oath keepers

[2HOW]

Friday, March 6, 2009
Oath Keepers


About Oath Keepers:

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

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the President, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders."

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

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

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit you written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.

Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.

Go to http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com

Help spread the word, and submit your testimony.

Be an Oath Keeper.

From Western Rifles Shooters Blog

[ellis4538]

2HOW...along the same lines.  I remember reading a while back whare one of our guys was in trouble for refusing to wear the colors of the UN and take orders from them stating that the President was his CIC and not the UN!  Do you have any idea what happened to him?  I never heard.

Richard

[tombogan03884]

2HOW...along the same lines.  I remember reading a while back whare one of our guys was in trouble for refusing to wear the colors of the UN and take orders from them stating that the President was his CIC and not the UN!  Do you have any idea what happened to him?  I never heard.

Richard

I believe he was courtmartialed and dishonorably discharged. I could be wrong.  He really did not have a legal argument because of the practice of "seconding" individuals to foreign armies for cross training. Also he was sunk on Constitutional grounds by our treaties with the UN
Article 6
Clause 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 notwithstandin


It's why we need to get out of that  and abrogate all treaties and agreements with them.

[runstowin]

Michael New

10 October 1995, the day his unit was supposed to be in formation in the U.N. uniforms, Michael showed up in his regulation U.S. Army uniform." However, some 549 U.S. Army soldiers did show up in formation, wearing a United Nations emblem on their baby-blue caps and U.N. patches on their right shoulders! Michael was immediately removed from the parade ground, where he was informed that he would be facing a court-martial. He was read his rights. And this began the chain of events that continues sending shock waves around the country and the world.

Since that time Michael received a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) from the Military, in January 1996, and has begun a life as a private citizen. But that was not the end; it was only the beginning, as the case continues to this day. There have been briefs and counter briefs, appeals and appeals of the appeals. As the case slowly makes its way through the courts, Michael New will not back down. And he has the United States government in something of a quandary. If they let him off, then they'll have to let anyone off who refuses to serve the United Nations. If they hammer him, they have to admit in public that Americans are no longer free to serve their own country exclusively - an admission they do not want to make. No doubt, if he had it to do over again, Michael New would do the same thing. But the Army would also no doubt give him the transfer he requested in the first place.

[tombogan03884]

He won't win. US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US.  The US first Division origanaly served under a French General and Later the US forces served under Marshal Foch who was the overall front commander. US troops serving during the Korean war were serving under UN command, The fact that the UN Commander in that theater was an American was merely because we were the only ones with a General in the vicinity. US troops Also served under UN command in the Sinai peace keeping force. All this coupled with the Constitutional quote in my last post says this guy is wasting time and money

[Sponsor]

[VinBea]

New to this whole DRTV with its forums - and is my first post...

I heard the founder (or one of the founders of this "Oath Keepers" blog) on the Alex Jones show the other day and couldn't agree more with the feelings I had regarding these oaths we take (those of us who serve and/or served take) and how it means every bit as much to me today as it did when I took my oath back in 1983.

Actually, I've been watching this whole evolution America's been going through since around about 1981 or so - and can see now how it is folks like Alex Jones, Alan Stang (and other writers over at newswithviews.com), Steve Quayle and so many others are truly working to expose the fraud being perpetrated against the American people by those it elects...most is knee jerk and emotionally driven in nature which keeps Americans divide on many very petty issues (issues like race, gender, age etc...not that those aren't important - but not to the degree it keeps us distracted) which is how those ruling out of Washington DC are then able to usurp power and freedom away from the American people and centralizing it in DC...

BTW I don't mean to say Alex Jones, Alan Stang, Steve Quayle are knee-jerk-emotionally-driven -- but folks who listen to politicians, politicians using their double-speak, who'll tell folks what it is folks want to hear and getting people to react from emotions rather than facts will sink this nation faster than fraud that is the Obamanation thing going on now...

More later; I can just admonish folks to continue fighting for those things that made our nation great with or without Washington DC - many more folks pushing 9th and 10th Amendments within states to do what states should have been doing all along: not being hamstrung by the Feds out of DC via subsidies etc...

[philw]

hmmm wonder if they are related to my mate    Ken Oath



Welcome to DRTV VinBea   

[VinBea]

hmmm wonder if they are related to my mate    Ken Oath



Welcome to DRTV VinBea   

Thanks for the welcome philw - you Aussies sure have your problems with your leaders huh? heard crime jumped a mile high after the banning of guns down under - not to mention world history showing what happens to a people when its elected leaders bans the people's means of protection etc...BTW I do like your custom/title at the bottom of your posts

[philw]

Thanks for the welcome philw - you Aussies sure have your problems with your leaders huh? heard crime jumped a mile high after the banning of guns down under - not to mention world history showing what happens to a people when its elected leaders bans the people's means of protection etc...BTW I do like your custom/title at the bottom of your posts

hehe yep    we have our fun over here,   

yes crime did go up   a little

have a look at some of my early posts here on DRTV  I have some threads on what it is like and some info over here




hehe the Sig is a good one   I was going to start a thread about them hehe 

[2HOW]

He won't win. US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US.  The US first Division origanaly served under a French General and Later the US forces served under Marshal Foch who was the overall front commander. US troops serving during the Korean war were serving under UN command, The fact that the UN Commander in that theater was an American was merely because we were the only ones with a General in the vicinity. US troops Also served under UN command in the Sinai peace keeping force. All this coupled with the Constitutional quote in my last post says this guy is wasting time and money
[/quott Thats a bunch of crap, My unit the 2nd cavalry fought exclusivly under the president in a war against the Seminole Indians. you ned to get your facts straight Tom