Skip to comments.To Obama and his cronies-what orders US military will not obey
Posted on 03/11/2009 8:21:23 AM PDT by conservativegramma
U. S. Military, Veterans, and Peace Officers
Our oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is NOT to the President..., and that oath will be kept,......
Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the President, not to Congress, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We dont care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law.. We wont just follow orders." Our motto: Not on Our Watch!
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. [This confliction MUST NOT be allowed to continue within our military...]
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
It will be civil war again more like 1861.
“The active duty military is restricted by something called Posse Comitatus”
Hate to break it to you, but Posse Comitatus is effectively repealed.
These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed Posse Comitatus in their entirety.
Section 1076 is titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies”. It provided that: “The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
Thought provoking bump!
I stand partially corrected — Posse Comitatus would have still been in effect at the time of Katrina.
Thanks for the info, though. I had no idea it’d been repealed.
The truth is, in a time of civil unrest, National Guard members are more likely to follow the Constitution than a group of careerist regulars, who are so submerged in their own isolated military culture, they have less compassion for civilians.
National Guard members have a much better perspective than regulars, by their very nature.
That's been my experience as well. The NG also does way better in the peacekeeping sorts of missions, too, for the same reason.
This statement, “No Offense, but the National Guard are a bunch of civilians just following orders,” shows a serious lack of knowledge about the joint nature of our armed forces.
“Id do it but fully understand what the consequences would be.”
I also fully understand the consequences for me, and agree with you.
I understand both the personal risks and the consequence of inaction.
Our enemies both within and outside this great nation intend to subject and destroy us. It would take a fool not to understand this.
Our enemies have been preparing for this opportunity for a long time. Something has catalyzed this, they are convinced they can pull this off.
Using the global financial crisis to scare people into signing on to this heresy.
New Hampshire has it right, “Live Free or Die.”
I believe that it was the Louisiana State Police, under orders from Gov Blanco before the hurricane hit, that blocked the bridge, preventing New Orleans residents from traveling to the west side.
I have the same fear.
To call them "just a bunch of civilians following orders" is a disgrace and clear demonstration of absolute ignorance of what it means to put on a uniform and be the front line of defense of the country and Constitution - or to be their family and friends who love and support them.
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
It will be interesting to see how the military operates when considering racial lines.
Tell this to the Wesley Clark’s that are in charge of the army. They’ll laugh you out of the room. Martial law has been declared in the past, and habeas corpus has been suspended multiple times. The Marine Corp is the only branch of service that I would put this kind of trust in.
It pains me that the Constitution I swore to defend is being subverted by Justices changing the meaning and constitutional abrogation by treaty. Kelo destroyed private property.
The military is less race conscious than civilian culture.
I spent 6 years in the Army Reserve, and 20 years running a Navy MARS station. I had and have no desire to be in the military, but have a special place in my heart for those who do that job.
About 5-6 years ago I taught electronics at a military base during 2 summers and am convinced that 75% of the military would support our position.
Contrary to Obozo’s contention, this is not about racial injustice.
A lot believe they were the same thing. But if you want to get really technical there was a distinction.
A Tory was in the strict sense of the term a member of a political party at the time, while all Tories were loyalists, not all loyalists were actually members of the Tory political party. See http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Tory&gwp=16
Even though all members of the Tory political party were Loyalists and both groups supported the crown, not all loyalists fought alongside the British preferring to remain 'neutral'. The vast majority of the Tory party did not remain neutral - they actively fought alongside the British and were referred to as the King's "American Troops".
The term has been used interchangeably then as now, and the debate still goes on among American history buffs. Some sources say they were the same, other sources point out the above political party affliation as a distinct difference. I suppose you could compare it to modern politics. Not every liberal is a Democrat, as we all know, some are also Republican. And not every Conservative is a Republican some are Libertarians and some are part of the Constitution party. If that helps any.
I doubt race has much to do with it. IIRC (and I may be wrong, I don’t recall the finer points of the stories), but neither of those individuals were capture on US soil, were they?
Think back to WWII. If an American citizen had been captured in France, fighting for a German unit, he would’ve been treated as a POW, not a criminal. If the same American citizen had been working for the Gestapo, he’d have been held as an unlawful enemy combatant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.