February 10th, 2013

David Codrea: Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy

[Editor’s note:  You’ll really want to read the following article at David Codrea’s Gun Rights Examiner’s site where you’ll find a wealth of embedded links. Also there you’ll enjoy a slide show of Marines marching “boltless” in this year's inauguration parade and a US Navy contingency marching with their bolts in place for the 2009 inauguration.  Codrea packs the article with an assortment of currently pertinent considerations, such as the DHS greed-fest of bullet-buying, the deployment of drones, publicized dissent coming from the ranks of the US Marine Corps,  military involvement in domestic affairs, etc. – all of which might contribute to a sense of apprehensiveness in the perceptions of those responsible for the President’s protection. Does the military really dislike our President enough to warrant their disarmament in his inauguration parade?  Codrea associates the fact of the Marine disarmament with this Administration’s double-speak abuse of our military, and in this article he poses a serious question about the demoralizing of the American fighting forces.

Did I say “demoralizing”? What else, pray tell, could explain the lousy marching disorder of the lines of the Marines who marched in the inauguration parade? Look at the formation lines in the video – they’re awful! When I was in the Marine Corps (back in the 1960s) this sort of lack-luster adherence to principles of parade marching would have been severely punished – hell, any high-school band marching in the Rose Bowl parade keeps better formation than you’ll see by the Marines marching in this video. I have to agree with David Codrea – there is a tangible demoralization in our nation’s finest military force. Don't miss his article.

Oath Keepers heartily recommends David Codrea’s personal siteThe War On Guns: Notes From The Resistance --   http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

Below are some teasers from David’s article. Be sure to click this link and read the whole story.


Elias Alias, editor]

Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy


David Codrea of National Gun Rights Examiner

David Codrea of National Gun Rights Examiner


“Didn’t know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed. “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!” The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.

This prompted an internet search to see if others had also noticed, and the Blur-Brain blog had.

“The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,” the post stated. “Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable.”

(snip) Read David Codrea’s complete coverage of this story at his source site:


Here is the USMC footage showing the dis-armed Marines marching in the inauguration parade.



Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

13 Responses to “David Codrea: Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Remember what Obama’s buddy, Bill Ayers (that inconsistent anti-war activist who, I guess, just believes Obama’s wars are part of the plan for a global communism) said about wanting to kill off America’s armed forces, piecemeal:

    Weatherman Underground manifesto

    The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a
    classless world: world communism. Winning state power in the US will
    occur as a result of the military forces of the US overextending
    themselves around the world and being defeated piecemeal;

    Ayers should learn Austrian Economics so that he can finally find out that it is actually the collectivist policy of the central planning of the money supply which gives rise to Empire.

    The Progressive ideology causes nearly all the problems they say they’re fighting.

    A government War on Poverty creates Crony Capitalism by subsidizing certain industries, and it prices unskilled labor out of work through the Minimum Wage, and it creates shortages by penalizing prices above a certain ceiling.

    Government regulations against the boogyman “wealth inequality” creates Crony Capitalism by creating barriers to entry which artificially secure businesses’ monopolies/oligopolies. The regulations also create the government agencies which businesses have an incentive to capture in order to get out from under the thumb of the regulations;

    Get rid of the government regulatory agencies, and you get rid of Crony Capitalism. But that means that businesses and consumers will be free to engage in peaceful trade. And if consumers choose one business over another, then that business deserves its gigantic market share, even up to 100%.

    There’s nothing wrong with that – all parties who are trading peacefully are benefitted, or else they wouldn’t trade.

    The issue of Predatory Pricing is a boogyman, too:

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

  2. 2
    Linda Says:

    Hi, Great points. If I might make an observation, I see two things that have recently happened that I believe are related, or have the same root cause. The coward O-blah-blah has demanded lifetime round-the-clock protection, and now we see that the marines have the bolts removed from their rifles at his “inauguration”. I must conclude that the coward O-blah-blah has flinched; he is scared spitless of our military. I will not call it his military, since he will probably call in UN troops as his honor guard next.
    I don’t think those marines were undisciplined; I believe they had agreed in advance to march the way they marched. The set on their faces was that of defiance and even rage. Both parties to this scene knew precisely what they were doing.
    I hope the Obamination spends whatever life remains to him in abiding terror. He certainly deserves it, if anyone has ever deserved that miserable fate. May those who are in league with Obama suffer a similar fate. God Bless the Marines and I salture their resistance!!! Linda

  3. 3
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Let’s remember that both Bush’s and Clinton violated their oaths to the Constitution, as well, and stuck America’s military where it didn’t belong:

    Another United Nations War?

    President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war.

    Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War

    Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from — rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

    Ron Paul on “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”

  4. 4
    Jesse Says:

    Oh yah, you better bet hes scared. Criminals live their lives looking over their shoulders for a reason. That alone is a form of justice. It is a God given natural law that God instilled in this world, and shows that good always trumps evil. Evil has to work twice as hard as good does, simply because evil does not make any sense and has to twist the truth through lies in turn the Truth always surfaces. Thats just the way God made it.

  5. 5
    Cal Says:

    “Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President.”

    They have never been given the authority to transfer any of the duties assigned to them. Re4meber that their lawfully required and legally binding oaths are another check on those we put into office.
    It is not just a political offense when they do not keep the oath, it is also both a criminal and a civil offense.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

    Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    Civil offense:
    Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

    The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

    “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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

    Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

    The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
    Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

    It is past time to remove them from office as teh law demands, plus arrest and prosecute them. There are a few constitutional judges left, there would be more if we would remove from office those jduges that used other then constitutional laws as they are required; such as international law and precednece- constitutional or not.

    By the way, giving authority over the USA to the UN is treason. Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey declared treason in front of the senate at a hearing, plus Obama in a letter to Boehner.

    Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

    Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. {Yes, all senators who were there for that declaration of treason broke this law; as did Boehner}

    18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or

    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
    Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

    Hope this information helps!

  6. 6
    Deborah Says:

    He looked intimidated to even look at the military who obviously was looking back at him. haha

  7. 7
    Deborah Says:

    I looked at this again after reading something else. Linda you are right. After being frisked for ammo and no ammo allowed I think they were mad at him. Some didn’t look some stared him down. After all the closest they would probably get to him. Obama was nervous.

  8. 8
    Linda Says:

    Hi Cal,
    Thank You for your message. I already knew that Obama was guilty of treason, misprison of treason, violation of his oath of office, etc.. I did not know the consequences for the Vice President and the Senators that stood by and watched this and did nothing (while I wrote them furiously, and angrily); it is good to hear that they are also guilty of treason.
    Since the VP and Congress is involved in committing treason along with Obama,what happens to the chain of command, and how is this scenario played out? Obviously, it must be true that the Senators and the VP consciously and intentionally went along with Obama, and are therefore culpable.
    The document you provided also says that the States can convict Obama of treason. Is that where we have to focus next? How many states must convict him? Does this operate by majority rule? What happens to the state reps that stand with Obama and against the Constitution and their oaths; will they also be subject to trial and imprisonment?
    What can I do to help? I have been writing the lawless government extensively for some time. I would appreciate being able to work effectively, with law abiding folk. God Bless You. Linda

  9. 9
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Cal @ comment #5

    We agree on a lot, but I would like to briefly touch on a few issues on which I disagree.

    (I’d like to discuss the “public goods” matter which I bring up below, with someone, at some point.)

    1. executive orders cannot make law; they can merely order troops for the defense of an immediate threat.

    2. The Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers specifically advocate the forceful overthrow of the government and the killing of rights-violating representatives, respectively, when they violate the rights of constituents, assuming state nullification doesn’t work (in the case of a desire to remain in the Union), or assuming an attempt at secession doesn’t work (in the case of a desire to leave the Union).

    3. The government can’t compel someone to report someone for treason, because government’s authority comes from the consent of the governed; We object when the government pretends it has the authority to compel us to buy health insurance, so we should be consistent here.

    4. The Constitution defines what treason means, so all laws which attempt to alter the meaning are void.

    5. The oath of office is not for life – it’s an oath of office. It only applies when in office; Similarly, the government cannot require us to pay for government pensions.

    6. The government, or “collective”, cannot own property because there’s no such thing as a “public good” – and this is one of the things our Founders got wrong – so it has no claim to any land, such that someone can be guilty of attempting to steal it from the government.

  10. 10
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Oops, I need to add something:

    For point #1, the President can make certain recess appointments under certain conditions.

    And I wanted to add that only Congress can impeach federal judges, so we have to go through them to get rid of judges.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148