[futuremodal]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html

The Oath Keepers were formed as a way for police and military to unite against unlawfull orders.

What gets me is how the Southern Poverty Law Center has Oath Keepers on an extremist group watch list, yet they have no idea that the SPLC itself can also be categorized as an extremist group for their anti 2nd Amendment views!

 

[stonebridge]

Yes.

http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/Forum/index.php/topic,18151.0.html

-'b

 

[HiPoint45]

You guys are talking about different oaths aren't you? I'm just curious how does a soldier make the determination an order is unlawful? If soldiers start only following orders they "deem" lawful the effectiveness of the military will fall at an alarming rate. You may find yourself oppossing govt troops in some shtf scenario but asking a soldier to take such an oath before the fact is dangerous in my opinion.

 

[futuremodal]

yeah, I can see where there might be issues open to interpretation. But if an order came down to either blockade a town or go door to door confisticating weapons, would you obey such an order? Remember what happened after Katrina.

 

[HiPoint45]

I can't say cause I'm not in the military, if I was and I was given a direct order....well yes I think I'd have to follow it or decide if I didn't want my career in the military and take a court martial. I guess it would depend on my perception of what was happening and that's why I think it's unfair to ask someone in that type of structure to pledge before hand they are willing to disobey orders.

 

[wade]

"I, wade (I used my real name here), do solemnly swear 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."

That's what I remember saying almost a decade ago. And I don't remember any mention of an expiration date on the oath.

And it seems pretty clear to me. Defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Since that was first I think it was the most important, and I believe can supersede the other part of the oath if the President and officers have become enemies of the Constitution. And the UCMJ is very clear to active servicemen and women about what is legal or not.

 

[HiPoint45]

I don't see how you can seperate the part about obeying the president and officers from the rest because of the order they fall in the sentence. Suppose because of a soldiers particular views they deem the Presicdent a domestic enemy? If the UCMJ is clear, what does it say about an order to blockade a town? Or go door to door and confiscate weapons? Was everything down in NO above board? I just don't think the military functions as a whole if soldiers start deciding what orders they will follow. I think it would take a pretty big "hey wait a minute, what are we doing?" event for this to come into play and then it will be on an individual basis.

 

[Rhodes]

Dont look now but that is the way the military has always been handled. If you give a command that the troops clearly will consider unlawful you risk mutiny. It has a purpose in keeping the use of an army limited. I believe it must remain in the minds of troops that just following orders is no defense in a later trial. All oaths must list the higher ideals first in case of conflict. The Constitution must be the first to be defended, it is the entire reason the army exists.

 

[wade]

Dont look now but that is the way the military has always been handled. If you give a command that the troops clearly will consider unlawful you risk mutiny. It has a purpose in keeping the use of an army limited. I believe it must remain in the minds of troops that just following orders is no defense in a later trial. All oaths must list the higher ideals first in case of conflict. The Constitution must be the first to be defended, it is the entire reason the army exists.

word

 

[HiPoint45]

Understood.

 

[big bear]

"I, wade (I used my real name here), do solemnly swear 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."

That's what I remember saying almost a decade ago. And I don't remember any mention of an expiration date on the oath.

And it seems pretty clear to me. Defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Since that was first I think it was the most important, and I believe can supersede the other part of the oath if the President and officers have become enemies of the Constitution. And the UCMJ is very clear to active servicemen and women about what is legal or not.

I agree totally. Especially about the no expiration date. I have always said that it is an oath for life not just for your enlistment period.

 

[Rhodes]

This is true the enlistment ends but the Oath does not. Too bad they dont spend much time explaining the Oath to troops, should be required to cover exactly what it means before and after enlistment.

 

[mrwhite4]

This made my blood boil when I seen it. I never was in the Military or anything but I'd be really ticked if I was, this is why I watch fox and not MSNBC

part 2

 

[HiPoint45]

Thanks for those links MrWhite I understand the "Oath Keeper" thing much better and yet again see Chris Matthews think sarcasm and yelling is excellent debate. Mr Rhodes made him look like the simpleton he is. "Why do you only recruit among cops and military"? uh duh Mr. Matthews...because that's who will receive the unlawful orders.

I loved when he said to Matthews: "we swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a man, even if he makes a thrill run up your leg when he talks."

 

[ElSombreroNegro]

Orders, the same as law, should ALWAYS be read in light of the Constitution. To be a soldier, is to fight FOR America. To fight for America, is to uphold the Constitution. A soldier ought to know what it is he fights for, even if command forgets from time to time.

Remember, unconstitutional behavior starts with a perpetrator. Dont be that guy, and the chain is broken.

 

[Rhodes]

Has any one else noticed a further shift in mood with most of the more direct minded blog sites dealing with the current situation? Most are heavily populated by OK personalities.

I may be wrong of course, but only to the reason for the shift as the change is obvious. A resignation to the inevitable is my observation. I do not mean surrender or hopelessness, just the opposite, but a loss of any hope the government will turn away from its present course. There is much being perpetrated on us outside of legislation, that would be all to obvious. Regulation is getting severely obtrusive into many aspects of peoples lives.

If health care passes regulation will become oppressive quickly as all facets of life and liberty affect some outcome in health care or rather can be made to seem as such. What you eat, drive, wear, teach, think, or believe all will be subjugated to the straw-man arguments of health care. Thought must also be given to where will the energies of DC progressives be directed once health care is no longer expending that energy. The potential disasters of Cap and Trade as well as the Copenhagen Agreement also loom ominously on the horizon.

I do not wish to be long winded or lead any one to a conclusion, just what I seem to have noticed is slightly unsettling.

 

[futuremodal]

I loved when he said to Matthews: "we swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a man, even if he makes a thrill run up your leg when he talks."

 

[mrwhite4]

I loved when he said to Matthews: "we swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a man, even if he makes a thrill run up your leg when he talks."

I tell ya I didn't even catch that part, listening to this exchange literally makes me wana throw things at my monitor and I have to shut it off. When this tool makes sarcastic comments at a patriot like this man to me he's making them towards me and you and everyone who isn't a statest lackie. It makes me wana puke, it really does... What minute mark and which video is that so I can skip the BS and catch that? lol

 

[HiPoint45]

I loved when he said to Matthews: "we swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a man, even if he makes a thrill run up your leg when he talks."

I tell ya I didn't even catch that part, listening to this exchange literally makes me wana throw things at my monitor and I have to shut it off. When this tool makes sarcastic comments at a patriot like this man to me he's making them towards me and you and everyone who isn't a statest lackie. It makes me wana puke, it really does... What minute mark and which video is that so I can skip the BS and catch that? lol

5:38 of part 1

 

[CoyoteUGLY]

RIGHT ON WADE!
That oath to the constitution AND the Pres... it shouldn't mean choosing between the two, cuz a pres. swears a similar oath to the constitution... if he breaks that oath by disregarding the constitution then he is at best a criminal, at worst a domestic enemy.

It's not guns that equalize everyone in America, as some suggest, it's freedom. And by our own founding documents that freedom comes from God not laws. Freedom is only protected by men through the proper use of laws (and when necessary to uphold those laws, guns etc).

I've not served in military or LE, so the only oath I have is the one we repeated daily in school with our hands over our hearts - but it's an oath no less & I aim to keep it as long as the Republic still stands...

--

but on a side note... tough things is, how can you tell when the republic is "standing" cuz it's alive & well, or if it has just turned into a walking zombie? In all seriousness... we are so immersed in treaties and agreements with foreign entities, so burried in incoherent federal laws, how can I be sure the republic I pledged to still exists? By all appearances it has become a slave... maybe we need to free it from the bonds of it's own tyranny? Except "IT" is not an entity, but only an idea. The idea itself is that the people are created free... how can we return them to that status w/o killing the idea? Can the idea be loosed from the chains it has locked itself in? ...ONLY if the people rise and make it so.