Please read David's latest Examiner column, then pass it on.Hey, CNN, here's the oath of office for a US Senator:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Ditto for the House; see question 3 in this FAQ:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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."
And for a Supreme Court Justice?
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
So then why the nonsense in the CNN piece about Oath Keepers not swearing to "...obey the orders of the President of the United States..."?
Because they did not want you or their other viewers to know that only enlisted personnel swear to obey Presidential commands.
Not Federal judges.
Not Representatives.
Not Senators.
Not military officers.
Now you know.
Well - we should all be fair and not be too hard on the poor ignorant bastards at CNN.... after all... all of their fact-checkers, research staff, copy proofreaders, editing and production staff, were busy doing more urgent things. They were all trying to find errors in the delectable Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the scuttlebutt is that two of their main 'on air' guys couldn't even read one page of the book, as every time they looked at her picture on the cover, they had very tiny, semi-soft erections which distracted them. Had to call in Barney Frank for tech advice.
What's a "CNN"? Some sort of news source?
ReplyDeleteKeep thinking about:
ReplyDelete"All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war."
-- Billy Beck, August 2009
Another CNN Hit piece......
Michigan Militia featured on CNN as example of growing distrust of Obama, federal government
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/michigan_militia_featured_on_c.html
Notice the order of precedence in the written sentences in the Oath. The Framers of the Constitution and of the Original Laws of the United States of America knew and understood the writing of legal documents and stacked the order of precedence naturally from top to bottom.
ReplyDeleteNotice that the Constitution is the first thing that the military inductee is swearing to uphold, defend etc.
The President and the Officers Appointed over me is subservient to the President's allegiance to the Constitution and the same goes for the military officers appointed. The enlisted person must evaluate all orders in that hierarchy, you can't just follow a stupid order from your President just because he is the President.
If he tells you to quell the First Amendment Rights of "We The People", then his order is trumped by the Constitution. The same for the orders of Commisssioned or Warrant Officers. Any order that is prima facie Un-Constitutional is an Un-Lawful Order. Period.
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Notice the caveat "according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice". The UCMJ will not let you follow orders you know to be illegal, or orders that conflict with the Geneva Conventions. The things that the Oath Keepers swear to are things that the President and officers cannot do anyway. It winds up being an affirmation of the oath and the UCMJ.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in that enlisted personnel swear to follow orders of superior officers and CinC -- HOWEVER:
ReplyDelete(1) That section comes AFTER swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution - just like everyone else
and
(2) It is followed by "...according to regulations and the UCMJ..."
Here's the Enlisted oath in full:
I, [name], do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. emphasis mine
Ergo, even an enlisted man's loyalty is first to the Constitution. Further, "...regulations and the UCMJ..." make it perfectly clear that he's obligated to refuse unlawful orders and will be held responsible for any failure to do so.
Nuremberg's precedent holds for everyone - including our Enlisted men: "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
That said, most of our young enlisted men graduated from public school where they were taught only what the left-wing wants them to know. Most have never read the Constitution, and all are trained to instantly and unquestioningly follow orders.
Personally, this is yet another reason I so love the O.K. effort -- educating our enlisted men will do more to combat the growing tyranny than most anything else.
Which - in a nutshell - explains why all the lap-dog-media is so determined to kill it if they can.
I wonder how the oath will read when BHO has his Brown Shirts sworn in? Speculation, anyone?
ReplyDeleteMediaCurves.com conducted a study among 300 viewers of a news clip featuring the Oath Keepers organization. Results found that majority of viewers (53%) felt that armed militia groups should be outlawed in the United States. The percentage of viewers that support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, declined from 80% to 73% after viewing the video. In addition, more than one-third of the viewers (37%) reported that the existence of the Oath Keepers organization causes them to feel less safe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J7647-OathKeepers/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
Hey, you OK? Several days no post. Should we be worry?
ReplyDelete