“Malignant Nature” Deconstructed by a Current Serving West Pointer Who Served With the 82nd Airborne.
As many Oath Keepers are aware, “Streiff” over at Red State has written a criticism of us entitled “The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement.” The author, a retired LTC, makes many “arguments by authority.” This attack on Oath Keepers comes from an odd quarter in that Streiff has written eloquently in the past about supporting our troops and other issues that most Oath Keepers would agree with. He is nominally, one would think, someone who should agree with us.
A current serving LTC and West Point graduate (and an admirer of Streiff’s previous work), who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, has deconstructed Streiff’s arguments below ad seriatim. His comments are in red
Oath Keeper
“The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement“
“Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers”
Posted by Streiff Wednesday, October 21st [on www.redstate.com]
Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.
Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.
At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).
[Not sure what history Streiff is referencing; militia members of the colonial and Federalist periods were required to provide their own arms; that the States also maintained stores of arms, powder, shot and equipment does not change the fact that the British action at Lexington and Concord was designed to disarm the colonists – severally and individually. With an overt goal of seizing the cannon, powder and stores maintained in the village of Concord, General Gage’s troops were also to disarm and disperse any militia encountered en route– which involves the unconstitutional seizing of individual weapons (in that it violated the “traditional and ancient rights of the free (non-indebted) English". So the Oath Keepers’ concern regarding obedience to any orders to disarm the American people has good historical precedent.]
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.
[The issue isn’t whether local martial law in the face of illegitimate insurrection, or the medical quarantine of a region due to an epidemic. Streiff’s examples are strawman arguments or red herrings. But assuming the sincerity of his position, what he overlooks is the Oath Keepers’ assertion that it is the unconstitutional exercise of government power. The list of ten “Orders we will not obey” are, within clear context, ‘enforceable’ (by the individual soldier or policeman’s conscience) upon demonstration of an extra-constitutional use of state power to an end which would subject the American people to “absolute despotism.”]
These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.
Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high.
[But I am very concerned that Streiff’s understanding of history and civics is badly lacking. He would do well to read David Hackett Fischer’s “Paul Revere’s Ride” or “The Minutemen and Their World” by Robert A. Gross and Alan M. Taylor – he might find it illuminating.]
But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.
[As a career Army officer, 1984 graduate of the Military Academy (West Point), Infantry Officer, and constitutionalist I take great offense at Streiff’s historical myopia. I am subject to the oath I swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” – and will be until even after I retire (several years away), until I am no longer viable for recall. But even then, I will be personally bound, as a citizen, to that same oath.
For Streiff to trivialize the issue as “un- American nonsense indicates to me that he has not through the ramifications of his oath or of the realities of history.”]
When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.
As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.
Your oath reads:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
[Streiff assumes that obedience to orders is the essence of keeping one’s oath. Can he envision no circumstances where maintaining one’s sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic…” might require disobedience to un-constitutional orders? Indeed, they may be lawful orders – but are they constitutional?
Streiff trivializes the issue that the Oath Keepers raise: what is the nature of your oath? How do you put into practice that sacred trust that you hold as a Soldier (Marine, Sailor or Airman) or Sworn Peace Officer, when daily practice provides you no clear guidance, when conventional wisdom holds that all that is necessary is to “obey orders”, when exercising one’s conscience in the face of clear despotism and tyranny comes at the cost of personal sacrifice.
The knowledge of history, the comprehension of current events, the clarity of moral purpose and the personal courage required of the Oath Keeper establishes the Oath Keeper as the more complete citizen than ever a mere active serving infantry officer’s claim to obedience – and recall I say this with all due respect as I am myself a 1984 West Point Grad, commissioned in the Infantry, served in the 82nd ABN Div, etc.].
Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”
[More strawman arguments. The Oath Keeper movement is not arguing some “grander oath”. Rather, they are arguing for those who have sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution to consider just what that means. It isn’t mere obedience to superior orders that keeps one true to one’s sacred oath. And in this day and age, to posit the potential for illicit, tyrannical exercise of despotic power on the part of government is the merest prudence – no mental reservation is required, and party affiliation of the past, present or future administration is irrelevant. This issue is – in the face of exercised despotism – how does one maintain ones oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Go back and re-read the Oath Keepers’ list of Ten Orders We will not Obey. The issue is resisting, of not being a party to, the exercise of despotism by one’s own government.
I do not look forward to the day or that choice. But in such a case -- and strawman arguments of Hurricane Katrina and the inability of a governor to act, or red herrings regarding possible medical quarantines are not the issue - - in such a case where the government acts to abrogate those constitutionally protected, natural rights that we enjoy as Americans, then any military or sworn peace officer has a choice – obedience to (arguably) lawfully constituted authority, or follow their oath to support and defend the constitution.]
For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Read it again, slowly and carefully:
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me
You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.
As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored.
[I think Streiff’s problem is that he cannot envision a circumstance where government forces act despotically, so the entire Oath Keeper argument appears to him to be hysterical.]
The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?
In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.
My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.
[Again, Streiff conflates obedience to “lawfully constituted authority” as co-incident with “keeping one’s oath.” In the normal course of events this would never be an issue, and granted that the duly constituted authorities do not exceed their constitutional authority will never become an issue. However, Oath Keepers prudentially envision circumstances where such is not the case.
I appreciate his sincerity but I am saddened that he would pick a fight with those on the side of constitutional government, conservative principles and traditional values.]
We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.
[Time and space preclude my addressing all of the errors in Streiff’s argument. But I do agree that the various constitutionalists and conservatives ought to make common-cause and tear down one another. Just because Streiff cannot see any possible reasons for men of good conscience to disobey (arguably) lawful, but equally (arguably) un-constitutional orders – does not mean that such potential conditions and circumstances do not or will not exist.
Finally, I enjoin him to view the film Valkyrie.
Wretched Dog
The author of the rebuttal is a 1984 graduate, with honors, of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Commissioned as an Infantry officer, he served with the 82nd Airborne Division and the 6th Infantry Division (Light) before transitioning to the US Army Reserve in 1992. Recently returned from his third tour in Iraq (as a Brigade Operations Officer) he is still a serving officer, on full time status as an Active-Guard Reserve Officer in the US Army Reserve. He is a historian and constitutional scholar by avocation. ]
Very interesting argument by Streiff but I would side with Oath Keepers on this one (and I’m not even in the service or a sworn peace officer). What I believe Streiff lacks in understanding is that he is putting allegiance to the Office of President of the United States and not to the Constitution of the United States (whom both President and Oath Keeper serve). He quoted the Commissioned Officer’s Oath and tried to say there wasn’t an “Obama Exception” and “…if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath.” What about those that took their oath in 1980 (career military), long before Obama was sworn into office? Don’t understand that logic there…
He went on to talk about the enlisted persons oath and here it does talk about the President of the United States: “…and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,…” But what came first, the President or the Constitution? The Constitution!
According to my understanding the Constitution ALWAYS comes first! The Constitution IS LAW! Article VI, paragraph two: “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land;” It talks about the laws and treaties, but that isn’t the subject here. It is the Constitution!
The Bill of Rights is not a list of DOs but a list of DO NOTs! Everything that the Oath Keepers Ten Order We Will Not Obey are in line with the Constitution! As pointed out in the Fall of the Republic: Oath Keepers video you are held accountable for your actions and the defense of “just following orders” isn’t a defense! Are there domestic American terrorists? Yes! Are those Americans “Enemies of the State”? I would say: Yes! If they are truly enemies of the state and just not American citizens trying to protect themselves that is different!
Oath Keepers first and foremost swear an Oath to the Constitution of the United States and to the People of the United States (We The People created the United States, not the Federal Government), NOT the President! The President is elected by the People and as such is Commander-n-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. But if he signs a law that disarms Americans, orders troops to search for and seize weapons from innocent Americans, or to fire on Americans resisting a now tyrant government who first broke their oath: The Congress that pass the law, the President who signed the law, or the Oath Keepers that didn’t follow an un-Constitutional order?
###
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of this country. These days far too many people diminish the importance of our Constitutional rights – Streiff included. Many others in (and out) of the gov included.
The Bill of Rights, especially, is under attack from legislative & bureacratic angles. It’s about time more Americans are standing up to say: we’re not going to violate the Constitution. Period. And quite often, it’s just one small spark that starts a forest fire. I’m glad to see the U.S. Constitution sparking great interest.
While I agree with Retched Dog’s analysis, I believe that if an order is unconstitutional, it’s not a lawful order. Any law that is unconstitutional is void on its face. Null & void. Why would an order be any different? Unlawful, null, void.
Thank you for your courage, Retched Dog. My ex-husband was in the 82nd & 101st airborne. 82nd in Germany, 101st in Viet Nam. I was in US Navy, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.
HAHAHA! Good for you, Oath Keepers!
Anytime you get negative responses like these from the establishment you know you’re doing something right! But, there’s a dark side to the successes gained against the enemy – especially this particular enemy: The more you hurt them, the more they’ll seek to hurt you! Oath Keepers is obviously a major threat to the plans of the Illuminati Banksters – they have worked very hard to drive a wedge in between we-the-people and our brothers and sisters in the military and our local/state police agencies (I hate the term Law Enforcement…that’s a term that they invented). They have been very successful in turning the cops against us and us against the cops – effectively striping away the only protections that we have against these usurpers!
Stewart will need your help and protection if he is to continue to build the Oath Keepers.
As a retired career NCO I can attest that the author used the correct wording in both oaths, however he failed to read and understand exactly what he was quoting. If an order issued is not LAWFUL (Legal), an officer or inlisted person is not legaly bound to follow it. An order in direct violation of the Constitution can not be considered a legal order. I would rather rely on the UCMJ as my defence than the posible occurance of another ME-LI incodent on U.S. soil due to some radical politition or officer. (Yes there are some out there) Under the UCMJ the possible charges could be: DEROLICTION OF DUTY, INSOBORDINATION, FAILURE TO FOLLOW A LEGAL ORDER, AND/OR MUTEINY. Neither oath requires BLIND OBEDIANCY to any order or directive,(according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
though Steriff certainly is eloquant in his writing, like so many, I beleive he tries to “over-think” the obvious. in both the enlisted and officers oath, one is sworn first and foremost to protect the “constitution” period.
putting the president or officers were not put in that position I beleive because the writers knew human nature very well. It is up to the one taking the oath to understand and comprehend when the presidents orders or a superiors are “un-constitutional”
For this reason I also beleive that it is imperative that all who take this oath also read the constitution and the bill of rights…..might as well throw in the declaration of independence as well.
Many thanks for including this on the web site. This indeed helps us [OK] to better understand the argument and further our needed & reasonable causes.
Thank-AL
Congratulations are in order for your successful appearances on Hard Ball and other big name media shows, Stewart! Obviously, Streiff has received orders from above to malign and disparge our growing organization and that makes you a bigger target and a greater threat to those who are trying to destroy our Republic. With eloquent and intelligent folks like Retched Dog on our side the guard will not be let down and our numbers will grow like dandelions on a spring lawn!
Could it be that the LTC has become a suck up to the current chain of command under pressure by the current administration to put plains in place that would require actions in opposition to the ten stated by oathkeepers? Like the new secretary of the Army for instance?
I may be a bit older than some of you guys (USMA ‘69) but I remember somewhere in there the word “lawful.” At least I know that it was in the Code of Conduct (Article IV). What sense does it make to obey unlawful orders, no matter where they come from. The movie “Red Tide” is a good example of the conflict between officers over an unlawful order.
True, there is the question of what constitutes unlawful. Sometimes it is obvious, such a a Mi Lai. Sometimes it is not so. However, I have looked at Oath Keepers list of orders that it will not obey and it seems to this humble veteran that there is nothing on there that does not oppose the violation of the Constitution. Threfore, each of these refusals would oppose an UNLAWFUL order. And, frankly, I consider the defense of the Consitution more important than anything else.
For centuries, the German high commands, both in the segmented nation and in the united nation melded in the late 19th century did not swear allegiance to the sovereign — only to the nation. It was not until Adolph Hitler forced the nation’s officers (under pain of death) to swear allegiance to him that things really went downhill. When one man, in this case Hitler, determines what is lawful and what is unlawful, then orders mean nothing. Our allegiance in to the Constitution — not to Obama, as it was not to FDR or Wilson or even Lincoln or any other president or congress.
Some things may be open for discussion and somethings are blatantly offensive to our Constitution, our country and our way of life. Right now, we are seeing a lot of blatantly offensive stuff coming out of Washington — and it is likely to get worse.
“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.” – Barry Goldwater
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” – Barry Goldwater
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson
Keep in mind,that to some people,liberty,and excercising such ,within your rights,is an extremist act.
Defiance.
First of all, I want to say thank you to Wretched Dog for the excellent rebuttal. It is writings like this that help us, who may not be suave with pen or speech, to share our message intelligently. Thank you for taking the time to write a rebuttal.
I am actually baffled by the ignorance and misunderstanding by so many in regards to the Constitution. Is it so hard to understand that the Constitution IS the SUPREME law of the land and that ALL laws are subordinate to it? I would think a person who understands the purpose of a chain-of-command can understand that! But perhaps I ask for too much.
My oath, which was the oath of the enlisted person, was fist and foremost to the Constitution; not to any man. The President and all of the commanding officers who were appointed over me swore to the same Constitution I did. If they were to break their oath by issuing an unconstitutional order, which would be unlawful, it is my duty-MY DUTY-as a Constitutional guardian to disobey it or challenge it.
And for those who wish to argue that the UCMJ would support their unlawful orders are foolish! Absolute nonsense! Why? Because the UCMJ is subordinate to the Constitution. If the UCMJ is unconstitutional in any way, then it is null and void…worthless and unlawful. The Constitution is everything! It is the law. Period!
For the Republic!
I served with the 11th Light Infantry in Vietnam, my unit was at My Lai. If you need a more recent example than “Valkyrie” please Google the name of Army Warrant Officer and Huey pilot Hugh Thompson. He threatened to turn his guns on the soldiers from C Co., 1st Bn., 20th Inf. if they didn’t stop killing civilians. That was in 1968.
Wretched Dog is great, and so are the commenters. Thanks to those of you who served to protect me and our Constitution in uniform. I, too, took the commissioned oath back in ‘72 and also seem to remember the word “lawful” regarding orders. Mi Lai was fresh in the public’s mind back then. There was never a question that the Constitution came first, and if any of us were ordered to violate it, we would question the order. We even had lectures on it at the Academy. And if any superior ever ordered me to disarm or fire upon American citizens excercising their God-given rights under the Constitution, I would have shot dead that “superior” TRAITOR!
LTC Strieff is the type of soldier who commits Mi Lais and then justiifies it like a good Nazi – “I was just following orders.” I hate that my tax money pays the salary of such an unthinking enemy of our Constitutional Republic. His kind is a clear and present danger to the rights and liberties of a free people. He should never be allowed anywhere near our military personnel to disseminate his traitorous bilge. Treasonous would-be tyrants like him are the reason I am heavily armed with militia weapons. I recommend all patriots be likewise prepared!
I’d say what about George Bush and Dick Cheney both admitting that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Where was the comfortably paid LTC at then? Why is the wEST pOINT gentleman saying nothing about these things? He’s comfortable being dormant and Oath keepers challenge his authority, that’s the main reason. He’s a control freak with no real loyalty to the Constitution just pre-conceived notions of what power it gives him. By the way what he wanted to write was, “don’t mess with the people that sign my commission check”.
The core flaw in Streiff’s argument is that the oath has two parts: defend the constitution and obey lawful orders. He cannot imagine and does not account for the possibility that those two parts could come into conflict. If they do, there is no escape from the necessity of choosing between those two imperatives. In that case, the resolution is simple and objective: by logic, law, and the wording of the oath itself, obeying orders is subordinate to defending the constitution.
Streiff is saying a few things that, if we take him at his word, should concern all:
The first is that Oath Keepers is unnecessary because the oath has already been taken. All one needs do is look at creatures who have also taken an oath of office like Pelosi, et. al, and that argument is shown as meaningless.
He’s also saying, by default, that he has no line in the sand and there is no order he would not disobey. Presumably, he would obey orders to disarm Americans, etc., and would fire on those who resisted. If he disagrees with that, then my question would be “What orders would you disobey, and why?” There could be no legitimate position he could take other than the one promulgated by Oath Keepers.
Finally, by discouraging those under oath from even considering what types of illegal orders they may one day have to make a decision to obey or stand down on, he pretty much ensures that all orders will be obeyed because no advance thought or planning will have gone into anticipating and reacting to them. That’s got a kind of Orwellian “ignorance is strength” feel to it. It also endangers those in the field executing them, because when it becomes politically expedient to make examples of them, they won’t have “I was following orders” to fall back on. The same political left that paints Oath Keepers as an extremist hate group will have no compunction about hanging the blindly obedient out to dry if it serves their ends.
Streiff’s contention that Oath Keepers is unnecessary should be true. Unfortunately, it is not.
Cases in point:
There are 545 elected officials in Washington D.C. who have also taken an oath to the Constitution. With few exceptions these people choose to disregard their allegedly sacred oath any time the oath comes between them and their party affiliation, greed, or expediency.
There are uncounted incidents wherein law enforcement officers (I refuse to refer to them as Peace Officers) take it upon themselves to disregard their oath to the Constitution and violate citizens’ rights through either intent, failure to maintain self control, or ignorance.
Every elected official in the State of Texas, from municipal government all the way to the Governor, is sworn to abide by the US and Texas Constitutions. For all but a few the Oath is merely a formality dredged up from somewhere in the dim past that actually carries no weight in the present.
Those few who attempt to remind the many are all too often regarded as anachronisms and ignored or derided as naïve fools.
Streiff contends, “… your oath binds you to the government…” Untrue. My oath binds me to the Constitution and my “legal and moral obligation”, Mr. Streiff, is to the Constitution of the United States.
I feel obligated to point out that this whole issue was settled by international tribunal over sixty years ago in a sleepy little German town named Nuremburg. As I recall a fair number of German soldiers were sentenced to prison or death for their failure to disobey orders handed down from their chain of command. And evil as they were, Hitler and the Nazi party were the legally elected authority of the day. So, the LTC needs to brush up on his history a bit. And to the best of my knowledge the first shot of our revolutionary war was fired between colonial militia and a British troop sent out to confiscate stores of colonial powder and shot. He may just want to stop by the Point and do some reading in the library. Wouldn’t hurt to speak with a few of the instructors as well. Call it a refresher before he sticks his foot to deep into his mouth again.
Streiff has just enough knowledge to be dangerous. He goes to great lengths to discredit Oath Keepers, but he never addresses the one question that Oath Keepers answers. What if the President and the officers appointed over us become the domestic enemies of the Constitution we are sworn to defend against.
As Uncle Lar pointed out in his Nuremburg reference, it is up to the individual Oath taker to defend the Constitution and not blindly follow orders. It is our DUTY to judge each order and refuse to obey those that are unconstitutional.
My nephew, a WP grad c.1971, responded to the question “how do you know you’ve just been given an unconstitutional order?” replied: “when you’re willing to get shot for refusing it”.
Got that? If you’re unwilling to get shot, it isn’t unconstitutional.
If this is what WP is turning out, maybe we ought to shut it down.
In a Stunning – STUNNING – example of “right argument, wrong conclusion” – the LTC says “[the oath] does not contain an Obama exception.”
Precisely, Sir. Nor does it contain a Bush exception, a Clinton (hack-spit) exception nor even a Lincoln exception.
The Officers’ Oath is simply to the Constitution. True – the Enlisted oath contains some verbiage about obeying orders, but (1) only AFTER fealty to the Constitution is established and (2) even then is qualified by the bit about “in accordance with the UCMJ.
One would assume – wrongly in this case – that someone who has risen to this level would be familiar with the content of the UCMJ – specifically the part that states unequivocally that “following orders” is no defense to unlawful action – that a soldier is liable for his failure to challenge an unlawful, unconstitutional order.
It would be wrong to impugn the integrity of this man, however he’s done a very good job of impugning both his own intelligence and his knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
Hopefully his uninformed screed will not hinder the valuable and laudable pursuit of the Oath Keepers organization and its members.
God bless and keep you all, and God Save Our Republic!
DD
READING THIS IT MAKES ME MORE A HAPPY AND PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN PATRIOT AND MY OATH I TOOK I’M GETTING A TINGLE UP MY LEG, I’M A VETERAN AND PATRIOT UNTIL MY LAST BREATH AND I WILL STAND BY MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS. ON THIS I PLEDGE MY OATH TO THE U.S.CONSTITUTION SO HELP ME GOD IN WHO I TRUST
What bothers me is that few Americans have bothered to read the Constitution, let alone understand it. Most Americans believe being born in the USA makes you a citizen but few understand the 14th amendment nor have ever bothered to read the comments of its author who stated that this was not its intent nor purpose. I have little doubt that Pelosi and the Obama posse would use the Constitution as justification to do whatever they wish, as they all ready have. Streiff has stated he is willing to do things not envisioned in the Constitution nor authorized in it to “further public safety.” Isn’t this the argument that Hitler used?
I took the oath and it wasn’t to a party, a president but to the Conastitution. I see nothing that would justify
Bravo to the great analysis & comments provided here. I am praising God that you men here are so cogently defending the Truth.
It’s felt pretty dark recently, but to hear the sound reasoning from you all is like rays of illumination from the rising sun.
I think it’s no accident that the Founding Fathers were true Christian Patiots, both in their confession & their worldview. (According to the book “Lives of the Signers” 52 of the 56 signers were.)
One of the best hidden, but most illuminating statements came from the ‘people’s Patriot’ Samuel Adams (my namesake).
He was explaining how America wasn’t just ‘getting rid of a king – George III’, but rather was trading him in for a King of Kings, for the securing of the American’s peoples unalienable rights. As the founders concluded the signing of the Declaration, he said:
“We have this day restored the Sovereign, to Whom alone, all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven above, and from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”
This was an obvious reference to Jesus Christ.
How many of you patriots have heard this quote ? Amazing how our history has been scrubbed of most Biblical evidences, isn’t it ?
Yet there it is, acknowlegement of the role of the Christian faith & the centrality of recognizing the role of Jesus Christ, as King of Kings, in giving the power of self government to men, and in so doing, to lay foundations for the decentralization of power, of laying the duty of men at the core of their being – their deepest conception of ‘duty, before God & towards our neighbor’.
This Principle stood foresquare against the ‘Divine Right’ of Kings, and yet actually harkened back to the Principle of the Duty of earthly kings to obey God the King, first explicitly stated in Deuternomy, Chapter 17:15-20, of the accountability of the King to write, understand & obey the Law of the land, being required to write it with his own hand & keep a copy of it on his person.
[This is why Darwinistic, atheistic ethics & worldview (& their resultant erroneous conclusions) serve only to overthrow the foundations of Republican goverment. It is an covert attack upon the Biblical heritage of our unalienable rights.]
And why it is only when rights are granted by a Transcendent Creator (read the Declaration …), not by human government, (though recognized & protected by such) that they are secure.
As pointed out above the Nuremburg trials noted that the Nazi officers had a duty to recgonize ‘higher law’, [derived from both Scripture & Natural Law - which stand as 'twin witnesses'], and to obey that law, & ignore their false orders from liars & frauds above them.
They were hung for commiting the crime of obeying human, not Divine Law, for substituing universal Natural Law for local perverted ‘law’.
I know this was a long comment, but this whole movement has been long overdue, a very welcome development.
BTW, these some of these concepts mentioned here covered in depth in the “Institute on the Constitution” here: http://www.IOTConline.com
That’s where I studied them.
God bless you all & restore this once great Republic !
Sam Adams in Texas
Sir,
I have taken it upon myself to repost and broadcast your dissertation as widely as possible, with as much credit give to you as is humanly possible.
I do, of course, support your conclusions in the above, and believe we will be facing far more (what I term “Yellow Journalism)in the future.
It heartens me that one such as you is on board.
v/r,
Randall Scott Covey
this guy knows diddly squat about oaths the way this was written was to defend the Constitution first and foremost above all orders if it was to be to follow Orders it would have said I swear to follow orders of the president and the Officers appointed over me in lieu of the Constitution. im sorry but I cant help but say this guys is a dumb ass who has never studied and oath in his life or the History of oaths and has no respect from me at all
At the end of his long life, Col. John Singleton Mosby – the famous “Gray Ghost” of the Confederacy – wrote about waging a partisan war in northern Virginia often within sight of Washington itself. Mosby – the “father” of modern guerrilla warfare – was accused by the Union government and miltary of atrocities from the murder of prisoners to stealing from and murdering “loyal” civilians. In fact, he was so hated and feared that he was ordered hanged without trial by Ulysses Grant and became the only Confederate soldier denied the parole given to Southern combatants after the war.
Yet, in the end, Mosby, who had rejected secession before the war, was paroled and went on to become a friend to Grant and gain considerable fame both North and South. Despite that, however, he often had to defend himself of the charges made during the war and in doing so, he stated that he had never committed any act not sanctioned by warfare as it was known in those days.
On the other hand, Mosby pointed out that such was NOT the case with the Union army in Virginia (and elsewhere in the South) whose soldiers, often under direct orders, waged war against civilians which was NOT considered legal by the standards of the time. When challenged by Union soldiers who stated that they had only acted “under orders”, Mosby replied unequivocally that NO soldier could excuse such behavior with the claim that he was simply obeying orders. In the (correct) opinion of the feisty little partisan, such an order COULD NOT be morally or legally obeyed even if it cost the man so ordered to suffer dire consequences as a result of his refusal.
Any man who takes an oath on the Constitution acknowledges the truth of John Mosby’s words. To believe otherwise is to transfer the founding object of the oath from the Constitution to the government – and those who run it. Wasn’t it the Nuremberg Trials that determined such an understanding does not confer legitimacy to the acts themselves despite the sincerity of the oath takers at the time?
We have a government that has seen fit to use the Constitution as an electoral prop while ignoring it after the polls close. To insist that every order be obeyed because it will be, perforce, “constitutional” since it comes from “the government” is to deny reality. With every passing day, the lines between “the police” (including government agencies like the FBI and BAFT) and “the military” become more and more blurred. Posse Comitatus which protected us from the use by government of the military in a domestic police role has been allowed to lapse or is ignored. In the end, we as a people are going to have to depend upon the loyalty, honesty and patriotism of our men and women in law enforcement and the military to decide whether they will follow the Constitution or the powers that be in Washington. Our fate and the future of our nation hang upon their choice.
First, there is a difference in “Lawful” and/or “Legal” orders. An order may be ‘legel’, that is, instituted by a ‘law’ passed somewhere by someone. “Lawful” is in accordance with the Constitution – THE highest Law of this land. Simple!
Second, Obama is not president. He may occupy the office as a Usurper, but …. that does not mean that he is that office. Many have told me that he was ‘duly’ elected. I seriously doubt that. He was never checked out as to whether or not he was eliigible for the office. If he is not eligible, he cannot run (lawfully) he cannot be ‘elected’ even if he does manage to buy the most votes with promises of “Hope” and “Change” and more welfare.
Even had he been ‘duly’ elected, he has – to this day – never met the conditions imposed by the Constitution. He MUST meet the conditions of “Natural Born Citizen” – not ‘your’ interpretation of ‘natural born’, nor someone else’s intertpretation of ‘natural born’, but the LAWFUL definition of ‘natural born’.
I find it rather strange and disgusting that one must provide more documentation to go to work at McDonald’s than one must provide to be the ‘president’ of These United States.
Also, for those who would question whether or not I understand the rules of capitalization – rest assured, I do!
Steriff should do a little research about Kent State. We can only hope that another Kent State would never happen in this country again. A big Thank You to all oath keepers.
Streiff seems to wants to dismiss this entire issue by a wave of the hand and saying that orders are orders and must be obeyed. The Nuremburg Trials after WWII irrevocably destroyed the “I was only following orders” defense. Unfortunately, I think the average soldier or police officer of today has never been prepared to think or reason in an analytical manner that would prepare them to disobey any order. By and large, they are the group-think product of this new age.
I recently joined OathKeepers. Having lived in Mass. for five decades now, I am a little familiar with its history. I would STRONGLY recommend all here read Ray Raphael’s book “The First American Revolution (Before Lexington and Concord)” New Press, 2002 about the actions of the people “with staves and musick” particularly in and around Worcester in 1774. In particular, on page 128-132, there is discussion of what is called “the Powder Alarm”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm
“The people, following strict principles of participatory democracy,” gravitated toward Worcester [early September 1774] “in as much decorum and order observed as when attending church on Sunday.”
The last three sentences of the book:
“In truth, there should be nothing so startling about the Revolution of 1774. It was simply a matter of people seizing control of their own political destiny. Surely, we need not look incredulously at that.”
Streiff makes a complete and utter *ss of himself in the comments section of his art… hit piece at Red State. One opposing commenter in particular does an excellent job of ripping his idiotic arguments all to shreds. Problem is, Streiff ain’t smart enough or independent minded enough to realize it. But I gather that that emanates from his deep seeded hatred of the founding principles which established and made this country great. You know, little things like local self-government, independency, the federal principle; the idea of balanced constitutional government.
Perhaps he hasn’t read that “whenever a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government…” Oh, he’s read it, I should imagine. Problem is, he never internalized it; he dismissed the principle in the same manner that he dismisses the principle of balanced constitutional government, which he thinks the civil war destroyed for once and for all time. I should imagine that he’s in for a rather rude awakening.
Streiff suffers from a “lack of imagination”.
Contrarily (not for the sake of, believe me), I think Streiff has a very vivid imagination. He imagines, for instance, that the civil war settled the question of secession for all time, thus he imagines that a dead generation may legitimately tyrannize the living; he imagines that a single example of the ineptitude of a single governor of a single state in this union proves the “imbecility” of the federal government waiting for the governor of a state to request the assistance of the feds in an emergency situation, to name but a couple. He is, indeed, very imaginative.
Streiff is an authoritarian, pure and simple. Even the bits of history he uses to back his arguments, though, are poorly understood. He’s obviously studied, and just as obviously, what he’s studied has never once touched his soul, his emotions. He reminds me of Harriet Meiers; she articulated what he believes. She thought she’d sworn an oath the the president! She also thought that the president and anything he chose to order or do took precedence over the Congress and anything it COULD do.
That’s the essence of the difference between the Oathkeepers and the entire right-wing, fake conservative movement (which has been repeatedly denounced and abandoned by real, old-line conservatives): the Constitution is the very foundation not just of our law, but of the Rule of Law itself. The nitpicking legalisms that can be made into good English but nonsensical or downright Evil legislation and justification for it cuts across the steady, clear current of Constitutional law in a way that makes what they are obvious. “Obey all orders because it’s the law and that’s what you swore to do anyway,” is one such. It’s intellectual as well as moral and ethical cowardice, and it handily enables plain old physical cowardice. It’s also totally unworthy of the founding generation.
Maybe he is a hired gun; if not, he may as well be. I hope he never ends up in charge of anything more ethically challenging than grounds-keeping, though. Meanwhile, to paraphrase Robert Frost, WE have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleep. Glad you’re all here, folks!
Ian
I would only ask Mr. Streiff one question. That being if Hitler was elected as our next president then would you follow his same orders as the Nazi soldiers did ??? I am sure his answer would be Yes SIR.
I find it troubling that the only point of the enlisted soldier’s oath that Mr Streiff could focus on is “obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over you”. If I’m not mistaken, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, came first! As an enlisted infantryman who also served with the 82nd Airborne, we were trained to recognize the difference between lawful orders and unlawful orders. We were taught that it was our duty to not follow unlawful orders!! You don’t burn villages or shoot unarmed civilians simply because some officer or NCO says to do so!! Attitudes like Mr Streiff’s allows militaries to be used against the citizens that it’s their job to protect. My oath was to the Constitution, before God, for life!! Our founders had a vision that I believe in strongly and I will give all I have to protect it!!
mr. streiff would do very well in ,say
NORTH KOREA……
I am a retired CPO(USN). I first took the oath in 1949 and have reaffirmed it several times over the years as a State, County, and City employee. In no case have I ever abrogated the initial oath.
It still binds me just as much as it did then. As a military retiree, I have never been discharged from the service, only placed on the retired list. Therefore, the oath still holds.
I suspect that LTC Streiff just can’t countenance the idea of any of his lowly subordinates failing to follow his orders. THE IMPERTINENCE!
I have just read through this entire post, and I am amazed at how uninformed some folks (i.e. LTC Streiff) truly are, although he does an excellent job of veiling it with what my English teacher used to term $.50 cent words, thus imparting a sense of knowledge to those first reading his comments. Like one gentleman commented…I too wonder how many people can even recite the PREAMBLE to the constitution, let alone the articles and amendments, and who’s to say that all of a sudden in the near future, that some self serving “amendments” are not instituted into that document? I come from a long history of military family, and the first and foremost pledge is to the Constitution, the UCMJ is secondary to that, and serves only as a vehicle to enforce the letter of the law according to military justice.When I was in high school… many many years ago, we had to learn the ENTIRE constitution in government class, and it has stuck with me through the years as I reaffirm my pledge to honor it. God Bless Oath Keepers and God Bless this country and the men who serve to protect it! I apologize for the length of this, but not the content.
I LAUGHED when I read what LTC Streiff wrote:
“The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession…” (Hint: This is where we are all supposed to kneel and imagine offering incense before Lincoln’s statue.)
My response would be, “Exactly! Too bad Oath Keepers wasn’t an organization that was popular back then! It might have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives!”
What then remained of slavery in North America could have been abolished peacefully, with the help of true oath keepers and without the war to prevent southern secession that caused the deaths of over 600,000 Americans and the wounded and maimed many others who managed to survive. At least LTC Streiffand admits that the issue was really about secession and not slavery.
Slavery played a part in SOME slave owner’s motivations for secession, but not all of them by any means. In 1827 there were an estimated 106 antislavery societies in the South with 5,150 members, and only 24 organizations in the North with 1,475 members.
Every other civilized country in the world somehow managed to abolish slavery without such a bloody war. Yes, you read my words correctly. If Lincoln had not interfered with secession, slavery would soon have been abolished anyway and re-union between north and south might have occurred after some cooling off time.
Of course, it might have involved Oath Keepers in the North refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws, (something Streiffand probably would have considered a lawful order to be obeyed), but slavery could have been abolished and the Union restored without the great American tragedy often called (inaccurately), The American Civil War.
When the oath takers in the legislatures and militias of MA and WI refused to comply with federal fugitive slave laws they considered to be unconstitutional and therefore unlawful, were they breaking their oaths? If those men who were ordered to detain and jail journalists under the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts or during WWI had refused to carry out these orders, would they too have been violating their oaths? How about the men who carried out the internment of Japanese American citizens during WWII?
LTC Streiffand continues, “..more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.”
OK stop! Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Eisenhower and the officers who carried out his orders were KEEPING their oaths to the Constitution (which includes the 14th Amendment). He needs to re-read order number 5 which says:
“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.”
If State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional, why would Oath Keepers have refused to obey in such a case? Again, correct me if I need to be, but LTC Streiffand seems to get it wrong here, again.
The president is sworn to uphold the constitution and if he fails to support laws and give orders that are in accordance with that oath he is himself an oath breaker. He would be no different than a military officer who has become disabled through mental breakdown or criminal intent, and orders his men to commit unlawful acts. His men would be considered criminals if they proceeded to obey without question. Again consider the Nuremberg trials.
There is something perverse in this man’s worldview, the idea that men are merely robots, programmed machines that follow their instructions obediently, without question, thought or doubt.
It is frightening that such a man claims authority in this land. More frightening is the loud and boisterous support he implicitly enjoys today.
No desiring to repeat the wonderful rebuttals already made, but coming back to the American founding in New England, I should like rather to make a few comments about the truth of the historical America and the men that invented her.
(Please see “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fischer for an enjoyable yet thorough primmer on these concepts.)
There were essentially two competing cultures in British North America ca 1776:
(1) the southern aristocracy of “second sons of second sons” claimed noble blood but who were essentially penniless. They came to America to recreate for themselves the feudal culture of their native southwest England of manors and estates, manned by serfs and indentured servants (i.e., “peasants”). Their gripe with the king was personal – they considered themselves Englishmen every bit as much as their cousins in England and resented being treated as inferior colonials. Of note, these people were descended from the original Britons, displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. These men were loyal to the Church of England and considered themselves the ancien regime. They imported African slaves and Scots-Irish indentured servants to work their lands and serve as a cheap source of labor. This is the root of what today passes for “conservatism”.
(2) the East Anglian Anglo-Saxon Puritans were prosperous middle-class Englishmen who rejected the authority of the king and the Church of England in the logical extension of the Reformation. Rather than continue to struggle against legitimate authority in England, they moved, en masse (entire families, sometimes entire villages) to Holland and famously New England where they purchased land from the locals and went about creating a civilization according to their vision of Ordered (Christian) Liberty. Being skilled craftsmen and educated professionals, there was no lower class nor upper class in New England, to speak of. They strove to prevent importation of “lesser” and “greater” altogether. This is the root of what we call today “liberalism”.
Interestingly, their kinsmen back home fought bloody civil wars soon after these two migrations. A deeper look at the causes of the American Civil War reveals the combat was as much to settle ancestral hatreds as the presenting issues of slavery and state’s rights. The Puritan New Englanders created a successful civilization that attracted millions of immigrants; the South created resentments.
(Read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” where he predicted the Civil War on this basis some 15 years in advance.)
What is the relevance today? Why does it matter pertaining to the Oath Keepers?
The “Distressed Cavalier” mentality of the southern aristocracy prevailed in the military and even government institutions, in a sort of “Revenge of the Royalists” We are, no matter our politics, merely serfs and peasants to the contemporary incarnation of these families. This is made worse as the alliance with other would-be tyrants among the large corporations and NGOs continues to merge into what most seem to call the “New World Order”.
The conflict comes when the remnant of the original (Yankee and Scots-Irish) notion of an American as a self-governing man answerable to his congregation and to God Almighty recoils at the merest hint of servitude and obsequience.
I have long posited something I call the “Liberty Gene” that seems to have been dominant amongst the Patriots of New England and their back-woods fellow British the Scots-Irish. While this gene also appears to be recessive — and thereby subject to easy out-breeding — it does exist in other populations if not so pronounced.
The real problem then is identifiable along the expression of the Liberty Gene:
Does a politician or bureaucrat further the cause of Ordered Liberty? Or does he hinder it?
Does a politician or bureaucrat conceive of his fellow Americans as freemen? Or does he see us as serfs and peasants for his own purposes?
While many have beaten around the bush on this determination, often being diverted into pointelss Democrat/Repubican or Conservative/Liberal arguments, which always benefit this would be nouveau aristocracy, the fact is we must forget those red herrings. They waste time and energy of which we have little remaining.
Our focus must be LIBERTY. We must defend and encourage it wherever it be found. We must promote its human expression at all turns and reject those person who are bred to be slaves outright, albeit with Christian charity.
America was great when her people were great — great in Aristotle’s concept of the Great Souled Man (”magnanimous”). At some point in the past century, the powers that be determined their interests were best served not by a country of magnanimous citizens, free and independent, but by “small souled men” born to be slaves.
It is clear to be where this person “Streiff” stands: as the enemy of Liberty and free men everywhere. He is a would-be tyrant and, working in concert with tyrants of all description, he and his criminal cohort are on the verge of oppressing rump America into peasants for the first time.
This, it seems to me, is the underlying cause and mission of the Oath Keepers: to remain Men, not slaves. This is why you are now feared for only a tyrant fears men. Godly rulers welcome them.
Semper Fi and remember 1776!
Joe of the Mountain
While LTC Streiff does indeed display the authoritarianism, hard-headedness, and lack of imagination typical of his squarehead ancestors (German midwesterners, no doubt), the Oathtakers’ oath doesn’t come with context, as Stewart Rhodes claims in this statement found in his deconstruction of Streiff’s criticism.
“The list of ten “Orders we will not obey” are, within clear context, ‘enforceable’ (by the individual soldier or policeman’s conscience) upon demonstration of an extra-constitutional use of state power to an end which would subject the American people to “absolute despotism.”
The more relevant question for we Americans isn’t what we won’t do if the government puts guns in our hands and orders us to round up ‘reactionaries.’ By then, it would be too late, and Soldiers who refused might suffer the fate of the ‘White Rose’ students in WWII Germany. The question for all Americans is, how do we keep from getting to that point in the first place?
The Constitution is a restrictive document. It is we the people telling this government we just instituted what it can do and nothing else.
In that process it is the guardian of our freedoms and liberties.
When we swear an oath to the protection of that document, whether it be military or civilian, we are saying to all those witnesses that we have a responsibility to uphold the sacred trust we the people have given us. That sacred trust is to ensure their freedom and liberty.
It does not matter if we are in the military or out of it. We are expressing the spirit of the freedom and liberty that Constitution protects.
When we take an oath as part or our enlistment, we are pledging to give even our lives to the protection of that sacred document and people it represents. Many have. More will.
To trivialize a group of people who want to uphold that, is misguided and misinformed.
SFC Graig Yarbrough, USA (Ret)
I want to make one more comment here if I may.
I am deeply grateful for the spirit of the people commenting here.
I can tell we have many thinking people who are informed, articulate, and responsible.
We are in good hands with such people.
Freedom can never be destroyed. Those usurpers can only pretend.
Thank you for such company.
Matt posed the $64,000 Question:
“The question for all Americans is, how do we keep from getting to that point in the first place?”
By keeping Our (would-be) Royal Masters in their place. By vigourously opposing each and every step they take to enslave us, demean us, belittle or emasculate us.
Si vis pacem barabellum.
Ooooo… such typing. “para bellum”. Mea culpa!
I can only hope and pray that the next election cycle will turn this nation around. Until that time, assuming that things spiral further out of control, it may be necessary to resist with force the facist government we have allowed to take root on our own soil by our own inaction or inattention.Any mental reservations must be cleared out before that time. Did you vote? How about your family? Are you prepared to back up your beliefs even at the cost of everything you own or your life? Our Founding Fathers were. This nation is the best thing that has happened in the history of humankind. We must not let it slip away,irregardless of some brainwashed LTC who thinks his loyalty is to the government instead of the people he supposedly works for.
To all,
To quote Winston Churchill, “The Truth is incontrovertible…Malice may attack it and Ignorance may deride it, but in the end there it is.”
I, like others have stated, am proud to be in the company of such people as are on Oath Keepers. I am not a Constitutional Professor or Lawyer but I do have a good understanding of the Constitution, the history behind it and the rest of our Founding documents. I learned them in school (public) where such things used to be taught and learned. Sadly, this is rarely the case these days. I have increased my knowledge even further through books, documentaries,discussion, and of course the Internet.
It saddens me that a Military man (LTC Streiff)of his rank and education could think like that but he is not the only one. There are plenty more in all branches of government and services that have no more of an understanding of the Constitution and it’s purpose than the current High School Graduate.
Education is the key here. My personal opinion is that the schools are not doing it or, are teaching revisionist history and so, the burden falls on us as parents and citizens to educate the younger generation and others.
LTC Streiff, you are not fit for Command.
Al
I have donated to send information packages for this very reason however, I would recommend we attach pdf files of these documents on Oath Keepers for the public so they can be educated as well. I know it has been a long time since I read these documents and I’m reading them again and again to again steel my resolve to defend them in these troubling times. I ask you, of all the parents out there who have school age children how many of them come home doing home work in AMERICAN HISTORY, as we did as children? The powers to be have done all they can to take AMERICAN HISTORY out of our schools, GOD out of our everyday lives, and replace it with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. I ask you, WHERE IS THE TERM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS listed in our CONSTITUTION or any other document our founding fathers wrote? (NO WEAR)! It’s time to get down to the business at hand and that is to EDUCATE all AMERICANS of the contents of our FOUNDING DOCUMENTS! It is my belief that those in power will always try to find ways around our founders words for their own benefit, this too is a part of history that keeps repeating itself!
I say it is time to put a stop to that, educate the electorate, serve warning to the elected, that WE THE PEOPLE do know how to read and we are going to ensure we elect officials according to their ability to read and comprehend as well.
Respectfully,
E J Demski
US Navy (retired)
On the internet, we have people called trolls whose specific intent is to disrupt.
I would guess Streiff is getting well paid for his attack on Oath Keepers. Or maybe a promotion recently or soon here after???
Know this, not all police institutions are the same. Some have long ago sold out to the corporate elite and politicians in this country. They have had plenty of time to weed out the “good cops”. Ever take one of those exams for a job that explore your psyche and essentially exposes your perceptions? That is why so many urban police candidates do not get the job! You did not fit their profile. They weed you out based on your psyche.
Certainly, some of these tests were designed for good reason. But a sword has two edges and so many times, if not most times, these things are corrupted by unholy people and used for the wrong reason.
Ken Boettger
Ellensburg, WA
This man is a traitor and a threat to all Americans. He seems to indicate blind obedience to government orders (dont matter if the government is run by either marxist or facist).
Just because he wears the uniform dont exclude him from being a traitor. This so-called oath to blindly obey the president of the United States is subject to scrutiny, (if the president started acting like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussien) wouldnt be prudent to disobey them? Unfit perfumed prince officers such as this should be removed from duty immediately!!!1
de oppresso liber
Retired SpecOp here. All uniformed personnel are required and bound by oath of heart and minds to defend the constitution of the United States, defend our freedoms, defend our property and to defend the lives of those around us, not to mention the idea of “freedom” that we all love so dearly. There is no legal requirement to follow all orders blindly, whether by the president or a senior officer, if an order is UNLAWFUL, it does not need to be obeyed, and, as a matter of fact, if a military member willfully follows an unlawful order it very well can be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.
“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
I am new to OKs and have been learning what this site and group are all about by reading what is posted here and what the members are saying.
I have known for quite some time that our country is in trouble. I also have seen that we as a people and country have been going down the wrong paths and making the wrong choices for the last 50 years. Greed and the thirst for power have corrupted many of the leaders of our country. I can remember the term concerning making a decision as being “That’s above my pay grade”. I was just a young enlisted soldier. I depended on those over me to give me orders. Now I find that I am among some really “Thinking & Caring”” people here. The things being discussed here are very deep and powerful. The stakes are very high. I thank all of you whom are posting here by both sides. I am truly learning some profound lessons and am gaining great insights into what is the meaning for which we as OKs are trying to say. Thank you all. Carry on.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
16 Am.Jur.,Sec.177 late 2d, Sec.256
Hmmm!
Some of this is coming back now.
Article VI:
“I will never forget that I am an American Fighting Man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in God and the United States of America.
You guys inspire me.
Streiff is obviously a conservative thinker. We have had our fill with conservative “thinkers” that have managed to allow the gradual undermining of the Constitution and the founding principles of our country to be obscured. I’m guessing he never received an unlawful order, so appalling, so anti-Constitutional, so anti-American that he can’t relate to some of us. I’ll make it real simple for Mr. Streiff. I’m giving him an order to disarm his law-abiding neighbors because the President, the ATF, and other agencies have ordered it… because unlawful people are looting and we can’t take the chance. To hell with their individual rights as American citizens to defend themselves against these people. Disarm them! After all you have the authority and firepower to do it… so do it! How about we just disarm black people or Native Americans? Maybe do something like we did during Katrina because it was an emergency situation? Will he do it? His oath binds him to a moral obligation to the Constitution but he would acquiece to orders contrary to it? With all due respect, Military Police operate under different scenario than those of us that have been doing it as civilian police officers. We’re a little bit more in tune with the Constitution and how we should treat it and our citizens. He apparently has no idea what’s been going on for years and who is responsible. I don’t need lectures from ANYBODY, I don’t care what they claim is their experience. I’ll guarantee I’ve been doing it longer than most. That’s the first time I’ve been categorized as some type of “nut” or told to resign because I want to continue doing the job I’ve done for four decades. I’m a pretty intelligent guy with a lot of experience, been decorated for bravery and job performance, been injured in the line of duty several times and I’m respected among the citizenry. I didn’t know I was some type of “nut.” Thanks for pointing that out to me. I could be respectful but… “Screw You”. You obviously are one step below the rest of us. You believe orders given are to be followed regardless of what oath you swore and are incapable of thinking on your own and recognizing why you do what you do… like you’re supposed to do. I’m insulted by your remarks, I know exactly where you stand, because I’ve seen it time and time again, and YOU and people like you are EXACTLY the reason why a group like Oathkeepers was even necessary to begin with. You cite the Whiskey Rebellion? OK, I’ll tell you right now that that was a mistake by our greatest President and my guess is that people like you talked him into it and rationalized how it was even remotely Constitutional to do such an un-Constitutional act. The Civil War and slavery? We don’t even have to go to the Constitution to rectify that problem. Our Declaration of Independence does that for us. Slaves weren’t freed because Government GAVE them something they were not given by their Creator, they were freed when Government RELINQUISHED their control over them and adhered to the Constitution. Most of us at OK are so far ahead of you and your thinking that it’s making you look like a fool. Been there, done that already. A lot of us did what you advised, and felt like shit afterwards because we recognized what we did, how we were used, and how contradictory it was to what our founding fathers wanted us to do. Your article bores those of us that have a lifetime of experience because there’s nothing new there, we’ve already thought about what you said and seen how your thought process is faulty… and made a decision to join Oathkeepers. Try to catch up!
I spent 21 years of my life running around the world underwater (Retired in 1987 as a Submarine Weapons Officer). Not once during that period did I ever envision the possibility of having to make the choice between obeying the orders of the Officers appointed over me and honoring my oath (which I had taken once and affirmed five times) to the American people and the Constitution. Today, for the first time in my life as I watch the direction my country is headed in I am fearful of having the make such a choice. Streiff is either woefully misguided or a complete fool. I cannot see how any person, whether they have ever taken the oath or not, could take a stand against the orderly assembly (also a Constitutional guarantee) of like minded individuals for the purpose of helping oath takers understand the Oath and how it obligates the individual to take or refuse to take certain actions. The 10 “will not obeys” set out in the Oathkeepers declaration should never conflict with lawful orders since, at least in my mind, an unconstitutional order can never by its very nature be lawful.
Any order to suppress the population, or to enforce warrantless searches, or to disarm the populous without warrant, of any region large or small within the bounds of the United States of America by the federal government is clearly unconstitutional and therefore unlawful. Any military Oathkeeper would be bound by the UCMJ to disobey such an order. You might want to give this a read Military Orders – - To Obey or Not to Obey?. If the order s clearly unlawful such as conducting a general warrantless search of or any entire block or city or county would be, the person ordered to perform the search is obligated to disobey.
It seems to me that Streiff has never actually contemplated his Oath and what it may require of him someday. My prayer to almighty God is that when the time comes, he will be able to make the right choices, especially given the position that he will occupy at that moment.
streiff is not a patriot, just a tool. he’s never had to pull the trigger on anybody i bet. i served the last president, i went to war for him, right or wrong. now they say we did it for oil, and called us baby killers. i live with it. i kept my part of the deal. now we have an administration that won’t stand behind the troops. and it is still to be determined if he is even eligible for presidency. but god help us if they ever tell someone like streiff to do here what we had to do over there. but hey, they’re just following orders, right?
I won’t speak to Streiff’s argument since it has been thoroughly debunked here already, but I recently watched a documentary called 911missinglinks dot org which makes the case for Mossad involvement in 9/11. This documentary is also asserting that the current head of Home Land security, Michael Chertoff, is a dual citizen? of Israel/USA and the author of the “Un” Patriot Act. Can anyone verify or debunk this assertion?
I wasn’t aware that an American could hold dual citizenship with another country.
Frank U Farmer
former Navy pilot from the Vietnam era
It brings up the point of whether Mr Chertoff would keep his oath to uphold the Constitution (if the assertion is true, it appears he just wants to rewrite it) should there ever be a conflict of allegiance between the Constitution of the US and the interests of Israel.
The absolute worst president in US history was Abraham Lincoln.He held a free republic together by force,killing more Americans than any foreign power has in our country’s history.Obama compares himself to Lincoln.I hope it is not his’ intention to instigate another civil war,to kill thousands if not millions of Americans so that he can have globalist government.It is not proper action to use troops to put down rebellion in a free republic,the 2nd amendment provides the citizens the tools FOR rebellion.There should be no federal army to put down rebellion.Rebellions do not arise from nothing.They arise from an atmosphere of opression by overbearing,tyrannical government.US troops should not put down the American people,because there should be no US standing army.A standing army must be used.It is being used for globalist reasons under the stars and stripes.American troops think they are fighting for liberty,for America.They are not.They are in over 100 countries,monitoring the world for the NWO/UN and putting down any forces that do not give in to globalist demands.
Chertoff looks like one of those balkan SS troops from WW2.Is his’ name Russian? Rumanian?He just reminds me of deathcamp guards.
As far as i know America does not recognize dual citizenships.What does one do if they have a dual citizenship between America and Canada if the two go to war? If you are Mexican-American what do you do? Irish American? If you choose Canada,Mexico or Ireland it would be like committing suicide.Hyphenated Americans should be owtlawed.If you must hyphenate yourself go back to the other country.People who must be hyphenated do not love America.
Going back to his first argument about Lexington and Concord, yes the lobsterbacks were going to disarm the Colonialists, But the official policy prior to that Historic event was that no powder or munitions were to be imported into the colonies. The British Ministry under Lord Dartmouth issued this order. Another incident happened the day after Concord, Governor Dunmore of Virginia removed the powder stored in the public magazine at Williamsburg, this was considered “theft of the public property”. Dunmore used the excuse “that he felt there was danger of a slave revolt” in order to remove the powder. Patrick Henry organised some of the Hanover County “Shirt Men” (so named because of the hunting shirts that they wore, these hunting shirts had written on them, Patrick Henry’s motto “Liberty or Death”). Needless to say about one hundred and fifty men started out with Henry as their elected Captain for Williamsburg to get the powder back. By the time they reached the outskirts of Williamsburg there were approximately five thousand men, as volunteers joined as the march was in progression. The Governor fled to a ship in the harbor and eventually reimbursed the people for the powder he stole. Henry and his men were denounced by the Governor for their “outrageous and rebellious practices” and hailed by the people as heroes. Thanks were given to Henry and his men by several counties “for stepping forth to convince the tools of despotism that freeborn men are not to be intimidated, by any form of danger, to submit to the arbitrary acts of their rulers”. So we could argue that the actual Revolution was sparked by the governments trying to sieze arms and ammunition to suppress the people.
“God is still the enemy of the oppressive and a friend to the oppressed” – “Our” Patrick Henry, May 2 1775
This Colonel? forgets that we serve at the behest of the people NOT the government! That the Constitution belongs to the people NOT the government! That the Power belongs to the people and is delegated to the government (he should understand how delegation works). The Scriptures ask the question, “can the servant be greater than his master?” NO! Or we can ask it this way, “can the creation be greater than the creator?” The obvious answer ie NO! The Constitution states “We the people in order to form…..”, So this government is our creation, meant to accomplish our will and to “SECURE the Blessings of Liberty” according to the law of the land. When they fail to secure this Liberty, they are in effect breaking the law. This word “secure” has such a strong resounding meaning that cannot be misconstrued, it suggests force be used to achieve a thing and retain that thing. And again, according to the Constitution this force is to be in the people’s hands (2nd amendment). No wonder they are so intent on disarming us, as our arms allow us to retain Liberty, or if need be, take Liberty back.
“But sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good and as long as it stays within the proper bounds….Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” – Patrick Henry
As a former military enlisted man, I am intrigued by the disparate viewpoints of two highly sincere officers! They both make their points quite well but I do tend to err if I must on the side of the OathKeepers, because we read or hear in the news commonly about soldiers and marines who are taken to trial for “following orders”! I think the marines who operated and performed so well in Fallujah might like to read these view points and give credence to one or the other! I will say, it takes a great deal of courage and tremendous self confidence to say, “I will not obey that order, Sir!” You DO lay it all on the line when you do that! Any of us who tend to trust a government too much runs the risk of allowing despots into leadership and positions of extreme power. We should never blindly trust anyone other than our wives and families, and perhaps close friends, but never political leaders who have everything to gain by our complacent and lacadaisical attitudes!
In his book Dianetics, (and I am NO follower of L. Ron Hubbard but I did read the book) Mr. Hubbard made the point that there are four dynamics to human life: survival, as a species and as an individual-reproduction-economic-and social, they bear the importance to life in that order and humans will conduct themselves on the highest level upon which they are threatened. We haven’t had a true threat to our survival in this country for decades excluding 9/11. The era from WW11 to then spans more than two generations and encompasses some of the greatest changes in personal wealth and comfort ever dreamed possible by most current U.S. citizens; we therefore, as I see it, bear out Mr. Hubbards point by focusing predominantly on the social dynamic of our existence.
Add the absolute brilliant performance of our leadership at the time, that not only allowed but insisted we resume our normal lifestyle as quickly as possible, then set themselves busy to ensuring that possibility, we went back to functioning at the social level once more!
In fact, we tend to be, either too busy to notice what’s happening or so busy in our social dynamic that over extension of trust, combined with personal preferences in abnormalcy seem to rule the day; i.e. same sex marriage, gay and lesbian rights, abortion on demand at someone elses expense, or national health care. Any of which is surely outside the definition of “God Given Rights” unless you happen to be one of the people who would enjoy these disparate view points in publication.
If indeed we are winning the public perception of what is right, and I do believe we are, it’s wonderful to be able to freely express these views, after all, that is exactly what the fuss is about isn’t it?
Let us not over extend trust to leadership in whatever capacity they serve!
In the words of the great Ronald Reagan: “trust but verify”. So when a political leader wants something from us, make him or her qualify him or herself to ask it, then ask why they want it, then validate what they say. I don’t see this as having room for argument, but then I was in the minority during the elections that put President…. yeah him into office!…..I ramble now….I hope we win this fight for our nation without violence!….God save us if we don’t!
I must add to my previous comment,if a order giver is unlawful how can the order be lawful?…..I wish I had inserted this in its proper place. but as they say…..better late than never!
we tried the nazies who were just following orders for war crimes because what they did were crimes against humanity. any order which goes against the constitution is unlawful.
This is the typical order following and issuing narcissist who was “fragged” in Nam. “Don’t question the order boy, just do as you are told.” They have no concept of the individual……….the original Blind Patriot.
I have enjoyed reading all the comments and analysis upon Streiff’s article/position. I thank God for Oath Keepers, knowing that there are still those who love our Country, our Constitution, and our People enough to stand against an unlawful order. Glenn Beck gave a graphic display on Jan/12/2010 showing how any order given to military or service personnel must (to be lawful/constitutional) come through the funnel (the Commander in Chief) and that only from the source (the Constitution of the United States.) If the funnel happens to drivel down laws or edicts from any other source, then it is unlawful. God Bless you all and again I thank you.
Now that we have a Marxist administration in the White House and a Congress riddled with traitors with regards to the Constitution; groups such as Oath Keepers are needed as a fall back. Just in case.
Those were all extremely well-made points. The constitution is the law of the land. In America, it is the rope that holds the government and the people together.
Taking a stance for one’s country is a conservative and a liberal cause. The Oath-Keepers and all other groups who resist unconstitutional and immoral orders are not the usurpers. The usurpers have installed themselves in government, and they are the true extremists, radicals and revolutionaries. Tradition rests with us. Law and order rests with us.
Was it not the Tea Party that led to a revolt against the British Crown?
Was it not taxation without representation?
Did the original Constitution even swear to protect the President of the United States or even swear to obey orders given by the President?
There was not an oath to obey orders by the President nor did it ever refer to him as the Commander in Chief.
It was later in history that these oaths were put into place under admendment and Congress since the early 1900s has completely and systematicly willfully demolished and/or desecrated our Constitution for their own greed and benfit through their own interpretation be that as it may was clearly understood in its’ purest form.
Our elected officials don’t represent those they were elected to represent, they represent lobbyist, special intrest groups and anyone else willing to fill their coffers or grant special favors to them.
Our nation is facing a slow death and if we do not wake up and realize what is happening right under our noses, then America is doomed to become the cess pool of our planet, mocked and ridculed by godless nations.
We won’t need a government rpresentation for it will be free to he who has the most marbles who will win. We are at a cross roads in American history. One is a path that takes us as a Godly nation to one which is saturarted with lawlessness and further depravity. One where only those in high places decide for Us the People rather than We the People. We lose our identity and are thus scoundrels and curs, the lowest of the lows unless we ourselves swear allegiance to those whom have led us blindly and willfully down a oblivious stairwell into outer darkness where evil rules the day.
Secondly, we can choose to take our rightful place as did our forefathers and send a clear message to those in Washington DC and as did our forefathers, we may be called to defend America and our Constitution to the bitter end. Each of us must come face to face with the reality which faces us and we must make up our minds whether we draw the line in the sand and cede no more or do we surrender our rights, our morals, our America into the hands of our enemies both foreign and domestic.
See, the thing about our oath is that our Constitution will always superced that of mortal man be it the President or any other elected official or obstacle which would take that away. This was the purpose of militias and will always be the purpose so long as we live and for the blood of those whom have borne the battle, those whom have entered into their rightful resting place and to those whom have born the scars, both visible and invisible, we are forever indebted to honor such sacrifice even with our very lives if it need be.
I am a Patriot. I did not say I was a Patriot, I wanna be a Patriot or can I be a Patriot. I am a Patriot by birthright and I will be a Patriot when the angels in heaven come to usher me home into the arms of the Almighty God whom I love. Blood may fill the streets tomorrow, I don’t know but I do know that some of that blood should it come to pass will be the blood of the advesaries of God and America as well.
The Oath is to the Constitution and “We the People” are part and parcel, The Constitution. We have a contract and the government in Washington has been operating outside of this contract for a great many years. They are arrogant and corrupt and on the take. If this was not the case there would be no need for Oath Keepers and or would it be considered. The question I ask is this. Why is the Joint Chiefs not honoring their Oath? Defend the Constitution and the People, not Corrupt Politicians. Most if not all the legislation that the Congress approved or passed this last year was unConstitutional. The Congress is going to Obey the Constitution or they will be removed. Hopefully by the ballot box. If necessary by the bullet box. Make no mistake about it. This nation is in a Cold Civil War and it could get hot.
We have a rogue government that has many, many facets of Fascism and Marxism all rolled into one.
The reason they bailed out the Banks and Insurance Companies and others is because these are their buddies and their meal tickets. barney frank is on the Take. Chris Dodd is on the take. It looks like Murkowski from Alaska is on the take. Geighner was on the take and a tax cheat. Paulson, the former treasury Secretary wrote the rules and ran tha show at Goldman Sachs and lied to the congress when he went to get 750 billion of OUR money.. This government is corrupt to it’s core and now we have a hard core Marxist in The White House.
I personally have been fighting these two totalitarian concepts since 1943. I served on active duty in 1961-63 and was discharged in 1968. I held the exalted rank of PFC.
Death to Tyrants and Corrupt Politicians.
In supprot of my statement, just deceased United States Superior Court Judge Florence Marie Cooper, said while explaining her ruling in a Los Angeles Daily Journal interview,
“I do believe that I hold the government to a high standard. If we can’t rely on the government to be honest, we are in great peril.”
The nation is in very great peril and those of us, such as the Oath Keepers, realise this.
It is necessary to understand where Streiff comes from. He is a product of a highly disciplined education. he is instructed from Day one and most likely for years before to follow orders. Mine is not to Question Why, Mine is but, to do or die!
He is a graduate of The United States Military Academy at West Point. This is a very fine accomplishment. He is to be commended. He is also not able to, because of this education, discern, in my opinion, between what is a lawful order under the Constitution and what is an unlawful order. Why? I guess we would have to have a much more close up conversation with him. He needs to be educated and not buried.
In the 90s President Clinton, bless his little Scialist heart, in a speech,held up an AK47 and asked,”Why would any one want to own one of these”? My immediate response was,and I stand by it today,I, as a free and law abiding American,do not need to have a reason. Itis guaranteed to me by The Constitution. If I want a 1000 horse power car. I am able to do so.
So Streiff needs more input and education.
Send him to the PFC. I’ll get him straightened out.
The United States Constitution is the law .I will never take an order from anyone or serve with or for anyone that disregards the Constitution.If we are going to save America from its enemys today we must use the constitution as the law.
Many socialist minded people in America, and perhaps, Lt Col Streiff, is one – believes the Constitution to be a living and beathing document. It isn’t! It was very well crafted to mean exactly what it says for all time. It would be like changing the wishes of a decedent’s Last Will and Testament on the basis that it doesn’t mean exactly what a decedent ment it to mean due to current trends. This is foolishness!
the only thing that can save this country is an uprising of real hard working Christian Americans,to overthrow this socialist regime by either “the ballot box or the bullet box” not my quote. The problem with voting is there are no real constitutional conservatives running for office!! sadly a very large portion of are population are slaves to there welfare and incorrect schooling…brainwashing!!me personally i still refuse to go in walmart because of there no merry xmas policy a few years ago even if they changed it they did it for monetary reasons. as a christian and proud to say it this country is turnig into sodam and gamora is to the north. i say we rise up and revolt now!!
Dale: you just saw the beginning in Massachusetts. We (I’m from Massachusetts) just slapped our Federal Government and politicians right in the face and told them we’re not going to tolerate what is taking place. We just set the tone for the rest of the country and made it easier for others to follow suit.
LTC Streiff,
I won’t belabor what has been posted regarding this LTC’s simplistic approach to civics. In the world filled with rainbows and butterflies he has a position. Be a good soldier and do as you are ordered it is for the best! Well, that is out the window since our government is run by special interests and not the will of the population. Our law makers passing “UnConstitutional” legislation where our 1st amendment given right to redress is made excessively difficult and costly. Or the possibility anyone could influence our lawmakers thru campaign contributions just from a cost perspective. The current President’s position as CINC is predicated on a false front or falsehoods giving many independent Americans cause for consern.
So yes there are good reasons to watch the very body that is seeking our hearts, souls and minds. We have more then enough justification to be very wary and let the “leadership” understand that they DO NOT HAVE A BLANK CHECK here in which to play with. Reach, Teach and Inspire on my Oath Keeper friends.
Tea Party anyone?
Chris Thiele
Well, I finally found a website in which military and law enforcement types are discussing our oaths and duties. It troubles me that we have to have this conversation at all. My sense is that you all are having the same roiling feeling in your gut that I have that something is not quite right. And I find myself reflecting on my oath and what would I do. But more importantly, will I recognize the trip wire that tells me I must now take my stand and not obey. Your 10 orders has helped in that regard.
From my perspective, the thing we have to watch for is the “personal guard” of a potential tyrant. Look at history. Most dictators and tyrants had such an apparatus. That can be spotted, I think. Of course there will always be the useful idiots who are ignorant of the principles of the Constitution and Declaration. They will simply obey as the author of this article implies we should. But there will be others who know EXACTLY what they are doing, and they will show their allegiance to the personality.
Watch for a separate security organization to appear to rival the military for influence and resources. It could happen here. But it will be very subtle at first. It will have to be. I was not fond of the establishment of the Department of “Homeland Security.” I am wondering if the door was cracked a little let the process start. Something about the name and everything about it says to me it could come back to bite the people of this nation. I hope is dissestablished some day. It is not unimagineable for it to be populated by people who have their allegiance to a personality and for its power and reach to rival DoD. As long as the Army stays loyal to the Constitution and the Declaration, then there will a counter to a “personal guard.” I would hope the U.S. officer corps would not act like the German officer corps did prior to WWII.
God, I can’t even believe I am thinking like this. Someone smack me.
Old Airman 2000, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Homeland Security has requested from NATO nations including Russia, X amount of soldiers to form a multinational force to help police America under the authority of the U.N.! Some of our military commanders ask new recruits if they would serve under a U.N. commander if asked. I’m not sure what the typical response is.
It is good. Imagine. 10-15 years ago Patriots, concerned with the viability of this Republic (and its Constitution) could not have gathered in such an ether of good debate. Now, we’re viral in our united and growing concern over an Oath. SO. It is required of us,if we are to believe our own oath to Defend the Constitution, we must ask, “Where is the birth certificate?” That is a legitimate question. Hawaii, is complicit in hiding the truth. Where does this leave the officers and troops in the Hawaii National Guard and Reserves who MUST defend the Constitution. OR are we all just talk? Or am I, like many others, simply arming myself to defend against some future threat that breaks down my door?
I admire your organization. You guys have guts. It’s too bad that too many soldiers are trained to be good little Nazis and take orders without question. I hope you can help other military and public servants ask questions.
I am putting a link to your site on my website.
http://alanfolsom-joethephilosopher.com/joe/joe.html
Good luck.
In response to Old Airman 2000, who said, “Watch for a separate security organization to appear to rival the military for influence and resources. It could happen here. But it will be very subtle at first. It will have to be. I was not fond of the establishment of the Department of “Homeland Security.” I am wondering if the door was cracked a little let the process start.” It has already happened, my brother.
On Jan 11, 2010, pres Obama created, by Executive Order, a “Council of Governors” see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors and then click on the underlined “an Executive Order (attached)” which will take you to the Executive Order itself (or you can simply go directly there by clicking on this http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf for the actual words. Be advised the Press release verbiage says that the purpose is “…When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.” Look at that again!! “…be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States.” I wrote something here, but decided to delete it and let you make your own call on this.
When you read the Executive Order itself, it seems benign enough with the members being appointed by the president from state Governors (10), with no more than 5 being from the same political party, etc… Of course, one would be hard pressed to think the pres would appoint someone who is too different from the “middle.” And the pres will also designate which ones will be “Co-Chairs of the Council” (read pick someone whom he can “guide to the proper decision”).
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Of further note, the role of the council will be at the call of the SecDef, or the Co-Chairs to chat with the SecDef, Sec of Homeland Security, some Czars for the pres, and some other military folks. It should be noted, though, that the items they will be discussing, will include “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.” Again, I’m sure there will not be any miscreant deeds plotted against the citizenry by this group, and it probably solely means in the instance of another Katrina or something…
Sec. 2. Functions.
The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
This will be funded, by the way, by the Defense budget “to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
I for one see an opportunity for the executive branch to gain powers that were never given to the Federal Govt by the States.
Methinks the wolf is at the door, sniffing…
First of all, there is no expiration date when taking the oath (again ex-enlisted member)and Streiff is a troll, which means that he’s one who comes to a blog and spews his usual “talking points” and then sits back to watch the fun. The best advice for people like him is to ignore him completely.
according to the col. he would do a (mei lei)i don’t know the spelling and he would exepect me to carry out the act?i was in the 101st airborne at the time that the poorly trained and let americal div.did this.we grunts in the 101 would not have done this because we know that shit runs down hill. i would have had to tell the good col. to do it him self.
I dont see this country lasting very much longer as a Republic. You have a younger generation being raised courtesy of our govt. to not think for themselves and let our leaders take over. We stand to lose all that we have worked for. The col. is a prime example of the some of the leadership we have today. The govt. doesnt want leaders, they want people who wont challenge any order given them.
There is COURT PRECEDENT to back what Oathkeepers are doing…. see link below – for your convenience I have copied entire article here below the link…Hey, Stieff! READ the Constitution! Claiming to be ex-military does NOT excuse your lack of knowledge! we MUST instruct our children on the Constitution – which schools are not doing, nor have they for years! George Washington cautioned us that if we do not KNOW the Constitution, you WILL be subject to tyranny. I have had countless arguments with liberals – many of which have been won (by me) by simply pulling out my Pocket Constitution….people do NOT know their RIGHTS!
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” — Patrick Henry
http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it… No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
I am veteran of the USN and served on USS America CV66 and USS Goerge Washington CVN-73. I agree with and support what is being said by the OAth Keepers in that it is the constitution that we are defending. However, i question the underlying tone that I am reading–now I may be wrong–bt it feels like Oath Keepers or some of its disciples are simply against Obama, or Democrats. is that true? I feel like this fear od despotism is directed at the OBama administration. If so, I think its absurd and ignorant. It was under Cheney/Bush that we had everythingto fear–it was Cheney/Bushies who absolutely hate democracy and the constitution and systematically dismantled it. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan (all the wars and “conflicts” since WWII are and were unlawful, unconsitutional, immoral, wicked, inhumane, acts of aAmerican aggression, imperialism, amd corporate-crimes against humanity, the constiution, and civil and/or the laws of war. Cheney/bush Republican (thug) and so-called conservatism (as we have seen it these last twenty years or more–really since Reagan oh and then NIxon–the last fifty years is absoultely un-american and willfully commits acts of treason, and hate toward Americans, the world, humanity,freedom and democracy.
I also since an ignorant attack on socialism (traditionally in America–from the most corporate/fascist conditioned and brainweashed). We need national health-care. We are either all americans or all individuals ravaneously fighint against each other in some “survival of the fittest” nonsense. We pay taxes so we build a civil society that lifts up communities, our borthers and our sisters. The military itself is a State instiution as is the Veterans hospitals and without taxes it would not be possible. The alternative is Blackwater and private corporate armies not beholden to the consitution or law or humanity.
One commenter above notes he made his oath before Obama was elected. What’s your point? Streiffis right in that the President made an oath as well and he must defend the constitution–for argument sake you cannot just reject the oath because you dont like the democratically elected President who has the majority popultions vote. But you could argue that cheny/Bush big OIl war on Iraq and Afganistan is unlawful and therfore disobey–in fact no soldier or sailor or Airman currently serving is upholding his/her oath. Obama is just tryign to clean up the inhumane mess. However, youcould argue that Obama has extended Cheney’s war on humanity with illegal wire-tapping, the Patriiot Act, the torture, etc, nd thus disobey your superiors and refuse to kill innocent people.
You could argue that 911 ws a hoax perpetrated by BUsh/Cheney crime family conspiracy in allegience with Saudi Arabia, possibly Isreal, and others to manufacture a war on human-rights, democracy and the constitution–nd conquer oil rich nations for the benefit of the corporate elite–not the people! One more reason why every servicemember is now in violation of his oath and according to Nuremburg is commiting crimes against humanity.
The government is all ready been uurped.. teh oath is an illusion, a lie.
I applaud the Oath Keepers oath–i just hope that it is with an objective and hnest commitment–not a ignorant or bais.
Morevoer, what if the nation is under threat by our own tyrannical gov–our corporate gov, and constituional rights–peace–safety is all under violent threat–brownshirts (teaaggers) extremists, blackwater, and despotic American soldiers–would you then oppose International Aid in the form of financing, or even military stregth to protect your constitutional rights?
I think some people here hve some soul searching to do. Let me know if you aggree with any of my statements above.
it is Neo-con conservatism that i fear.
Why is constituionalism always equated with conservatism. I think that is ignorant and dishonest. Many people see conservatism as status qou, racialism, and fascism–demonstrated by teabaggers and the like who bring guns to twon halls and theaten people who dont think like them–that’s not democracy and its not what America is supposed to be about. it looks more like the rise of the third reich.
I apologize for my typos above–yikes!
I agree with Joshua.
I am a veteran. I am neither a democrat or a republican. I am an american.
While the founder of Oath Keepers used to stand guard against the NeoCon blitz, it seems his organization has become caught in the propaganda of hate.
It seems it’s becoming the very thing it should be defending the Constitution against – the NeoCon Ideology that treats it as ‘just another piece of paper’.
I can understand the justified anger – all Americans are feeling it, whether they be real liberals, real conservatives – or like myself – real independents.
To take up the NeoCon cry of ‘Blame Obama!’ is dishonest and betrays the dignity of fairness and justice inherent in the Constitution we gave an oath to protect.
As for Cheney, and his NeoCon Lobby at AEI, the evidence speaks for itself – he is found guilty of treason. NeoCons are domestic terrorists.
But Obama – who inherited the a shattered Republic and torn Democracy is Innocent until proven guilty – he has been in office only one year. There is much damage from Cheney’s watch that must be repaired…
The NeoCon Lobby opposes him – The Bankers Lobby opposes him – Why?
Obama took the oath like you and I – and so far – he hasn’t betrayed it. And from what i’ve see, he is doing all he can to return us to the Constitution as the center of the rule of law by the people, for the people…
Obstructionist have declared war on him and fought him on everything – including having Bankers follow the rule of law like everyone else.
I hope Oathkeepers does not become just another NeoCon patsy – like Sell Out Sarah Palin (hand picked by William Kristol) as we desperately need real Americans that will stand firm for their Constitutional rights…
It’s not about conservatives. It’s not about liberals. It’s not about libertarians.
It’s about the Constitution.
For All Americans.
OathKeepers – Don’t Become caught in NeoCon Nutzi’s fear mongering and scapegoating – it’s how they ‘Divide to Conquer’ and destroyed the Republican Party from within…
Your are better than that.
One additional comment with regard to the Oath we swore to protect and defend the Constitution. The American People contracted between themselves and their States to establish the Constitution and the Federal Government, so when we vow to protect the Constitution, in my opinion, we are explicitly vowing to protect the American People, something quite at odds with what FedGov is and has been doing for years. Our legitimate authority (and, indeed, the legitimate authority of ALL levels of government) comes solely from the informed and proper consent of the People. We do, I presume, understand the limits of that consent as being the limits of what each individual can justly do for himself and thus consent to have done in his name and on his behalf. To me that is the critical difference between a Constitutional Republic and an “anything goes” democracy, something feared and loathed by the Founders.
as a retired AF E-8 (25 years ago), I wholeheartedly agree with the oath keepers and their stand. I am currently employed by a local Police Department in an administrative position, My Police Chief and the officers all concur with your program.
The president is our leader.
We elected him. If you take up arms
aginst the US you are a traitor.
Dont buy into this bull.
lol funny chip go sell crazy some place else
The citizens shouldn’t worry about the neo-cons. The should look around and see the neo-COMS the POTUS has around him. They should worry that at one time Obama suggested a civilian security force that would be funded as well as the Dept. of Defense. What was that all about? As a retired judge with a C.I.B., I find it comforting that some people have awakened before it is too late.
I llok forward to becoming a member soon.
the oath has been changed,that is not the oath i gave during my 20 years of service as an enlisted.
it never once said anything about the UCMJ, but the UCMJ states that you will not follow an illegel order from anyone.
As a twelve year veteran of the US Army (I left for family reasons with the rank of 1ltp after having risen to sgt as a enlisted) I believe my oath was open ended but the sole law I swore to serve, defend and otherwise obey was the Constitution. Just as a officer can give or recieve a unlawful order, a president also can issue a order violating the constitution. Any such unconstitutional order even if issued by the president is a unlawful. And I would argue that the provision in our oath to oppose domestic enemies would include even the president if the president seeks to overthrow the constitution.
The LTC says, “When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.”
I disagree. You might remember the “following orders” defense of Adolf Eichmann, a former Nazi Lt. Col. who during WWII had been in charge of transporting Jews for Hitler’s “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” Eichmann swore his oath to Adolf Hitler, as did, I believe, every other German soldier. The “following orders” defense is called the “Nuremberg Defense,” after the trials of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg, Germany. Before the end of the war, figuring the Nazis might use such a defense at trial, the allies issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which stated that following unlawful orders is not a valid defense for war crimes.
It might interest you to know that this past week Chief Justice John Roberts, in a Q&A period after his talk at the Univ. of Alabama, said: “A decision “should be accessible to intelligent lay people . . . they don’t have to be lawyers. If they want to find out, if it’s an important decision, what does the Supreme Court say, they should be able to pick it up and read it, and understand it. . . They should be able to follow the reasoning . . . it should give an adequate explanation.”
Understanding whether a law is legal or constitutional is not reserved to officers and lawyers, or even to the President of the United States. Each of us has a brain and a conscience, and we are expected to use them.
I wanted to say a great deal more about the LTC’s comments. Alas, I haven’t the time to do so. I believe the LTC is an honorable man. Please don’t dishoner him and yourself by name-calling. It’s often a tempting short-cut, but it won’t get you anywhere.
Best regards,
Winston N. Martin