Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut1
"It is very irresponsible for Freepers to support these actions. I don’t think the birth certificate “issue” is real, but even if it is, there are plenty of civillians to pursue it."

Apparently spoken as someone who never took the oath of enlistment. It is very irresponsible not to defend the Consitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If you took that oath, you have a responsibility to defend the Constitution of the United States. To do otherwise is to abrogate your oath and responsibility. You are either an infiltrator tool or are very very clueless.

Oath as follows:
"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).
37 posted on 07/28/2009 11:08:50 AM PDT by LuxMaker (The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: LuxMaker

Right Lux!

Also look at the US Military Oath of Office for its Commissioned Officers:

I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

A Commissioned Officer’s first duty is to the US Constitution. Also notice no mention of “obeying the orders of the President and the orders of the officers appointed over me.”

Obviously, the Commissioned Officer must assume that all orders are essentially “lawful.” If an Officer thinks an order is “unlawful” then he or she has the duty and responsibility to discern the truth.

We are a Nation of Laws not thug-politicians, dictators, or usurpers!


53 posted on 07/28/2009 11:38:07 AM PDT by Joe Marine 76 ("Veritas Vincit" - Truth Will Conquer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: LuxMaker

Exactly...good post.


152 posted on 07/28/2009 9:56:11 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: LuxMaker

Exactly...good post.


153 posted on 07/28/2009 9:56:13 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson