Tuesday, January 5, 2010

"When to Shoot the Colonels": A West Pointer's ad seriatim commentary upon Baugh's essay.

My friend Pete at WRSA first posted this essay a couple of days ago. I in turn sent it out for comments from my current-serving military friends. The commenter whose intellect I respect the most and whose observations are folded, ad seriatim, in Baugh's piece below, is a former airborne Ranger and full-time US Army Reserve Officer (LTC), with 25 years service (20-plus on active duty) and a graduate of the United States Military Academy, the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, as well as the Command and General Staff College. He is, by avocation, a constitutional and military historian. I will have more commentary myself after the piece.


When to Shoot the Colonels

by Tom Baugh

"At ease, Marines, and be seated" orders the gruff Gunnery Sergeant. "Now turn to Chapter 8 in your Military Constitutional Law text," he continues. "Today we discuss the appropriate conditions for shooting a colonel who is issuing an order which would violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Our first scenario involves gun seizures..."

Absurd, isn't it, to think that this sort of education is conducted among our armed forces? Yet, millions of citizens indulge this unspoken fantasy each time they imagine that the military exists to preserve our freedoms.

[Sad to say, but Mr. Baugh is correct in this. The military has no mechanism to actualize fidelity to one’s oath; we discuss and teach what to do, even how to disobey ‘illegal and/or ‘immoral’ orders that violate the Laws of War; we do not have an equivalent mechanism to do so for questions of constitutional excess Orders are presumed to be legitimate, and therefore constitutional.]

When I was at the Naval Academy in the mid-80s, and a Marine officer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, discussion of such issues was considered taboo. One fellow junior officer even scoffed that "Congress can change that Constitution any time they like." This isn't to say that there wasn't an undercurrent among most of the warfighters that issues such as gun control and preservation freedom of speech might one day pose a crisis of command. Yet this undercurrent was kept carefully concealed, and tended to become a more and more uncomfortable subject as the ranks of one's company became more elevated.

[My experience was similar. The one time it came up directly, in the face of an order to “secure” a sergeant’s private firearm collection from his quarters (residence on base) and store them in the unit arms room, the battalion commander looked this officer in the eye and stated: “And Captain, I don’t want any argument from you about the Second Amendment, either!” Understand that most officers, and even more of the troops, are completely a-political, and while we may think questions of Constitutional merit are worth hypothetical exercise, the majority do not, and therefore do not presume to question orders from the chain-of-command.]

Fortunately, with the Soviets and the threat of global thermonuclear war, these issues seemed far removed and safe from serious discussion.

Not so today. In the aftermath of Katrina, armed and uniformed soldiers patrolled the streets and disarmed Americans. Some uniformed soldiers were captured on film lamenting that "I can't believe that we're doing this to Americans." Yet, they did it anyway, lamentations notwithstanding. But why?

To answer that, we need to understand the principles of military command and education. For veterans, this discussion is unnecessary. For the vast number of non-veterans, especially those who harbor that most dangerous and ill-advised fantasy of a Constitutionally-aware military, this discussion is essential to survival.

American military education is one of the most finely tuned and adapted mechanisms in the world for instilling knowledge into its students. No other school or university can come close to the efficiency at which military knowledge is imparted to novices. There are even courses, such as Principles of Military Instruction, for how to teach military courses. These courses even teach how to develop such courses from scratch. The famous John Saxon math courses, popular among homeschoolers, exhibit these techniques, courtesy of that former Air Force officer and academy instructor. Military courses developed along these lines tend to be highly effective at teaching motivated students. Students motivated to learn how to do things such as extinguish fires or shoot missiles. Or shoot you.

As a result, if it is worth teaching to soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines, it is worth embodying in a course. Captured as a course or in official manuals, such instruction is available to all for review and comment to make sure that the correct instruction is given, and given correctly. Conversely, if it doesn't exist as a course, it isn't being taught. And if it isn't being taught, it isn't even on the radar of the military mind. At least not the minds of those in command. Good luck finding a course such as "When to Shoot the Colonels" in a military instruction catalogue.

[I would like to add emphasis to the two statements above: “…if it is worth teaching to soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines, it is worth embodying in a course”, and “…if it doesn't exist as a course, it isn't being taught.”]

Even basics such as reading and writing and math are available as courses. But not shooting colonels. What colonel would even authorize such a thing? Only a colonel who realizes that one day he might have to shoot a general, of course. But that would require a separate course for command grades, entitled "When to Shoot the Generals." And who would authorize that? We can keep climbing this chain all the way up, if we like, but at some point the absurdity makes its point. No one in a position of command or power is going to surrender that power for something as irrelevant as your rights.

[Tongue-in-cheek examples, aside, my active-duty experience bears this out. The military is a community of tyrants; the only watchword is whether it supports good order and discipline.]

And what if a particular soldier scored highly on such a course? What colonel would hand out high efficiency reports on his potential executioner?

Another aspect of this problem that needs to be clearly understood is that all modern American military officers are political appointees.

[True, but misleading. We are not political appointees in the sense of patronage, of party politics, appointed as Democrat or as Republican. We are appointed by the President – in his role as the National Command Authority, and confirmed by the Senate, as Federal Officials.]

Surprised? You shouldn't be. As a practical exercise ask one to read his commission document to you. Pay particular attention to the "follow lawful orders" part, along with the "serve at the pleasure of the President" phrase. Oath of office notwithstanding, nothing in that document says anything about what to do about unlawful orders.

[Troubling, sad, problematic – but all too true!]

Or even lawful orders, such as "seize all guns because Congress authorized it," which haven't yet stood the test of the judicial branch to adjudge Constitutionality. And like that 1stLt said, enough Congressmen can get together and change that Constitution. The Constitution itself says so.

[I will note, however, that the officer’s oath, as an appointed official, differs from the oath of enlistment taken by an enlisted member. And nowhere in that officer’s oath is the phrase “obey the orders of the President and of the officers appointed over me”, which one finds in the enlisted oath. (See discussion regarding “Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office” at http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm )]

Besides, if some uppity colonel out there decided to start authorizing instruction about when to shoot the colonels, you can bet that pretty quick the President would no longer be pleased. Because he or she would know where that path must ultimately lead. Which is why uppity colonels don't stay colonels for very long. Political appointees, my friends.

[While I have commented on the author’s [mis]characterization of all officer appointments are essentially ‘political’, this is, in fact, very true at the general officer level. A solid, hard-charging, results-oriented colonel might make brigadier general, but unless he is politically savvy, adept at the nuances of political correctness and skilled at telling the senior hierarchy what they want to hear, he won’t stay long and most definitely won’t see two or more stars. The occasional exception is very much the exception!]

That vision you have in your head of the noble military protecting your rights is just a dangerous fantasy.

[Sadly, I agree.]

A fantasy you have to get rid of right now, before it gets you killed.

"But wait," you say, "I know Sgt. Soandso, and he would never go along with a gun seizure." Maybe not, but then again, you might be surprised. To "not go along" would mean that he has to violate orders. This violation would at the very least be a career-killer, or possibly get him shot in an extreme situation. Shot by who? By all the other sergeants who don't want to get shot, of course. After all, the colonel only needs a handful of sergeants who are in it for a career, and a raft of lieutenants, captains and majors who one day want to be colonels. For you to have your rights protected would require that a sufficient number of each of these decide, simultaneously, to put on the brakes. It is easier just to shoot you for resisting and go about their day. Say it again, "political appointees."

[The author posits the extreme case, which is shooting the malcontents, in this case, the ardent Constitutionalists and Patriots. What is much more likely is that they will be dismissed from their positions of authority, shunted off to make-work jobs, overlooked for promotion and favorable assignments consideration, and forced out of the service long before their ‘extreme’ views play out in overt, resistant action. And if it should come to that, they would be disarmed and locked up, tried by courts-martial, convicted and imprisoned for violation of any number of UCMJ provisions, but premised on dereliction of duty or disobedience to lawful orders. One stands true to one’s conscience at one’s peril.]

Besides, if all of these people decide in unison to protect you, and in so doing put their own careers, freedoms and life on the line, who is going to protect them? You? And if so, how? You needed them to protect you in the first place. And if Sgt. Soandso gets shot protecting your rights, what about his family? Retribution aside, who takes care of them with him out of the picture? Worse, after Sgt. Soandso gets shot, some corporal will be there ready to pin on those chevrons. And you can bet that to that guy, you are a minor inconvenience in his day. You wouldn't get lucky enough to get a chain of noble soldiers to protect you. When the day arrives, all of those political appointees will have scrubbed the ranks of those pesky oathkeepers anyway. Those oathkeepers who remain hidden in ranks will be in an impossible situation.

[The grim end-state of the author’s scenario will play out, if allowed to reach is logical conclusion. Which is why it is imperative for informed Patriots, inside and outside the service, to raise the issue as to when it is appropriate, and indeed morally required, to disobey ‘lawful orders’ from the national command authority and/or the military hierarchy – when such orders violate the Constitution. Disobedience to such orders is an imperative if one is to be true to one’s oath to support and defend the Constitution. But what does that phrae mean? Oathkeepers does a tremendous service to the nation by raising awareness of the issue and positing certain definitive scenarios that require disobedience to orders in order to maintain fidelity to one’s oath.]

And we haven't even discussed the false-flagging of dressing foreign troops in American uniforms to capitalize on the unwillingness of Americans to kill "our boys." I'll save that one for later.

So if the military doesn't exist to protect our rights and freedoms, why does it exist? The answer is simple. It exists to back our national will with force.

[I hate to say it, but he is right about this.]

Most of the time, that is a good thing, particularly when our national will is to not be attacked by jackasses who threaten us. But when the national will turns to taking your guns away, you will be the jackass who threatens "us." Then the military will execute that national will with cold, unthinking and bureaucratic efficiency.

[Most of them.]

And wrap itself in the flag while doing so.

Want to have some fun? Walk up to any active duty serviceman you wish, shake his hand and thank him for his service. Then, before you release his hand, pull him toward you slightly, look into his eyes and tell him, "now when the time comes, don't forget what your oath really means." Do this ten times, and the reactions of that little informal poll will tell you everything you need to know. Having divested yourself of that little fantasy, maybe you will have a chance to survive that gun seizure for the real battle later. At the very least you will have looked into the eyes of some of the enemy, constituted of complacency and obedience, you may one day face.

[Grim as the author’s scenario is, and I, as noted above, generally agree with his assessment, I think it a mistake to assume that everyone in uniform will blindly follow orders – particularly if an active and vocal minority resist, in whatever ways are situationally appropriate, the imposition of unconstitutional orders. In the face of such unconstitutional actions on the part of the government, all it takes is for a vocal, active minority to sway the opinions and actions of their fellow service-members, if not to positive counteraction, at least perhaps to sway into hesitance and inaction. Our task is to ensure that constitutionally informed service-members know that there are others like-minded, military Patriots who will support their actions.]

MBV: OK, so far, so good, but this is only half of the story. There are, and will be, oath breakers. There are, and will be, Oath Keepers. Here's the rub --

If you treat a man like an enemy, if you presume him to be so, he will oblige you by being your enemy. To do otherwise would be foolish on his part.

I happen to know that despite Baugh's ominous presentation there are in fact many Oath Keepers in the military and police. As a matter of strategy, as well as simple civility - I want to win over as many people in our military as I possibly can. Needlessly insulting them and presuming they are all simply obedient Nazis will only make that supposed "truth" all the more true.

I have heard Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, make this observation before: "Sometimes people become what you expect them to be, and are as you treat them. If I treat them as if they are courageous, patriotic men of conscience who will refuse to follow evil and unconstitutional orders, they are more likely to be thus."

I refer you again to the Ranger's last comment above. It is not too late to cause that affect. THAT is what Oath Keepers is about.

We are in a war for the hearts and minds of our military with unconstitutional elements within our own government. Our task should be easier than theirs because, although they brandish the big stick of the National Command Authority, in an unconstitutional grab for power, they will be asking our soldiers to enforce the NCA's will upon their own brothers, fathers, cousins, sisters, friends and neighbors within our own borders.

While Baugh's warning is correct, it should not be seen as a reason to write off as likely enemies our own flesh and blood who are soldiers and police.

Rather, we should look at it as underlining the necessity of winning the hearts and minds of people who are predisposed to be won over. From the tyrannical-tending NCA-of-the-future's point of view, we are encouraging the loss of "unit cohesion, good order and discipline." Indeed, this was the hook upon which LTC Cunningham hung the necessity for his 29 Palms survey -- that subordinating Marines to UN control or giving them unconstitutional missions such as arms seizures would destroy unit cohesion.

Or, if you want to be absolutely cold-blooded about it, Oath Keepers is infiltrating the ranks of the formations the tyrant intends to warp to his purpose, undermining the conditioning of his otherwise obedient muscle, and causing strategic uncertainty in the tyrant's mind.

It is classic Fourth Generation warfare, attacking your enemy at the moral level.


Concerned American said...

Outstanding, and many thanks to you both.

My reprise of the topic is here, which crosslinks to this response as well.


jon said...


Anonymous said...

It is always a personal effort that brings about a desired result. Many, contributing their personal efforts, may share in a goal, but essentially, all work is personal, whether solo or group. Each, within his own sphere of influence, must contribute his effort to the end result. In this case, the civilian in his home, work and public spheres; and the uniformed within his.

All that to say this: While you count on others to do their parts, you must do yours, whatever you believe it to be. If you sit on your assets, you will lose your assets. Be wise. Don't jump on emotion. But be ready to jump - as high as duty calls for you to.

Skip said...

Thanks Mike for this post, a lot to think about.
I for one don't worry too much about Obamas new army. The intel on that formation/infiltration will be monitored.
Our own troops will have an ROE in our favor.
As to the issue of confiscation of guns as being the matchpoint, I think it will take a lot more than that.
Yes, there will be blood in some instances but the overall confrontations will begin when the other half of America wake up.
Three percent may very well be twenty or more percent.
When it comes it will spark the match for liberty around the world.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting, both article and comments.

Interested readers should read Ordinary Men by Christopher R. Browning. He describes the actions of Reserve Police Battalion 101, a unit of the German Order Police, in carrying out extermination of Polish Jews in WWII. Some refused to participate in the killing, but most went along and in fact were swept up in the mission and slaughtered the Jews. Disturbing food for thought.

On the other hand, the efforts of the OathKeepers may well give those military and police personnel food for thought and bolster their courage to follow the Constitution when the time comes.


Unknown said...

We cannot afford to be perceived as, or actually be, comfortable patriots. We sit at our computers reading the signs and warnings of impending crises, watching and worrying about the future of our nation. But we must not just sit and worry. Will we have the courage, the energy, the iron will, the discipline, the calmness, the command presence to stand in front of agents of evil? The critics have dismissed us as comfortable, as the couch potatoes of the patriot movement. In effect, we are, if we do not demonstrate in tangible ways our commitment.

Oath Keepers and III’pers must be rigidly honest, with ourselves and with others. Our credibility is at stake. The fate of the movement is at stake.

Some time ago, I told the officials of my local GOP central committee that for the GOP to be relevant, they must be relevant. By that, I meant that people need to see us as adding something to the cause. We need to address real concerns. We need to inform those who haven’t take the time to inform themselves. We need to foster the belief that the little guy can and must stand up to the goliath of government run amok. We need to do more than just sit at our computers and spout proclamations about what we will do if and when the time comes. We need to do things that both spread our ideals and support our future constituents, we need to educate –those whom we hope will rally to the call when it comes down to it.

Will we really put our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor on the line? Or will we be comfortable patriots dealing in rhetoric and bold statements safely ensconced in our homes safe in the anonymity of the internet?

The fate of the nation is at stake.

Anonymous said...

Lets just make one thing clear. There is more to the constitution than disarming the American people, conducting warrantless or illegal searches, detaining American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or subjecting them to military tribunal, imposing martial law or a state of emergency on a state, invading and subjugating any state that asserts its sovereignty, blockading American cities and turning them into giant concentration camps, forcing Americans into detention camps, supporting the use of foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people, confiscating the property of the American people, and last but not least ... 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.

Millions of people have in the past, and do so today, walk in the maze of thousands of unconstitutional laws, codes, statutes, public policies, treaties, executive orders and etc. blindly accepting it as nothing more than every day life. And there are many thousands of armed bureaucrats in one form or another whether federal, state, county, or local, while some may not violate any of the OK'ers big 10, will not hesitate one second using violence and even death on anyone who violates all the other unconstitutional laws other than the ... TEN.

Just something to keep in mind.

Because the government, as I have said before, has had 200 plus years of legislating laws, which for the most part, are unconstitutional and infringe upon our liberties and freedoms of which there is no indication that they will run out of new laws to legislate any time soon. And as I said, there has been no shortage of people willing, either by violence or death, enforcing those laws yesterday and there will be no shortage, as history tells us, of people willing to do the same in the future.

And IF the government does not violate any of the TEN ... we still just can not keep going in the direction we are being led.

So, depending on what happens, either way, one side or another will have to decide to move.

And lets remember, we can not win this thing if we are not willing to defend the constitution in its whole. The last thing we need on our side are cops or military who won't violate the TEN, but see no problem in violating the rest. Because when it comes down to it, if they have no problem violating the rest ... they will eventually feel the need to violate the TEN if you hold them accountable to the rest in a ... inopportune ... time.

I hope that last paragraph sinks in.

Anonymous said...

We are in a war for the hearts and minds of our military with unconstitutional elements within our own government. Our task should be easier than theirs because, although they brandish the big stick of the National Command Authority, in an unconstitutional grab for power, they will be asking our soldiers to enforce the NCA's will upon their own brothers, fathers, cousins, sisters, friends and neighbors within our own borders.

This makes me think back to the USSR, which of course consisted of the primary RSFSR republic (Russian-majority), and the 14-15 satellite "union republics" which had significant non-Russian populations or outright ethnic majorities. These different republics (with a notable exception or two) roughly corresponded to the regions those different ethnic groups historically inhabited.

One tactic the Soviets pursued to decrease chances of rebellion against (ethnic-Russian-dominated) central authority in far-flung non-Russian regions, was that the conscripts (2yr. mandatory service, with exemptions for kleptocrat progeny of course) and the professionals from the satellite republics would serve far from their republic of origin.

In other words, much as they have done with the forced displacement/scattering of troublesome ethnic groups (e.g. Tatar relocation: http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html ), military men were also posted to unfamiliar regions where cultural, linguistic, and climatic differences kept them isolated and obedient.

Finally getting back to Mike's point, I wonder whether the US military (implicitly) follows now, or will follow in the future, something analogous to this practice. Service members far from their friends and relatives lose the support network and the advantage of home turf that might facilitate a decision to disobey and go AWOL, and perhaps would feel just a little less hesitant to follow orders and crack a few civilian heads, if these heads don't belong to friends and neighbors.


Anonymous said...

I was really comfortable with my head in the sand. Why...Oh... why... did you have to come along and kick me in the ass? I was in such a beautiful slumber, a restful peace, I was in a never neverland-like dream state, believing that our military was some how on our side, or would at least wake up just in time. I had visions of military patriots firing well aimed shots, treasonous officers being taken out at 1700 yards, and Command on high having their medulla oblongatas' scrambled by their wait staff. What a wonderful dream It was.... But NO, you couldn't have any of that. Ya' just to had go and wake me up!

-sleepless in Sadville

PS - Can you show me more threeper flags waving from helicopters? I'll sleep better that way. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Halbrook's book "Target: Switzerland" details Swiss military preparedness that began in the early 1930's as they saw the writing on the wall. The armaments and organization are of general interest to this blog, of course, ("Here's your K-31 and 60 rds.")

The Swiss government also issued military patches and armbands to every civilian so citizen guerrilla actions, if necessary, would fall under lawful combatant protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Most relevant to the instant discussion is that their senior officers gave written, standing *orders* to all subordinate soldiers to shoot any superior officers that discussed surrender to the fascists surrounding them. How's that for commitment?

Phelps said...

We don't need every soldier and officer to be an oathkeeper. The real question is what is the critical mass? Remember, we aren't asking them to fight with us; just to not fight against us. There are few jobs simpler than "do nothing", even if it isn't always the easiest job.

I think the rule of thumb is that a unit is combat ineffective at 10% losses. That's a good rule of thumb. I think that 10% Oathkeepers and people who suddenly become oathkeepers when it becomes clear that it keeps you out of a civil war is almost a given.

As to having all the oathkeepers shunted off, how real is that fear? Remember, our situation being discussed is that things are so bad that the army is being brought in to do what the police presumably can't. That's full-on crisis mode, and I can't see command staying in command once they start ordering soldiers to shoot other soldiers. This isn't the Roman army, our soldiers aren't slaves, and I don't think they will accept an order for Decimation.

I'm reminded more of the "mutiny" in Band of Brothers by the NCOs just before the invasion of Normandy. They can make some examples by drumming some people out, but standing soldiers up against the wall is not going to happen; if it does, then we've already won.

Anonymous said...

I don't think our own military is corrupt, not the rank and file members.

When it comes down to it they are good people, who will not hesitate to follow illegal orders if they are backed into a corner.

The military commanders and higher brigade generals are who are corrupt, generally foolish and willing to shoot anything that moves.

They have always been this way and it is why so many have joined state militias, as they are the only army you can trust. Period.

However, I believe that most rank & file members of the military have grown a bit of a conscience now after all the shocking things having to do with the swine flu....

They were to be ordered to deploy into residential neighborhoods and force - feed the H1N1 vaccine on any person who resists.

Many were prepared to kill each and every one of them, defending their property and their lives.

It was in the news for a while and then a corrupt military scout went nuts at Fort Hood, killing armed patriots and it reached a boiling point.

I believe this woke up the military's conscience and shook it to its very core.

That they could die, that we ALL could die for a complete lie if they had obeyed those orders of forced vaccinations.

I don't think many military officers will follow those illegal orders anymore, not after seeing how many men & women were prepared to lay down their lives and retaliate leading to the dissolution of the United States.

I could be wrong, but I do not think so...

I think they have enough of a conscience not to do it.

Nevertheless if Patriots and Military do not understand each other, I am positive there will be illegal orders and many scuffles to come between military and state militia if the government becomes a monster. That is who the colonels are. They are not well educated and have little conscience.

Happy D said...

My uncle a U.S. Army Vet told me back in the Clinton years. That when he was in the meaning of the oath was a subject of a great deal of informal discussion. They even came to the conclusion we would hope they would.
I doubt this informal education has stopped.
3per flag on a helicopter anyone?

Now in interest of full disclosure he did retire a Major. But given a few very bad things that happened during his career. That a good portion was in the National Guard. He did just fine in the promotion department.

Anonymous said...

Brutus said:

"And lets remember, we can not win this thing if we are not willing to defend the constitution in its whole. The last thing we need on our side are cops or military who won't violate the TEN, but see no problem in violating the rest. Because when it comes down to it, if they have no problem violating the rest ... they will eventually feel the need to violate the TEN if you hold them accountable to the rest in a ... inopportune ... time.

I hope that last paragraph sinks in."

The list of ten is just a start and a list of those orders most likely to lead to fighting. Here is what is stated at the end of the declaration:

"The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them."

So, it is not intended to be a complete list of those orders they will not obey, just the ones they think will lead to fighting.

The oath is to defend the whole constitution. The declaration is not the oath, but a statement of resolve, describing what they think is most likely to lead to a revolution. I'll bet if you ask them about it, that is what you will get back.

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon says to Brutus.

Anon, I am well aware of the "OFFICIAL" OK'ers stand.

Since you quoted my last sentence:

And lets remember, we can not win this thing if we are not willing to defend the constitution in its whole. The last thing we need on our side are cops or military who won't violate the TEN, but see no problem in violating the rest. Because when it comes down to it, if they have no problem violating the rest ... they will eventually feel the need to violate the TEN if you hold them accountable to the rest in a ... inopportune ... time.

I hope that last paragraph sinks in.

I highlighted the important parts of which I hope you will understand.

Now, go back to OK'ers and see how many "OK'ers" you can find just by reading their posts that this pertains to. It shouldn't be to hard.

After all, how can one be a cop or military personnel (or civilian) who joins OK'ers who claims to agree with the big TEN, yet have no problem violating the rest ... and then claim to be an OK'er?

It is pretty prevalent over at the OK'ers website.

I was pretty amazed at how many cops and some military personnel claimed they would not violate any of the TEN, yet otherwise, they were just enforcing the "LAW" and would continue to do so.

Which leads me back to:

The last thing we need on our side are cops or military who won't violate the TEN, but see no problem in violating the rest. Because when it comes down to it, if they have no problem violating the rest ... they will eventually feel the need to violate the TEN if you hold them accountable to the rest in a ... inopportune ... time.

My only beef with OK'ers, is that there are to many constitutional illiterates and when one holds them accountable to the constitution ... to many jump in (usually the civilians) and defend the one who needs to be held accountable. (Which leads me to believe that to many people are "respecters" of persons/uniforms rather than the constitution).

As I told OK'ers a few moons ago, you can NOT just shove the constitution in these peoples faces and then tell them to "defend it" and then call them an OK'er ... and expect them to defend it.

Heck, many of these people don't have a clue of "WHAT" they are defending.

I got tired of quoting the founders, quoting the federalists, quoting the anti-federalists, quoting the constitution, quoting the 10 amendments ... only to be chastised for ... what? ... hurting their feelings. Heck, I felt like I was in the midst of kindergartners.

Look, I realize that sometimes you have to feed the babies milk before you feed them meat ... but I have personally witnessed to many people over at OK'ers who can't even handle the milk and spit it up all over the place.

I hope OK'ers succeeds, and I realize it is a rather new organization that will go through growing pains...


There is no room whatsoever to fudge in the oath to the constitution. If there is room to fudge, then OK'ers mission is lost and worthless. Everyone, especially the cops and military must be held accountable to the whole of the constitution ... if they are NOT ... then the scenario up there in BOLD letters will play out.

Personally, I am glad that Stewart finally posted the article:

Oath Keepers Resolutions for 2010 – Add Yours!


I posted a response on it. Just a suggestion of a good website to continue even furthering the education.


It should be mandatory.

Ahab said...

Even so, Gaddy's assessment is too broad, I think. The OathKeepers credo is simple and direct. We swear not to obey unconstitutional orders to disarm Americans, put them into concentration camps, or make whole cities into concentration camps, etc. The premise being that our soldiers/Marines shouldn't obey their orders if said orders are used against citizens because those orders are unconstitutional. The problem I see with any of this, Gaddy's arguments included, is who is to decide officially that orders issued to the troops in this regard are unconstitutional and therefore to be disobeyed? And, in any case, your Army buddy commenter is also correct that while military and naval personnel are “taught how to disobey ‘illegal and/or ‘immoral’ orders that violate the Laws of War; we do not have an equivalent mechanism to do so for questions of constitutional excess.”

Nobody is teaching our servicemen/women what is a lawful order, or isn’t, under the U.S. Constitution. Our service people are so ignorant of what the Constitution says that to expect any one of them to make a judgement call on the spot about the constitutionality of an order from a superior officer is naive at the least and dumbfounding at the most.

Look at the Michael New case. He was right, his orders to don UN insignia and serve under a foreign officer were unconstitutional, and he shouldn’t have had to obey them; but, his orders were “lawful,” so he was court-martialed and dishonorably discharged. When a General Officer in NorthCom gives the order to his subordinates to disarm the citizens of their weapons here in America, they will first have been given to him from the POTUS, and subsequently given from his subordinates to those charged with carrying out those orders. Those orders will be lawful orders in accordance with the UCMJ, and any soldier that refuses to carry out that order will be court-martialed.

To my knowledge, only the Supreme Court can make that ultimate decision, that it was an unlawful order, AFTER that soldier has been court-martialed. That would be much later in time to when disobeying those orders can have occurred, and much later after violent resistance to that unconstitutional and unlawful order broke out. All the theory, all the words, all the opinions, etc., will have been swept away by the awful fact of blood in the streets. That’s what I’m concerned about. It won’t matter to those who are slaughtered who was right, and who had not kept their oaths and done the slaughtering, now will it!

Anonymous said...

Mike, Brutus, Ahab, everyone:

We must wrestle with these issues, ahead of any crisis.

Your back & forth reminded me of a quote from Boston T. Party's book (his Gun Bible or Molon Labe !):

"When a nation puts too great a distance between it's Warriors and it's Thinkers, it will have fighting men who are fools, and leaders who are cowards."

Isn't that fitting ? !

We have so many who are trained to fight, but not to think (at least not deeply), substantively.
"Just following Orders, sir."

Likewise we have those cowardly leaders (most obviously political animals in both parties), but according to some of you in the military, in the top brass, as well.

We need Warriors who are also Thinkers, and vice-versa.

Sounds like we need some 'Re-Founding Fathers'.

LORD, hear our prayer, please raise them up...**

You guys here (and at Oath Keepers, etc) are doing a fabulous job encouraging that to happen !

In the Spirit of Samuel Adams,

The Patriots of Texas

** Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is Liberty....

Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous said to Mike, Brutus, Ahab, everyone.

I agree Anon. But I am going to tell you what really bothers me. The lack of any common sense in most people today.

While necessary, it really is a shame that there should even be a "Ten Orders We Will Not Obey". What happened to common sense?

The Founders were right you know ... the constitution is only for a moral peoples.

Anonymous said...

i need to make abundantly clear that the notion that all military personnel are warfighters is utterly false... and disgusting.

i also reject the idea you insinuate that all of our armed forces are equal. while the army operates under large unit leadership, the Marine Corps thrives and prevails under small unit leadership. it is the officers misconception that he is in charge of a rifle platoon- he is simply there to sign paperwork and make sure we get what we need. it is the corporal or sergeant leading patrols, hooking and jabbing with the enemy, and making the real decisions that run the MC.

i assure you, there are a not so small minority of infantry combat veterans that are very used to telling zero's how to wear their gear and to gtfo the radio... i cannot begin to describe the mass exodus that would occur if we were asked to disarm americans.

the idea that we are brainless automatons simply serving our chain of command is insulting. If they want to deploy the army to disarm us, well, we've seen their effectiveness proven overseas. I'll take those odds.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding article! The first thing we need to do is to retake and own the language. Every word, syllable, sentence, phrase, and term needs to be reconstructed in support of we the people. We need to research every single word and phrase drooled by the democrats to take it back or knock it out. Rule of law, lawfare, and laws of war are but a few. To simplyfy, there is only one law of war, whether we like it or not, and that is for we the people to go home safe at night. Anything else is BS. Since language and grammar are the foundation, the cement, and the lines on the blueprint for all that we the people stand for, we must immediately seize the language and grammar ground and hold all communist language spinners accountable and correctable. If you own all the tools and construction supplies, then you own the building they combine to build.

Anonymous said...

Our standing army, to the man a mercenary, will rue the day he tries to confiscate his fathers' shotguns.

Anonymous said...

It seems many are forgetting Obamas commentary about needing an internal security force in the USA a couple years back. If created, the use of the military would not be required. He has access to a large number of street thugs (remember the gang members intimidating voters the past couple of Federal elections) that he could recruit who would not worry about the Constitution, civil liberties. search warrents, etc. Just like Hitler had his Brown Shirts to do his dirty work without involving the police or military. Food for thought!

Since it is difficult for most of us to demonstrate or protest our feelings about what is happening, I, in my own small way, am protesting by using the US Flag postage stamp and put it on all my outgoing mail UPSIDE DOWN, the standard Maritime signal of distress !

Stephen J Carter said...

Prepare yourself emotionally & psychologically for armed resistance against an authoritarian regime that is seeking absolute power. I know it's still unbelievable this could happen in America, but why not? All your traditions have been disrespected and spat on, in word and deed, by Democrats for 40+ years now. This would have happened eventually. No society is immune. Despite all the protest and resistance against gun control, the Democrats just keep pushing. The protests and resistance to Obamacare met with the same arrogant indifference. Nothing will stop these totalitarians but armed resistance. Just resolve to kill as many of these Democrat thugs as you can.

Tucanae Services said...

An excellent discourse but for one entry -- "Or even lawful orders, such as "seize all guns because Congress authorized it," which haven't yet stood the test of the judicial branch to adjudge Constitutionality."

In a sense it has:

See NRA v. Nagin, 2005 WL 2428840, *2 (E.D. La, Sept. 23, 2005).
See NRA v. Nagin, Transcript of hearing on motion to dismiss 4-5 (Aug. 16, 2006).

During the Katrina flooding both local police forces and dispatched military personnel were seizing weapons. Suit was filed and plaintiff won. Injunctive relief was also issued that all seized assets were to be returned to their owners. Following that case, defendants appealed but the original ruling stood.

1) The act of seizure was ruled contra-constitutional.
2) Left unresolved are the chain of command issues brought by the original post. Was not part of the original filing so the courts would not have addressed it.
3) For Congress to authorize the seizure of weapons would require a constitutional amendment abrogating the 2nd amendment. The President would have an avenue under martial law provisions to do so. Martial law was never declared for Katrina.

It would seem that there is sufficient basis that the DoD have reviewed the post Katrina actions vis a vis the courts and adjusted accordingly. But lacking the access to such materials but it would be an interesting posting if the DoD has done so.

I found the original posting quite illuminating and Thank You.