Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Refuseniks(Oathkeepers)
reason.com ^ | May, 2011 | Radley Balko

Posted on 04/12/2011 6:46:23 AM PDT by marktwain

When you run down the list of issues the Oath Keepers are worried about, it reads a lot like a bill of particulars from the American Civil Liberties Union. The Oath Keepers don't like warrantless searches. They're upset that the executive branch has claimed the power to classify American citizens as enemy combatants, detain them indefinitely, and try them before military tribunals. They worry that a large-scale terrorist attack similar to 9/11 could lead to the mass detention of Arabs or Muslims, just as Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. They worry about crackdowns on political speech, protest, and freedom of assembly. They are concerned about the Army 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team, a military unit that is training to deploy domestically in response to terrorist attacks or other national emergencies. And yet the group is a frequent target of the left.

Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and a former staffer for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Rhodes, 44, considers himself a constitutionalist and a libertarian. His organization's mission: to persuade America's soldiers and cops to refuse to carry out orders that violate the Constitution. On its website, Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members will always refuse, including commands to conduct warrantless searches, to disarm the public, blockade an American city, or do anything that infringes "on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances." According to Rhodes, the group has about 30,000 dues-paying members.

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: arms; banglist; constitution; oathkeepers; rhodes; stewartrhodes
"Now I think civilian authority is important, but if the president asks the military to do something that isn't constitutional, their loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president."

Quote from the interview.

1 posted on 04/12/2011 6:46:26 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Now I think civilian authority is important, but if the president asks the military to do something that isn't constitutional, their loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president."

Ridiculous.

2 posted on 04/12/2011 6:52:56 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I hope you are being sarcastic.


3 posted on 04/12/2011 7:01:07 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Not at all.


4 posted on 04/12/2011 7:05:43 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck

So, the military should be loyal to the person who is in the office of president, regardless of what is ordered by this person?


5 posted on 04/12/2011 7:07:17 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
When you run down the list of issues the Oath Keepers are worried about, it reads a lot like a bill of particulars from the American Civil Liberties Union.

All well and good, except for the difference that the Oathkeepers wasn't founded by an avowed Marxist, and the ACLU was.

6 posted on 04/12/2011 7:08:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Legally speaking, we don’t all individually get to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. A soldier can refuse too fight, but then they have to face the justice system—the military justice system at that.


7 posted on 04/12/2011 7:26:59 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Boy, are you off track. The Oath says nothing about the President (unless he falls under the category of domestic enemy):

I, [name], 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.


See that? "Constitution", not "President".
8 posted on 04/12/2011 7:30:33 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Napolean fries the idea powder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

You’re clueless.


9 posted on 04/12/2011 7:33:41 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huck

You’ve thrown insults at three posters so far and have yet to explain yourself. Do you even have an argument on your side? I ask because what you seem to support is the Nuremburg Defense, i.e., “I was just following orders”?


10 posted on 04/12/2011 7:37:51 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Napolean fries the idea powder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I would disagree. The oath (and honor) are with respect to the Constituion. That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do. Otherwise, there would be no provision in the UCMJ for the term “illegal order”.


11 posted on 04/12/2011 7:40:59 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pecos
That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do.

Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.

12 posted on 04/12/2011 7:52:57 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Post 7


13 posted on 04/12/2011 7:53:39 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck

***That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do.

Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It’s what the system says is constitutional that counts.***

The right and duty of the individual to refuse an unconstitutional order is a uniquely American concept. Note that the officers of the Tird Reich did not have that as part of their oaths.

Ours does, for a reason.

As to your argument about the constitution is what the system says it is, have you considered the rather large number of cases where an individual filed a case which changed “the system”

Such cases are the real “Yes, we can”.


14 posted on 04/12/2011 8:18:17 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Huck
We're not talking about "refusing to fight", we are talking about the very specific list of circumstances identified by the Oathkeepers as Consitutional no-go territory. You're still taking random potshots and not addressing the issues.

Here's the Oathkeepers' Oath:

  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.

I take it that your reply at 7. is that you would do all of these things because, otherwise, you'd 'get into trouble'.

15 posted on 04/12/2011 8:23:44 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Napolean fries the idea powder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Many of the items on that oath are unconstitutional.


16 posted on 04/12/2011 8:27:43 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

So name me a case where a soldier refused an order on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and won the case in court.


17 posted on 04/12/2011 8:29:50 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Worthless group. Mostly a PC social network for conservative groupies and cheerleaders.

Hoping to attract the folks who were supposed to constitute their core membership - AD military and LEOs, who placed their treasured pensions and security clearances above their allegiance to a free country - OK shut down all talk of militias or anything even remotely resembling active resistance to tyranny.

Mamby-pamby feel-good land, IMO. Irrelevant now, and irrelevant when the time comes.

18 posted on 04/12/2011 8:31:13 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.

And that right there is what's wrong with American government right now. That's how we got Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade, Bowers v Harwick, and Kelo v City of New London. All bad law, all obviously unconstitutional, but all forced on us by the judiciary. It is very much incumbent on all three branches, and the American people, to decide what's Constitutional.

19 posted on 04/12/2011 8:36:59 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Worthless group. Mostly a PC social network for conservative groupies and cheerleaders.

'Conservative groupies'? You do realize you're on a conservative forum, right? You realize that statement insults almost everyone on FR, right?

I have read and listened to Steward Rhodes a lot. I saw what happened in New Orleans during Katrina-- people were disarmed in violation of the Constitution. Oathkeepers does a lot of good.

I smell troll. And maybe ozone.

20 posted on 04/12/2011 8:40:45 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
The right and duty of the individual to refuse an unconstitutional order is a uniquely American concept. Note that the officers of the Tird Reich did not have that as part of their oaths.

It is the duty of an individual to refuse to obey an unlawful order. It is not the duty of the servicemember to decide if an order is Constitutional or not. Therefore orders are assumed lawful unless they require one to perform a clearly illegal act, such as the commission of a crime.

21 posted on 04/12/2011 8:51:00 AM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
It is very much incumbent on all three branches, and the American people, to decide what's Constitutional.

I think it's a fundamental flaw in our government. Yes, all three branches are at liberty to decide for themselves if something is constitutional or not, but they can't decide for the other branches.

So, for example, a president can veto a bill and explain that he did so because he finds it unconstitutional. Then the Congress can override the veto and say they think it is constitutional. The president can't stop them. The legislature may find the president exercising powers they find to be unconstitutional. What can they do about it?

And the court? They have the most awesome power of all! Not only can the other branches NOT overrule them, their decisions become law in a way that is much more likely to become fixed and permanent than anything the legislature or the president may do. When it comes to law, legislators legislate, executives execute, but the judges rule (no pun intended.)

It seems to me, this was by design. I believe Alexander Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing, and got what he wanted--a supreme court with a general tendency toward amassing national power at the expense of the states and/or the people.

The tendency of our scheme of three "co-equal' branches is not that no one gets away with extra-constitutional powers, but rather, that they all do. In fact it's a misnomer to call them extra-constitutional, since to me, the setup itself ensures just the kind of results we've gotten. The design is bad.

22 posted on 04/12/2011 8:51:40 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
I don't agree. I have taken the Oath of Office, and it is my duty and the duty of every other American who has taken the same oath and whose word has value to refuse any unlawful order. That includes but is not limited to refusing any and all unconstitutional orders. Part of that duty includes recognizing that (1) you lose, big time, if you are wrong, and (2) you lose, big time, even if you are right if (as is the case today) the thug in our White House doesn't recognize and respect the Constitution. Even with that penalty, it is our duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Note: I am no longer on active duty. Despite that detail, my oath did not have an expiration date. I still have a moral obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, especially as it faces the biggest domestic threat in our country's history - actually the biggest threat of any kind, ever.

23 posted on 04/12/2011 9:03:41 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Huck

By YOUR words, you the individual don’t get to decide if that list is Constitutional or not.


24 posted on 04/12/2011 9:05:33 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck

And you also equate whether or not you could win the court case as to whetehr or not you would be ‘loyal’.


25 posted on 04/12/2011 9:06:25 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
That includes but is not limited to refusing any and all unconstitutional orders.

I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.

26 posted on 04/12/2011 9:10:00 AM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.

I don't need to be granted that right in the UCMJ. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that is one of them.

Despite what the liberals pretend, interpreting the Constitution is not a difficult task. An order to disarm the American people in general (as opposed to a particular individual or group that pose a threat to the country) is a clear and direct violation of the Second Amendment and must be refused (with a penalty that must be endured if the Commander-in-Chief has no respect for the Constitution he pretended to swear to uphold). Doing the right thing is not guaranteed to be painless, just to be right. An order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people violates the 4th Amendment and must be refused unless there is an immediate danger that requires the warrantless search (or that immediate danger is at least plausible when obeying the order) . . . And so on through an order to infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.I don't need a lawyer to interpret these simple concepts for me. There are issues that are on the line and could be interpreted either way, but an obviously unconstitutional order is an unlawful order, and God gave me both the right and the responsibility to disobey such an order.

In these interesting times and with Obama in power, that right and that duty are particularly relevant. As with Nazi Germany (and I am not convinced that Obama will not turn out to be worse for the world than Hitler), I don't need additional legal authority to do the right thing in accordance with my oath and with the Constitution. The Nuremberg Trials made that quite clear.

27 posted on 04/12/2011 9:38:06 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It seems to me, this was by design. I believe Alexander Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing... The design is bad.

I think the anti-Federalists scored several points on Hamilton, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to judge his "design" as "bad". Maybe a little more humility would help.

28 posted on 04/12/2011 10:29:11 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.

If your opinion is a majority among people in this country, the experiment in self-government is over. DONE. You actually believe this? Or are you just being provocative?

You do realize the Constitution is built on self-evident rights? Like the inherent right to own and carry arms? Would you really obey an order to disarm civilians en masse? If so, I do not believe you are an honorable soldier, not to mention keeping your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

How can you even keep the oath unless you know what the hell it is you are taking an oath to defend? Insanity.

29 posted on 04/12/2011 10:34:36 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Huck

The President may be the Commander in Chief, but if he issues an order that is clearly against the law, the military is not required to obey it.


30 posted on 04/12/2011 10:46:01 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I am afraid you have still mis-understood me. What I said was that "any member of the military refusing to obey an order should be ready for the system to do what the system will do." That may be TOTALLY SEPARATE from what is Constitutional or moral. Sometimes the good guys go down for doing the right thing. The question is whether a person's morals will allow them to violate their sworn word.
31 posted on 04/12/2011 11:22:41 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Facts are facts. Humility has nothing to do with it. 200 + years of data. The results are in.


32 posted on 04/12/2011 11:27:33 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Facts are facts. Humility has nothing to do with it. 200 + years of data. The results are in.


33 posted on 04/12/2011 11:27:51 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

“The President may be the Commander in Chief, but if he issues an order that is clearly against the law, the military is not required to obey it.” = SQ

One step further - Officers are required to NOT obey illegal orders.


34 posted on 04/12/2011 11:36:58 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

So soldiers should have refused to go to Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war?


35 posted on 04/12/2011 11:38:11 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Huck
So soldiers should have refused to go to Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war?

There was a congressional motion passed to give the president authority to take military action in Iraq. So, no. Your red herring is BS. The United States has a system that allows a soldier to contest an unlawful order and, if he is in the right and has a good lawyer, to am that moral stand stick. Go try that in some other country. OF COURSE the 'system' gets to set the official interpretation. Who else is going to set it? No one is arguing against that. The difference between that and your cynical claptrap is that the constitution has the final say, even over the offical take on it. And we have systems in place to match that. The Constitution still matters, and there are an awful lot of people willing to keep it that way.
36 posted on 04/12/2011 1:08:59 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ
There was a congressional motion passed to give the president authority to take military action in Iraq. So, no.

Says you. I've read solid arguments that say it is not constitutional to go to war without a declaration. If everyone is bound to the Constitution, they are also bound to their interpretation of it, no? And you can have intelligent disagreement. What if a soldier THINKS it's unconstitutional?

37 posted on 04/12/2011 1:38:01 PM PDT by Huck (This running things, kid. It ain't all gravy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater; pollster
That includes but is not limited to refusing any and all unconstitutional orders.

I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI ¶2: "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."

Unconstitutional orders (or statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. or other governmental rules or actions) are illegitimate by definition. Any rule would would require a soldier to obey an unconstitutional order is void.

To be sure, there are many cases where reasonable people could disagree whether an order is constitutional; in such cases, a soldier should follow it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives court rulings any authority whatsoever other than in the specific case at issue, any government action which could not be constitutionally justified without reference to court precedent is constitutionally unjustifiable and illegitimate. It's perfectly proper to use past court decisions to decide whether something is constitutional in those cases which would be truly ambiguous otherwise; it is not legitimate, however, to cite them as primary authority to reach a decision which could not be reached in their absence.

38 posted on 04/12/2011 3:50:07 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.

And what gives them the authority to interpret direct orders? What is it about certain sets of instructions which require different standards of proof. Consider that one set of instructions actually declares itself to be supreme to all others and is the subject of a binding oath of obedience. Those who act on behalf of the constituted government are denied the authority to misinterpret the Constitution by the Ninth Amendment, anyway.

39 posted on 04/12/2011 4:25:53 PM PDT by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Huck
What if a soldier THINKS it's unconstitutional?

What does a soldier do if he is given orders by officers of differing rank and he thinks that the orders of the inferior officer conflict with those of the superior? Really, the answer to this question will settle the issue.

40 posted on 04/12/2011 4:33:12 PM PDT by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Huck
And the court? They have the most awesome power of all! Not only can the other branches NOT overrule them, their decisions become law in a way that is much more likely to become fixed and permanent than anything the legislature or the president may do. When it comes to law, legislators legislate, executives execute, but the judges rule (no pun intended.)

I find it odd that you would make this claim in light of the position you are defending. How, exactly, has the argument "I was just following orders" (no campy German accent needed) survived the hazards of the court?

41 posted on 04/12/2011 4:42:27 PM PDT by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp

When has the SCOTUS ruled on a case where a soldier refused to act on an order because he decided it was unconstitutional?


42 posted on 04/12/2011 4:58:30 PM PDT by Huck (This running things, kid. It ain't all gravy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Unconstitutional orders (or statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. or other governmental rules or actions) are illegitimate by definition. Any rule would would require a soldier to obey an unconstitutional order is void.

And how do they tell the Constitutional ones from the unconstitutional ones?

43 posted on 04/12/2011 5:17:46 PM PDT by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Oath Keepers also doesn’t have a double standard; they call wrong wrong no matter who’s in office.


44 posted on 04/12/2011 8:06:22 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

BTTT!


45 posted on 04/12/2011 8:33:12 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck; Paine in the Neck

Huck, why are the words “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” included in our enlistment oaths unless we were expected to perform as we believe.

If we believe an order to be against the Constitution of the United States, in other words illegals, we are supposed to refuse to obey. Then it becomes the duty of our senior officers to explain why it is a legal order.


46 posted on 04/12/2011 10:12:08 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huck

My memory is that Congress was consulted and voted “yes”, even though it was not a formal declaration of war. If that is incorrect, then your conclusion would be correct.


47 posted on 04/13/2011 3:58:24 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All
The Swiss & The Nazis: How the Alpine Republic Survived in the Shadow of the Third Reich
by Stephen P. Halbrook

FR Golden Gate - Conservative Democrats!

What makes you think it’s loaded?

Colonel Jeff Cooper told me it was:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Besides, I said it "Appears to be loaded"! - 157 by TC Rider (The United States Constitution - 1791. All Rights Reserved.)

Apart from keeping one’s finger off the trigger at all times - the movie “The Other Guys” was horrible about that - it’s also important for people to go against their instinct and let the gun go ahead and fall if dropped.

We sometimes have so much money invested in them, we’re sentimentally attached, or we hold it in such reverence that we want to catch it. It becomes a game of chance whether you’re going to hit the trigger and where it will be pointed if you do. ~ snip ~ more... link, scroll below...

FR Gun Club-Firearm Safety and Operations Primer-always good to review!
Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon



by Cacique - My family has lived under fascism, nazism, communism and I was born under peronism. My last memories of my native land were tanks in front of my house and armed men holding my mother and I captive while they looked for my father. The movie and plot is always the same. Only the uniforms change.

I can tell you from experience that people always speak with bravado until they realize their actions have consequences for their families. it takes a hell of a lot to move people to take up arms. The risks are immense. I am reminded of people who brag that when they are terminally ill they are going to have the plug pulled, until the day comes they find themselves in that situation and instead want to live.

Most people are sheep by nature and even more disturbing is we are all zombies, programmed by our parents, society at large and our peers to respond a certain way. Most of what we believe is myth, lies or distortions of truth. ~ snip ~

... In this chess game they have anticipated our moves. They read history too and each generation of dictators learns from the last. Alas, America has become the last corner and we are the ones cornered. We may have no other choice whether we like it or not to react. be aware however, that 90% of our fellow citizens in fear will not join us in that endeavor, but as Alexander once knew, numbers do not matter, the will to win does. For now however, the jackbooted thugs of the state, both "republicans" and "democrats" have the upper hand. Electing one over the other in phony elections will change little as long as they are both cooking from the same recipe book. As I said before, only the uniforms change.. - 30 by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est )) (more...)

More gun info moved to: Post #31



The Democrats and Gun Control
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003116/posts

At State Level, More Attempts to Limit Guns
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001667/posts

When Sons of Iraq Grow Up [Must Read]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001676/posts

Our global warming rage lets global hunger grow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001662/posts

Stalling Free Trade Won't Work
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001685/posts

I'd like to see a discussion of this next one...
ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)


48 posted on 01/31/2012 4:08:01 AM PST by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson