Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey

[rp55]

Heady stuff worth serious consideration from http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html Go there for a full explanation of each point.

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

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army." - George Washington

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 President, 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.

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.

More About Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the President, not to Congress, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders." Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. Help us win it. www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com

[nat]

I assume these people were as vigilant under Bush as well?

[CavTrooper]

I assume these people were as vigilant under Bush as well?

Bush is no longer President.

[BobB35]

Interesting concept. Unfortunately the ship has long sailed on this idea. Thanks to the living document liberals, most of the people who swear to uphold the constitution have no idea what it actually says and have never even read it themselves.

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers and they will IMO follow whatever orders come down. Mind you, these orders will be cloaked in Patriotism and protecting the Homeland and all that and will be cheered by the people. Any dissent put up by a LEO or military person will be short lived.

If/when this country reaches the final stage of democracy it will be the military that takes over. At this point I don't know if that will be a good thing or a bad thing. With the way things are going, it will probably be a good thing.

[CalNRA]

Bush is no longer President.

but he will be mentioned anytime a controversial topic comes up as a scapegoat. Count on it.

[tankerman]

I assume these people were as vigilant under Bush as well? Some folks are always suspicious of Americans.

[EOD3]

I assume these people were as vigilant under Bush as well?

They should create a new members group "sound bite".

Just my BAC

[Zebra]

Some folks are always suspicious of Americans.

Have you ever thought that your tin-foil antennae might be out just a bit too far?

:TFH:

[Liberty1]

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry.

[CavTrooper]

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers ....

please explain.

[fullrearview]

please explain.

ditto?

[kermit315]

yeah, I would like to hear that too.

[nick]

Mindless myrmidons is what they are; all they know is how to follow orders :p

[sfpcservice]

Site looks good on the surface, but it’s probably just a government site used to put us all on a list of who to kill first. :thumbsup:

[tankerman]

Have you ever thought that your tin-foil antennae might be out just a bit too far?

:TFH:Can you tighten it for me? Interesting you didn't make that comment to the guy that posed the question.;)

[MindBuilder]

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.

What if the state's legislature and governor are trying to take away the freedom of the black citizens? Would you fight for the freedom of your fellow human beings?

The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves. When we were about to change our wicked ways, the south broke off, by the admission of its own leaders, primarily for the purpose of continuing its crimes against the slaves. The north was duty bound to overthrow those criminals and free the slaves.

What's more, several of the states that joined the criminals were formerly federal territories and therefore had no previous independence from the US to reclaim. Those states were territory stolen from the US.

The north did plenty to be ashamed of before, during, and after the war, there is no denying it. Likewise, southerners should admit the evil of the confederacy, and that it was a good thing that it was defeated. After admitting that, only then could we have a discussion about whether the constitution allows cessation from the union.

To swear this oath as it stands is treason.

[Zebra]

Can you tighten it for me? Interesting you didn't make that comment to the guy that posed the question.;)

Bush trampled all over the Constitution during his 8 years and only now these groups are coming out of the woodwork? If someone is "always suspicious" the timing is more than a little specious. No-one on this board is suspicious of Americans (except Iggy), we're all in this together.

[rp55]

The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves.


Let me guess. California public school education?

[Jpach]

What if the state's legislature and governor are trying to take away the freedom of the black citizens? Would you fight for the freedom of your fellow human beings?

I think that they would believe that taking away the freedom of black citizens is unconstitutional, so NO. Did you even read what the OP said? Do you know what it means for something to be unconstitutional?

[yellowfin]

Two words: Stanley Milgrim.

[MP301]

What if the state's legislature and governor are trying to take away the freedom of the black citizens? Would you fight for the freedom of your fellow human beings?

The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves. When we were about to change our wicked ways, the south broke off, by the admission of its own leaders, primarily for the purpose of continuing its crimes against the slaves. The north was duty bound to overthrow those criminals and free the slaves.

What's more, several of the states that joined the criminals were formerly federal territories and therefore had no previous independence from the US to reclaim. Those states were territory stolen from the US.

The north did plenty to be ashamed of before, during, and after the war, there is no denying it. Likewise, southerners should admit the evil of the confederacy, and that it was a good thing that it was defeated. After admitting that, only then could we have a discussion about whether the constitution allows cessation from the union.

To swear this oath as it stands is treason.

Ok, I was gonna skip this thread and move on until I read your post. I would like to try and submit an observation, hopefully without offending anyone.

Please tell me at what point we are going get beyond this? How far back do you want to go in history for reasons to be pissed off? By your post, it seems that you harbor some serious hatred and I would like to remind you that this type of "victim" thinking is what fuels the anti's.

Was slavery wrong? Hell yes it was. It was wrong when it happened here before the civil war. It was wrong when the africans were doing it and selling the slaves to america. It was wrong when it happened in other countries prior to and after that. It was wrong even when excepted as SOP in the bible...

Is it happening now in the US as a matter of practice? No. Is there anyone alive that owned slaves when it was legal or even thinks that slavery is acceptable? No.

So STOP with this slavery thing already! Its old news and its over with!

I have a great idea! Why dont we worry about how things are now and get to working on that? Waddaya say? If your gonna go back in history and hate this and hate that, then why dont we limit it to at least the last decade or two of the last century up until the present? That way, maybe the problem folks were pissed at might still be alive to talk crap about or punish?

Did this country have self serving "murdering thieves" back then? Sure, just like every other country on the freakin planet! This archaic way of thinking is silly. Please give it a rest so why can evolve! We cant change the past, but we can learn from it. BUT we cant learn from it if we cant get beyond it!

For those of you that still believe the BS history we learned in school about the civil war, read this.

Remembering Robert E. Lee
by Gail Jarvis



We shouldn’t let the month of January slip by without paying our respects to one of finest men our country has produced; Robert E. Lee. January 19, was the 195th anniversary of the birthday of Robert E. Lee; a very special day, not only for Southerners but for all Americans who admire true heroes.

Unlike media created heroes, Lee doesn’t have a hint of scandal that has to be covered up. The facts of his life may be recounted without modification. Theodore Roosevelt characterized Lee this way: "the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth." Lee is also venerated in Europe as evidenced by this tribute by Winston Churchill: "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived."

In 1998, a Midwestern college decided to publish a book about the persons they considered to be six authentic heroes of our nation. They selected George Washington, Daniel Boone, Louisa May Alcott, George Washington Carver, Robert E. Lee, and Andrew Carnegie. Excellent choices; a group of outstanding people and a selection made without kowtowing to current political trends.

Robert E. Lee’s father was a Revolutionary War hero, a three-time governor of Virginia and a congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two members of the Lee family risked their lives by signing the Declaration of Independence. Lee married Mary Custis, great-granddaughter of George Washington and she inherited Arlington House, Washington’s antebellum estate in Virginia that eventually became home to Lee, Mary, and their seven children, before being confiscated by Lincoln. He turned it into a Union cemetary with an eye to making a return to its owners impossible.

After graduating from West Point, Lee became a member of the U.S. Army and began a long and remarkable military career. He distinguished himself in the Mexican War earning three honorary field promotions. His accomplishments were many including Assistant to the Chief of the Engineer Corps and Superintendent of West Point. In later years he was appointed president of a college in Lexington, Virginia that was later renamed Washington and Lee University in honor of his outstanding years of service.

Interestingly, when the Civil War started, Robert E. Lee was offered the command of the Union forces, but after his home state, Virginia, seceded, he resigned from the U.S. Army and joined with the Confederates. Many people wonder why Lee would turn down the command of the Union forces and support the Confederacy. But loyalty was one of Lee’s bedrock traits and he couldn’t wage war against Virginia and the South. Also, recent historians are presenting a more balanced view of the long festering and complex events leading to the Civil War. (An example being inequitable tariffs – the South paid 87% of the nation’s total tariffs in 1860 alone.) The new research contained in these books puts a new light on Lee’s decision to fight for the South.

I suspect that another reason Lee decided to support the South was President Lincoln’s refusal to meet with Southern representatives to try to reach a compromise to avoid war. Although members of Lincoln’s own cabinet as well as newspapers in America and Europe encouraged the President to attempt a negotiated settlement, he remained adamant. Lincoln rejected all requests for discussions that might have led to a peaceful resolution.

Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Lee also knew that the use of slaves was coming to an end. Cyrus McCormick’s 1831 invention of the mule-drawn mechanical reaper sounded the death knell for the use of slave labor. Before the Civil War began, 250,000 slaves had already been freed.

Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed. Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

During the Civil War, Union commanders pillaged the South, abusing civilians in unspeakable ways, destroying railroads and factories, and burning private homes, public buildings, schools and libraries. Union forces also slaughtered livestock and decimated crops, after they took what they wanted.

Periodic reports detailing their carnage were sent to General Halleck in Washington who shared them with President Lincoln. In a typical report issued on September 17, 1863, Union General Sherman added this comment; "We will remove every obstacle-if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." Halleck showed this report to Lincoln, who enjoyed it so much that he demanded that it be published.

When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania, many Southerners hoped that he would give the Yankees a taste of their own medicine. But Lee was a man of integrity. Not only did he prohibit "wanton injury to private property," he also ordered his soldiers to pay for any supplies taken from civilians.

Most histories have treated General Lee kindly, even those written shortly after the Civil War. This respect accorded to Lee infuriates those who want to tarnish his reputation, and they have even managed to force textbook writers to reword their references to Lee and, in many cases, delete any mention of him.

Also, some cities have removed portraits and other Lee memorabilia as a result of pressure from politicos who haven’t taken the time to learn the facts about this famous Southern gentleman. Portraits and plaques honoring Lee have been slashed and burned, and statues of the General have been spray-painted with obscenities.

Never the less, current biographies continue to enhance Robert E. Lee’s well-earned reputation. One journalist, after reviewing many of these new histories made this comment. "The South may have succumbed to overwhelming military force, but it triumphed in at least one sense. It produced perhaps the greatest symbol to come out of America’s most disastrous conflict, someone who combined combat and moral excellence and who, once defeated, worked to heal the wounds of war. It is a record that deserves to be retold constantly."

January 29, 2002


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis10.html

[nick]

Milgram. I wonder how it applies to people who're aware of the abusive authority though.

[MindBuilder]

rp55 wrote:
Let me guess. California public school education?
Can you specify what was wrong about my statements and supply accurate facts, or is it easier to just make a meaningless comment?

Jpach wrote:
I think that they would believe that taking away the freedom of black citizens is unconstitutional
Let me rephrase.

What if the state's legislature and governor are trying to keep slaves in bondage or races segregated?

In addition, section 4 and 5 of the oath don't make an exception for going into a state when the state is acting unconstitutionally. And you can't claim there is an implied exception for unconstitutional behavior in 4 and 5 because that would be like saying "We swear we will not throw anyone in jail." and then claiming there is an implied exception for when someone does something wrong. The whole reason 4 and 5 were included is the author's belief that the north shouldn't have stopped the south from seceding in order to infringe the rights of the slaves. If millions of enslaved Americans wasn't an exception worth mentioning in part 4 and 5 then why should we think any exceptions were intended?

Also, how do we know the south really wanted to secede? the southerners didn't have a fair election with one man, one vote, did they? It's ironic that the confederates wanted respect for their freedom to take away the freedom of others.

So I challenge you again to condemn the confederacy.

[cortayack]

^^^ What does the Confederacy have to do with the Oath. The Confederacy is long gone. Maybe it exists in some peoples minds but what is the point of bring it up here......

Oath is about protectiong people from unlawful Federal Government powers and up holding Constitutional law. 10th amendment up holds individual state rights from the Union. But states can't write laws that over right Constitutional law.

[MindBuilder]

Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
Nice try. Lee kept his slaves for six years after writing that, and only gave them up when he had to. Even after the war he argued they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they weren't intelligent or educated enough to vote right. True, many in the north felt the same, but many supported the end of slavery. For all his supposed admirable qualities, Lee has the disgrace of having chose the wrong side. He ought not to be honored for his faulty wisdom even if he claimed to be well intentioned rather than malicious. He killed innocent people who were fighting for what was right.

Please tell me at what point we are going get beyond this?

People who post oaths like this are still TODAY trying to build respect for the confederacy. It's particularly important not to honor Lee or the confederacy, because racism is still widespread. When nearly every southerner celebrates the union victory, and practically nobody tries to slip confederate clauses like this into oaths, then maybe there will be room for some respect of Lee. I don't know when we are going to get beyond this, but I don't think it will be any time real soon. Our recent presidential election is a sign of progress though. It's too bad he wasn't a black who supported gun rights.

[MP301]

Nice try. Lee kept his slaves for six years after writing that, and only gave them up when he had to. Even after the war he argued they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they weren't intelligent or educated enough to vote right. True, many in the north felt the same, but many supported the end of slavery. For all his supposed admirable qualities, Lee has the disgrace of having chose the wrong side. He ought not to be honored for his faulty wisdom even if he claimed to be well intentioned rather than malicious. He killed innocent people who were fighting for what was right.

People who post oaths like this are still TODAY trying to build respect for the confederacy. It's particularly important not to honor Lee or the confederacy, because racism is still widespread. When nearly every southerner celebrates the union victory, and practically nobody tries to slip confederate clauses like this into oaths, then maybe there will be room for some respect of Lee. I don't know when we are going to get beyond this, but I don't think it will be any time real soon. Our recent presidential election is a sign of progress though. It's too bad he wasn't a black who supported gun rights.

We are about to have a disagreement here! But please do not take my views as a personal attack...that is not my intent at all...

Nice try? Well I guess its who's version of history you chose to believe, because there is not a person living that was there. I guess it doesnt matter that there is little contradiction to the info in my previous post if you even read the stuff about lee.

The reality is that both sides were screwed up and slavery wasnt the main issue.. I think maybe the tarriff's ("the south paid 87 percent in 1860 alone")took precedent and the slavery issue was more of one side (north) taking the moral high ground for propaganda purposes. The north had slaves too! Besides for all intents and purposes that slavery was on its way out anyway since (250,000 slaves were freed prior to the civil war) starting in the first place.

That all aside, here is the deal. I could give a rats A** about acient history! I am not from the south and never gave a thought one way or the other about the south. Things that happened in the distant past are usefull only for informational purposes, but not if we cant get over it!

And, as I learned as an adult, what they taught us in history class as a kid, was biased, inaccurate half truths. So that tells me that what we know of history, be it the civil war or whatever, is suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The important thing is that we dont really know the truth or the whole truth, so why the feck should we vapor lock on it? What YOU and I think is fair or just NOW is what we need to concern ourselves with. Not what the H*** happened or didnt happen back in the dark ages!

AND, while im at, Id like to point out something else that sticks in my craw here (sorry, im on a roll!).

Why, praytell, do you think that Obama getting elected is progress? Because he is black? How does the color of his skin change his politics? Do you actually like his politics? His seemingly socialists views? His elitist desire to ban/limit/control our only usefull means to protect ourselves and our families, all the while enjoying taxpayer provided armed secret service agents?

Do you think it was a good idea for him to be voted into office just because he is black for progress' sake? What kind of damage can a anti gun socialist do to this country? What kind of person is it that does not think that you have the fundamental right of self preservation and protection?

What if Obama had been white and McCain black? How would that picture look right about now? Would you have voted for him to make "progress" at the risk of the same ol same ol? Progress?

To me, and many others on this board and elsewhere, THE most important issue has to be the 2nd amendment and our self preservation. Without it, we cant keep/protect/maintain any other right. And even if we could keep some of those all important rights (for a while anyway), it wouldnt mean a whole helleva lot to you (or a loved one) as the blood drained from your body after getting killed for your wallet.

Ok...

:rant:

[PatriotnMore]

People who post oaths like this are still TODAY trying to build respect for the confederacy.

I can see you didn't bother to actually read the site, I did, can you point out the cry to bring back a Confederacy? Because I missed it.:(

This subject is beyond the narrow vision you've chosen for it, a perceived vision, without merit I might add.

[tankerman]

Bush trampled all over the Constitution during his 8 years and only now these groups are coming out of the woodwork? If someone is "always suspicious" the timing is more than a little specious. No-one on this board is suspicious of Americans (except Iggy), we're all in this together.Now we're getting somewhere. An Obama supporter.

[AJAX22]

If you think the Civil war (aka the War of Northern Aggression) was about slavery, you need to take a long hard look at your understanding of American history as there have been some glaring omissions, half truths, and outright lies told to you during the course of your education.

I'm not a tinfoil hat kind of guy, but I do consider myself to be a serious student of history. If you scratch the surface of the simplistic B.S. that they cover in elementary school you'll quickly see that the war had almost nothing to do with slavery, but rather was fought over the role and scope of the federal government.

*** edited to add ***

Just so you know, the North was NOT on the side of small government.

[BobB35]

please explain.


What would you like me to explain? Peruse these posts about people in the LEO academys. Most recent is about Firearms law. If you don't know what I am talking about I can't help you.

Having gone through a LEO academy and been in the USMC, I think I can comment on what is the expected behavior. From what I have seen the general trend is to not ask questions and do what you are told.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.

What most people don't realize is that although we are a country of laws, Laws are only the justification of the use of force and without that threat of force, they are at best suggestions. So this is a country of force, words are great but in the end it is those that can effectively use force that will be in charge.

My greatest fear is that we are much closer to people understanding this point first hand then we have ever been since the southern succession.

[CavTrooper]

What would you like me to explain?

This comment right here.

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers...

Peruse these posts about people in the LEO academys. Most recent is about Firearms law. If you don't know what I am talking about I can't help you.

Having gone through a LEO academy and been in the USMC, I think I can comment on what is the expected behavior. From what I have seen the general trend is to not ask questions and do what you are told....

Its probably best to not project your weakness on others, because you may have been the sort to comprimise your integrity and violate your oath to the support and defend the Constitution, is no indication that anyone else would or will.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.....

Again, you are assuming things that arent necessarily true, like that I am a LEO. Ask around about that one, its funny. Also, you are projecting your ideas on to what you believe others would do based on your weaknesses, not reality.

You completed the LEO academy? Are you a sworn officer working for a department?

You were in the USMC? What years did you serve and what the circumstances of your discharge?

What most people don't realize is that although we are a country of laws, Laws are only the justification of the use of force and without that threat of force, they are at best suggestions. So this is a country of force, words are great but in the end it is those that can effectively use force that will be in charge.

My greatest fear is that we are much closer to people understanding this point first hand then we have ever been since the southern succession.

So back to the question. What does this comment mean?

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers...

[BobB35]

Cav,

I think I went on to explain my comment, but you chose to ignore it and didn't answer my questions.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.....

I apologize if you are not an LEO, but your other posts make it sound like you are one. Weakness, Oh that's a peach....

As far as the rest, served 6 1/2 years during the 1st gulf war, honorable. Never became an LEO, impatience with the process combined with bad taste during the interviewing and academy process.

Directly, the vast majority of the people entering LE for the last 15 years (military for the last 5000 thousand) are NOT going to question orders that come down from above. Regardless of what those orders are. You can disagree, but then I'll say prove that police are independent thinkers. The selection process screens out those that make waves, question authority, are too intelligent, etc. They want group/herd creatures that will do what they are told. You will have the rare exception, but when the SHTF they will be pushed aside. Clear enough for you?

[rp55]

rp55 wrote:

Can you specify what was wrong about my statements and supply accurate facts, or is it easier to just make a meaningless comment?

.

The same line I quoted originally.

"The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves."

It is patently (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means unmistakably) false (google John Adams). I sent two kids through California public schools and one through out-of-state private. The former were indoctrinated into that type of cant (Empty, hypocritical talk) and rhetoric (the art of using language as a means to persuade). They were also indoctrinated in the meme of victimhood below

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
-You are always morally right
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
-You never have to be responsible again for anything

The one child who went out-of-state got none of that and I wonder if it coincidence or cause and effect. BTW, it did take considerable effort on my part but I was able to salvage the two public schooled kids and they are both serving with USMC overseas now.

[kermit315]

Cav,

I think I went on to explain my comment, but you chose to ignore it and didn't answer my questions.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.....

I apologize if you are not an LEO, but your other posts make it sound like you are one. Weakness, Oh that's a peach....

As far as the rest, served 6 1/2 years during the 1st gulf war, honorable. Never became an LEO, impatience with the process combined with bad taste during the interviewing and academy process.

Directly, the vast majority of the people entering LE for the last 15 years (military for the last 5000 thousand) are NOT going to question orders that come down from above. Regardless of what those orders are. You can disagree, but then I'll say prove that police are independent thinkers. The selection process screens out those that make waves, question authority, are too intelligent, etc. They want group/herd creatures that will do what they are told. You will have the rare exception, but when the SHTF they will be pushed aside. Clear enough for you?

So, you served 6 1/2 years, and that gives you the right to make generalizations about the whole military,huh. Maybe you forgot, but you were initially trained to question those orders that you dont believe to be lawful. It is/was your duty to do so. Any failure to do so on your part is a reflection on you, not the military.

Also, you have never been a LEO, but you are somehow qualified to make rash generalizations for/about them also. Not sure what the bad taste was that made you quit, but I wonder if the feeling wasnt mutual.

[Deadred7o7]

What if the state's legislature and governor are trying to take away the freedom of the black citizens? Would you fight for the freedom of your fellow human beings?

The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves. When we were about to change our wicked ways, the south broke off, by the admission of its own leaders, primarily for the purpose of continuing its crimes against the slaves. The north was duty bound to overthrow those criminals and free the slaves.

What's more, several of the states that joined the criminals were formerly federal territories and therefore had no previous independence from the US to reclaim. Those states were territory stolen from the US.

The north did plenty to be ashamed of before, during, and after the war, there is no denying it. Likewise, southerners should admit the evil of the confederacy, and that it was a good thing that it was defeated. After admitting that, only then could we have a discussion about whether the constitution allows cessation from the union.

To swear this oath as it stands is treason.

From Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural speech - Monday, March 4, 1861, slightly over one month prior to his mobilization of US troops to destroy states' rights by force of government:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another."

[yellowfin]

Anyway...back to topic...

I wonder if any of the New Jersey police are even vaguely aware of this. From what I gather they're even more JBT than anything we have here; their laws are worse in many instances.

[eta34]

Cav,

I think I went on to explain my comment, but you chose to ignore it and didn't answer my questions.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.....

I apologize if you are not an LEO, but your other posts make it sound like you are one. Weakness, Oh that's a peach....

As far as the rest, served 6 1/2 years during the 1st gulf war, honorable. Never became an LEO, impatience with the process combined with bad taste during the interviewing and academy process.

Directly, the vast majority of the people entering LE for the last 15 years (military for the last 5000 thousand) are NOT going to question orders that come down from above. Regardless of what those orders are. You can disagree, but then I'll say prove that police are independent thinkers. The selection process screens out those that make waves, question authority, are too intelligent, etc. They want group/herd creatures that will do what they are told. You will have the rare exception, but when the SHTF they will be pushed aside. Clear enough for you?


Nice bunch of rhetoric. Very assertive. Not proof. Feel free to provide some of that.

[BobB35]

So, you served 6 1/2 years, and that gives you the right to make generalizations about the whole military,huh. Maybe you forgot, but you were initially trained to question those orders that you dont believe to be lawful. It is/was your duty to do so. Any failure to do so on your part is a reflection on you, not the military.

Also, you have never been a LEO, but you are somehow qualified to make rash generalizations for/about them also. Not sure what the bad taste was that made you quit, but I wonder if the feeling wasnt mutual.

Whatever... Keep on thinking that the Knight in shining armor is wearing a blue or green uniform. Heck the constitution is being violated on a daily basis and I don't see anyone arresting any elected officials. If you really think LEOs and military will question orders, I will give you a scenario and tell me how you would respond.

US Govt reports that there is an outbreak of an airborne strain of EBOLA virus in the SF bay Area. Lethality is 75%, infection rate is 90% incubation period is 3 days. Essentially there is no time to check it out and something has to be done right now. The order comes down for the the Army and LEOs to isolate and cut access into and out of the Bay area to contain the contagion. Do you really think the street cops and E-4s and below are going to question this order on constitutional grounds? Come on, join the 21st century. What would you do in this situation? Notice also I said the Govt reports...that's all.

ETA34...What proof do I need to supply? The fact is well documented on what type of people LEA hire. Military even has a term for it - institutional mentality. Sorry if you are not aware of this but to help you out answer the above scenario to see how valid my point is.

[ChuckBooty]

Let me give YOU a scenerio:

A disgruntled ex-marine didn't make it though the hiring process for the police department. He now spends a lot of time on the Internet and talks **** about cops and soldiers.

[bubbagump]

Cav,

I think I went on to explain my comment, but you chose to ignore it and didn't answer my questions.

Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.....

I apologize if you are not an LEO, but your other posts make it sound like you are one. Weakness, Oh that's a peach....

As far as the rest, served 6 1/2 years during the 1st gulf war, honorable. Never became an LEO, impatience with the process combined with bad taste during the interviewing and academy process.

Directly, the vast majority of the people entering LE for the last 15 years (military for the last 5000 thousand) are NOT going to question orders that come down from above. Regardless of what those orders are. You can disagree, but then I'll say prove that police are independent thinkers. The selection process screens out those that make waves, question authority, are too intelligent, etc. They want group/herd creatures that will do what they are told. You will have the rare exception, but when the SHTF they will be pushed aside. Clear enough for you?

I'm not the smartest guy in the world...

But I'm going to assume that CAV-TROOPER was in the U.S. Army. Probably 19D.

And if you've ever read any of his posts/threads in the Off-Topic area, you'd quickly realize he is NOT an LEO:p

And speak for yourself. The people I knew who were LE and/or Military do not fit your description.

[BobB35]

Let me give YOU a scenerio:

A disgruntled ex-marine didn't make it though the hiring process for the police department. He now spends a lot of time on the Internet and talks **** about cops and soldiers.


Whatever UFC champion....

I still notice no one has answered my question in relation to the original posters comment...

[MindBuilder]

mp301 wrote:
I guess its who's version of history you chose to believe, because there is not a person living that was there. I guess it doesnt matter that there is little contradiction to the info in my previous post if you even read the stuff about lee.
There are many even today who would like to revise history to dilute the crimes of the confederacy. Their claims have little credibility. For example the article you quoted claimed Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.

However the Wikipedia article on Lee claims
Lee lived in close contact with slavery before he joined the Army and held variously around a half-dozen slaves under his own name. When Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857, Lee (as executor of the will) came into control over some 196 slaves on the Arlington plantation. Although the will provided for the slaves to be emancipated "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper," providing a maximum of five years for the legal and logistical details of manumission, Lee found himself in need of funds to pay his father-in-law's debts and repair the properties he had inherited.[8] He decided to make money during the five years that the will had allowed him control of the slaves by working them on the plantation and hiring them out to neighboring plantations and to eastern Virginia.
The Wikipedia article could be in error of course, but notice the article you quoted kind of admits much of this while putting a distorted spin on it as is typical of confederate apologists.

The reality is that both sides were screwed up and slavery wasnt the main issue.. I think maybe the tarriff's ("the south paid 87 percent in 1860 alone")took precedent and the slavery issue was more of one side (north) taking the moral high ground for propaganda purposes. The north had slaves too!
Both sides were screwed up. I don't doubt that there were other major issues as well, but I suspect that slavery was the major one. At any rate massive and severe crimes against the Americans who were slaves should have been the major issue for an ethical person.

The theory that the civil war was about states rights or tariffs rather than slavery is a distortion called the "Lost Cause" theory. A quote from Wikipedia is informative.

Contemporary historians are largely unsympathetic to arguments that secession was not motivated by slave ownership. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp claimed that each side supported states' rights or federal power only when it was convenient to do so.[15] Stampp also cited Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat. According to Stampp, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the 'Lost Cause' theory.[16]

Similarly, historian William C. Davis explained the Confederate Constitution's protection of slavery at the national level as follows:

To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.[17]

If slavery wasn't really at least part of what the voters and soldiers of the north were against, then it's use as propaganda would have been pointless.

That all aside, here is the deal. I could give a rats A** about acient history!

It's not ancient history, the Oath Keepers are still trying to indirectly promote racism (by being apologists for the confederacy) TODAY.

Why, praytell, do you think that Obama getting elected is progress? Because he is black?

Yes, only because he is black. I think having a black President of the United States is a very valuable inspiration, not just to American blacks, but to the people of Africa and others as well. My comment that his election was progress, was only in regards to racial issues in the US. I much prefer a president that truly (as opposed to insincerely like Obama) supports the 2nd Amendment. I voted against Obama primarily on the grounds that he obviously wants to ban all guns in private hands. I support and oppose Obama on various other issues which I didn't analyze all that much because the decision was easy, based primarily on his 2nd Amendment position.

PatriotnMore wrote:
I can see you didn't bother to actually read the site, I did, can you point out the cry to bring back a Confederacy?
Point 4 and 5 of the Oath Keepers declaration are not consistent with justice or support of the Constitution because they make no explicit exception for the legitimate overthrow of rebellion. Given the history on this subject, they shouldn't leave such an exception unstated. As they are currently phrased, they are thinly veiled attempts to gain sympathy for the racist confederate cause.

Ajax22 wrote:
the Civil war (aka the War of Northern Aggression)
I think the Americans who were being held as slaves thought it was the racist white southerners who were the aggressors against the slaves. How hypocritical of the southerners to complain that their freedom to take away the freedom of others was infringed. If the south had already been an independent country, after freeing its own slaves, the north could have justifiably invaded and annexed the south, just to free the slaves. That's not aggression, that's liberation. The slaves didn't want to succeed. The US citizens who were slaves wanted the north to protect them, and the north was justified in coming to their aid, even if the constitution allowed secession.

[CavTrooper]

Whatever UFC champion....
I still notice no one has answered my question in relation to the original posters comment...

Which question? I think its been lost in all the drivel.

Interesting concept. Unfortunately the ship has long sailed on this idea. Thanks to the living document liberals, most of the people who swear to uphold the constitution have no idea what it actually says and have never even read it themselves.

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers and they will IMO follow whatever orders come down. Mind you, these orders will be cloaked in Patriotism and protecting the Homeland and all that and will be cheered by the people......

First post, no question, just a shot at LEOs and Military being too dumb to understand the Constitution.


Cav, I think you are an LEO, so do you disagree? Would you ever tell your supervisor no? What if there was a nuke that took out SF and martial law was declared and you were told that anyone with a firearm was to be arrested. Would you say, "No Captain the 2A gives people the right to bear arms!" If so I applaud you, but you would be pushed aside and fired on the spot and the next jackboot would step up and carry out the order and not skip a beat. Are you willing to draw your weapon and gun down your blue brothers? I some how doubt it, which proves my point.


Heres a question, predicatied on me being an LEO, and having no relation to the OP, so Id say its irrelevant.

Cav,

I think I went on to explain my comment, but you chose to ignore it and didn't answer my questions.
......
Clear enough for you?

No question here either, unless you count the last line, to which my reply would be "Not really".

Whatever... .

More assumptions and generalizations, no questions.

I dont see anywhere where you posted an actual question, so I have to ask WTF?

[FeuerFrei]

Oath Keepers video was...interesting.
Valid points stated very clearly.
We the people have been mentally watered down through generations of doing what everybody else does and somehow stopped thinking about how our nation was formed and that a formula was given to us stating the actions needed to sustain it's greatness. Constitution of the United States.
We have lost our way as Americans.
Too late? Maybe. One or two executive orders away from ????
We each need to take stock in our own lives and decide ahead of time on what we will do if a worst case scenario happens.
History always shows that the smallest percentage of people will step up and
do what is necessary. The rest of the population will just sit in the middle and suck on whatever baby bottle given them.
We need more people with a "Pioneer mentality" that doesn't need a "mommy govt." to take care of them.
That's my rant.

[kermit315]

Cav, he posed a TFH theory about bioterrorism to me that I am not getting baited into playing with. No matter the answer to this guy, we are all wrong. Not interested in playing games with him..... I am packing for the boat.

Feel free to answer his "scenario" though.

Mindbuilder, care to share with the class where confederacy was mentioned in anything put up by the OP, or any independent research you have done outside of conjecture.

[MindBuilder]

rp55 wrote:
Can you specify what was wrong about my statements and supply accurate facts, or is it easier to just make a meaningless comment?

.
The same line I quoted originally.

"The United States was a government of murdering thieves stealing the lives of the slaves."
It is patently false


Are you saying that the US government didn't allow, support, and benefit from slavery, or are you saying that wasn't murderous theft of people's lives?

Your list of ideas that California schools indoctrinate children with is an absurdly distorted straw man of what is taught. With the exception of the occasional wacky teacher, that is not what they teach kids, even in California. Not that I'm condoning all of what they DO teach kids today.

Deadred7o7 wrote:
From Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural speech - Monday, March 4, 1861, slightly over one month prior to his mobilization of US troops to destroy states' rights by force of government:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful[as opposed to ethical] right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so[at this time anyway].

Slippery bastard ain't he? This reminds me of Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment. Notice that he probably intends to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it DOESN'T exist. As long as he's trying to get elected, he doesn't have any inclination to interfere with slavery where it exists. Of course his inclination could change at any time. And what was formerly unlawful interference could become lawful. If a president lies about his intentions and policies, does that invalidate the election, or do you have to recognize the election anyway, because they all lie like crazy and we know it.

we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

The Oath Keepers declaration left out the "lawless" weasel word. That's critical.


all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another."

[CavTrooper]

Cav, he posed a TFH theory about bioterrorism to me that I am not getting baited into playing with. No matter the answer to this guy, we are all wrong. Not interested in playing games with him..... I am packing for the boat.

Feel free to answer his "scenario" though.
.

Oh, that was a question? Ok.... well, I guess if it was SF, Id round em all up and wait for the MOAB to drop. Who needs em anyways! :thumbsup: ;)

[AJAX22]

Ajax22 wrote:

I think the Americans who were being held as slaves thought it was the racist white southerners who were the aggressors against the slaves. How hypocritical of the southerners to complain that their freedom to take away the freedom of others was infringed. If the south had already been an independent country, after freeing its own slaves, the north could have justifiably invaded and annexed the south, just to free the slaves. That's not aggression, that's liberation. The slaves didn't want to succeed. The US citizens who were slaves wanted the north to protect them, and the north was justified in coming to their aid, even if the constitution allowed secession.

No one is arguing that the institution of chattel slavery (in all forms, not just the race based ones) was imoral to the core.

The north could have easily purchased every slave in the south many times over for a fraction of the cost of the war.

I define aggressor as the one who attacks/invades the sovereign territory of another.

Freed slaves fought on both sides of the conflict. and in very large numbers

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

The war was NOT fought over slavery, it wasn't even fought on the PRETEXT of slavery. the entire concept that 'we went to war to free the slaves' is a revisionist post war fable espoused to give an egalitarian veneer to what was an all around ugly episode of history.

Don't believe everything they tell you in school, a lot of it is ********.

[eta34]

Whatever... Keep on thinking that the Knight in shining armor is wearing a blue or green uniform. Heck the constitution is being violated on a daily basis and I don't see anyone arresting any elected officials. If you really think LEOs and military will question orders, I will give you a scenario and tell me how you would respond.

US Govt reports that there is an outbreak of an airborne strain of EBOLA virus in the SF bay Area. Lethality is 75%, infection rate is 90% incubation period is 3 days. Essentially there is no time to check it out and something has to be done right now. The order comes down for the the Army and LEOs to isolate and cut access into and out of the Bay area to contain the contagion. Do you really think the street cops and E-4s and below are going to question this order on constitutional grounds? Come on, join the 21st century. What would you do in this situation? Notice also I said the Govt reports...that's all.

ETA34...What proof do I need to supply? The fact is well documented on what type of people LEA hire. Military even has a term for it - institutional mentality. Sorry if you are not aware of this but to help you out answer the above scenario to see how valid my point is.


If it is so well documented, please provide the documentation.

[Zebra]

Now we're getting somewhere. An Obama supporter.
uhhmm....psst, tank?
You just labeled all 'Oath Keepers' Obama supporters....

:TFH:

But the men who form the core of Oath Keepers were just as outspoken in opposition to the dangerously unconstitutional actions of Bush as we will be of Obama's violations.

Want proof? Go here, to my own personal blog:

www.stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com

There, you can read nearly everything I have written for the past five years, including multiple papers and articles condemning the Bush doctrines of the "unitary executive" and enemy combatant status, as well as how Bush's own lawyers stabbed gun owners in the back.
But I answered my own question.

Talk to you later! ;)

[MindBuilder]

AJAX22 wrote:
The north could have easily purchased every slave in the south many times over for a fraction of the cost of the war.
Why should they? It would have made more sense for the south to pay reparations to the slaves for the years of labor and lives they stole.

AJAX22 wrote:
I define aggressor as the one who attacks/invades the sovereign territory of another.
That's an incomplete definition of aggressor. An aggressor is one who unjustifiably attacks another, at least in the sense used in the phrase "War of Northern Aggression".

AJAX22 wrote:
Freed slaves fought on both sides of the conflict. and in very large numbers
Are you suggesting that a few misguided victims means that the great crime of the confederacy wasn't so bad? The north was no paradise for blacks. Still, I doubt a significant portion of the slaves and free blacks were willing to fight for "state's rights" or to preserve their beloved southern government. Most of the southern blacks probably fought for practical reasons, like the promise of being freed, guns to their backs, the chance to infiltrate the enemy, the chance to escape, or for those blacks with weak ethics, for the pay, or even adventure. The willingness of blacks to fight for the south was probably also exaggerated by apologists for the confederacy.

AJAX22 wrote:
The war was NOT fought over slavery
South Carolina was the first state to secede. In their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina" they gave their reasons, which were all about slavery. There was nothing about unjust tariffs or anything else. That's why they did it. They weren't advocating for secession in order to protect state's rights, they were advocating for state's rights in order to protect slavery.

Before the civil war, northern state governments were passing laws against returning runaway slaves to the south. The federal government was passing laws against slavery in the new territories. Lincoln campaigned against slavery in his first election. In South Carolina's declaration of causes for secession, they claimed Lincoln planned to ban slavery, and claimed the Republican party had declared that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. Although Lincoln said he didn't plan to ban slavery in the states where it existed, he brought the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress before the war was even over. There may not have been majority political support for abolishing slavery in the states where it existed, and preserving the union may have been the north's primary purpose for the war, but it seems clear to me that the war WAS fought, at least partially, to end slavery.

[EOD3]

And you guys thought a degree in "black studies" was idiotic. It's amazing easy to "teach" people something that is obviously wrong as long as it panders to their perceived victimization. A good many "teachers" are less interested in teaching than they are in recruiting for their "victims unanimous" church.

Just my BAC

[Gryff]

but he will be mentioned anytime a controversial topic comes up as a scapegoat. Count on it.

scapegoat |ˈskāpˌgōt|
noun
(in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16).
• a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, esp. for reasons of expediency.

That rules Junior out. He was the master of his own stupidity.

[chris]

I assume these people were as vigilant under Bush as well?

WTF does that have to do with this thread.

as for any president any order that i deem as unlawfull will be protested by me and not obeyed. good enough for you.

[chris]

The current batch of LEOs and and military are not what you would call the most original thinkers and they will IMO follow whatever orders come down.

first off todays Military has more courage in their left nut than you have in your entire body. and in fact there are some smart mother F'ers i had the privalage serving with and could drop kick your butt in a 1/2 sec.

and as for following orders no matter what. think again. but i guess you can't get passed your own rhetoric anyway. and i have been the Army for 20+ yrs and it was probably while you an itch in your daddy's pants.

the fine men and women of our armed forces have more fortitude in this country.

[BobB35]

Chris,

Great rhetoric, beat your chest some more do you ghost write for Richard Marcinko? My experience in the military differed dramatically from yours. Fortunately I stated it was my OPINION and unfortunately time will tell if I am right or wrong.

See my other posts and run out the scenario and tell me how you would respond to a influence like pandemic that hits the country. I never questioned the bravery, fortitude, balls, whatever of our military. What I said is that when the orders come down they WILL be followed. You are the 2nd military person to comment that "Oh no they won't" which brings a happy tear to my eye, the military must have changed in the last 15 years, because the UCMJ is pretty clear on what will happen you you when you disobey a lawful order from a superior during a national emergency.

It's kind of like when someone gets beaten down by the cops even though what they were doing was legal and they get charged with resisting arrest. (See defend against incorrect No-knock warrants) It doesn't matter, because the police aren't interested in discussing the finer points of constitutional law if you are seen as resisting in their eyes(See New Orleans seizure of firearms during Katrina). The sad point is once the rights are taken away a point is reached where there is no going back...

ETA....you can look it up yourself under police psychological profile, because nothing I will give to you would be sufficient

[Meplat]

I don't know about 15 years ago, but forty years ago they taught us how to refuse a direct order that we believed to be unlawful, and stay out of the brig. Yes, you had better be right, but if you are, you stand up for it. Our military folks are good at that, standing up I mean. I think it has something to do with duty honor and country.

Now cops? The results seem to vary.



Chris,

Great rhetoric, beat your chest some more do you ghost write for Richard Marcinko? My experience in the military differed dramatically from yours. Fortunately I stated it was my OPINION and unfortunately time will tell if I am right or wrong.

See my other posts and run out the scenario and tell me how you would respond to a influence like pandemic that hits the country. I never questioned the bravery, fortitude, balls, whatever of our military. What I said is that when the orders come down they WILL be followed. You are the 2nd military person to comment that "Oh no they won't" which brings a happy tear to my eye, the military must have changed in the last 15 years, because the UCMJ is pretty clear on what will happen you you when you disobey a lawful order from a superior during a national emergency.

It's kind of like when someone gets beaten down by the cops even though what they were doing was legal and they get charged with resisting arrest. (See defend against incorrect No-knock warrants) It doesn't matter, because the police aren't interested in discussing the finer points of constitutional law if you are seen as resisting in their eyes(See New Orleans seizure of firearms during Katrina). The sad point is once the rights are taken away a point is reached where there is no going back...

ETA....you can look it up yourself under police psychological profile, because nothing I will give to you would be sufficient

[SevenFifty]

You are the 2nd military person to comment that "Oh no they won't" which brings a happy tear to my eye.

I'll be the third...and I know many more.



...the military must have changed in the last 15 years, because the UCMJ is pretty clear on what will happen you you when you disobey a lawful order from a superior during a national emergency.

Chris and Meplat are correct. The key words there are LAWFUL ORDER...you do not have to follow orders which you believe to be unlawful.
I guess you were not taught that 15 years ago?

[BobB35]

I'll be the third...and I know many more.




Chris and Meplat are correct. The key words there are LAWFUL ORDER...you do not have to follow orders which you believe to be unlawful.
I guess you were not taught that 15 years ago?

Who defines Lawful? The CO, the president, congress, the courts? Heck the constitution is being violated everyday and I have yet to see a single congress person put under arrest.

I hope you are right, but history has shown that when push comes to shoves people follow orders. Heck there have been Psychological studies (Milgram et al.) that have shows this is somehow wired into the human pyshce. Military and LEO tend to be orderly and authoritarian in nature so they are even more apt to follow orders.

What I find interesting is that military people who say they will disobey an order if they think it is unlawful? How does the military retain discipline? I would think that the pride of following orders in the face of difficult decisions would still hold in the military, but I guess not. I guess the military now allows every tom, dick and harry to decide if they want to follow any given order on any given day based on whether or not they think it is lawful or not. Somehow I doubt this is the case? I am sure there will be exceptions to every case, but there can't be a lot, otherwise the brigs would be full.

In conclusion, I hope you are right, because I think in the next 15 years this is going to be tested for real right here in the US. When the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team get deployed to quell civil unrest I hope those soldiers stand there and say, "Yes sir as soon as the Posse Comitatis act is rescinded and the Constitution is amended to allow the Federal army to be used on US Soil against US citizen." Somehow I doubt that will happen though.....

[yellowfin]

Something I saw in another forum I MUST share:
A friend of mine was once stopped for a minor traffic infraction. As is required in Texas, he presented his drivers license and CHL to the officer.

'Where is your firearm" the officer asked?

'Not carrying today sir' my friend replied.

'Where are you headed' asked the officer?

'To the bank, to get some cash at the ATM.'

'So what will you do if someone decides he wants to take your money and then stick a knife in you?'

My friend just stood there speechless...

The officer handed him back his licenses.

'If you promise me that you won't leave home without your weapon again, I won't give you a citation today. When I come to a crime scene I feel a lot better when it's the bad guy laying there, not the good guy.'
THAT is what we need to hear from LEO's. Any of the stuff to the opposite from the LAPD/LASD mentality can quite frankly GTH.

[socal2310]

For those of you knocking Oathkeepers. Bear in mind that this organization isn't saying that all LE and Military personnel will refuse an unlawful order. As recent experience shows, that simply isn't the case (and in fact if you actually read "More About Oathkeepers" they specifically acknowledge that there are some in military and law enforcement who are confused about their duty). They are saying that their members are making a commitment to disobey unlawful orders. How that could be a bad thing, I just don't understand.

If an unlawful order is given, it will likely be the most difficult decision a soldier or police officer will ever have to make, particularly if they are unsure if their brothers will stand with them. Knowing that there are others who have also made a commitment to do the right thing can only make the right decision easier if the time ever comes. It will also encourage those who join to make sure they know what lawful and unlawful orders are.

Ryan

P.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't be wary of rank and file military and law enforcement personnel, I'm just saying that the last thing we want to do is discourage those who are serious about their oaths. They won't turn against their respective organizations if there is no one to turn to!

[Meplat]

A bit more faith, please. I know when I was 21 I was quite prepared to tell my officers to go pound sand if told to aggress the American people. And we did have lawless mobs in the streets. One thing I don't know if you know is that it is unlawful to keep American service personnel isolated from the American news media. They have to let you know what is going on through the eyes of a free press. That way if they tell you to swing that 5" 54 around and lay into telegraph hill you will probably have some idea wether you are shelling a bunch of terrorists or a mob of hippies. If it's hippies you will probably first say a baffled: What! After he repeats the order you say. Sir, I respectfully request that order in writing Sir. At that point the gunnery officer will probably relieve you of command of the #1 turret. If you have any leadership skills your second in command (probably also a petty officer) will be smelling a rat, because he has learned to count on you as a stand up guy. Hopefully, (and this depends to a great extent on your past leadership) he will also demand the order in writing. After that the E-2s and E-3s are thinking: "The chief wouldn't do it, Ski (the first class) wouldn't do it, I smell a rat." Probably, they will also demand the order in writing. That puts the officer who gave the order up against the wall. No one has done anything mutinous, it is not against regs to demand an order in writing. He has to take full responsibility in spades. You can bet that a later courts martial will take note of the fact that all his subordinates demanded the order in writing. At that point he probably bumps it to the XO and asks for it in writing, the XO bumps it to the Captain and asks for it in writing. At that point the Captain has to decide if he want's to be a defender of the constitution or a tody of a political faction. If the former he bumps it to the admiral, and so on up the line. Eventually there is an admiral or a general standing in front of the president and saying: "I will need that in writing Sir." All because of an NCO who knew His duty. What a country!

BTW, if it comes back down in writing (which it probably won't) you can still tell them to F-off. Just depends on how big your balls are, in my experience US military personnel, when they know what is right, have extremely large caliber balls. :thumbsup:

[/B]

Who defines Lawful? The CO, the president, congress, the courts? Heck the constitution is being violated everyday and I have yet to see a single congress person put under arrest.

I hope you are right, but history has shown that when push comes to shoves people follow orders. Heck there have been Psychological studies (Milgram et al.) that have shows this is somehow wired into the human pyshce. Military and LEO tend to be orderly and authoritarian in nature so they are even more apt to follow orders.

What I find interesting is that military people who say they will disobey an order if they think it is unlawful? How does the military retain discipline? I would think that the pride of following orders in the face of difficult decisions would still hold in the military, but I guess not. I guess the military now allows every tom, dick and harry to decide if they want to follow any given order on any given day based on whether or not they think it is lawful or not. Somehow I doubt this is the case? I am sure there will be exceptions to every case, but there can't be a lot, otherwise the brigs would be full.

In conclusion, I hope you are right, because I think in the next 15 years this is going to be tested for real right here in the US. When the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team get deployed to quell civil unrest I hope those soldiers stand there and say, "Yes sir as soon as the Posse Comitatis act is rescinded and the Constitution is amended to allow the Federal army to be used on US Soil against US citizen." Somehow I doubt that will happen though.....

[dwa]

[/B]

Who defines Lawful? The CO, the president, congress, the courts? Heck the constitution is being violated everyday and I have yet to see a single congress person put under arrest.

I hope you are right, but history has shown that when push comes to shoves people follow orders. Heck there have been Psychological studies (Milgram et al.) that have shows this is somehow wired into the human pyshce. Military and LEO tend to be orderly and authoritarian in nature so they are even more apt to follow orders.

What I find interesting is that military people who say they will disobey an order if they think it is unlawful? How does the military retain discipline? I would think that the pride of following orders in the face of difficult decisions would still hold in the military, but I guess not. I guess the military now allows every tom, dick and harry to decide if they want to follow any given order on any given day based on whether or not they think it is lawful or not. Somehow I doubt this is the case? I am sure there will be exceptions to every case, but there can't be a lot, otherwise the brigs would be full.

In conclusion, I hope you are right, because I think in the next 15 years this is going to be tested for real right here in the US. When the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team get deployed to quell civil unrest I hope those soldiers stand there and say, "Yes sir as soon as the Posse Comitatis act is rescinded and the Constitution is amended to allow the Federal army to be used on US Soil against US citizen." Somehow I doubt that will happen though.....

how long were you in and under what circumstances did you separate? (if you don't mind me asking) i understand you said you got out 15 years ago but you don't sound like you remember how things work.