What is Oath Keepers:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution
What does that mean?
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
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."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
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.
Who founded this group?
Stewart Rhodes
Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.
He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.
Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine
Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.
=========================
I just found about this group. This isn't about right or left, Democrat or Republican, it's about protecting our constitution.
Right now about 3% of our military belongs to this group and it's numbers are growing fast. I am not a member, but will join as an associate if funds permit. (Things are tight for me right now)
The reason I am posting this is because I now feel like our situation is not hopeless. We now have a core group of military and law enforcement who WILL NOT be following orders to round up an exterminate or otherwise take action against their fellow Americans. This is important. We know some of what was going on under Bush 43 and we know Obama is continuing much of this stuff. The FEMA camps were set up by Reagan back in 1984, but for the non-nefarious purposes for which they are now envisioned.
Oath Keepers gives us an important and powerful ally in defense of the constitution and our liberties.
Please Digg and Reddit this and pass this post along to anyone you think may still care about our country. The good guys may finally be getting a foothold against the evil elite who are planning our demise.
Link: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
The above photo shows an Oath Keeper patch being worn by an active duty soldier in Mosul, Iraq.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
ramblin_rose
amittaizero
emma peel
Gordon Wagner
Will Someone Feed The Cat?
scanner
Salon.com
Comments
God Bless Everyone ... Friar Hilarius
Would someone kindly note that and change the text to read "democratically"
Friar Hilarius
Also, from your reply, it appears as though you could use a stiff drink.
AH quote: "Those able have not only a right but a responsiblity to be well armed, proficient and ready to defend our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. I think we need to update that to every man and woman citizen who's not a felon." I would agree with that, but modify it to add that it depends on the felony. Some states have pretty screwy definitions of what constitutes a felony.
Also, most folks today do not have the innate ability or proper training or the mindset to defend the country as they should. Oath Keepers may serve a good purpose for that reason, but I see and understand your point.
I haven't looked into this oath keepers thing. It reads Libertarian. I find myself agreeing with some of its tenets, though not all. I am troubled by the fear that drives it, though, and plan to devote more investigation and thought to what may be underneath it.
The spoofy 'offense against God' post was funny, because it was obviously satire. No one could actually believe that. God send us John Moses Browning for a reason. (Even if you believe as I do that God is an emergent principle as a result of pancomputational discordianism.)
The fact that we've slacked in our responsibilites is no excuse not to voluenteer your time at a range, speak to people about firearms saftey and proper use, or to help out at a hunters saftey course. Our nation needs a core of responsible, armed citizens. Without that, we are sheep for the slaughter. We're no where near that yet, but if we don't remain vigiliant and continue to educate and carry on the tradition of gun ownership, we may be there someday. Sorry for hijacking your post, got passionate.
Alan, it is not the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution any more than it is for a Christian pastor to interpret the Bible. It is their job to EXPLAIN the Constitution to those who do not understand what they have read. (Or who have elected to mis-interpret the meaning of a passage for personal or political reasons. The Constitution is not a "living document" though it can be amended. Oath Keepers just attempts to stick with the true meaning of the Constitution.
At least Stewart Rhodes proves that he's not just another garden variety Obama hater by laying the blame for all of this on Bush.
Also, Oath Keepers is not about political parties.
I dont know if we need any more oaths which no one heeds to anyway when push comes to shove. Do they mean anythign when humans are equally capable of disregarding them at the slightest. Good discussion.....
Hope you are hoarding enough gasoline and provisions. Me? I'll be dead in the 1st round of violence. Namaste.
Roger, just because the Supreme Court decides something is constitutional does not mean it actually is. I'm making that statement considering who we currently have on the bench.
Not content with enshrining the right to own weapons in its Constitution the USA then kindly sold arms to over 100 nations so that they could do the same
The love affair with violence continues also in the shoot outs which so often settle scores in Hollywood movies
Is it any wonder that high school student inadequacies are then played out in the same manner?
Another irony which is not lost on me is that America has one of the finest democracies ever known to mankind, and so few Americans seem to value it as a means of resolving conflicts within the nation peacefully. Apparently a private gun remains a more important "protection".
If you don't trust your own Government where in God's name do you think America is headed? Kindly make democracy, freedom and peace work properly in your own country, before exporting it at the point of a gun.
I do recognise the distinction between peace-keeping in conjunction with other nations and unilateral war-making.
American generosity in Europe and Japan re-built the world post WW2 and all but destroyed the world with the Iraq War and Greed Driven Financial Bubble.
You now face the price of living high on the credit hog for too long.
The top 83 nations increased their per capita GDP more slowly than the bottom 83 in 2008. Standards of living are moving inexorably to a global average. America's down ... the lowest cost countries will move theirs up
I recommend that you deal with that by exporting things that people need, not necessarily what they want
You might also consider amending your gun-loving Constitution to rejoin the British Empire, if as I expect neither President Obama nor any future President is capable of delivering either peace or the illusory American dream
Blessings and Peace
Friar Hilarius
Yes and no. The 2nd Amendment ruling to the D.C. appeal (DC v. Heller) was a 5-4 decision. It should have been 9-0. Scalia,Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito affirmed, while Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens dissented.
From the 157 page ruling:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
OK Roger, let's imagine that we had 9 liberal Justices who struck down the individual right to bear arms. The makeup of the court would change the legitimacy of their rulings because the denial of an individuals right to own guns is an incorrect explaination/ruling on the second amendment. One could, therefore, not obey otherwise lawful orders to disarm the citizenry. The Supreme Court MUST follow the original explicit intent of the Constitution and not pick and choose the unpopular parts. If an amendment is necessary then one can be voted on.
Yes there is a remedy for an unpopular Supreme Court decision, either by the amendment process or legislation, but there is no legal mandate as to how any individual Supreme Court Justice MUST make his/her decision. That's why we have nine of them. Bush V Gore was a decision that most on the left disagreed with, but Gore made it clear that the Supreme Court had spoken, and it was settled.
The court could have ruled 9-0 the other way in the DC gun case and that would stand too... unless legislated otherwise.
This post is dangerously close to advocating revolution in the face of legally constitutional decisions that you don't agree with.
Yesterday when I read this I thought it was silly. Now I think it is dangerous.
I think lots of folks are on our side 39 FAR.
deja vu all over again ...
AUWE
AUWE
Haters head down da road