No kidding.
Posted on 03/11/2009 8:21:23 AM PDT by conservativegramma
From: http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com
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 don’t 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 won’t “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 ...
Oh...., right. They’re not white. Gotcha.
Retread?
Got Zot?
I spoke with an Army E-7 I am close to. I have known this fine you man for 26 years. He said that activity in Iraq (he left there on March 7 due to the death of his mother) settled down considerably once 0bama announced his pull out time table.
He stated he and most of those he knows will execute any “Constitutionally legal order”. He was reluctant to say any more. I was able to read between the lines, he is concerned, as are we.
He returns to Iraq tomorrow (March 12). In April, he may be transferred to Afghanistan.
military ping
"Constitutionally legal" order. This tells me they are discussing the constitution at least and thinking there may come down the pike un-constitutional orders!
MacArthur was sent to disperse a large crowd that was demanding early payment on their war bonuses (which were due for another few years). In other words, they had assembled to demand a government handout. MacArthur sent them packing. One person died in the chaos.
Two years later they returned to demand the same thing. FDR wasn’t any more interested in giving it to them than Hoover, but he got rid of them differently- he sent them into exile.
FDR sent the bonus marchers to the Middle Florida Keys to build a road linking the islands. It was then one of the most remote places within the 48 states, the government assured them they would be taken care of. In 1935, hundreds of them died in the great Labor Day Hurricane. Problem solved.
Good Shootin' Tex!
Obummer’s KGB!
Ping
Maybe now people will get the obsession with Lincoln.
Our oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America. Read and understand it Got that liberals?
It’s not just the military that needs to say “NO” when an unconstitutional “order” (or law) comes down.
There are plenty of civies that need to say no to things like the removal of the conscience clause in abortion cases, the “food safety” and “clothing and toy safety” acts, or any attempt to outlaw homeschooling, etc.
Now, that is frightening!
No kidding.
Not anymore. That was true for the post WWII thru Vietnam eras. But when Clinton restructured the military to peel away money for his social programs they put the majority of the country's combat punch into the national guard and reserve systems. I lost track of the number of deployments the FL National Guard has had to either Iraq or Afghanistan. The state guards have been battle tested and emerged as steel. They can't be denigrated as Weekend Warriors ever again.
Now, as to whether they will obey orders that inflict direct harm to American citizens, I dunno for certain but I think they will, mostly. About 75% to 85% will act against the populace. Here is why: They are mostly products of the public schools and have the same limitations in their educational backgrounds. There is a reason for the "dumbing down" in school. If you never learn the truth about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, you're less likely to wish to lay down your life protecting something you never learned and don't understand. We have bred our children into liberal sheep who will follow orders like good little lemmings, no matter what the cost to freedom. There is significant information to support this theory. Case studies going back generations, too.
You know there are some strange parallels, but Lincoln Barry is not. Lincoln would lead people to revolt.
When I was in the Army, our company commander told us that if he were ordered to take a squad of us and open fire on everyone in Times Square with machine guns, he’d do it. And if any of us refused to do it, he’d blow our brains out on the spot.
What about Ruby Ridge and Waco? That was the FBI and BATF!Their officers couldn’t wait to pull the trigger against civilian targets. There wasn’t much concern for constitutionality in those cases.
Doesnt it say for law enforcement? It doesnt say they cant be used, IIRC.
The thing I have a problem with is this- Bush pushed for things because of Katrina and 9/11 which I trusted, and now if Obama were to do the same thing, I would distrust. I fear there are many like me who for party loyalty let some things slide. It is so clear now. I hope other conservatives can see this quickly. Obama is just the other side of the coin which is DC elites, be it either party who pushes for more than we should give. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5122enr.txt.pdf
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.