[Rock Slinger]

Oath Keepers is 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.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. We won’t “just follow orders."

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.


Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federalIn addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

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.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (militarytribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.


The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

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.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officerwith his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

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.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers....

The rest is here:

http://oath-keepers....-orders-we.html

Please see the rest of their pledge and give your oppinion. I know I'd be thrilled if I knew at least half of our officers were part of this group, especially commanders.

[lookingfortruth]

So is there anything they've actually done? makes for a pretty story, yes, but is there anything else?

[HerNibs]

Umm...I'm not sure but wouldn't this be in contradiction of the oath they swear when the join up?

Oath source

Quote

"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).

Nibs

[HerNibs]

I wouldn't trust anyone who breaks one oath to make another that is in contradiction.

Don't think the military will smile on it either.

Nibs

[Rock Slinger]

HerNibs, on 27 October 2009 - 08:39 PM, said:

I wouldn't trust anyone who breaks one oath to make another that is in contradiction.

Don't think the military will smile on it either.

Nibs

I think you missed that their whole purpose is to fulfill their original oath to it's word, which might someday be in contradiction to their direct orders. They only will disobey orders that contradict their original oath to uphold the constitutution. Actually it is their duty to do this!

[Rock Slinger]

lookingfortruth, on 27 October 2009 - 08:35 PM, said:

So is there anything they've actually done? makes for a pretty story, yes, but is there anything else?

Actually here is their official website. I accidentally was working off of their blogspot. It actually shows a lot of activities they are currently involved in, mostly spreading the word and recruiting people to make the committment. So I would say they have done a lot, possible started a very significant orginization that could help save our great republic from tyranny from our own government if it ever came to that, which hopefully it never does.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

This post has been edited by Rock Slinger: 28 October 2009 - 01:27 AM

[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 27 October 2009 - 07:20 PM, said:

I think you missed that their whole purpose is to fulfill their original oath to it's word, which might someday be in contradiction to their direct orders. They only will disobey orders that contradict their original oath to uphold the constitutution. Actually it is their duty to do this!

Well, it seems to me that they are giving themselves the option to NOT follow an order. Or an order from the president. If the president tells them to invade X place, it isn't up to them to argue it.

You take an oath when you enlist. That's it. You're done. You don't get to say "I will do everything but X." Doesn't work that way. No different than if you take a marriage vow to "forsake all others" except the blond with *spam filter*. Voids the entire idea of an oath.

If a state, county, area or whatever is under a state of emergency and the military is called in then the individual soldiers DO NOT have the right to say no.

It's understood when the sign up. If they don't feel that they can do it. Don't join.

I would think this is darn near sedition and find it offensive and would distrust anyone who took it after taking the oath to the military.

Nibs

[Rock Slinger]

http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=113463







Pat Buchanon

World News Daily

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Americans are losing their nation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 20, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

In the brief age of Obama, we have had "truthers," "birthers," tea party activists and town-hall dissenters.

Comes now, the "Oath Keepers." And who might they be?

Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia."

Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.

"The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.

"We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you."

Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.

And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them "un-American," "Nazis" and "evil-mongers," one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers.

It's not too late to rescue the nation! Read how in "Save America Now! The New Revolution to Save Freedom and Liberty"

As with Jimmy Carter's long-range psychoanalysis of Joe Wilson, the reflexive reaction of the mainstream media will likely be that these are militia types, driven to irrationality because America has a black president.

Yet, the establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality.

Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily understand that urban riots that took scores of lives and destroyed billions in property were an inevitable reaction to racism, poverty and despair. They could empathize with the rage of campus radicals who burned down the ROTC building and bombed the Pentagon.

The "dirty, immoral war in Vietnam" explains why the "finest generation we have ever produced" is behaving like this, they said. We must deal with the "root causes" of social disorder.

Yet, they cannot comprehend what would motivate Middle America to distrust its government, for it surely does, as Ron Brownstein reports in the National Journal:

"Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated. Big majorities of whites say the past year's turmoil has diminished their confidence in government, corporations and the financial industry. ... Asked which institution they trust most to make economic decisions in their interest, a plurality of whites older than 30 pick 'none' – a grim statement."

Is all this due to Obama's race?

Even Obama laughs at that. As he told David Letterman, I was already black by the time I was elected. And he not only got a higher share of the white vote than Kerry or Gore, a third of white voters, who said in August 2008 that race was an important consideration in voting, said they were going to vote for Obama.

With black voters going 24 to 1 for Obama, he almost surely won more votes than he lost because of his race.

Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.

Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993 and blocked the Bush-Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 27 October 2009 - 07:20 PM, said:

I think you missed that their whole purpose is to fulfill their original oath to it's word, which might someday be in contradiction to their direct orders. They only will disobey orders that contradict their original oath to uphold the constitutution. Actually it is their duty to do this!

How is it their duty to follow an oath that could be in conflict with the oath they took when enlisting?

I don't get what you are trying to say about that.

It is NOT a soldiers duty to disobey the president/officer order.

No, I don't think every order is a good order but there are ways to handle that and this isn't one of them.

Nibs

[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 27 October 2009 - 07:39 PM, said:

http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=113463







Pat Buchanon

World News Daily

Yep. You lost me right there.

Fundamental christian in a comic book tabloid.

Sorry.

Nibs

[ohio state buckeyes]

HerNibs, on 27 October 2009 - 09:40 PM, said:

How is it their duty to follow an oath that could be in conflict with the oath they took when enlisting?

I don't get what you are trying to say about that.

It is NOT a soldiers duty to disobey the president/officer order.

No, I don't think every order is a good order but there are ways to handle that and this isn't one of them.

Nibs

Far right nut jobs. Uh what oath was timmy mcvey keeping when he murdered 100s ?

[HerNibs]

ohio state buckeyes, on 27 October 2009 - 07:48 PM, said:

Far right nut jobs. Uh what oath was timmy mcvey keeping when he murdered 100s ?

Not sure I understand your statement. (Wouldn't be my first time confused. )

Timmy was following his own orders.

Nibs

[ohio state buckeyes]

Rock Slinger, on 27 October 2009 - 09:39 PM, said:

http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=113463







Pat Buchanon

World News Daily

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Americans are losing their nation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 20, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

In the brief age of Obama, we have had "truthers," "birthers," tea party activists and town-hall dissenters.

Comes now, the "Oath Keepers." And who might they be?

Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia."

Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.

"The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.

"We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you."

Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.

And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them "un-American," "Nazis" and "evil-mongers," one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers.

It's not too late to rescue the nation! Read how in "Save America Now! The New Revolution to Save Freedom and Liberty"

As with Jimmy Carter's long-range psychoanalysis of Joe Wilson, the reflexive reaction of the mainstream media will likely be that these are militia types, driven to irrationality because America has a black president.

Yet, the establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality.

Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily understand that urban riots that took scores of lives and destroyed billions in property were an inevitable reaction to racism, poverty and despair. They could empathize with the rage of campus radicals who burned down the ROTC building and bombed the Pentagon.

The "dirty, immoral war in Vietnam" explains why the "finest generation we have ever produced" is behaving like this, they said. We must deal with the "root causes" of social disorder.

Yet, they cannot comprehend what would motivate Middle America to distrust its government, for it surely does, as Ron Brownstein reports in the National Journal:

"Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated. Big majorities of whites say the past year's turmoil has diminished their confidence in government, corporations and the financial industry. ... Asked which institution they trust most to make economic decisions in their interest, a plurality of whites older than 30 pick 'none' – a grim statement."

Is all this due to Obama's race?

Even Obama laughs at that. As he told David Letterman, I was already black by the time I was elected. And he not only got a higher share of the white vote than Kerry or Gore, a third of white voters, who said in August 2008 that race was an important consideration in voting, said they were going to vote for Obama.

With black voters going 24 to 1 for Obama, he almost surely won more votes than he lost because of his race.

Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.

Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993 and blocked the Bush-Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

If there Ideal is all white people in power and Morons Like Palin and Bush leading the country then yeah there idea of America is dead. Just like the idea to own someone and that American woman shouldnt have a voice in government are dead. Of course it about having a black man a the president in large part. Hes not one of them. Well that just freaking to bad, this is America now and they just haft to deal or if they really want to go to war with the rest of the country then this get to it cuz they're starting to bore me.

This post has been edited by ohio state buckeyes: 28 October 2009 - 02:10 AM

[ohio state buckeyes]

HerNibs, on 27 October 2009 - 09:52 PM, said:

Not sure I understand your statement. (Wouldn't be my first time confused. )

Timmy was following his own orders.

Nibs

sorry I messed it up I meant to respond to Rock Slinger. I agree with you said . timmy mcvey was a member or at lest had ties with the Oath Keepers.

[lookingfortruth]

Rock Slinger, on 28 October 2009 - 02:26 AM, said:

Actually here is their official website. I accidentally was working off of their blogspot. It actually shows a lot of activities they are currently involved in, mostly spreading the word and recruiting people to make the committment. So I would say they have done a lot, possible started a very significant orginization that could help save our great republic from tyranny from our own government if it ever came to that, which hopefully it never does.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

very good. I guess I was wrong about all of this. thanks for pointing these things out