Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 17, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[ChrisInAR]

An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.

Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization's goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president.

He said the organization deliberately does not collect the names of those who subscribe to Oath Keepers' beliefs because of their status mostly as active duty soldiers.

He told WND he is scheduled to talk about the issue on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and he's begun working with "Gathering of Eagles" on several projects, including a Pro Troop Events gathering scheduled in Washington in June.

Rhodes said his goal is to "teach them more about what they swore to defend so they will be better able to see when an order violates the Constitution and the rights of the people, and is thus unlawful."

[ChrisInAR]

I’m not referring to little kids being armed & out in the streets. It’s the brainwashing of the kids that I was talking about, & how they would eventually be the ones doing the mandatory national service when they become of age....sorry if I didn’t type that correctly.

[ChrisInAR]

I fear this might not be enough.

Please explain if you would.

[smoothsailing]

The last I’ve heard is he’s scrapping the plan for now. But we all must remain vigilant, because he will try to sneak it through later when no one is paying attention.

[HotLead61]

Hi Chris, I sort of knew what you meant anyway. But don't put it past these clowns to send "underage urban soldiers" door-to-door to collect guns, in the thought process of "They would never shoot at those kids..."

If I were them, I wouldn't count on it.

[wastedyears]

If the government is gonna do it, they’re gonna do it, whether the majority of the military will follow their orders or not. Quite frankly, I think Obama would call for help from the UN, or whoever else to assist him. He might even ask Russia to bomb us with non-nuclear munitions.

This guy is a die-hard Communist; heck, Ayers is one of his mentors, a convicted domestic terrorist. He will stop at NOTHING to achieve his agenda. The military may be on our side, but the BATFE is certainly not, nor are too many police officers, and more so their SWAT teams. Heck, the National Guard assisted in the confiscation of arms in NOLA.

Push is most likely going to come to shove, and we’re gonna have a tough fight on our hands.

[Oatka]

Coming soon, with a slight modification, to your neighborhood:

[dcwusmc]

Then why be offended if you now see the DOMESTIC need just over the horizon and closing fast?

Semper fi, Devil Dog.

DC Wright
USMC Retired

[dcwusmc]

Yeah, but one of the FIRST things we learn is about obeying only LAWFUL orders... Nuremberg demonstrated the fallacy of the “But I was only obeying orders” defense.

[El Gato]

Ergo, it is just the enlisted who “will obey the orders of the President of the United States.”

The troops are taught, correctly, that the "obey orders" part of the oath only applied to *legal* orders. Their oath too says that they will support and defend the Constitution. If an order violates that, it is by definition an unlawfull order.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Then why be offended if you now see the DOMESTIC need just over the horizon and closing fast?"

I'm offended because there are people out there that think the military doesn't understand the oath they take. These same people must somehow fear that the military would be used to create a totalitarian state. They must assume that large portions of the military would go along with that. That is very offensive that the people who fight for our freedoms are assumed to be the ones to help take it away.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Major,

I don’t have a motorcycle right now, but I’d be there in spirit. I hope a lot of vets show up for the 2nd amendment march on Washington planned for next April. Speaking of bikes, I wonder if you ever read Garrison Keillor’s article last Memorial Day on how the the noise the Rolling Thunder bikers make ruin his day:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article527719.ece

You know, I enjoy listening to Keillor on a Prairie Home Companion even though he’s an uber liberal. He really showed his elitist stripes in this article when he got upset that he didn’t get to view a Renoir painting at a museum on time because he had to wait to cross the road in a sea of Harleys.

[PurpleMan]

Hey, I’m just saying what the oath says, not how people interpret it.

[RJS1950]

Kent State was a local guard unit in a completely other time when constitutional imperatives were not taught to the troops. Waco was federal law enforcement with ancillary support from Weasel Clark, not military units. Gonzalez was not snatched by the military. Many but certainly not all troops now have a different view of their responsibility to defend the constitution than they did in 1970.

[smoothsailing]

He really showed his elitist stripes in this article when he got upset that he didn’t get to view a Renoir painting at a museum on time because he had to wait to cross the road in a sea of Harleys.

Oh the horror for him of living in America!

[mad_as_he$$]

Very soon money will be useless. Find something else.

[cycjec]

Take a look at Stewart Rhodes’ earlier blog for the
thoughts that led up to this. It’s principals, not
politics. It’s stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com

[dcwusmc]

OK, that makes sense... though I fear that there are SOME in the service who MIGHT NOT consider such orders to be illegal. That would be MOST unfortunate! Remember the questionnaire that floated around during the Clinton years? You KNOW they wanted a “YES” answer to the question about willingness to confiscate weapons from civilians. Now groups with personal loyalty oaths to Obambi! Interestin’ times indeed!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Remember the questionnaire that floated around during the Clinton years? You KNOW they wanted a “YES” answer to the question about willingness to confiscate weapons from civilians."

I got out right during the beginning of the Clinton administration. I was there during the summer when he gave his proclamation concerning gays openly serving in the military. I can tell you that at Pendleton, there were NCOs and Staff NCOs openly saying they were going to retire or transfer if Marines started coming out of the closet in their units. Perhaps civilians don't understand this, but spend six months in a ships berthing area and you'll start to understand.

[Camel Joe]

I don’t believe in paper money, I prefer the cold hard kind of cash...