of employees for refusing an order that they “thought” was illegal. I’m sure it is easier to prosecute a soldier under UCMJ that it is to discipline or dismiss a unionized government employee. There’s a reason the enlisted oath offers no discretion. The officers are another matter but they don’t have the option of remaining an officer and refusing an order.

        But, to the point of the title, if Comrade Obama’s thugs were to try what I’m sure some of them would like to try, they don’t need the military. The civilian government has its own highly militarized bodyguarrd in the FBI, Secret Service, BATF, DHS etc. Hell, the Department of Commerce probably has a SWAT Team with helicopters and APCs just in case somebody removes a mattress tag without authorization.

        Interesting, for a Party that just loves to gut the military and reduce its troop strength, the Democrats are kinda stuck with keeping soldiers in the ranks and keeping them busy somewhere. Next thing you know we’ll have them doing the modern version of building Hadrian’s Wall between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because, the very last thing Comrade Obama wants is a bunch of well trained, agressive young soldiers coming home in this economy. Give me some disillusioned former soldiers who can’t find decent jobs, a little walking around money, and before long, I assure you I’d have a force to be reckoned with.

        There could be some very interesting conflicts should there be some sort of disturbance and the US wanted to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of a State governor. But, if we were dealing with stuff like that, we’d be teetering on the brink of full tilt insurrection anyway.

    • Richard Mullins

      when I went in to the Air Force(only in for 3 weeks during basic), I had to take the same oath that my dad did years earlier. Same oath and the same wording. No exemption for disobeying a direct order.That bit of lawful and unlawful orders comes much later in your service(orders of the president are never to be disobeyed). You might want to understand that first. Just letting you know.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        I didn’t say that there would be no consequences for taking such a stand And I hope that the oath keepers all understand that.

        But some people would rather go to prison or be shot than to do something they know to be wrong.

        Besides, despite your oath or the military code, if you do obey orders that happen to conflict with either US law, or the Geneva convention then you will also suffer consequences.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    But just to touch on one point

    “… mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to ?disarm? Americans.”

    It is well known that the lobsterbacks were marching to the Lex/Con area to capture powder and weapons. Till the very end, the militia was scurrying and burying their precious supplies. They were also looking for a few leaders, but their whole march was an exercise in intimidation with the express purpose of finding weapons cache. It was to the Brits great lament that they found nothing.

    I dont know if you were referring to the use of the term “American”. Yes they wre still loyal to the British corwn at that point, but both parties referred to the colonials as Americans.

    • Streiff

      read what is on the Oath Keeper website then critique what I’ve written.

      • Swamp_Yankee

        I still dont see it.

        There was no “state of Massachusetts”, only the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the weapons were not purchased by the state as referenced in an above response. In fact, the Governor, Hutchinson, was a loyalist. That wasa private militia cache. The mass marched because the cache was big, but it was still private stockpil of the Minutmen. Then ransacked houses and if they took an individual gun heare and there, it was probably not significant to make history. It was an effort to disarm the Minutemen.

        • Streiff

          over some of this. Massachusetts isn’t a state today, it’s a commonwealth.

          I think all the governors were loyalists as they were Crown appointees, with the exception of the proprietorial colonies. If that means anything it escapes me unless your point is that the Revolution didn’t actually happen because all the militia were under the command of Loyalists.

          The governor of Virginia was also a loyalist and the same type of incident happened with the “state:” armory in Williamsburg as happened at Concord except that we moved our stuff before the British arrived.

          The minutemen were the “state” militia. The arms in question included cannon,.

          To the point

          1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

          The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

          I think even you’d be able to agree that this paragraph is a misrepresentation of history.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            … of the UMass variety (Alumni 96). And I literally live on top of Bunker Hill. I know my state is a Commonwealth and that the Minutemen were the militia. I’ve traveled the short road to Lexington and Concord many times for my own personal love of history. But there was no state armory there. It was a private weapons cache.

            Its a bit simplistic and maybe over the top. But I dont know if what they wwrite is factually innaccurate

          • Streiff

            but you don’t know if it is factually inaccurate to say they were out to disarm “the people” when you’ve just said they were after a weapons cache?

          • Swamp_Yankee

            The people does not mean an individual. And disarming doesnt mean ctaking individual guns. The people, private citizens, were worried about British transgressions. The had arms that they pooled together and stored. Just because the British didnt take individual arms from individual people doenst mean they disarm the people.

            If a bunch of private citizens started a hunting club and bought a highly secure piece of property, where they stored some guns and ammo and the Feds went their, confiscated the guns and bunr the the place down, I would say that they disarmed the people,even though it was a weapons cache.

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

            The full title is “The Minutemen: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution.”

            This is part of Gen. Gage’s order (it was preserved) to “Lieut. Coll. Smith, 10th Regiment Foot” (at p. 100):

            “Having received Intelligence, that a Quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

            “You have a Draught of Concord, on which it is marked, the Houses, Barns, &c., which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if it is found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower, must be shook out of the Barrells into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise, and the Men may put Balls or Lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards.”

            Here’s what Gen. Galvin reports was in Concord and where it was (p. 140):

            “It is hard to realize what a prospect [that is, the town of Concord being searched by Gage's troops] such a search presented to the provincials without some idea of what was actually stored in Concord at that time. . . . Within the town, scattered though the cellars and attics and outbuildings of at least twenty-five houses, the provincials had concealed ten tons of musket balls and cartridges, thirty-five half barrels of powder, 350 tents, fourteen medicine chests, eighty barrels of beef, eight and a half tons of salt fish, seventeen and a half tons of rye, 318 barrels of flour, 100 barrels of salt, twenty bushels of oatmeal, nineteen sets of harness, and hundreds of spades, axes, canteens, wooden spoons and dishes, plus candles, matches, butter, reams of cartridge paper and other stores — besides, of course, a substantial number of cannon and gun carriages of varying sizes. The major part of the collected supplies for the Provincial Army, minus that which had been hastily carried away in the past twenty-four hours, was stored in the homes of Concord. This is what [Concord Colonel James] Barrett knew he had to defend.”

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior
            www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            … that Streif did not have a response to this. Kind of deflates his arguement.

          • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

            To say that the British were not marching to Lexinton and Concord to disarm individuals is splitting hairs. The arms and ammunition were not being gathered with the approval and consent of the state but by a group of people intent on defending their rights. To say that they were not individual arms because the people had formed a group is well… mind boggling.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            to degrade the military capacity of the colonials.
            The purpose was to “effectively” disarm the people and to remove their capacity to effectively resist British subjugation.
            It is pretty reasonable to say their purpose was to disarm the people.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            to degrade the military capacity of the colonials.
            The purpose was to “effectively” disarm the people and to remove their capacity to effectively resist British subjugation.
            It is pretty reasonable to say their purpose was to disarm the people.

  • penguin2

    I wondered if your stand had had something to do with the oath one swears as a member of the military. They would have to resign from the military first. Both my husband and myself, took a very similar oath as commissioned Naval officers.

    One would hope it would not come down to this kind of thing. As it is now, it does sound like people are going wild on their conspiracy fears. I appreciate your explanation.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      resigning as soon as they receive an unconstitutional order. After all if they obey it they put themselves in jeopardy anyway.

      • penguin2

        order. Maybe I am confused. But if it reaches the point where the Constitution itself is being torn to bits, literally, then we are in world of hurt. Truly I don’t believe the military would fire on unarmed civilians in this country. Americans have a very low tolerance for that kind of thing. Even if some were armed, well than you are talking about all out civil war.

        I just can’t go there in my thinking. We have to let reason and calmness guide us. I do have trust and faith in the Conservatives that we are looking to for leadership, guidance and advice, that they know what is going on and are no fools. They are just trying to keep any of our side from being foolish. We don’t want to give the Left any more reason to move against us, than they have already manufactured. We are fighting the media battle, the ‘net battle, the Health Care battle, and so on.

        I want to believe that we are stronger than the Left and can beat them at their own game, by doing just what we are doing. If we are not successful, then I doubt we will be alone in the uproar.

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          as I stated I think this is an argument about things that are not likely to ever happen, and I hope to God they do not. But i would say that if you got orders, for instance to fire into a crowd of peaceful protesters. or to violate posse comitatus and as a military person raid a newspaper or radio station and arrest people. those would all be unlawful orders.

          And you WOULD be subject to prosecution if you obeyed them.

          • Streiff

            I’d hope that we don’t have another Kent State but sometimes you have to do what you have to do and rarely are the facts clear cut. Let’s not forget that John Adams successfully defended some of the British soldiers tried for their part in the Boston Massacre,

            Posse comitatus is not a Constitutional issue. It is a federal law and could be set aside by either the Congress or courts.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            If these orders were based on a situation where “legally”, and I put that in quotes because we’re seeing it happen before our eyes today, where Congress along with the President impose a form of law, where it is later affirmed by SCOTUS and cite “foreign law” as their precedent for the action… which they have done already in a number of cases where it was CLEARLY Unconstitutional…

            How or who would prosecute the soldier for his actions since it would be based on a “rubber stamp” from a “Kangaroo” court and considered “legal”? The process that governs us can be used to impose something that is clearly dictatorial in nature. The Federal Government already operates outside Article 1 Sec 8… so the leap to the scenario above is not that far fetched.

            Right now we have a “diversity czar” at the FCC who advocates some form of state control of the media, and is looking to impose government sanctions on the use of the airwaves for “appropriate” content. Citing Chavez, and others who control the media in their countries. What if legislation were introduced that did just that sort of thing and signed by Obama, which he would if he had the chance. If the system is usurped as it certainly starts to appear to be by those who have an agenda that isn’t in keeping with the Constitution, what then?

            A President who call the document flawed…
            A Congress who sees it as an obstruction (I’ve heard Chuck Schumer say on WABC in NY years ago say “If it wasn’t for the Constitution, we could get a lot of things done”… Really…)
            A SCOTUS who is so broken even and has occasionally cited “foreign law” which was unheard of in its history until this time.

            So who will be the check on the Fed if it comes to that? I saw Streiff talk about the Civil War and what not…

            Ok here is a scenario for you… Montana has a provision in the compact it made with the US at the time of its admission as a state that the right to arms is an individual right. It has been affirmed by Heller, however what happens when Obama imposes some form of gun confiscation thru other means based on a trumped up “emergency”… “natural disaster” or “insurrection” as Streiff calls it in the “operating area”… if Montana saw this as a means to deny the right to arms… it decided to secede. Would it be “legal” to invade Montana to “maintain order”?

            Streiff, you may be a career Infantry Officer, but there are vets here who all have served and know the score. You have a right to refuse an order that you may find “unlawful” and yes the burden of proof is on that person… but they ALSO have the right to refuse an order they find MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE!! That VIOLATES their GOOD CONSCIENCE! FIRING on American Citizens, or confiscating anything would be just that moral objection for me.

            Any soldier who believes in what this country stands for truly… and sees what is happening as many do.. will have the right to stand down on those moral grounds…

            For all you know… if Obama can’t get his “National Force Just as powerful as the US Military”… they could revoke Comitatus with legislation.

            Our Rights are from GOD, Codified in the Constitution, They are NOT subject to “regulation” by the government. PERIOD!

  • Ausonius

    Such an excuse did not cut it at Nuremberg, and allowed Communists to slaughter c. 70 to 100 million people, most famously in recent times the ones who followed orders at Tiennamen Square. If fewer Russian and Chinese soldiers had broken their oaths to the Communist Parties, 20th Century History would be less bloody.

    I would hope that American soldiers could tell the difference between upholding the Constitution and carrying out orders that are immoral.

    • Streiff

      1.8 million armed men deciding on a one-by-one basis what is Constitutional?

      • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

        But neither would I want 1.8 million autobots mindlessly following orders and making war on the Constitution and this country’s citizens. I have always believed that one of our greatest protections against tyranny was the duty of our Armed Forces to protect and defend the Constitution and the people over the wishes of the government.

        That being said, you are correct in warning against falling off the cliff into extremism. It is counterproductive, even foolish, to “prepare” our military to disobey orders based on the irrational fear that Obama will go to such violent lengths to socialize our country. Doing so simply takes our eyes off of productive and meaningful efforts to oppose his policies…and correctly brands those who do as wingnuts.

        • Streiff

          you either have one or the other.

          As George Patton said, you either have total discipline or indiscipline.

          The last time the military got actively involved in deciding constitutional issues was when Southern officers resigned their commissions in 1860/61. Even then, they took the honorable way out of resigning and not trying to keep their job while deciding which orders they could be persuaded to obey.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            Based on your arguements Streiff, you would follow every order to the letter… so warrantless searches for any reason? 3 people get H1N1 in a school in Texas, and they impose a quarantine and send in National Guard, or ObamaForce to do confiscations of firearms and place the populous under house arrest. That sit well with you? the White House Chief of Staff has said “never let a good emergency go to waste”… I take it you’d “autobot” and follow orders.

            BTW… Those at Nuremberg are a classic example of what we’re talking about. The only way they could’ve been prosecuted was simply because the Nazi government was destroyed. The victors in the conflict conducted the prosecutions..

            HOWEVER, for the defendents… their orders were based the LAW OF THEIR LAND!

            The same can be said here in the US. If certain actions are codified then it would make orders based on that codification “legal”

          • Streiff

            that is not the tradition of the American military, a tradition that supersedes the “oath keepers” by 250 years

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            Streiff is right…

            We should not particpate in Oath Keepers, or any other organizational mechanism that we see may interfere with the nullification of the Constitution nor any organization that would unilaterally defy anything the Fed does.

            All orders are legal regardless.. because any law can be made to back up a “legal” order… so everything that the government does is legal, and any order issued by the Federal Gov’t to State/Local Law Enforcement or any other entity is legal.

            Fascism was legal in Italy, Nazism was legal in Germany, Mao’s government was legal in China, Stalin’s was legal in Russia.

            All these are legal here now. We should dare not to question the legality Constitutionally since we don’t know enough but the Fed does.

            And we as Americans don’t know what’s good for us since our Rights are only on paper… The Founding Father’s were seditionists and Revolutionary criminals… Heaven forbid we take anything the Founding Father’s said seriously.

            What did Barack Obama say during the Philly debates? Oh yes…

            “…just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

            So its ok for them to make laws to deny anything they see fit. Rights… you mean privileges… Geez what were we thinking?

            What’s really scary is things like this:

            “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

            Thinking like this could land you in jail or worse… shot.

          • Hooah_Mac

            You think that your caricature of the modern political environment is somehow relevant to the discussion?

            President Obama is wrong, we get that. Bad laws are written all the time, we get that. We aren’t as free as we once were, we get that too.

            But to jump to the conclusion that we are in a police state and unless our military personnel sign a list of external rules we’ll all be shot and put in gulags is not just a stretch, it is absurd beyond definition.

            I have issues with this thread and the way it has been argued, but you are either not serious about discussing or you are living in tin foil hat land, because this last post of yours is way out there.

            Personal advice, go get some coffee and think real hard about who exactly you think you are convincing, then leave this thread and spend your energy somewhere positive. Just my advice.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            I was being extremely heavy on the sarcasm…

            But nope… I’m not convincing anyone nor attempting too… I’m giving up…

            I’ve come to the realization that there is nothing we can do period. Oath Keepers is a waste of time, or any other effort for that matter.

            You can’t fight what’s coming, and no one has the stomach for it I think. The thing I find chilling is something my mother said and has been saying repeatedly for awhile now… “I can’t believe I’m seeing this twice in my lifetime”…

            What is she referring too? She’s German, along with my father who was Jungen during that time, my entire family, grandparents, grand uncles/aunts, and my parents were there during WW2 under the Nazis. If anyone knows what that looks like its them, in her view she sees it again, right down to Obama’s rhetoric, and I heard all the stories growing up. Anyone here can poopoo that as whatever… but she knows, and to me that’s all that matters, and anyone that says anything to the contrary doesn’t know what they’re talking about AT ALL! I’ll put her experience up against your “opinion” any day.

            Funny… I even youtubed some of Hitler’s speeches and reading the subtitles (I never learned german) and getting passed the nitwittery of the racial BS, listening to the ‘central planning’ worker blah blah blah, you can’t help but find the parallel in the messaging. That’s the socialist part. And the reason it took hold then is for the same reasons now… someone promising to put something in their hand be it Health Care, wealth redistribution, whatever… but for them they were starving.

            I thought the OKs were on to something, after this whole thread I’ve realized that no one is willing to fight for it anymore, and I’m not talking the big I, the big S or the big R… but just simply saying… No… not anymore… Not again.

            The FF’s pledged their lives, their fortunes, their honor etc… No one here is willing to pledge any of that… too much to lose. I think we’ve lost it already… you just don’t know it yet.

            So you can read whatever you’d like into it…

          • Hooah_Mac

            But as patient as I am, you exceeded my limit. You are a weasel. I don’t believe you stand for any of the things you are saying.
            This whole site is made up of people who have pledged their lives, their fortunes, their honor…etc. to the cause of freedom.

            The Oath Keepers are wrong and they are not in the tradition of the founders. It is a classic case of a positive thought gone out of control.

            As a current Enlisted member of the armed services, I don’t need an unconstitutional list to resist tyranny. I already have the Constitution. How do you think the Oath Keepers’ additions to the Constitution are any more appropriate than the leftists? Because you approve them?

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            … like sphincters everyone has one. I served 9 years in the Navy. Been there, done that, got a boatload of ballcaps… and frankly I’m disgusted with the latest crop of big R republicans… all they can message is how they can manage the big government more efficiently than the libs… McCain was classic of that.

            My position is BASED on what I’ve seen from others. Not just from what I’ve seen here but elsewhere.

            Just pray tell… I’ve heard a lot of bashing of Oath Keepers, and what not… Does anyone have an alternative to what they suggested?

            I’m curious… Instead of Name calling, Hooah, or Streiff, what do either of you propose as an alternative?

          • Hooah_Mac

            Both of us, Streiff and I, in our own way have made the case that this is not necessary. Why should someone need an alternative way of doing something that is unnecessary? That is precisely what has gotten us into the me too government problem.

            The Oath Keepers aren’t necessary because the oath is what it is. It is not welcome because it adds things that are not legitimate as preconditions on obeying the oath in the first place.

            You don’t appear to have read my comments throughout this thread, I’d recommend you do, then you can see where I am coming from.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            I get the idea that the vector OK is using is a bad idea…

            I’m not asking what an alternative would be to their approach in that vector.

            given your statement about sliding into totalitarianism… then again, the whole discussion is moot.

            An alternative that I can think of has nothing to do with anyone who takes an oath, but rather targeting the public servants who take a version of it.

            I’ve heard the idea advanced that states or specifically congressional districts by some mechanism… not sure how this process would get started, but the basic idea is a supeona issued by a grand jury to that particular congressperson for violation of their oath as a means to “prosecute” for a lack of a better word or recall that particular person.

            I have no idea if this is legal, possible, or just someone floating a hypothetical. As I understand it, there is no provision anywhere to account for this, but some legal eagle might have better insight.

          • Hooah_Mac

            You want to stop totalitarianism – go here:

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

            Then, instead of beating up activists working their tails off to elect conservatives, spend your posting bandwidth on constructive means.

            I have no problem discussing issues with people, but melodrama gets to me real quick. I’m an NCO, it is who and what I am. I’ll get on the ground and work with people to train them and accomplish the task, but I don’t put up with nonsense very well. Whining and quitting are both out of bounds.

            You’ve got passion, and if it is legitimate, channel it to useful ends.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            … I don’t beat up activists that want to elect conservatives… that I would love to see more of… I beat up activists that want to elect moderates… them we don’t need… Democrat-Lite as I call them, and we have more than our share of them, go along to get along gets you nothing.

            Melodrama isn’t what I was driving at, I was sharing the perspective of someone who has been down this road before. Just like its been said on various commentary shows… ask someone who has been in a Socialist system and they will tell you this is where we’re going. In addition, when someone complains of ‘legalities’ for this that and the other, which in and of themselves are important, you can assert just about any historical context that any order can be legal. Moral… that’s a different story.

            I’m passionate, and frustrated beyond belief… when you hear ‘Meh’ way too many times you begin to become acquainted with a biblical attitude that if you’re not will to do something about it… you don’t deserve it… sort of another way of saying “you don’t work.. you don’t eat”… and if they don’t…then there is no point in my breaking a sweat over it.

            That too goes for anything this adminstration wants to excise from me in the form of punitive taxation. They don’t work, they will not eat at my expense. I cut my salary, and close my side businesses. They can’t take what I don’t have, or confiscate what they can’t find.

            Now isn’t that funny… an earlier comment in this thread had a quote from the book “The Minutemen”… seems that same scenario is being painted again today. History does repeat itself.

          • Hooah_Mac

            “? I don?t beat up activists that want to elect conservatives? that I would love to see more of? I beat up activists that want to elect moderates? them we don?t need? Democrat-Lite as I call them,”

            Really doesn’t apply here. Hoffman, Rubio, Devore, etc. You made a comment that no one here cares..blah blah. We are working on solutions. You should too.

            Last I plan to comment on this subject. If you really believe what you say you believe, and I don’t doubt it, then step up to the plate on fixing things at the ballot box, both primary ballot boxes and general election ballot boxes. Those are the only reasonable places to fix the things the Oath Keepers are afraid of.

      • Ausonius

        what is MORAL!

        “I would hope that American soldiers could tell the difference between upholding the Constitution and carrying out orders that are immoral.”

        If told e.g. to execute people for disagreeing with The One, I would expect 1.8 million rifles aimed at The One!

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Anyone who has fantasies about going rogue and shooting the President should find another line of work.

        • Streiff

          if they decide that they really don’t like those first two amendments.

          It’s a stretch to assume that the people involved in this movement have even read the Constitution. And I can say for certainty that a majority of the Armed Forces haven’t .

          Separate from this discussion:

          Knock off comments like the last one. Totally inappropriate. We don’t do that here.

          • Ausonius

            is not what America is about.

            I understand the military mindset that a soldier thinking and hesitating is a dead one and one who endangers those around him.

            But I would fully hope that no American soldier carries out an immoral order, that he would prefer imprisonment or even execution instead of carrying out an order to massacre e.g. protesters in front of the Capitol Building.

            I would also hope that America would rise in revolution in such a case.

            And please note the use of the subjunctive mood! :)

          • Streiff

            My Lai for instance?

            Or like Kent State?

            Don’t fool yourself. The overwhelming majority of soldiers, and their officers, might balk at falsifying records and embezzling funds but they are going to assume that mission orders are legal.

            And why would an administration intent on doing the nefarious things the “oath keepers” say the wont’ do continue to employ people who wouldn’t do their bidding. Wouldn’t they just draft MoveOn, ACORN, and Code Pink?

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            but it would be likely to blow up in their face. At any rate, it is not likely to happen, and if it ever did the government types would not likely use the military or local police but would use federal agents to enforce their orders.

            So I won’t debate it further I just wanted you to know that some of us see this in a completely different way.

          • Ausonius

            No, I am not fooling myself, and the point is about unthinking obedience to an immoral command.

            My father was a D.I in the Marines in the 1940′s, and he told the story of a D.I who snapped and put a recruit against the wall and threw bayonets at him like the knife thrower at the circus.

            The unhinged D.I. then ordered the platoon to take their turn at throwing their bayonets at him!

            A few in fact weakly threw them to miss him deliberately, which only enraged him further. The others laid their rifles down and refused the order.

            The D.I was dishonorably discharged: no charges were filed against his disobedient soldiers.

          • Streiff

            or did he just use his common sense?

          • Ausonius

            I am not sure who the “he” is in your reply.

            See Daendda below for further elucidation.

          • Streiff

            your father, in the story, is a “he”. Am I wrong?

          • daendda

            show your age. As a retired LTC I’m sure in your experience you have witnessed men disobey lawful and unlawful orders. My Lai and Kent State are two examples of why you SHOULDN’T assume your orders to be lawful. As a military officer myself I didn’t take an oath to assume. And that isn?t a leader trait that I?m aware of on any OER or NCOER.

            I can remember a time in Iraq when a certain 1LT was told by a certain LTC (his commander) to approach, on foot, a suspected IED. Since the aforementioned 1LT was already well within 100m to the device, and under fire, his response to his battalion commander was a prompt “F*CK NO”. Was that order lawful? Sure was. Did it only take the 1LT seconds to weigh the consequences? Sure did.

            A: Follow orders, approach a known explosive device on foot, and go home in pieces.

            OR

            B: Disobey orders and live to carry out the mission of protecting Iraqi civilians.

            I highly doubt in your career you didn’t come across a similar situation. Highly trained junior leaders, under fire, on the ground will make a better call than their seniors cooped up in air-conditioned TOCs. That is why the NCO Corps of the U.S. Army is far superior to that of any nation. They are trained to make decisions and lead from the front. Commander?s who are preoccupied with who did exactly as they said without deviation don?t find themselves commanding troops. They are too caught up with how they look in the mirror or in Dress Blues. The military is not about such petty matters.

            Was the 1LT disciplined for his outburst or refusal to follow orders. No, he wasn’t. He had the support of every member of the battalion. In short, I think that 1LT could have been prosecuted under UCMJ. Had charges been brought, however, that LTC would have been a “commander” in name only. Had that 1LT been killed obeying orders or charged for disobeying orders the commander wouldn’t possess the credibility to lead men ever again.

            As for the The Oath Keepers, I don’t condone the list of orders they will not obey. Mainly because the administration would not be able to convince our armed forces to do anything like that on a large scale. Only in a man’s heart will he know the right thing, and for most of the soldiers I’ve met, who serve today, that is the only place they need vindication.

          • Streiff

            your last para is the bottom line.

      • MNConservative

        Yes.

        The alternative is 1.8 million armed men obeying without thought the orders of one man.

        • Streiff

          the alternative is what we’ve done since 1775, the armed forces obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief (Article II of the Constitution) and “lawful” is defined by the Congress and Courts (that would be Articles I and III of the Constitution).

          If someone thinks an order is unlawful then they follow the UCMJ (which is issued by Congress under its Article I powers) to challenge the order. Or they go to jail.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Whether that reinforces the notion that I’m just a dhimmified urban bootlicker tory in a type of place that some, judging by the tenor of comments, might be glad to see off the map, remains to be seen. But sanity, cool heads and steady hands are needed now; and in most times past, the efforts of those retaining the same have prevailed long after those of others less long-sighted have borne bitter fruit.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      I am very conservative, but I would, on some things much rather adhere to principal even if it seems a bit outlandish or short sighted.

      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        Not baiting you here, Kyle, simply not following.

        For the record, I do in fact have a rationale for non-compliance which at times is called for. As a Christian at least, that means that I must obey the temporal governmental in all ways–the temporal government, no matter how wicked its enforcers, being the one of the outworkings of God’s authority on earth–UNTIL I am compelled to disobey an explicit command of God, at which point I must “obey God rather than men.” But the outworking of the details of when that point is reached does not rest, as the 10-point list implies, on an automatic assumption that an apparent–or even clear–violation of the Constitution by a superior officer has occurred.

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          But would you not be reasonable to make that assumption if, for instance, your president behaved like a modern day Aaron Burr?

          There are some hypotheticals where I think you might make that assumption.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            although I’m sure that others more skilled at articulating it in merely NL terms can make the point in terms of–once systemic oath-breaking principles are established and exercised, WHO has the authority to reinstate oath-breakers as oath-keepers?

            But to your question from a Biblical view–at least for those who like to maintain that this is in some way a Christian nation–it’s necessary to bear in mind that the clearest expositions of the relation of the Christian to temporal authority in the NT came from Jesus, Paul and Peter, and that the particular authorities that were foremost in their minds included the likes of Pilate, Herod(s), Claudius and Nero–not even Aaron Burr would have been a match for those!

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

    This is a complex subject. But with a simple answer.

    Go to the link below.

    Read.

    Then come back.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=c2cnpiff6pYC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=oath+of+office+military+commissioned+officers+united+states&source=bl&ots=qPeiSBEUJU&sig=0jiOgYrO30CDfPaFrN1KEXP6RmA&hl=en&ei=R1TfStXOB4uqMPXjsOIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=oath%20of%20office%20military%20commissioned%20officers%20united%20states&f=false

    Without casting any aspersions, I suspect, Streiff, you never served on active duty in any branch of the armed services.

    I did. I was a commissioned officer. Commissioned officers were friends of mine. We all understood that oaths required us to obey LAWFUL orders only. Indeed, we had a DUTY to disobey unlawful orders.

    Ever hear of Nuremberg? “I was just following orders” didn’t cut it.

    Ever hear of My Lai? Same thing.

    I’ve recounted this story here before. While on active duty, the colonel told the major to tell the lowly captain (me) to do X. I knew doing X violated the law. I told the major he could do X, but I wasn’t going to. I patiently explained I would not do X because I would be violating the law. I showed him the law. He listened. He went back to the colonel. I never heard about it again. I got a medal, from the colonel, when I departed. No hard feelings.

    That’s how it works.

    The first oath I took was on a plain on the west side of the Hudson River at age 18 many years ago on a splendid July evening. It said this:

    I, ________, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and bear true allegiance to the National Government; that I will maintain and defend the sovereignty of the United States, paramount to any and all allegiance, sovereignty, or fealty I may owe to any State or country whatsoever; and that I will obey the legal orders of my superior officers, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

    Cadet regulations were something else again. ;-)

    But seriously, that oath had no expiration date. Nor the others I took. And the understanding, always, is that commissioned officers have a moral duty to NOT obey unlawful orders. And that requires study, study, study of the Constitution and the UCMJ. And the Officer’s Guide I linked to above was a handy reference and we all got them.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior
    www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

    • Streiff

      You’re just making a asshat of yourself. I’m a retired infantry lieutenant colonel. I commanded two infantry companies. I’m willing to compare jump manifests with you if you’re up to it.

      And I’d really expect that someone who claims to have held a commission could at least admit to having read the freakin thing and to have read the story they are commenting on before slamming me, someone you don’t freakin know, on what I did for 20+ years of my youth.

      But I have not intention of comparing wee-wees with you on this.

      If you understood anything about Nuremburg it would be that the winners make the rules. I don’t recall Curtis LeMay being in the dock or Butcher Harris. Ever researched what happened to the US troops who slaughtered several hundred German PWs in Sicily?

      If you’d bother reading my post before trying to wave your military experience around like a talisman (just a note, the guys deciding to prosecute you for disobeying an order may not have any and may not be very respectful of yours) you’d see I covered the disobeying unlawful orders and provided a helpful link to what happens when you take it upon yourself to decide an order is unlawful when no one else agrees.

      Looking forward to your next respectful and thoughtful post.

      • Texas Tom

        The tone of this post is one big schlong slapper. Get a grip GI Joe. This is a discussion not a “Post like you gotta pair!” exercise.

        Anyone who would jump out of a perfectly good aircraft has much too much to prove to themself. “Wheels up, feet up” I always say.

        • Streiff

          on this subject isn’t one of the top two or three things that I’d advise you to do.

          • Texas Tom

            You will not advise me in any fashion.

            Holster your hostility, sonny.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            About RedState

            Note in particular who are highlighted as site moderators.

            Then take appropriate action, as you see fit.

            Remember, RedState is a private entity, not a public free-speech zone. We are all invited guest who can be uninvited and shown the door in a hurry.

            Some helpful advice from a long-timer,

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you wish your account to remain active, take his advice.

          • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

            Not to defend Texas Tom’s statement, but how can you require civility when a moderator so brazenly attacks one who is being civil?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you ever disagree with how our moderators (including me) are operating, an in-thread hijack is not the way to do it.

            Complaints are to to the contact page.

          • Texas Tom

            5 x 5.

          • Texas Tom

            Colonel,

            You are projecting a very harsh tone to many readerswho may recoil at the “in your face” personal accomplishment list. I can match you in some areas fall short in most and exceed in some. So what?

            To threaten me is what I expect from Ms. Dunne or Rhambo in the service of “Dear Reader.”

            Build up or tear down. Your call.

            Ban me on principle. I don’t care. You aren’t the maker of my life, but you are a symbol that shapes opinion. Don’t get this wrong.

            ChiRho-Bro!

            Thomas Moeller, Lcdr, USNR

          • Texas Tom

            Colonel,

            You are projecting a very harsh tone to many readerswho may recoil at the “in your face” personal accomplishment list. I can match you in some areas fall short in most and exceed in some. So what?

            To threaten me is what I expect from Ms. Dunne or Rhambo in the service of “Dear Reader.”

            Build up or tear down. Your call.

            Ban me on principle. I don’t care. You aren’t the maker of my life, but you are a symbol that shapes opinion. Don’t get this wrong.

            ChiRho-Bro!

            Thomas Moeller, Lcdr, USNR

          • seansie

            I love your spirit, sir. I would like to see an article written by you, instead of milquetoasts like Streiff.

            Your fan,
            Sean

          • Leon H. Wolf

            And let his posting history and final end serve as an example to the other fine contributors to the comments on this piece.

            -Mgmt.

          • seansie

            I reviewed the thread. This fellow didn’t throw the first punch, just the best one. Your moderator was very much in the wrong and deservedly given his rear end. Conservatives must support debate, not seek shelter from it.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Hi, I’m one of the moderators of this site and I’m the one who showed Texas Tom the door. Texas Tom didn’t give anyone anything except a dunce hat to himself. While I do enjoy the entertainment value of a bunch of newbies calling streiff a moderate squish who doesn’t know anything about the military, after a certain amount of time it loses its newness, not unlike America’s Funniest Home Videos.

            The mistake you’ve made is assuming that this is a site for debate or that we are under some obligation to give your craziness a good, public airing. Neither is true.

            Further complaints can be directed to the contact form.

          • MNConservative

            Leon,

            Would you please clarify this point? If this is not a site for debate, then 90% of the posts here are going to have to be deleted.

            Everyone is aware this is a private site with rules and moderators, etc., but respectful debate has been a long standing tradition at RedState. It’s why I come here.

            Please let me know if I’m wrong.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            This is not ObiWi or SwordsCrossed. We are a site for conservative and Republican activism. Debate occurs here as an incidental side effect of that purpose. This is not really a free forum for everyone to air their feelings on whether, say, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            That we have to indulge all the silly fantasies of everyone who comes along, or debate them respectfully until they go away.

          • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites
          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            but I don’t go out of my way to be insulting. They are mods.

        • nessa
          • Texas Tom

            So am I and I am perfectly good!

            I bungee jumped from a bridge a couple of years ago (no big thrill). Maybe I spoke out of turn. Perfectly good bridge and all that…

          • nessa

            I should have put a smiley in the title. Its a common response to the “perfectly good aircraft” line, they are actually perfectly good but it’s always entertaining to poke a little fun at a sister service.

            I never tried bungee jumping, too paranoid something might break. Isn’t that utterly asinine?!

          • Texas Tom

            you are kidding. And doing a mighty fine job of it.

            Hope Colonel Jumper chills. I like his reasoning but the premise is distructive. Oath keeper are the alarm buzzer at 0530. Don’t like it but it gets me moving to make the wake up worth while. Shut it off but don’t disregard the message… Wake UP!

            Nice analogy me thinks.

          • Texas Tom

            you are kidding. And doing a mighty fine job of it.

            Hope Colonel Jumper chills. I like his reasoning but the premise is distructive. Oath keeper are the alarm buzzer at 0530. Don’t like it but it gets me moving to make the wake up worth while. Shut it off but don’t disregard the message… Wake UP!

            Nice analogy me thinks.

          • Texas Tom

            So am I and I am perfectly good!

            I bungee jumped from a bridge a couple of years ago (no big thrill). Maybe I spoke out of turn. Perfectly good bridge and all that…

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

        I didn’t call you any names. I was respectful.

        Thanks for your service.

        ColdWarrior
        www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

      • Hooah_Mac

        Sorry, couldn’t resist.

      • Vegas_Rick

        this whole subject would scare the crap out of any Commissioned Officer.

        Enlisted and NCO’s, not so much.

        :)

        • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

          … Seemed only the Chiefs and Firsts, and a few Seconds walked with the sounds of clanging brass…

          Many of the officers from Ens to LT with one or two LCDRs squeaked when they walked…

          Of course my fave was the XO… anyone with his own personal M60 is aces in my book! ;)

    • Michael Dugas

      nt

      • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

        … sounds familiar doesn’t it?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • aesthete

    We can all agree that the Oath Breakers are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics, but to say that one should always obey an order, even if it is unlawful, strikes me as a mimicry of the myth of the Good German, and as an extreme overreaction to fringe elements. Certainly, if that were the case, one could hardly make a case for our Founding Fathers! Is that to say that the opposite (that one should always disobey an unlawful order) is always true? Not necessarily (though I would seem to lean more in that direction than you do), but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere, else we might as well succumb to being ruled with an iron fist from here on out.

    • Streiff

      I just re-read it and I don’t see it.

      You don’t have to obey an order but you’re and idiot if you think your view of what the constitution means is going to keep you out of Leavenworth.

      As to the Founding Fathers, winning excuses a lot of things. If the revolution had failed what do you think would have been the result of them violating their oath to their King?

      • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

        Lets hope that what we are doing isn’t just about winning, but also about being right and true to principle.

        • Streiff

          includes being adult enough to admit that we lost two elections in a big way and we’re going to have to live with this bunch until things change.

          The people agreeing with these guys are really no different than the lefties who claimed the Patriot Act was going to result in mass roundup of “dissidents.”

          • Ben White

            Except they’re not predicting anything.

            And you’re right, we have to “live with this bunch until things change”. But if things change significantly for the worse, if “this bunch” becomes intolerably oppressive, then we can re-examine whether we’ll continue to “live with” them or risk our lives to end the tyranny. All people always have this choice.

            The people complaining about the Patriot Act were wrong. And they had questionable motives, and I wasn’t on their side. If they’d been right, then their side would have been the right side, wouldn’t it?

      • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

        … that Founding Fathers’ moral compass and values superceded that oath to the king… and in the context of the Oath Keepers… their view appears to be that the government doesn’t live up to the oath they took as public servants. That if these same “public servants” get it in their head to continue down that path they have been walking, its up to the troops/LEOs to say “No” and uphold their oath the the Constitution… as I recall the oath I took, the Constitution is stated FIRST before anything else.

        • Streiff

          is that if you engage in treason you’d better win otherwise don’t snivel when it comes time to accept the consequences.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            and watch your country slip into Fascism…

            … whatever you do, don’t open your mouth and say anything.

          • Streiff

            not I who are subscribing to fascism.

            I am the one defending the integrity of the Constitution and the American traditions of the rule of law and civl supremacy in civil military relations.

            You are the one advocating encouraging men and women in the Armed Forces to deliberately set aside their oath of office in the service of some very bizarre beliefs. I am the one who is defending our traditions. If fascism comes it will be by people with your value set, not mine or even Obama’s.

    • Bob_Frazier

      “We can all agree that the Oath Breakers are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics”

      We can? Well I guess if you are going to be a wild eyed fanatic, it ought to be to protect your Liberty. I don’t know why anyone would worry when we have so many admitted communists in the administration, as well as those who profess love Mao.

      You are a trusting soul.

      Lets just name call our own and do the left’s job for them.

      • Dan McLaughlin

        when we need to police our own side a little if we want to deprive the lefties of easy targets.

        • Hooah_Mac

          The target still exists, and our words will just be added to the argument that we are all crazy. No easy answer on this one.

        • Bob_Frazier

          Who was it who said “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”

          Glad we got rid of him.

          Where is John McCain. He has been working very hard to deprive the lefties of easy targets.

        • Ben White

          You’d be right if reality mattered to the left. But they just make up their own reality. They pick their targets, they search for dirt on them, and if none is found they just lie.

          When attacked by predators, a herd can run. They’ll mostly escape, leaving their weakest, slowest and most vulnerable members — the easy targets — behind to be eaten. Or they can form a protective circle and fight.

      • aesthete

        It’s a) na?ve in the extreme to have a group with a membership list for the specific purpose of telling the world what you won’t do in your job – a bad signal if I ever heard one. b) It’s over-exagerrative of the threat that Obama and his sundry collection of bad guys poses, and as such, both distracts from current issues (like the healthcare crisis) and allows the left an easy target to hit. That doesn’t mean we should spend much time whacking these guys over the head (we can just bop them as we find them and move on), but neither must we embrace them.

      • Streiff

        the are advocating the creation of a set of rules that no one has ever voted on or debated as the standard for what is constitutional.

        • MNConservative

          has already been debated and voted on, in Philadelphia, in the late 1780s. Following an order that goes against the Constitution, the highest law of the land, is forbidden by the oath I swore… the part where I said I would defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign *and domestic.*

          Defending the Constitution doesn’t mean standing guard at the National Archives. So what does it mean to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies? Who are the domestic enemies of the Constitution? I think those questions are at the root of what we’re seeing here.

  • nickinvirginia

    I find it disturbing that this group is recruiting armed members of authority in our society to “disobey unlawful orders.” Their leader was on Hardball last night and he claimed that they will do nothing but disobey orders with inaction, but, reading their website, I feel like the line is far closer to disobeying what they subjectively believe are unlawful orders with violence. This group is whipping up fear in these people and it makes them very easy to snap. All they need is some direction from this group claiming some type of action is unconstitutional for them to believe tyranny is imminent and then what? Does anyone think they will simply sit at home and do nothing? Highly doubtful.

    This paranoia crap has to stop. Bring your disagreements to the ballot box.

    • Ben White

      We have a Constitution, not elected kings and queens who rule with absolute authority. If the majority wants to oppress the minority, they can get plenty of votes to do that. And you’re essentially telling that minority to shut up.

    • MNConservative

      is that people don’t know what this means anymore:

      http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/JWES/VASealfront.gif

      “Sic Semper Tyrannis” never happens if you’re following the Tyrant’s orders.

      Apparently required disclaimer: I’m not advocating sedition… merely the overthrow of Tyrants.

  • strategerist

    Streiff,

    Being physically unfit, I have no military experience so I can’t and won’t address the ins and outs of oath taking.

    I suspect you have a case in that it seems likely that a strict adherence to the Oath Keepers tenets may conflict with the obligations of those who have taken an oath to be in the military.

    I am hopeful that most people will have the good sense to do the right thing.

    What I do like is the sending of the message that the military is not a plaything for those who seek to usurp their constitutionally limited powers.

    Sure there are plenty that have signed up, but I bet there are just as many, if not more that will not sign up, but will agree with the general principle.

    The value is that this is now in the mind of any who would seek to over step. They have to make a calculation – how many will carry out our plans and how many will oppose us? Worse, how can we ever know?

    Coups must be fraught with uncertainty and they often fail. They sometimes succeed when someone has the guts, the luck and the perception to know when to go for it. Maybe the risks seem low enough or you think you have enough men on your side to prevail – but it is always risky.

    This movement hopefully raises the level of perceived risk to insurmountable levels.

    I do hope.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …than was possible on dpayton’s diary. In the meanwhile I was able to take a look at the site and saw the Ron Paul cultist fingerprints all over it. You have been able to expose the critical flaws in the movement that are not evident to those not personally familiar with military procedure.

    I agree that we don’t need this level of reaction when we’re still trying to politically stop Obama and his heinous plans from coming to fruition. Especially with a press that will blow this up far beyond its representation among the Obama opposition.

    If we get ahead of the curve, that won’t stop media efforts to smear us, but we will be able to credibly disavow and hopefully move discussion back on target.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t like the trajectory of the Obama Administration and perceive where they want to go (as I posted yesterday), but at this point we need to educated and keep speaking out – as well as giving our representatives a boot to their posterior so that they realize that their efforts to CYA are not working and so that they stand up now while the Democrats are still relying mostly on bluff to get us to fold with a winning hand.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Voluntarily, I might add.

  • plwinteregg

    There may be some valid issues with some of the accuracy or appropriateness of some of these 10 points vs. the Constitution, but I believe Streiff is missing the point of the movement entirely.
    Streiff highlights the execution portions of the military oaths (‘discharge the duties’, ‘obey the orders’), but glosses over the most important part. The oath is not to the commands nor the Commander in Chief, as has been done in many other places and time in history. The oath is to the Constitution–in other words to us the people. Read the Preamble of the Constitution again, it is ‘We the People’ who establish this government, and do so through a Constitution designed specifically to protect us and our liberty.
    So the oath is to protect us and our liberty.
    It is agreed that this includes an understanding of chain of command, etc, but what from I can gather, the Oath Keepers are addressing where they will stand when a potential conflict may occur between the commands and the Constitution.
    Granted, perhaps some of their points may be questionable and open to debate. But to get too finely focused on those issues misses the point. They are reaffirming that their oath is first to us, not to the government. And for that, I am grateful.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Aren’t they just proving themselves to be two faced: Saying one thing to the government when taking one oath, then saying another thing to this Ronulan website when taking that oath?

      Any active duty military who take this Oath Keeper oath can’t be trusted in anything they say.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        not to put words in their mouth but it would probably be that there is nothing incompatible with their oath and the oath to uphold the constitution.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

            I don’t think he did. I am sure that plenty of our Founding Fathers, including George Washington, had taken oaths regarding Britain and the crown and I am mighty glad that they disregarded those oaths and rebelled. As Streiff pointed out earlier, they would most certainly have been hanged had they lost, but that doesn’t change the fact that what they did was right.

            I would hope that soldiers, bound by oath to obey the orders of superior officers, would also disregard those oaths if it put them in peril of betraying the Constitution and liberties of the American people, no matter the consequences.

          • Streiff

            helps form their conscience in what way?

            I agree with your point but there is nothing the oath keepers are doing that is going to further that goal.

          • aesthete

            The implications of this group, as well as their effectiveness, are what bother me.

          • aesthete
      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        But Aragorn dismounted, and standing by the Stone he cried in a great voice:
        ‘Oathbreakers, why have ye come?’
        And a voice was heard out of the night that answered him, as if from far away:
        ‘To fulfil our oath and have peace.’
        Then Aragorn said: ‘The hour is come at last. Now I go to Pelargir upon Anduin, and ye shall come after me. And when all this land is clean of the servants of Sauron, I will hold the oath fulfilled, and ye shall have peace and depart forever.’

        JRR Tolkien, The Return of the King

        The problem in real life is it would have to be the heirs of the current administration, not its opponents, that could revoke the oath-breaking!

        • aesthete
      • Ben White

        How can you break one oath to take another? It doesn’t seem like it would be difficult or mentally taxing or strenuous. You’d just do it.

        But your question implies the two oaths are in conflict. The oath keepers oaths are only in effect when there’s already a conflict between commands and the Constitution. It would be up to a guy’s individual judgment what to do — which side to take.

        What if the Oath Keepers were to take an oath not to, just to pick an example, engage in rape? How could you trust them to obey your orders? One thing that would help build that trust is if you weren’t willing to order them to rape people.

        Everyone always has a choice, oaths notwithstanding.

        We’ve come to a point in our history where citizens need to be reassured that our armed forces and armed police are unwilling to act to oppress us. The Oath Keepers are responding to that need.

  • Hooah_Mac

    On the one hand, this oath keepers website and organization is nonsense. On the other hand, I do believe that it is imperative that American Soldiers are aware of the Constitution and that they will violate any unlawful order. In fact, all Soldiers receive a briefing at least once a year telling them how important it is to disobey unlawful orders with regards to the Laws of War ( Geneva Conventions, etc).
    The key is making dang sure you know what you are doing, because if the Court Martial does not agree with your interpretation, you will be going down.
    This issue is not about President Obama per se, but the country is getting progressively more totalitarian and there may come a time in the future where a petty dictator in the office of President tries to unconstitutionally use the military to enforce his political power.

    To recap – Oath Keepers are either nuts or ill-informed. However, Soldiers do not check their legal obligations at the door.

    • Streiff

      aid in educating soldiers on the constitution when they apparently aren’t very familiar with it in the first place.

      If we have reached the point in our history where a nutso group formed by a Ron Paul staffer is all that stands between us and a military coup we are screwed.

      • Hooah_Mac

        Unless you replied to the wrong person. Please elaborate.

  • RoscoeP

    I will assume their intentions are basically good.

    There are bigger fish to fry than some paranoid folks pledging to resist the future actions of their socialist government.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      our glorious leader and his noble helpers! You damn teabagger!

      • RoscoeP

        Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

        Sorry, I was channelling AC360 for a second.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Some seem quick to attach this movement to modern party politics and Obama. But to me, they are just re-stating some classic American principles. This transcends party politics.

    Does anybody really think the second amendment was passed to protect hunting? Of course it was drafted for self-defense and the founders weren’t worried about muggers and robbers. The right to take up arms against a tyrannical state is implicit and fundemental. Does that mean everyone who defends the second amendment and arms themselves with automatic weapons is gettig ready to wage war with Obama.

    The allegiance is to the Constitution and the sovreign: the people. Oathkeepers is a bit over the top in its rhetoric, but I see no harm here. As many pointed out, there are times a soldier should say no.

    Expediency and efficiency are not good reasons to suspend the Consitution. Yes, our government can be slow, cumbersome and inefficient. It was meant to be that way to curb passions and provide checks. I am not comfortable with giving any administration, under any party, that sort of unchecked unilateral power to suspend the Consitution and expect all men of uniform to follow.

    During Carter’s years, few coud have imagined a government as liberal as Clinton. During Clinton’s years few imagined a government as liberal as Obama’s. .. who knows what things will look like in 2019.

    .

    • Streiff

      except

      1. They are not helpful as they are clearly urging members of the armed forces to follow the principles of the group rather than the UCMJ.

      2. Their rules are one narrow version of what might be unconstitutional. As I’ve said I happen to think Eisenhower sending troops into Little Rock against the wishes of the governor was a manifestly good thing. And though I’m a southerner, I think the defeat of the Confederacy was also good.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics
  • cwilson

    I have to admit, I was a little confused at the time — who were these guys, and why were they given 20 minutes of podium time? As I listened to all ten points (and they flew by pretty quickly with no printed matter) my general impression was…again confusion. And a little creeped out, especially when they asked everybody present to recite their oath along with them — which didn’t make a whole lot of sense as few if any of the Tea Partiers I saw appeared to be military or law enforcement.

    The confusion was because (a) even duffers like me know about the moral duty to refuse to obey an unlawful order — and understand that the price for doing so may be dire, unlike in the movies. That’s why an officer’s commission is an honor, and those who faithfully execute it are respected. These ARE the decisions they have to make, in that position. (b) most of their ten points seemed so unlikely to be at actual issue as to be ridiculous fear mongering. So…let’s all get hot and bothered and swear not to accept magic beans from purple-colored genies wearing cowbow hats. Uhm…okay, if that makes you happy…

    Overall, my take on that speaker’s presentation was precisely as advocated above (at least for officers): they are pledging to refuse what they consider to be unlawful orders, and I took it as given that meant resigning their commission if given one that their commander refused to countermand. And maybe willingly facing prosecution for dereliction… I didn’t think it mattered much, tho, as I don’t expect to see any western-dressed purple genies handing out lentils anytime soon.

    I guess mostly I was just hoping they’d get on with it, and let the next speaker have the stage…and frankly, I haven’t thought about them since. I don’t think they made much more of an impression on anyone else who was there, either.

    • TxTess

      being in a situation where making the decision that an order is unlawful would be heart wrenching because of the oath one takes. I am a veteran and am very thankful I was never put in a position where I would have to make such a decision.
      I am also an Army brat and was taught by my Dad if I made a promise or swore an oath I better keep it unless it was a matter of honor. American soldiers are not robots. We are taught to obey orders unless they are unlawful, but even then be prepared to take the consequences of our actions.

  • Russ Martin

    Streiff,

    I’m no scholar but I have read the constitution. In fact, I read it each year. What is wrong, constitutionally speaking, with the Oath Keeper’s #’s 1, 2, and 3? As for 4, I have trouble understanding why it would ever be OK for the federal government to send federal troops into a state, without the request/consent of the govenor/acting govenor. Also, what’s wrong, from your perspective, with #’s 8 and 10? As for 5, 6, 7, and 9, I can come up with realistic scenarios wherein those might be problematic.

    I understand and share your overall concern with the Oath Keeper movement – we certainly don’t want every GI out there deciding, on a daily basis, which orders are “constitutional” and which aren’t. Even so, I think that in these times, it is useful for everyone who is currently under oath, to give some serious consideration as to what their oath means. I, for one, do not think that it mandates blind faith in those officers and civilians appointed over me. In combat, discipline must be total. If US soldiers were ever deployed on US soil to “police” US citizens, that is a whole different ballgame.

    Just a point of reference, I’m a former infantry officer and aviator (Army),l (though I’d much prefer to compare my flight time with you, as opposed to my jumps:))

    • Streiff

      federal troops showing up to enforce federal laws is definitely a bug, not a feature.

      I don’t see anyone advocating blind obedience. The point is that you either have sufficient conscience to know your duty or you don’t.. If we’re leaving it up to a bogus group created by a former Ron Paul staffer to write rules to save the republic from a military coup we are screwed in a huge way.

      • Russ Martin

        Well, with sincere respect, you quoted Patton on discipline. Again, I think the difference here is when federal troops are in combat on foreign soil, as opposed to a scenario when they are deployed in CONUS in some sort of martial law situation. That’s a much more complex challenge, as it relates to the oath, the UCMJ and the Constitution. I guess I just don’t see it as black and white as you do.

  • california_red

    This adminstration supports unconstitutional revolutionary actions by Marxists to overthrow the government. Thier support of Zeyala shows me this. I am glad to know there is a legion of law abiding citizens going on record as saying they will stand up and fight for the constitution. I disagree that this is malignant. Oath takers are more like white blood cells ready to fight the infection than cancer.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Some countries, like Turkey most notably, have a military that is set up to act independently as a check on the government.

      America is not Honduras. Our civilian authorities are in charge. The chain of command is what it is.

      • Vegas_Rick
        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          If you want to hold back reservations, don’t take the oath and join up.

    • Streiff

      tunring our own defenses on us.

      While the administration’s support of Zelaya is stupid, there is no doubt they have the constitutional right, and duty, to administer US foreign policy as they see fit and to the extent the Congress cooperates.

  • strategerist

    Someone posted a link earlier to a book on Google about the duties of an officer and how one of the most important aspects of being an officer is knowing when to disobey an order.

    The book said that this is permissible in some circumstances because you simply cannot make a rule for every possible situation so you need a moral, upright and intelligent person to know when to intervene.

    It seems to me that the Oath Keepers mistake may be in trying to create a concrete list of “lines in the sand” when that is probably not appropriate. As the OP pointed out (though I disagree with him on some of his points) there may be times when doing some of those things is valid and justified.

    Their points attempt to remove the hard moral conviction from what would be a very sober course of action and reduce it to a choice that could be made by a robot.

    If orders = “Items 1 through 10″ then initiate “Refusal”.

    That seems to me to be a gross oversimplification.

    We need men and women of moral clarity who can make difficult decisions, not people with a clerk mentality that says “it’s on the list!”

    We are not going to wake up one morning to Obama saying “I have directed the military to go house to house and arrest everyone who owns a handgun or is a member of the Republican party or has an episode of Glen Beck on their Tivo”.

    That would require the moral clarity of your average Jr. High School kid to know that is a bad idea.

    I think these people missed the boat.

  • tankertodd

    As much as I was enamored with the idea of this group something held me back from forwarding to my network of fellow veterans with a “check this out!”. I think Streiff touched on a lot of it. These Oath Keepers are asking for too much, and are asking people to disobey orders that are not in violation of a military oath or law. When we say “all enemies, foreign and domestic” it means that the military is obligated by oath to undertake operations on American soil as required. Those operations can include cordon and search for weapons and baddies, who are Americans.

    That is the deal killer for me. I do like the idea, however, of our military being highly aware of their oath and what it means and doesn’t mean. All officers are well-educated on the topic, and these types of questions are the reason why we have an officer corps. This is why you put a lieutenant, who doesn’t know squat, in charge of a platoon when all practicality (and in some cases, sanity) would tell you that the senior sergeant should be in charge and a lieutenant has no place anywhere near launchers of bullets. Officers are there, though, to be, among many other things, the moral and legal compass. This is why we need the best and brightest as officers. This is why I think just about any breakdown in military discipline can be traced back to officers who failed to be that compass. The true value of a junior military officer in a unit for an entire year may only be realized in a moment when he stands up and tells his troops “no.” The rest of the time he’s learning and doing soldier tasks, at best, almost as good as a senior sergeant.

    Oath Keepers would be better served to outreach to military officers with facts about the UCMJ and the Constitution. Soldiers do have the obligation to disobey illegal orders. They also need to know the range of what is legal and illegal. They also should rely on real military lawyers who support their units and their officers, and ask lots of questions. Given that our army is highly professional, smart, and that in all these years in a counterinsurgency/occupational mode we’ve had so few problems relative to the opportunity, I think our military is performing outstanding. The moral and legal compass is as strong as ever. No problem here.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Please. Many of the officers I served under were the most self-serving career minded individuals I have ever known.

  • redneck_hippie

    is very beneficial. I can see no good coming from this movement and the potential for great harm. It’s my opinion that what they are doing is totally unnecessary and counterproductive. We have enough problems with leftists making up stuff about us, without forays into fantasy making us look ridiculous.

    • Hooah_Mac

      These people aren’t us. This is not a rightist thing, In fact, the Oath Keepers movement sounds a lot more like the WTO protesters than anyone on the right.

      My concern is that even discussing this gives the left cover when they tar us with it.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        the liberals are going to say what they say, they will tell any lie, nothing you can do about that. Fact is that more and more people are tuning them out because of their constant lies and exaggerations.

      • redneck_hippie

        Pretty unlikely that lefties won’t distort this to suit their ends. I just heard today CNN did a serious interview with an actor impersonating a member of the Chamber of Commerce.

      • Hooah_Mac

        I typed this up pretty fast, and now in the overall context sounds like something other than I meant to say. A big distinction needs to be drawn between those that are leading the Oath Keepers thing and those who are drawn to it.

        Like most bad ideas in history, there is enough of a grain of truth in it to lure people to it. My remarks above do not apply to those people.

  • SESummers

    The way I read it, the oath is to the constitution. How is it violating that oath to assert that if ordered to do something clearly unconstitutional, that one would adhere to their oath, regardless of the danger to their own liberty, rather than obey an order to violate it?

    I certainly hope that if, in Obama’s quest to turn this country into a totalitarian socialist state, he (or a like-minded successor) orders the the military to confiscate my property without due process, or orders the police to imprison me for speaking out against his plans, that they’ll refuse.

    Why is it wrong for me to hope that, or wrong for them to reassure those of us who (sensibly, in my opinion) fear our government?

    • Streiff

      1. What is reassuring about people asserting that their judgment is the standard of what is constitutional. That sounds more like a lynch mob to me.

      2. If you need a Ron Paul staffer to help you tell right from wrong I can’t help you out very much.

      No one is saying you have to follow unconstitutional orders, only that the “oath” this particular group of bizarros has come up with would have resulted in the collapse of the Union in 1861 and a continuation of Jim Crow.

      • Russ Martin

        Streiff,

        Again – with a ton of respect, you’re leaning awfully hard on the Ron Paul connection. IMHO, you’re starting to sound like a leftie who attempts to marginalize his opponent in the debate by screaming “RAAAACCCCISSST” at the top of his lungs.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          I feel ever more confident in my position when the guy who quotes America’s leading progressive opposes me.

        • Streiff

          I think someone famous said that once

      • SESummers

        You’re saying that if I was in the military, and ordered to shoot at American civilians, I should follow orders first, and leave it up to the lawyers to decide if what I did was “constitutional”?

        I hope for your sake that when Obama orders the military to come capture or kill all the “traitors” who write for RedState, that the soldiers are willing to risk their own liberty and refuse that order.

        America has the greatest military in the world partly because they’re allowed (and required!) to think. It sounds to me like you’re saying that they’re not supposed to – they’re supposed to just do what they’re told. Sorry, but I think you are WRONG, and your attitude is dangerous.

        • Streiff

          read the original post.

          What I’ve said is perfectly clear.

          1. The American military is not now nor has it ever been under an obligation to follow unlawful orders. That is clearly recognized in the UCMJ and there are procedures in place for you to protest an unlawful order.

          2. You can’t take an oath of office with reservations or evasions. Adhering to the oath keepers lunacy is exactly that. You are saying that your oath of office has a qualified meaning that you aren’t willing to disclose to your superiors.

          3. Some of the things the “oath keepers” are against are parts of our history. The Civil War and the Civil Rights movement all violate the “oath keepers” oath. That makes that oath dangerous and un-American.

          4. The idea that 1.8 million armed men and women should be allowed to decide what is constitutional on an individual basis is just stupid.

          If you don’t support the government and continue to hold your position and take the check there is a word for that: theft.

  • acepilot101

    I would support a military coup against any government that betrays the Constitution. God bless America.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
  • Ben White

    What if there’s a hurricane? Screw the Constitution! There’s a hurricane!

    One thing the US government can do when there’s a hurricane is … nothing at all. Let the locals help the locals. Is this ideal? Nope. Is forever giving up on liberty and Constitutional government and rule of law a better alternate choice? Nope.

    But what about smallpox? Screw the Constitution! Smallpox!!!!!

    There’s no smallpox dude. There just isn’t. The Constitution exists to govern a real society, not a cartoon society with smallpox.

    In the real society, we have an out of control government. The Oath Keepers’ oaths are imperfect. But you arguments are just silly.

    A reasonable discussion of these topics would be interesting. Instead, we get nonsense about smallpox.

    • daendda

      and I agree with you. Shouldn’t the measuring stick during times of crisis and upheaval be the U.S. Constitution and not the environmental forces themselves?

    • Streiff

      if you think the federal government has no obligation to participate in disaster relief or enforce the laws of the nation.

      You’re not going to crap on the floor of our house.

      • daendda

        Because I don’t think the governement is obligated to perform disaster relief. If anyone wants to build a house in a flood zone or swank rental condo in a hurricane path then they should buy their own insurance. I should not be forced to subsidize it by way of my taxes. Individual States are more than suitable entities to run disaster relief which is not mentioned in the Constitution…I think they call that the 10th Amendment.

        As far as enforcing the laws of the nation I don’t see anyone on here advocating breaking the law or not enforcing laws. The straw man arguement is a tactic of the left, but hey whatever works.

        • Streiff

          in that view and therein lies the danger of agreeing to the notion that everyone has a right to decide what is unconstitutional.

          As far as enforcing the laws of the nation I don?t see anyone on here advocating breaking the law or not enforcing laws.

          Actually anyone who agrees with this oath keeper nonsense is doing just that, they are saying that there are laws they will not enforce.

          A strawman, by the way, is a hypothetical. I haven’t used hypotheticals. I’ve used real examples.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          The Congress shall have the Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.

          Points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Oath Keeper oath could all conflict with this Constitutional mandate.

  • Michael Dugas

    How can you say that if they refuse illegal or unconstitutional orders that they are then breaking their oath? The Oaths basically states that we will support and protect that constitution so if we follow orders that are in violation to the constitution THAT would be breaking their oath.
    These people have DONE nothing but make a web page and stae their beliefs. Groups that popped up when Bush was (re)elected like Code Pink etc have actually DONE things like close streets. businesses, college campuses, recruiting stations..there’s a difference.
    Obama may be, as hard as it is to say, the Commander in Chief but he is bound by that same Constitution and is supposed to uphold it.
    When he attempts to sign away our country’s sovereignty in Copenhagen will that be upholding our Constitution? How will that treaty be undone?
    As a multi service vet I have no problem with soldiers refusing illegal and/or unconstitutional orders. And I am pretty sure you are REQUIRED to per your oath and the UCMJ. It’s been years I’ll have to check the UCMJ on that. If , hypothetically, my commander ordered me to go into an American town and say confiscate weapons or deny them access to voting or the like I wouldn’t do it. I’m sorry, but I love my Constitution and my country and willingly signed up more than once to defend it.
    The Oath states I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic……AND domestic.
    Until the Oath Keepers state that their intentions are to take up arms against the country or until they actually DO something that is
    wrong, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially over some
    marxist leaning politician who has never served and whose actions show his disdain for our military and our constitution.
    Ask our men and women in Afghanistan, as they are left swinging in the wind, how they feel.
    Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

    • Streiff

      reading comprehension is your friend.

      The oath on the website is actually in conflict with the Constitution because all the activities they list could conceivably be necessary under some set of fact.

      • Ben White

        In other words, the oath is fine in real situations, but not in imaginary ones?

      • Richard Mullins

        and Sedition is very much against the constitution. So far all Obama has done on the military side has been to accept the advice of the Secretary of Defense. So with that, there seems to be no chance that anything unconstitutional is going to happen.

  • usmc

    How you could read all those points and have a problem tells me you are the one who needs civics class. So if ordered to fire on folks who disagree with the president you’d do it?

    YOUR oath mentions the Constitution and to defend her form enemies foreign and DOMESTIC! This system is about checks and balances. Everybody watches everybody and if that fails the people and hopefully the military will put a stop to the destruction of America.

    You wasted valuable time bashing veterans who want to protect the people instead of those filthy traitors in D.C. Which speaks volumes of your priorities.

    Dear God what is happening? Newt Gingrich backs that progressive RINO in NY-23, now an Army officer spews this bilge?

    Oathkeepers are talking of actual physical harm coming against the people by the government. I didn’t read anything about small pox.

    I’ll wager the problem Streiff has is with the founder of Oathkeepers who’s a “Ron Pauler” I believe.

    Do your realize “officer” that the president isn’t mentioned in the OATH YOU SWORE TO!!! Read it slowly! Read it slowly! The president is never mentioned.

    ?I, Steiff (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.?

    Tell me where president is mentioned in YOUR OATH? I read it slowly and maybe it’s my lack of a degree in civics but I don’t see the president mentioned.

    Did you notice the “domestic” part? But it’s the last part that goes unnoticed not surprisingly by you. The founders believed our rights came from God ( Nature’s Law). “So help me God”.

    You swore to defend the Constitution that was written by men who formed it with intense prayer to whom? God.

    Your obligation is before God. You’re to serve at His pleasure not Obama’s or Bush’s not even if your boy Newt becomes the president.

    To make this article any worse you would have to endorse Dede Scozzafava and Obama in ’12?

    • BillM

      “Oathkeepers are talking of actual physical harm coming against the people by the government. I didn?t read anything about small pox.”

      Where is the imminent threat of this? Actual evidence such as leaked contigency plans from the WH, etc, for ordering the miltary to attack those protesting Obama’s policies?

    • Streiff

      God doesn’t sign your commission. It might be better if He did but He doesn’t.

      While I’ll be the first to admit that having a Paulite involved in this group was a clue that it was batsh** crazy to the core, it didn’t take much time on their website to substantiate it.

      If you believe in these points then, borrowing from your own arguing style, I can only conclude you are a racist. The schools in Little Rock were integrated by federal troops entering the state in opposition to the will of the governor and state government. (relax, I know you really aren’t a racist)

      If you need a Ron Paul staffer to remind you of your duty you really shouldn’t be around weapons. Or anything sharper than a basketball.

      • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

        Streiff…

        The racist moniker is typically used by leftwing ideologues who are completely devoid of an argument.. Totally uncalled for… And frankly, sinking into personal attacks of this nature just torpedoed your arguement.

        Ron Paul may be a bit out there, but the one thing he isn’t is a hypocrite about it. He firmly believes in the Constitution and the cornerstone it represents…. In fact.. Ron Paul has nothing to do with the organization OTHER than the founder Stewart Rhodes volunteered for his campaign… which brings the follow on… So What?

        If you would read the the site carefully it states that the idea behind Oath Keepers is to bring awareness that in the possible event of such as situation, the servicemen or LEO would have had forethought on what actions he will or will not take.

        If you want an example of what they are talking about, you need go no further than what happened during Katrina.

        During Katrina the actions of the Federal/local resources acted in a manner that were on the face of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least. Blockading the city to prevent people from leaving when they had no food or water, denying local resources from providing aid. Disarming people in a situation when any law abiding citizen would need to be armed the MOST to defend themselves!

        Frankly, Sir… I find it fascinating that a retired Lite Colonel would be that much of an automaton about following orders without addressing the ramifications of those orders especially when the welfare of civilians are involved… I recall officers with that same mindset during my tenure, and needless to say the only respect they received from us NCOs was simply due to the bars or clusters on their collar. Respect for the man himself was miniscule due to his lack of intestinal fortitude and his unerring ability to prostrate himself at the posterior of his superiors… the term Peter Principle comes to mind.

        Anyone who levels the charge of racism where none exists… is the racist.

        • Streiff

          1. read my comment, like the part in parentheses. The point being that taken at their face value the oath keepers oath would have supported racism every time it was used in our history.

          2. Ron Paul is a goof and any cause he or his people are associated with deserves the highest level of scrutiny.

          3. The oath keepers have no right to inflict their rather warped sense of what is constitutional on anyone else, or to do it without people laughing in their face.

          4. Not a single court in the land agrees with your view of what is unconstitutional based on this post. Therein lies the danger I’m speaking of. BTW, get your levels of government straight. The blockading of New Orleans was done by the sheriff’s departments in neighboring parishes, not federal troops.

          5. The US military has a tradition going back to 1775 of not blindly following orders but rather our conscience. It has worked quite well to date and doesn’t need the assistance of a bunch of nitwits like the oath keepers group to help them out.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            ..the cop who body slammed that old woman in her home was “Constitutional”? She threatened nobody. (4th Amdt) and it was a violation of the Louisiana Constitution Art.1 Sec 5.

            The Sheriff in a neighboring parish that attempted to provide aid had all his efforts thwarted by FEMA… and FEMA was running the blockades That was Constitutional? I doubt it given the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority in his county/parish… the Fed gov’t has no jurisdiction there period! And to that about a “single court in the land” thing… uhh you’re wrong… Bill Clinton was sued over the Brady Law by a county sheriff and won by Supreme Court decision. Fed had no authority to impose that law or hold the Sheriff accountable for its enforcement.

            BTW… What do you propose should be done if the Fed oversteps its bounds into an area that these threads have been talking about? You’ve been big on bitching about what the Oath Keepers have to say… what DO YOU propose should be done in that event? Hmm?

          • Streiff

            what you’re trying to say here beyond gibberish. I understand that you don’t like a lot of stuff but as far as I can tell none of it has anything to do with this thread.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            n/t

        • nessa

          One thing that has been ignored in this thread is the fact that the military is going to get an opinion on any controversial, possibly un-constitutional order before they execute. The 82nd’s lawyers and the Division JAG earned their money during Katrina. Because of the Title X restrictions we did not participate in any weapons confiscations or in manning any check points into or out of the city, NO Law Enforcement responsibilities of any kind. The National Guard may have, they are authorized and are under the Command of the Governor, Federal Forces could not under Title X and were there for disaster relief only.

          The issues that the Oath Keepers cite in their “Orders we will not obey” would each be carefully scrutinized by the Major Commands (FORSCOM, Corps, Division) before they were relayed to the troops on the ground. The senior commanders are Citizen Soldiers as well, they know and understand the military’s place in our Republic and would be the first and most forceful opponents of such an illegal act.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            Military…

          • nessa

            From your post above:

            “During Katrina the actions of the Federal/local resources acted in a manner that were on the face of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least. Blockading the city to prevent people from leaving when they had no food or water, denying local resources from providing aid. Disarming people in a situation when any law abiding citizen would need to be armed the MOST to defend themselves!”

            Two Brigades and the DIV HQ from the 82nd Airborne Division were part of the Federal resources provided during Katrina. My point that the US Army involved did not participate in these unconstitutional activities is a salient point in this thread. Membership in the Oath Keepers would have had no effect on the actions of the US Army members there, they did not take part in anything questionable, the military chain of command took care of it before issuing the order.

            On the other hand, membership in the Oath Keepers would not have stopped an abusive policeman from body slamming an old woman in her home.

          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            Where do you get “Military” out of “Federal Resources”?

          • nessa

            The United States Military is a Federal resource, as in Federal Government, in Katrina we were under Federal control, as in President Bush. We did not fall under the LA Governor as did the National Guard, they were a State resource.

  • Wretched_Dog

    The issue isn?t one of local martial law in the face of illegitimate insurrection, or the medical quarantine of a region due to an epidemic. Streiff?s examples are strawman arguments or red herrings. But assuming the sincerity of his position, what he overlooks is the Oathkeepers? assertion that it is the unconstitutional exercise of government power that they oppose. The list of ten ?Orders we will not obey? are, within clear context, ?enforceable? (by the individual soldier or policeman?s conscience) upon demonstration of an extra-constitutional use of state power to an end which would subject the American people to ?absolute despotism.?

    As a career Army officer, 1984 graduate of the Military Academy (West Point), Infantry Officer, and constitutionalist I take great offense at Striff?s historical myopia. I am subject to the oath I swore to ?support and defend the Constitution of the United States? ? and will be unti, even after I retire (several years away), until I am no longer viable for recall. But even then, I will be personally bound, as a citizen, to that same oath.

    For Streiff to trivialize the issue as ?un- American nonsense indicates to me that he has not through the ramifications of his oath or of the realities of history.?

    The Wretched Dog

    • http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamgainey billg

      I swore that oath myself. My allegience is to the US Constitution and not any one person who may hold a political office that was created by that Constitution. Common sense, morality, lawful or unlawful, whatever; if my God, my family or my country come under attack, I be a part of the defense or die trying be it foreign or domestic….

      • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

        It isn’t the Constitution, it comes from the CinC ultimately.
        When the CinC ordered us into Iraq, I didn’t wait around to determine first if it was an “unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional” war. I went.
        Those who refused the order to deploy or step off were prosecuted, as they should’ve been.
        Last I heard it took a heck of a lot of lawyers and judges to determine the constitutionality of an issue, who the heck am I, an E6, to snap judge issues?
        Further, with less than a year till retirement, why would I put my name on a list on some web site who’s owner I don’t know from Adam saying “these are the orders I refuse to obey”? Why would anybody, for that matter?
        If I bailed every time they elected a President I didn’t like, I’d have about 6 years total service right now. I first enlisted under Carter, came back after a 12 year hiatus to Clinton, and today I’m not thrilled either.
        I follow the orders of my LT, my platoon commander, and my folks follow me. It’s quite enough making sure everybody has dry socks, MREs, ammunition and stays hydrated without having to worry about lugging around a battery of legal opinions on constitutional precedent, thank you.

        • Wretched_Dog

          Erick: Thanks for the post.

          I have no argument with your basic contention regarding following orders. As servicemembers we have an obligation to follow orders of duly constituted authority. Until and unless …

          Until and unless obedience to such orders causes us to violate our oath to support and defend the Constitution. Merely “following orders” does not, in and of itself, meet the test of “keeping one’s oath to “support and defend the constitution.”

          But this only becomes and issue if and when such orders are clearly and demonstrably in violation of the founding principles enshrined in our Organic Law (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights).

          Hence the list of things that the Oathkeepers have detailed that they cannot, in good conscience, undertake without violating their oath.

          So the Oathkeepers issue is one of rejecting orders that compromise their duty to “support and defend the Constitution”… This has nothing to do with fighting the current crop of wars against militant Islam; the “Ten Orders I will not Obey” do not advocate any sort of anarchy of decision, where every servicemember question orders or even wrestle the question whether any particular conflict is unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional? – those orders all have to do with despotism agains teht American people in violation of our Constituional principles.

          Big Difference.

          • Streiff

            there are lots of things on that list that they are constitutionally compelled to do.

            1. Constitutionally the armed forces can be used to put down an insurrection.

            2. Constitutionally the armed forces can be used to enforce federal law.

            This is with or without the support of a state governor/legislature.

            The oath takers 10 orders is a profoundly dangerous, undemocratic and un-American concept.

          • Wretched_Dog

            Streiff: You are correct regarding items 1. and 2. That does not mean that all such orders and acts will be in accordance with constitutional principle – which is the point.

            Please go to the Oathkeepers site and read the expanded list. I think it is clear within the historical context that the examples cited in the ‘ten orders we will not obey’ have clear historical precedent as actions inimical to American constitutional liberty. Accordingly, if such orders and incidents were to occur on American soil, service-members have a duty to reject following such orders – if they are going to be serious about adhering to their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

            Given that the Oathkeeper?s purpose is to create awareness regarding the potential for despotism and encourage service-members and sworn peace officers to re-affirm their oath to support and defend the constitution, I am really surprised at your vehemence against the idea that any possible rejection of an order which arguably leads to despotism (remember what the DOI was about) is necessarily a violation of one’s oath.

            Can you envision any circumstances where not obeying an order were permissible?

            If so, what are your criteria?

            If not, then the argument is moot — as you have permitted no exercise of conscience by serving members. What is the point?

            What does the oath mean if it doesn’t involve, at some level, a tripwire assessment of obedience to lawfully constituted authority, until and unless….

            What is your “until and unless?”

            BTW: I challenge you, based on the historical examples in the expanded list of Ten Orders we will not Obey, to demonstrate how those historical examples are “undemocratic and un-American”.

            Regards,

          • Hooah_Mac

            “What does the oath mean if it doesn?t involve, at some level, a tripwire assessment of obedience to lawfully constituted authority, until and unless?.”

            That is incongruous with the actual definition of the word oath. An oath is an oath. The oath is self-contained and cannot be constrained by outside lists or considerations. Otherwise, it is not an oath…maybe a statement of intent.

          • Wretched_Dog

            The oath is to support and defend the constitution. I am not arguing that my oath is constrained by some outside list. It is not.

            But if I am merely going to congratulate myself for “keeping my oath” because I have merely obeyed orders, then I think it is an exercise in futility. (Hence my “tripwire comment”.)

            If there were an order or action that would serve to damage the constitution, then – in order to adhere to one’s oath – one would have to disobey such an order or refuse to undertake such the action…

            And it isn’t merely about disobeying “illegal orders”, as Streiff maintains. I can envision circumstances wherein government action tramples on constitutional principle or exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

            Thus the dilemma.

            That is the point of Oathkeepers. The list is merely representative of despotic actions that they recommend someone bound to support and defend the constitution could not undertake, in good conscience.

            I hope this helps; I am really at a loss as to how to explain the distinction any more clearly.

          • Hooah_Mac

            Therein lies the whole problem with your argument and the reason the Oath Keepers are at best unnecessary.

            Their error is compounded by making a non-Constitutional list of what represents orders they will not obey. While I understand the thought behind it, it is still a very bad idea.

            And the answer to the question in the subject line is: it can’t.

          • bs

            There’s no guarantee that a particular law is constitutional. Just because the Senate, House and POTUS pass a law doesn’t mean they followed the rules. IANAL, but if someone is charged under a particular statute, they can contest it all the way up to the Supreme Court, where that law can then be found unconstitutional. It happens.

          • Hooah_Mac

            If it is a violation of the Constitution, it is illegal. It may not be reflected in law, but it is still illegal. Soldiers are not the arbiters of that either, so I don’t want to wade into minutia.

            The point is that unconstitutional use of the military can’t be made legal in our framework. It can be called legal, can even be passed as a law, but it is still illegal.

          • bs

            You can’t expect the military to be battlefield constitutional lawyers. They follow orders. Now there are certain situations where a member of the military doesn’t have to break out the Constitution to tell if something is illegal/unconstitutional – like if ordered to line up civilians and gun them down. But I would guess that most situations are far more subtle than that.

            (I didn’t mean to be poking at you – just thought I’d make that prior observation…)

          • Hooah_Mac

            You might have missed it, but in general I agree with Streiff. This whole portion of the thread is me trying to back up the point that the Oath Keepers are unnecessary or worse.

            Below I took him to task for how this was stated and how it has come forward, but otherwise I am in agreement.

          • bs
          • Hooah_Mac

            It is list that is a vague mixture of Constitutionality, federal law and ideology. Federal law can change and ideology has no bearing.

            Therefore, the only list that is acceptable is one that is in sync with the Constitution, The Laws of War and current Federal law. No such list could be created which is applicable to any given situation.

            If the Oath Keepers line in the sand was the principles of the constitution, I would be more receptive, but then again, it is irrelevant because that is already expected of Soldiers.

            The concern here is why there needs to be a “new” list of what these military people will or will not do. It is a dangerous road to go down, and is not in keeping with our tradition of service.

            It is easy for people to miss that because they agree with a principle, and fail to critically examine the supposed implementation of that principle.

          • nessa

            If the Oath Keepers had stopped before listing their “Orders we will not obey”, maybe with a general statement about upholding their Oath to the Constitution everyone would be much more comfortable. Instead they listed them and opened themselves up to criticism, even the mention of concentration camps makes them look like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

            There are times when the use of Federal forces inside the borders of the US is legitimate, there are times when some of the things they blindly say they will not do would also be legitimate. There are times when they would not be, both have been mentioned here in various comments.

            Personally, I like the idea of the Oath Keepers reassuring the American people that the US Military is not made up of Waffen SS like, obedient automatons just waiting for any order to be uttered so they can leap to follow it. It never has been, never will be. Many Americans without our (or Streiff’s, or ColdWarrior’s, or any of the dozens more here who have served) years of experience and familiarity with the military don’t know what it is actually like. And of those who have served many would never have encountered the military dealing with issues like those called into question here.

            But imagine the millions of folks who are not familiar with the military and these facts I’ve mentioned. For many all they know is what they hear, all too often from idiots on the left who don’t know or are just playing to their code pink base. Think of the dread the Founding Fathers held for a standing army, and that was a standing army armed with the Brown Bess and two pounder cannons. What do you think their reaction would be to a standing army the likes of which we have today? You would have a tough time convincing General Washington to come out of his grave to review a company of them.

            The dedication to the Oath that the Oath Keepers are asking for is already there, if we could get a tenth part of that dedication from the other Americans who pledge oaths to the Constitution we wouldn’t even be reading this site.

          • Hooah_Mac

            By putting this out there as they have, they are suggesting that it isn’t already in the very DNA of our military to uphold the Constitution. As Streiff pointed out, Soldiers may not know it very well, but they revere it all the same.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Especially in light of the current administration. I agree it is something that is encouraging for all Americans to actually hear soldiers and law enforcement say “we are still here and we still support freedom.”

            This isn’t to say people who don’t take the oath are suspect. But doing it loudly and publicly can’t do any harm either.

            As for having 1.8M people each deciding what the constitution means? Absolutely. If that many people are reading it then only the plainest most obvious language will carry any real weight and we can be safe from all of the nuanced trash that comes out of our corrupt legal system.

            Nine guy’s opinions do not a constitution make. Especially when they are handpicked by the left to have opinions that support tyranny and socialism. Dressing them in black robes doesn’t make it right.

            What we really need is 300M people reading the constitution and upholding it whenever and wherever they can. Then maybe we can avoid the executive and legislative garbage as well.

      • Streiff

        you can’t take one part of the oath of office in isolation and you can’t take a competing oath and remain true to your oath of office.

        • Wretched_Dog

          “You can’t take one part of the oath of office in isolation and you can?t take a competing oath and remain true to your oath of office.”

          Streiff: No part of the oath is being taken in isolation. The only oath in question is the oath that service-member’s originally swore. There is not a separate ‘oathkeepers’ oath (which I have confirmed by a close associate of Mr. Rhodes) – so I am not sure why you assert “you can?t take a competing oath and remain true to your oath of office.”

          If there were some secondary oath, then I would agree with you that there might be conflict between the two.

          But there isn’t. They only oath in question is the one each service-member swears upon enlistment or commissioning.

          As I see it, the Oathkeeper’s purpose is to create awareness regarding the potential for despotism and encourage service-members and sworn peace officers to re-affirm their oath to support and defend the constitution – thinking through what that entails…

          Regards,

          • Streiff

            You are simply denying what is on the oath keeper’s website which doen’t do much for your credibility.

            What they have runs counter to the oath of office and the Constitution.

            If they say their 10 things etc comport with the oath of office they are simply lying.

    • Streiff

      you may have taken an oath to uphold the constitution but that oath doesn’t give you the authority to decide what is constitutional. You have a duty to disobey unlawful orders and with that duty comes a risk if no one else agrees with your interpretation of the law.

      The examples I give are not strawmen. They are examples of the utter lack of comprehension the whole oath keepers movement has about our government.

      I know you were taught better than this at West Point.

      I don’t trivialize these people, not because they aren’t trivial, but because they are a fundamental threat to our democracy if allowed to grow.

  • BillM

    If I understand it, some are worried that Obama may order the miltary to attack US civilians, especially those with legally-owned firearms or those lawfully protesting his plans for government run health-care.

    Must be the same folks who worried GWB was going to allow another 9/11 in 2008, so he could declare martial law, cancel/overturn the election & stay in power.

  • seansie

    If your organization has been hijacked by someone (let’s say Obama/Mao) with malicious intent and is being directed to damage citizens, you have no alternative but to side against the organization’s objectives. If good Englishmen wouldn’t have sided against the crown and with the colonists (those rabble-rousing, insubordinate, revolutionary hillbillies in violation of their royal oath) we would not be in America. The Oathkeeper movement deserves unfettered support. As a career soldier, I am sure you have seen many things one could only imagine. However, a hell you have not seen is the destruction of your country. You are seeing the beginning of it now, if you are observant.

  • seansie

    You wrote the article about John Brown! Your stance was one of admiration for that murderer. Now you write a condemning article of these men and women who refuse to carry out orders in support of a tyrannical leader. Nice.

    • Michael Dugas

      N/T

    • Streiff

      I would tell you to go back and read it but that would be wasted effort.

  • Michael Dugas

    You have a group of citizens, mostly current and ex military, police etc who are worried that the current administration may ORDER those same groups, military, police etc, to carry out unconstitutional /unlawful orders against the citizens of this country. Not so many years ago this would have been pretty much laughed at EXCEPT by those that even I would find extreme. But now we have an administration that has NO love OR respect for the Constitution of the United States of America or our country. Their actions have proven it.
    -They are actively trying to violate the 1st Amendment Rights of
    50% of the population. Putting out reports branding the Right as
    extremist, pushing some incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine,
    moving to silence our voice on the net through Net Neutrality etc.
    -You have Democrat politicians doing everything they can to block
    voting reform that would make it possible for soldiers over seas
    to be able to get their absentee ballots filled out and returned in
    time to be counted.
    -You have Obama fixing to sign away American Sovereignty in
    Copenhagen. This treaty states the intention of creating a world
    government which we will be UNDER and whose job will be to
    take our already dwindling federal tax dollars and give them to
    third world countries to pay off our “climate debt”
    -You have Obama creating dozens of Czar positions that have no
    oversight , who are neither reviewed nor elected an who don’t
    answer to anyone but Obama. Their power basically tosses
    checks and balances out the window.
    -And now we have an administration that, while our country is in a
    financial crisis with double digit unemployment and a collapsing
    dollar, is intending to sign two huge pieces of legislation and a
    climate treaty that will finish off our economy and finally achieve
    what they have always wanted. An American population totally
    dependant on the government to survive. If Obama Care, Cap
    & Trade and this climate treaty go through we may be through.
    And lets not forget his spoken intentions to shut down the coal
    industry, 70% of our electric, and not build any nuke plants, on
    top of all these other fore mentioned financially disasterous
    agendas.
    -His stated intentions to create a civilian security force as well
    and funded as the military. Scary.
    -Do I even need to bring up his administrations stance on the
    2nd Amendment?
    I could go on and on with this as well as Obama filling up his
    administration with avowed socialists, communists and criminals.
    His association with homegrown anti-american terrorists and
    extremist organizations like ACORN, La Raza and the like whose
    behavior has really come to light recently with those hooker/pimp/sex slave videos.
    If you take everything, every action and voiced intentions of all the players in this administration and its associates you basically have a criminal cabal running our country into the ground.
    And it’s my personal opinion that all of this is intentional with the
    desired outcome of the left being a financially, militarily and politically hamstringed America that they then think they will be able to remake in the image they want.
    There’s NO WAY they can be unaware of what the results to our economy will be if these people are allowed to succeed with their plans.
    Our enemies are wringing their hands with glee over the situation we find ourselves in and they are doing everything they can to help it along.
    This is just a collection of a few points but they alone are enough to scare the bejesus out of me. And I have NO PROBLEM understanding the point of view of the Oath Keepers and why they
    might feel the way they do. Obamas associates worry me much more than the fact that one of the Oath Keepers worked for Ron Paul when he was running for President.
    The only threat I see to our Constitution and this country is the Obama Administration.

  • jayburd

    The only question left is ‘What ya gonna do about it?’
    I get a kick listening to people(from the two party dog and pony show) pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they will defend or ignore (when it suits their needs) when in reality its been violated for years. Whatever happened to the G.OP. plank to get rid of the Dept. of Ed.? It disappeared 30 years ago. Sometimes I just feel like telling people to shut up and get out of the way.

  • jayburd

    The next crises(a kinda Moore’s law of socialism) after this Internet Inconvenience/Net Neutrality will have something to do with guns, ammo, or the people who own them.

    • redneck_hippie

      gun violence a public health issue. Since the government will be running all health care, then of course having NIH find that guns cause ill health will surprise everyone by paving the way for gun control legislation. What Could Go Wrong?

      http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/19/nih-funds-study-of-teen-firearms/?feat=home_top5_commented

  • Richard Mullins

    sorry to say that to some of you, but that the way is. What would stop of the “Oath Takers” from killing you if a crisis arose? What stops them from thinking your part of an unconstitutional government? Those are some questions you might want to ask before giving a blind allegiance to this group. We really need to watch who we associate with now and in the coming years.

    • seansie

      Let’s say we are on a cruise ship. It is taking in water very rapidly and appears to be going down. Does the crew man the ship rigidly acting as though nothing is happening (per their oath) or do they act in the spirit of their oath and help passengers to safety? Which is more important? The Constitution must be divined by men great enough to comprehend its spirit, much like the Bible. The Constitution, and our republican system, can only work when men of integrity oversee its processes. The Oath Keeper movement is a safeguard to protect citizens against tyrannical forces that seek to hijack our republican processes (see Acorn, Czars, Soros’s October surprise and devaluing our currency) and thwart our Constitution.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

      The Oath Keepers are explicitly non-violent. They are for non-action in the face of unlawful orders.

      They do not advocate attacking anybody.

      They are according to their site planning to sit it out.

      • Richard Mullins

        It’s just a thought and might want to think about it before you go off and join up. I think Streiff had looked at the site in detail and it doesn’t look good(besides, on the top of their articles is one written by Pat Buchannan). I really don’t have much trust and don’t believe anything that they say. They are not us and further more if they show up in crisis, I’d shoot them. Really, I have a really bad feeling about these people.

        • redneck_hippie

          I’m not a mod, but may I suggest you walk that last bit back. Way back.

          • Richard Mullins

            really, you think I want to go out and shoot them. You most likely misunderstood what I meant. Since I do live in area that has lots of people, not mention lots that could be appendages of the government. If they get here with guns drawn it would be in an insurrection. So with that what was said made perfect sense unless you are part this admin. So chew on that before you make comments on small parts of whats said.

        • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

          But I think we are seeing the same smear of people that are primarily patriotic as we did of all the “crazy” “rightwing” militia types in the 90′s.
          Just because McVeigh did what he did, does not mean everybody who disliked or distrusted an out of control government was a nut job.

          Given the current climate, anybody who doesn’t hold a healthy degree of distrust for those inside the beltway needs to have their head examined.

          A group of military and law enforcement personnel putting them on notice that order will not be followed if unconstitutional (which is the oath they swore) will not be followed, is a good thing.

          Does anybody think that one day in their secret underground bunker these guys are going to reveal to the people who signed their petition that the REAL REASON we are gathered here is to effect the violent overthrough of the government? In a room full of loyal law enforcement and military personnel? And the response won’t involve Miranda?

          These guys are more dangerous to the Republic than Snowe, Collins or McCain? Reid or Pelosi?

          As a danger Oath Keepers don’t rate. As a friend of liberty they may cause somebody to think twice before the frontal assault.

          I say again, I don’t care if you agree with every point they make or any point they make but people everywhere better start thinking about what they would do if ordered to…..

          • Richard Mullins

            not that I don’t think we shouldn’t have some doubts about our government(well lots of doubts), but it hasn’t risen to the level of have that we have with this group. Have our citizenry well armed is good thing, but we a group that at the surface does look benign but after looking closer doesn’t seem that way. We need to be more vigilant against our government but we don’t groups to do this. So you want them to decide to decide what constitutional and what’s not?

            BTW, you are right about not caring what think, but reconsider things before diving in.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    “a safeguard to protect citizens against tyrannical forces that seek to hijack our republican processes”

    The.Brain.Reels.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
    • seansie

      His brain reels for he. or. she. is. simple. like.

      • seansie

        Take your hands out of your lap, it may help your comprehension. And driving.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          Well, that was more or less inevitable.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
          • http://www.werushdaily.com Rightshift

            Do you have anything to offer other than a nonsensical waste of bandwidth?

            Please feel free… if not I’m sure you can find time to go volunteer for Obama or ACORN… they need folks to help smuggle in children for child prostitution.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            I know we’re forbidden to talk to actual ghosts–what about incipient ghosts?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            So to optimize sensical use of bandwidth … details, please?

          • Streiff

            you’ve done nothing but toss insults and studiously misread the story and subsequent comments.

            It would be a great career move to change that modus operandi.

          • Richard Mullins

            that might not be a record Leon, but it sure is statement of the tripe that some have posted as comments.

            Leon, what do ghosts have for Breakfast? Ghost Toasties.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            But it is the most I’ve had in quite a while.

          • nessa

            And what post set it off? Which mod currently holds the record? There’s all kinds of fun we could have with this one.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            We’ve had a number of posts/topics that have drawn the trolls en masse. I believe Thomas still has the record, but I’m not sure.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We’ve had that many in one thread in one day, though that I split with Moe.

            I imagine some election days past had a lot of bans. And there were the times that a front pager named Augustine got some attention..

          • Streiff

            was set when Ben Domenech was dropped from blogging at the Washington Post.

            Thomas and I probably whacked 20 each.

          • nessa
  • Chief1942

    ” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    • Streiff

      We’re talking about a different subject.

      But just to be clear and to be fair, I need for you to positively affirm that you aren’t advocating sedition or overthrow of the government because our core beliefs here are in the Constitution and America’s political traditions, not sedition. Otherwise you need to go elsewhere to post.

      • Chief1942

        Circumstances that existed in this country are quite different today than when that statement was drafted. You have been very vocal in telling everyone what they can’t do to defense against some future despotism without violating their Constitutional oath. So pray tell, as has been asked by others, in your view, what measures are appropriate to deal with such a circumstance? And I must admit that you seem to think anyone proposing to refute and resist any type of governmental takeover, hypothetical or otherwise, are somehow traitorous seditionionists for even broaching the subject. Not sure just who the paranoid one’s really are in this debate. And it the question is too difficult, I understand and will take my inquiries somewhere else.

  • Hooah_Mac

    This whole post was, in my opinion, ill-advised, because it simply invites a lot of argument among people who would generally agree.

    1. It does not in any way present the appearance that people on the right are opposed to the Oath Keepers business – which was apparently the objective. Rather, the viewpoint of people on the right is actually more confusing on this issue now.

    2. No reasonable discussion has happened in this thread. There is a very serious problem when the impression is given that the site authority of the poster allows no debate. If you don’t see that undercurrent here, I’d recommend you step back and try reading some of this discussion from someone else’s perspective because that impression is out there.

    3. Most of the people who are sympathetic to the Oath Keeper’s viewpoint are that way for reasons we would agree with. Instead of showing them why Oath Keepers is the wrong way to accomplish a good objective, this post and the resulting thread has made a lot of people think that Redstate considers them kooks and idiots.

    4. Frankly, many of the veterans I know are sympathetic to Oath Keepers and of those, the ones that have read this post are disgusted with Redstate. That is unfortunate, because it is the opposite result that should have happened. I would much prefer spending my time discussing with them the reasons Oath Keepers is misguided than trying to smooth ruffled feathers about Redstate, a community I care for very much.

    5. You can take my constructive criticism as it is intended, and hopefully something like this can be handled better in the future, or not. I just felt these things needed to be said.

    • janis

      of commenting at all on this subject. We have valid reasons for being sympathetic to the OathKeepers and their concerns. And we have valid reasons for not wanting to see what they are prepared to do be necessary. Discussion, if there were to be one, should be along the lines you suggest in point #3.

      • Hooah_Mac

        I rewrote that whole thing about 6 times because I wanted it to come off correctly. I’m not trying to get a defensive reaction from anyone, just hoping that people will slow down and reevaluate whether this line of action is having the desired result.

    • Streiff

      But from my point of view in answer to your points.

      1. The intent was to draw a bright line saying that subscribing to the Oath Keepers nonsense is 1) silly, 2) alien to American traditions, and 3) politically not helpful to our side in any way shape or form. If I didn’t make that clear, I’m sorry.

      2. I can’t help perceptions but how many comments are on this story? You are #234. I have been chickenhawked and personally insulted in most of those posts by people who couldn’t be bothered to show me the courtesy of reading the post to begin with. I’ve whacked two who seemed to be advocating an overthrow of the US government. I think Leon has taken out two more for having room temperature IQs. So if people were afraid to disagree with me, I missed it.

      3. I find it really hard to believe that anyone who signs up for Oath Keepers is on my side. This site is about upholding American traditions of governance not supporting some kind of Third World secret society within the Armed Forces which adheres to its own rules.

      4. I can’t help that. Really. People who are sympathetic to the Oath Keepers are not conservatives and not Republicans which is where this site is focused. You can’t be either while advocating setting aside the rule of law. Anyone in the military who is sympathetic to this should seriously consider the potential damage it can do to the standing of the US military in the eyes of the American people.

      5. Perhaps it could have been handled better, but I do remember how Clinton hung the militia movement around our neck after the OKC bombing and the damage it did to us. Like the Oath Keepers the militia movement was seemingly benign and quoted the Constitution vociferously, until it came to the point of actually doing what the Constitution requires. Then it seems that everyone of these groups had their own ideas of what was and was not constitutional. That simply isn’t the way our political system works.

      • Hooah_Mac

        That’s why I am suggesting you step back and consider. You are seeing it as someone who thinks about these things all the time and carefully evaluated what they were saying.

        Many who are positive about the Oath Keepers are that way because they see it as simply a commitment by members of the military to keep the defending the Constitution part of their oath. The best way to deal with it, in my opinion of course, would be to show that one agrees with the underlying thought, but that the Oath Keepers are selling something different.

        Most of the people sympathetic to Oath Keepers ARE conservative and most would be or are Republicans. Your comments are an example of my concern. These sympathetic people need to be educated, not ridiculed or lumped into some offensive category.

        • Streiff

          I have to admit that I’ve been utterly gobsmacked by the number of people who think this is a good idea and I’ve lost all respect for a couple of people whose posts I used to admire.

          And I don’t even agree with the underlying thought beyond the idea that you are never under an obligation to follow unlawful orders which makes the Oath Keepers superfluous in the first place.

          These people truly scare me. Much more than the anti-globalization protesters and Code Pink.

          • Hooah_Mac

            One tends to start judging others by the standard of one’s own knowledge and understanding.

            Many of my Army friends, particularly those who are no longer in the service, come to me for advice and information on political topics because they just don’t know. Several heard about the Oath Keepers and thought it was a good thing. I would not have gotten far with them if I had started by saying negative things about anyone who agrees with Oath Keepers. Instead I talked about what was wrong with Oath Keepers – then I could say it would be dumb to join, and the reception to my message was positive.

          • janis

            may advocate, Hooah is certainly right when he says that many who might be sympathetic toward them can definitely be considered both conservative AND Republican. Never in a million years could you lump me in with some white supremacist group or a militia group who believes that the American government went seriously off the rails and should be overthrown just any day now.

            But I also think that our fears reside in the sentence you wrote in this comment: …you are never under an obligation to follow unlawful orders…”. And what if those unlawful orders are made into lawful ones by a government bent on tyranny?

      • Wretched_Dog

        Hooah_Mac wrote:
        3. “Most of the people who are sympathetic to the Oath Keeper?s viewpoint are that way for reasons we would agree with. …”

        4. “Frankly, many of the veterans I know are sympathetic to Oath Keepers and of those, the ones that have read this post are disgusted with Redstate. …”

        I have to agree with Hooah-Mac on this.

        Streiff wrote:
        1. “The intent was to draw a bright line saying that subscribing to the Oath Keepers nonsense is 1) silly, 2) alien to American traditions, and 3) politically not helpful to our side…”

        – Silly perhaps, but I do not see how the concern expressed by the Oathkeepers is alien to American traditions, I really don’t.”

        More importantly, in re. 3. and 4.
        3. “I find it really hard to believe that anyone who signs up for Oath Keepers is on my side. This site is about upholding American traditions of governance not supporting some kind of Third World secret society within the Armed Forces which adheres to its own rules.”

        – Oathkeepers is precisely about upholding American Traditions of governance (but not just follwoing orders). When you examine the list of 10, the clear issue is one of resisting despotism. Ok, maybe having a list is off-putting to a lot of people, but it is what it is.

        4. “People who are sympathetic to the Oath Keepers are not conservatives and not Republicans which is where this site is focused. ”

        – I think you need to re-examine your assessment here. I am sympathetic to the motivation of the Oathkeepers (I was in fact consulted by the founders), and I am a conservative Republican (and no, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, so don’t go there).

        Beyond that, I will respectfully have to simply disagree with your assessment regarding the appropriateness of one considering, only hypothetically one hopes, whether there are limits that one cannot exceed and remain true to one’s oath. (And this is not the same as having mental reservations in fulfilling the oath. The hypothetical disobedience here is precisely required to fulfill the oath.)

        For myself, I decided those limits 25 years ago when I took my commissioning oath. I know what my oath, and my duty, require – and have no conflicts. That does not mean that it may never happen, so I understand Mr. Rhodes’ groups concerns and motivation.

        With that, I thank you for the dialogue and the think piece. I remain a fan of RedState and trust we can get past what I firmly believe is an inability to properly comprehend the other’s point, because we are on the same side.

        Regards,

        The Wretched Dog

  • usmc

    Why do people coddle this guy’s arrogance? He called us racists if we disagree? How’s he any different than Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the rest of those anti-American tyrants?

    You talk like a pathetic progressive. Who cares about your admiration? Oh, he’s “gobsmacked”! Who gives a flip?

    You just ripped a bunch of patriots who don’t have a stick up their poop chute about the founder’s association with Ron Paul.

    This country is under assault from all fronts and you waste time writing this crap?

    I don’t find it a coincidence a paper in Nevada wrote a bad article on Oathkeepers. You sounded no different than that leftist.

    How is it I knew you had beef with Paul? How could I come to that conclusion? I don’t know a thing about you and I don’t care to.

    Yet I knew it had to be about the GOP (Gathering of Progressives) and any who dare oppose it. So you tried to act like you were some kind of Constitutional Scholar, kinda like that fascist in the WH claims to be.

    You are the reason NY-23 is happening. You’re a blind follower. Maybe you were the one Obama was referring to when he said “Republicans do what they’re told!”

    I knew it had to be something off the topic you were whining about. You confessed like I thought you would. I think Paul’s foreign policy is pathetic just like your leadership and attitude.

    Is this what Redstate is about? I also it took two of you to run this thread. What’s the matter an Army Officer can’t handle us knuckle dragging “racists” by himself?

    “Frankly, many of the veterans I know are sympathetic to Oath Keepers and of those, the ones that have read this post are disgusted with Redstate.”

    Amen. I’m one of them. This will be my last post. This site is garbage.

    All that experience in the Army you claim you have, your degrees and other elitist crap you spewed and you pull the race card on me?

    I believe we are in the same environment as the 1700s in many ways. So I guess that would make you a Loyalist or a Torrie if you will. It doesn’t take a scholar to know how that turned out.

    Your men, our guys are fighting and dying while that Idiot in Chief plays basketball and whines about Glenn Beck. Those are YOUR GUYS dying! You’re here whining like a spoiled school girl calling us racists who want to preserve the Country those men are dying and getting maimed for.

    Do you see just how stupid this article of yours is? So you and your little helper can ban me. I could give a rat’s butt. If this is what this site is about then I want no part of it.

    When you’re not here blogging do you also blog at DailyKOS?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      This is your last post.

    • Hooah_Mac

      Apparently by disagreeing with usmc, Streiff has become the ultimate source of all evil. Pretty impressive.

      usmc, I recommend you take your meds and calm down before using a keyboard again, ever.

    • streetwise

      and I never go to Kos without a barf bag.

      • bs

        hehehe…. I’d be right there with you. Talk about a spectator sport.

  • MattGauntt

    I write for another blog. I wrote almost the same post and got all of the same rabid comments. I hope it is not a sign of things to come. Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    The Temptation of Boromir

    “Were you not at the Council?” answered Frodo. “Because we cannot use it, and what is done with it turns to evil.”
    …
    Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. “…True hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We … have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? … The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!”
    …
    “Why not get rid of it? Why not be free of your doubt and fear?” … suddenly he sprang over the stone and leaped at Frodo. His fair and pleasant face was hideously changed; a raging fire was in his eyes.
    …
    “Miserable trickster!” he shouted. “Let me get my hands on you! Now I see your mind. You will take the Ring to Sauron and sell us all. You have only waited your chance to leave us in the lurch. Curse you and all halflings to death and darkness!”

    :
    vs.
    :

    The Temptation of Galadriel

    “And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
    …
    Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again…
    “I pass the test,” she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.”
    …
    [Sam answered,] “But if you’ll pardon my speaking out, I think my master was right. I wish you’d take his Ring. You’d put things to rights. You’d stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. You’d make some folk pay for their dirty work.”
    “I would,” she said. “That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas! We will not speak more of it. Let us go!”

    JRR Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    As steiff’s article begins that it all sounds rather benign with a cursory glance, check your gut… that same gut that told you what Obama was before he won the election.

    My gut told me that site scares me and I didn’t even delve that far into it.

    I’ve looked at all but the last few comments on here… and there are a LOT of them… but that group scares me. It’s not the connection to Ron Paul or any one thing but a whole bunch of little things that add up to something not quite right.

    Our Constitution will protect us from most of the scenarios used to support the group. It’s wrinkled and stretched but it is not ripped into a million pieces, yet. Even Obama cannot bypass it no matter how much he wants to. If it came to anything like the scenarios that group envisions, it won’t be our forces that do the deed but the “blue heads.”

    Somebody up-thread said something about publicity seeking. That’s all this is. Like the Birthers, the Truthers, and any other conspiracy group, they just want attention for doing nothing but doing a half-decent job of creating a panic.

    In less than a year we can turn the tables on Obama’s plans for radically “transforming the nation.” People are sick and tired of the crap coming from D.C. and every day they get a little sicker.

    • Chief1942

      ” People are sick and tired of the crap coming from D.C. and every day they get a little sicker.” I could not agree more. But what you left unsaid is that those people are just as sick of the GOP leadership as they are of the party in power. Simply giving the disenfrachised former GOP members another choice of the lesser of two evils in an effort to bring them back into the fold is a real streatch under the current circumstances
      .
      One of the underlying thoughts that seemed to come from this thread of Streiff’s is , what are people to do when they have legislatively been shut out of the process. One simply need to have paid attention to the deaf ear from Washington and the media when the 9-12 event was held a short while back. And for so long, whenever someone puts that question forward, someone says “just vote the rascals out”! Yeah! Right.

      To the best of my knowledge, the last time that was tried was with Mr. Gringrich’s Contract With America and there was a rather large change in the faces that occupied Congress. Care to guess just how long it took for those “junior Congress critters” to be fall in line. or be exiled to some small closet in the Rayburn Building? The “system” has gradually been stacked in favor of career politicians and against the people. Look at this current issue with the Health Care fiasco. Even in spite of all the polls and being witness to the dissatisfaction of mainstreet America, the politicians are hell bent on shoving this thing down our throats.

      Sorry, but anyone who has been paying attention, especially out here in ‘fly over country”, knows that mainstreet America no longer trusts or has confidence in ANY of the politicians of EITHER party. We are not talking folks aligned with socio/political fringe groups of either pursuasion, we are talking about traditional,law abiding, patriotic, red blooded Americans. I know many can point to how they think we arrived at this point, but that is fundmentally irrelevant when one is trying to determine “what do we do now?” or “where do we go from here?” I appreciate that the thrust of this website is to promote GOP vitality and unity, and I have no truck with their idealism, but I fear the horses have long left the corral and simply leaving the gate open and hoping for their return, will not bring them back.

      As so many others, I simply watch and wait. Not sure just what action if any to take or which direction to face. I often monitor, and occasionally participate, in this type of blog to keep my finger on the thoughts and views out there. As one long in the tooth (senior citizen) what the Progressive/Socialists are offering should look mighty attractive, ie government taking care of all your needs from cradle to grave, but somehow that just goes against my grain. Call me foolish, but as an old Cold Warrior I can still distinguish between those who would dramatically change the character of this nation and those who wish to restore it to it’s place as the last great bastion of individual freedom. I have little or no tolerance of whiney naybobs and weak sisters, nor much use for my former politcal party that morphed into Democratic Lite in an effort to stay politically viable, at the expense of their core values. I continue to watch and wait.

      Semper Fi!

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        I thought I did say it. Must have deleted with some other stuff I decided not to say. Thank you for saying it for me. Very few of them are welcome anywhere near the grassroots movements across the country and the longer this goes on, the fewer who will be welcome.

        I’m still optimistic about ’10. After that… we’ll see.

  • Achance

    just what Comrade Obama’s regime has done to people of conscience.

    Streif and I come from the same heritage, he a Virginian and I a Georgian. I don’t know Strieff’s family history but I surmise that a part of it was the same as mine. In January of 1861, my ancestors had to vote on whether to remain in the Union. In March of 1862 they had to decide whether to “volunteer” for service in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States. They followed their state and their conscience and most of them lie in unmarked graves somewhere in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania. See my diary from a while ago about Saylor’s Creek, Virginia.

    For those of us who remember the days when people cared whether you were a communist or not, there is that piece in the now mostly outlawed loyalty oaths about reservation or deception. Streiff is right about this. You cannot take an oath with your fingers crossed. The answer to this is simple. If you have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States, you MUST formally renounce that allegiance and that oath before you can act in oppositon to that oath. To my understanding, that would be a very difficult thing for an enlisted man to do, but for an officer, the choices are stark but clear; resign you commission. Lee and hundreds of other US officers understood this in 1861. It doesn’t seem so different today.

    But, we don’t really face those decisions yet. Deo Vindice

    • Wretched_Dog

      “If you have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States, you MUST formally renounce that allegiance and that oath before you can act in oppositon to that oath.”

      If it were a case of resigning my commission to fight for my state against the national government, then yes, this would be correct.

      But this example is not the matter at hand and not the Oathkeeper’s argument.

      My oath is to the Constitution – without reservation. My oath is not to the government or the Commander-in-Chief.

      I did not when I swore to it on 23 May, 1984, and do not now, have “my fingers crossed.”

      There is no deception involved in recognizing that there are some potential circumstances where orders promulgated by duly constituted, lawful authorities are contrary to the to the constitution (or you can call them illegal because they are contrary to the constitution – if that makes the idea more palatable).

      I cannot understand why this simple concept is incomprehensible to half of the posters here in this discussion.

      No one that I am aware of who is associated with Oathkeepers contemplates rebellion or overthrow or action against the United States. It is entirely their point that they will not take action to violate its core principals that is at issue.

      • Achance
    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      The problem I have is that Streif seems to have resigned himself to the slavery of an oppressive government and is arguing that the current government is alll powerful and all omniscient and therefore we should all just shut up… he told me as much.

      I remain a free man – at the grant of God, not some “case law”

  • yabadabadoing

    They lie and manipulate to get what they want. They manufacture divisions that don’t exist, statements that were never made, redefine concepts to suit their designs, change a word here and there, but always with purpose.

    Then they rob, rape, intimidate, bully, assault and murder between their other activities of beating confessions out of innocent people and thievery. All done I might with the assent of their court systems and complicit media. All of it sounds completely familiar and unchanging.

  • yabadabadoing

    The Constitution is the highest law, period. Violating it, the highest offense possible.

    So if you are ordered to kill unarmed innocents because a court and some politicians decide they really need it done and certify to you that it is indeed Constitutional to do so, are you indeed acting Constitutionally? Are you fulfilling your oaths?

    The Nazis and the Soviets did what they wanted to and couched it in legal process but murder was still committed on a mass scale and they were all guilty of it. Were any of them absolved because they followed orders? Can you personally absolve them? Please tell me of the mental gymnastics it take to accomplish that feat…. Go ahead word smith away. Tell me how it’s ok to kill people because they’re Jews and someone said it was ok…. Showed you a paper to that effect even…

  • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

    n/t

  • noworldorder

    are the views of the author and the other state worshipping “citizens” commenting here. Its getting very clear to see who is on the side of freedom and who is on the side of tyranny. Think long and hard about what side you are going to join, because sides are being chosen. You can’t keep a country glued together with WORDS. Words do not make a country. This site is truly depressing and I encourage any real conservatives to seek out real conservative voices, they are emerging and growing, while sites like this become even more irrelevant. Respectable conservatives like those found on this site are simply liberals in disguise, they are sellouts and are indispensable to the left, because they neuter any real opposition to the liberal trainwreck underway. Google the Political Cesspool for a dose of real conservatism.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      But it is strange that you would resort to WORDS to convey the force of your, er, argument?