March 14, 2009
Oath Keepers Prepare for Chairman Zero's Next Steps
a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it.
Consequently, they affirm and declare the following:
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.
Obama et al.'s strategy has been to move very quickly, burying radical legislation in gargantuan spending bills they push through under cover of the complicit liberal media before opposition can cohere. Kudos to the Oath Keepers for getting a step ahead. Unless the collectivists running Washington are economic cretins, they know that flushing $trillions down the toilet during a severe recession will likely collapse the economy, resulting in the chaos totalitarians are adept at exploiting. They're planning on it. Those who believe this country is worth fighting for had better plan on it too.
On a tip from Michael S.
Posted by Van Helsing at March 14, 2009 9:06 AM
Geezeeeeeeeeee guys. If you are going to mutiny, don't advertise!
Posted by: Oiao at March 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Following the constitution is not mutiny.
For a politician to give an order that goes against the constitution is treason.
You got it all backwards.
Posted by: Michael S at March 14, 2009 10:26 AM
People we realy need to defend america from invading illegal aliens and terrorists and ones who will probibly get canned by our dictator BARACK OBAMA
Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at March 14, 2009 11:36 AM
May God bless all these folks!!!!
Posted by: Toa at March 14, 2009 12:46 PM
In regards to #5 on their list, I believe that the only "state that [can assert] its sovereignty and declare the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union" is Texas, as it is the only state that can legally succeed from the Union. The reason for Texas' exceptional status in this case is that Texas was a sovereign country (The Republic of Texas) from 1836 to 1845.
If there are other states that have this privilege, I would be grateful to be corrected.
Posted by: GeronimoRumplestiltskin at March 14, 2009 2:02 PM
The Republic of NEW TEXMEXICO?
Posted by: Oiao at March 14, 2009 3:02 PM
Is... anyone actually issuing such orders, or expressed an intent to do so?
The only one I can think of that actually happened at some point is 4, when JFK used federal troops to force integration. And, of course, 5 is a little something we call the Civil War...
What is this actually supporting? It sounds like a cover-up for the KKK.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 4:43 PM
Also, didn't Bush make a big push for 2? You guys seem to be proponents of "our standards don't apply to people we don't like", so would you support warrentless searches of people who might be terrorists?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 4:48 PM
Upholding the constitution by not doing unconstitutional things seems at first glance to be a dandy idea.
I would have liked to have seen Ray Nagin's police force refusing to confiscate homeowner's guns after Katrina - that was clearly an unconstitutional directive.
However, disobeying orders by a militia is not generally a real good idea since any given order could be open to interpretation. Signing on to the groundwork for a potential quandary seems to me to be emotional and in bad judgment.
E.g., #7. "We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext." Terrorist groups posing a threat could be composed of U.S. citizens. Then who decides what's a detention camp? Is Sheriff Joe running a form of one? You wouldn't want to see his guards debating this.
But I can appreciate that the present times evoke such sentiment inasmuch as the constitution doesn't seem to mean much to a lot of the judiciary sworn to uphold it.
Posted by: Fiberal at March 14, 2009 4:51 PM
"GeronimoRumplestiltskin at March 14, 2009 2:02 PM"
Every state and commonwealth in the USA is SUPPOSED to be soverign. Lincoln changed all that, even though there never was an official ruling on sesession.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 5:47 PM
All debating of the details leaves out the grand point of that list: Our Military, of all kinds, have stated they will protect the American people from its government by disobeying orders.
Its good to know there are strong men and women out there that signed up for the military with a greater goal in mind: protecting Americans from ANYONE that would seek to do them harm or take away their freedom. Including our own Government.
Posted by: Cheesecake at March 14, 2009 6:22 PM
What you should consider is that all of the military members from the last 8 years who have seen combat and fought for our country are not happy with coming home and seeing freedoms and the Constitution being trampled on.
Did I mention that these people have 'hard skills' and need not go down to the local firing range to 'practice' being good at putting rounds on target.
Also consider that these people are not happy seeing what the current trends in government are doing to their families wealth, safety and futures.
These people are Republicans, Democrats, Indies and whatever party there is.
Posted by: Oiao at March 14, 2009 6:31 PM
"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).
"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." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
These provisions allow for the disobedience of illegal orders, but such orders may themselves constitute a crime, or be part of a criminal conspiracy, either under military or civilian law. Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens, either military or civilian.
Posted by: gordon at March 14, 2009 9:22 PM
GOD BLESS THEM, They have my backing and support.
What is this actually supporting? It sounds like a cover-up for the KKK.
Of course it does to you, any dissent towards the Messiah is raciest isn't it moonbat!? I said it before, I'll say it again. THE RACECARD(c) IS NOT honored here! Try using your food stamps.
Posted by: TED at March 14, 2009 10:16 PM
Ted and all.
What Liberals and Moonbats can't get into the very small minds they operate with is that we have sworn an oath to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and not to the president (Bush, Carter, Clinton or any of them).
This especially urks them when it comes to Obama, who is a poorly prepared and underqualified person for the job.
Obama is president because of the Constitution of the United States, and not the other way around (the way they think).
Liberals and Moonbats (redundant, I know) want Obama to trash the Constitution of the United States. That is why they voted for him.
Liberals and Moonbats forget that Obama does not have a mandate of popular vote. The majority of the US is not an Obama fan. Only the majority of people who got out and voted are.
Posted by: Oiao at March 14, 2009 10:29 PM
Darn, I meant to add "praise the lord and pass the ammunition."
Which is getting pretty pricy and scarce right now.
If you need reserve stock of ammo - you had better buy it now. Especially before the laws take place to put serial numbers (or identifying forensic marks) on it.
Posted by: Oiao at March 14, 2009 10:32 PM
Now taking bets as to how much the site will be watched in the next few years...
Still, I like it.
Posted by: Evil Monk at March 14, 2009 11:57 PM
Van, thanks for the posting. We need peoople such as these. As Evil Monk said above, let's see how much "government" attention the Oath Keepers site attracts.
Posted by: WolfDog at March 15, 2009 8:01 AM
We need to totaly remove the UN from our nations soil we revoke all their WORLD HERATAGE SITES we need to evict them totaly from our nation and tear down that ugly eyesore UN building we need to evict all illegal aliens and deport them back and to make sure they never return we must remove the CFR from our natiion as well as all foreign troops and to ban all foreign ownership and control of america and its posetions
Posted by: Flu-Bird at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM
This is a good illustration of why would-be dictators so often rely on the formation of "civilian security forces" such as the Sturmabteilung, Red Guards, Rapid Response Brigades, etc.. It usually takes a while to reindoctrinate the military into a robotic arm of totalitarianism, especially with an all-volunteer force who are sworn to a constitutional foundation rather than a Dear Leader; in this interim period, the "patriotic" civilian thugs can perform the various despotic chores. Even when the military is "changed", though, there will still be free thinkers among them, as evidenced by numerous testimonies of Nazi German, Imperial Japanese and Communist soldiers who didn't buy what was told them most of their lives by their own Dear Leaders, and worked under the radar to provide assistance to prisoners of war or conscience.
Posted by: Toa at March 15, 2009 8:56 AM
I am in agreement with the 'OathKeepers'. I'm sorry that a retired old fat guy like me, never trained for combat nor was ever a peace officer, can't be part of it.
I'm getting a gun and training for me.
Check out HR 1388, the G.I.V.E law. More $$$ for mutts!
Posted by: Shooter1001 at March 15, 2009 9:42 AM
Unfortunely, we need our membership in the UN. I know, I know, but consider how many times we've used our permanent Veto to stave off rediculous actions by that very same group of ill-conceived and led bunglers.
Posted by: Evil Monk at March 15, 2009 11:02 PM
Good retort against the anonymous moonbat, Ted. His insulting claim points out another key trait of moonbats: Even today, they live in constant terror of the Ku Klux Klan, and think that it's just as big and just as deadly now as it was during the Great Depression.
News flash, moonbats: The KKK (Which, incidentally, was founded by Democrats who initially targeted Republicans almost as much as they targeted blacks) is a joke now. It currently has MAYBE 3,000 members nationwide, and is so closely monitored by the FBI and other anti- terror groups that they wouldn't dare engage in the blatant acts of violence that they once did. The most they might do now is occasionally say some offensive stuff in public.
And the moonbats like to say WE are the ones filled with irrational fear?
Posted by: Adam at March 16, 2009 8:34 AM
Let's be honest and not politically correct. The KKK was founded by Southern Christian conservatives. The Democrats of today, especially in the South, are blacks. Almost 1/2 of Southern Democrats are blacks. People who fought for civil rights or whose fathers and gradfathers did. Now, modern Southerners don't support segreation but let's not ignore the impact that religion and region had in supporting the KKK. It wasn't Democrats in Vermont or Washington or Wisconsin that supported the KKK. I know this angers a number of people to read this. I understand that but the truth has to be faced. The Northern Democrat party, to be fair, had a part to play in segreation but not strongly opposing until the 1950s segreation in the South. So, there is blame to go all around.
Posted by: Jerome McCollom at March 18, 2009 4:59 PM