Posted on 10/21/2009 12:09:47 PM PDT by broken_arrow1
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.
Right..and does he realize we dont even know if this president is eligible to be one?
If obama wants to be treated like every other president and wants to be referred to as the president of the united states..then UNSEAL THE RECORDS!!
I nor my husband are in law enforcement nor ex military but I know which side we will be on too! Thanks for looking out for all of us.
Where you at?
What a dope...bttt.
Good question.
Huh? That's exactly why the British went there.
There are many more patriotic Americans than there are socialists.
It's just that the socialists have seized power!
We're going to have to fight them to take back America!
Does this mean that there is new evidence that the British troops were not on their way to confiscate the contents of an arsenal?
...(we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).If the assertion is so mindboggling, what was Lexington/Concord all about?
While I make no claim to be a history expert, I seem to recall studying that the British army was in the process of seizing arms and ammunition at the time of those events.
Beat me by nine seconds. :=) I need to work on my typing speed.
I can think of exceptions to each of the 10 oaths depending upon just how bad things are in the instance. Probably, so can anyone.
But the point remains, in my opinion. Yes, part of your oath is to obey lawful orders of the president, and your commanders. And any soldier who makes the decision to refuse what he considers to be an unlawful order is asking for serious trouble; its not something anyone would do lightly nor should they.
But the higher oath taken is to the constitution.
And there is a higher demand still upon a man, which is to God and to conscience. Every soldier must one day take off his uniform, and he must never do anything he can’t live with when that day comes. If ordered to move against American citizens he has to consider the morality of his actions, and the constitutionality of what he is being ordered to do.
There are clearly going to be cases where he might legitimately be called upon to establish order in the face of an insurrection. If the insurrectionists are trying to overthrow the constitutional order, then his duty is clear. If the insurrectionists are rebelling against an unconstitutional order, then he has some soul-searching to do. And in that case the lawfulness and the morality of his orders, and the legitimacy of the powers issuing those orders needs to be considered.
There will be gray areas and everyone’s tipping point will not be the same. But the constitution, and your own sense of honor have to come first in such a situation. You may have to resign, you may have to face arrest in order to stay on the right side of things. If things don’t turn around, preachers and common citizens may soon face the same dilemma. Keep your head down and hope for better days, or stand up and face lawsuits and official harrassment.
I am a strict Consitutionalist. If it was followed by our government officials et al, , we wouldn’t need Oath Keepers. i.e. If I’m not mistaken prior to Dwight D. Eisenhower becoming president he followed a presidential order to order our military to stop an auto worker protest. In that action there where a few auto workers shot dead by our own military. Constitutionally speaking, both Eisenhower and FDR should have been charged with murder and sentenced accordingly. Then there is that 1913 thing by Colonel House et al re the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the IRS etc............. In the USA of today, the Oath Keepers are necessary.
“redstate”, as in “China under Mao and Russia under Stalin were Red states”?
What a silly man. If some technicality indeed prevents my using my previous oath in this way, then I will gladly take a revised oath that covers the spirit of the original.
I’m not one yet, but only because they seem to be too swamped processing applications to get to the one I submitted a few weeks ago.
“You are either with us or with the terrorists.” GW Bush
“Battle lines being drawn . . . “ S. Stills
Well, time to write off “Redstate.org.” Unless you wish to overlay the red backround with a hammer & sickle or perhaps a swastika.
Sorry fellas, but I support the Constitution. I will NOT support a government — President, legislator or judge — who advocates ignoring, contradicting or “suspending” it. The Oathkeepers, from ALL I’ve read, are honorable people, still in service to their country — still KEEPING their oath. That’s MORE than can be said for most politicians in Washington, DC.
Redstate can support the Washington Establishment if they like — but that does NOT automatically mean they are either Conservative OR Constitutional. IN fact, these days, it is coming to mean quite the opposite!
Um ... that's exactly what happened. Why does he think British troops were heading there?
Letter from Gen. Gage, military gov. of Massachusetts, to Lord Dartmouth, British secretary of state for America,
I am to acquaint your Lordship having received Intelligence of a large Quantity of Military Stores being collected at Concord, for the avowed Purpose of Supplying a Body of Troops to act in Opposition to His Majesty's Government, I got the Grenadiers and Light Infantry out of Town [Boston] under the Command of Lieut Col Smith of the 10th Regt and Major Pitcairne of the Marines with as much Secrecy as possible, on the 18th at Night and with the Orders to destroy the said Military Stores;...In case "Streiff" missed it here is the money quote again..."with the Orders to destroy the said Military Stores...
Redstate.com is an interesting blog....seems to have a lot of Big Gov admirers, but I only have limited experience with them. This poster Streiff seems to be quite enamored with his military rank and disdain for the Constitution.
Right and who wrote the law? CONGRESS. Who did they blame? Booosh,.
Allow me to illustrate the LIBERAL FALLACY of this pinheads argument....
FIRST: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
What this means is that the CONSTITUTION COMES FIRST!!!!!Not the president, not the congress, not some pinhead political hack or some idiot officer who cant make it in the real world.....( on offense to any officers out there Im ex enlisted and yall know how the old saw goes....)and that I will defend MY COUNTRY against aggressors from other countries and from within this country. Ahem That means that not all enemies are easy to spot and some may even be fellow country men. Soooo as OBUMMER is destroying this country..... he is an enemy of this country... domestic for sure.... so far he has not done anything overt to show his true colors.... but he will and when he does.... god help us all.
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
What this means is that the constitution is the law of the land and that it is the only law which counts.
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
only after the constitution is considered does the president and any officers come into consideration. This buffoon mentions the UCMJ. Well lets see..... the UCMJ is the law of the military and insubordination is right in there for sure along with failure to obey a LAWFUL order. The thing about the oaths.... is that each one of them would be considered an UNLAWFUL order according to the CONSTITUTION. And such orders would be illegal and subject to question by ALL personnel.
This moron probably thinks that taking that oath makes enlisted men and Officers into unthinking mindless drones... how droll. With the witch hunts that are conducted by congress? We are always thinking, always looking out for each other and always on guard.
I pray to GOD everyday to protect those still in service. And to make the Officers over them intelligent and cautious. The congress and president also take oaths of office.... I have not seen ANY of them take those oaths seriously.... ever.
I am not in the active military.
But I do swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
I swear that I will not obey the orders of the "one" who sleeps in the White House.
And that Jesus and God are the only "master" that I recognize.
I promise, I will not be a "good little Dhemmi!"
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.