Got a good deal of animated reaction to this post, including this anonymous comment earlier today:
"I can tell you that no one in the .mil (current or former) -- no one -- with whom I have discussed this topic believes that there won't be a significant number of Oath Breakers.
Those same folks assured me that there will be a significant number of Oath Keepers as well."
Yep, there will be both.
Problem is, the article you posted does not recognize that reality. He paints a picture of ALL military ALWAYS gunning us down no matter what we do.
"Until such time, it behooves everyone to be realistic and open-minded about what the future will bring."
Exactly why you should just write up your own REALISTIC balanced analysis, like you just did, rather than posting an unrealistic, innacurate, totally defeatist article by an author who has an incentive to be "controversial" to drum up book sales.
We trust you. We don't necessarily trust monkey man author.
January 5, 2010 7:21 PM
Or at least post your own analysis right below the article providing the balance this subject deserves. Nothing is ever so black and white as Monkey Starver makes it out to be.
Here's my take, in several parts:
1) I am not .mil, neither former or current. I am therefore pretty darned ignorant of military culture, be it enlisted, NCO, or officer.
2) I yield to no one in my admiration, respect, and support of Oath Keepers, its members, and its mission. Its function as an educational organization in the pre-conflict environment is indispensable, and its C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) interruption function once certain unconstitutional orders are given may well be decisive, if there are enough actual Oath Keepers come the issuance of those orders.
Therefore, if you want freedom to have the best chance, help spread the Oath Keepers message and support its mission.
3) Now, using the same generic "oath breakers (OB)" and "oath keepers (OK)" nomenclature from the comment string above, it is reasonable, I believe, to assume that there will be a very large (>50%) percentage of Constitutionally-sworn non-military personnel (legislators, executive branch leaders, lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officers) at the Federal, state, and local levels who will continue to violate the Constitution. These OBs are responsible for, among other things, the unconstitutional bankster-bailout of the 2008 TARP plan, the federalization of GM and Chrysler, the 2009 stimulus I program, and the upcoming nationalization of health care. Once the legislative OBs enact each of these violations of the Federal government's basic charter, executive branch OBs sign the bills into law and then enforce those laws, while their oath-breaking comrades in the judicial branch affirm each law's alleged "constitutionality". Ditto for the FedGov's analogues at the state/local/tribal levels.
In addition to their role as Constitutional violators via impermissible legislation, these same Congressional OBs control the budgets of all branches of the military via the House and Senate armed services committees. At the state and local levels, legislative OBs fund the budget of local law enforcement/oath-breaking agencies.
4) That same Congressional purse power also affects the oath-keeping probability of every department in the Federal bureaucracy, as well as much of state and local government activity. Look around your home jurisdiction and ask yourself honestly how many government functionaries -- at the Federal, state, local, and tribal levels -- are ready, willing, and able to behave in accordance with the Constitution's limitations, as written, on legitimate government activity.
Be honest with yourself -- is it 20%? 10%? Less? More?
And if you say more, be prepared to give supporting hard data in chapter and verse, because I am calling Bravo-Sierra in advance on any such claim.
5) Now, does the fact that the corrupt Congress and the corrupt state legislatures have a massive proportion of our nation -- including the military -- by the financial short hairs mean that all is lost, even given that Congress is in the thrall of their party comrade, the socialist Comrade Soetero?
No, not at all. But it does mean that we have one hell of a problem, regardless of the clothes and insignia worn by each of us.
I have never said, nor would I ever say, that every law enforcement officer and every prosecuting lawyer is an oath breaker. But, based on my law enforcement experience in metropolitan New York, I am willing to bet that 50% or more will act unconstitutionally against their fellow citizens come the Crunch.
They are doing so today across the country in Federal investigations and prosecutions, as are their state and local peers in New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Why would any of these law-and-order mooks change as the ratchet tightens and their government-pensioned jobs become even more secure?
That is one hell of a problem.
Conceding again my ignorance of American military culture, I too would never say that all -- or even most -- currently-serving military personnel will follow unconstitutional orders. Given what it takes to join and stay in the military, that actual ratio of OK to OB may go as high, as some have claimed, as 80/20.
But ask yourself these questions as you ponder the OK/OB ratio:
-- How many Navy ships will remain under civilian command once unconstitutional orders are given?
-- How many fixed-wing Air Force aircraft will remain under civilian command under those conditions?
-- How many rotary Army aircraft?
-- How much armor?
-- How much artillery, both smooth-bored and rifled?
-- How much of the nation's CBRN (chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear) arsenal?
-- How many support, communications, medical, and intelligence assets?
-- How many individual and how many crew-served automatic weapons?
-- How much ammunition?
-- How much food?
-- How much other logistics?
-- How many personnel?
In other words, assuming bad things happen and illegal orders are given, what amount of force will be able to be projected by the Bad People against the side of freedom?
I submit that the honest answers to those questions pose one hell of a problem, even if the OK/OB ratio is 80/20.
Once again, I am not suggesting any freedom advocate roll over onto his back, wet himself, and quiver. What I am suggesting is that people begin to wrap their brains around the actual size of the problems that we confront.
That was the rationale behind posting the "Colonels" essay. Can anyone, specifically and in detail, refute Baugh's premise that current military education at all levels does not adequately address the Constitutional issues to be faced by today's soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors?
If so, I would be more than happy to publish that rebuttal.
It is a classic strategic planning error to simply dismiss contingencies that are unpleasant or difficult to counter, and I fear that many patriots are falling into the same trap. In my not-so-humble opinion, the worst possible thing that the FreeFor could do is to assume that major elements of the .mil will not support the executive branch that commands it and the legislative branch that funds it. Notwithstanding the stellar character of all of the .mil folks that each of us know, we simply will not know which way the armed services -- by branch and as a whole -- will jump until the event itself.
Will individual soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors defy illegal orders?
Will many, from all ranks, resign or desert?
You bet. A whole lot.
Will others "strike in place" or sabotage illegal actions by the chain of command?
Will senior officers relieve subordinates and keep doing so until they find someone who will execute illegal orders?
Bet on it.
Will there be enlisted personnel, NCOs, and officers who place job security and advancement over fidelity to the Constitutional oath?
And absent a lot more effective education to today's serving military and police on the topics of duty, obedience, and freedom, that fact is not going to change.
Please understand -- this is neither a theoretical nor a future consideration.
Unconstitutional legislation has been passed by this and prior Congresses, and signed into law by both the current and former Presidents. Unconstitutional executive orders have also been signed by this and former Presidents.
All of these unconstitutional laws and orders remain on the books today, administered and enforced by the executive branch, which also commands the armed forces.
More unconstitutional legislation and executive orders will be forthcoming in the near future.
Those laws and orders will also be enforced by agents of the executive branch and approved by the judicial branch.
To date, American citizens both in uniform and in mufti have done little or nothing but talk in opposition to this continuing treachery.
Why wouldn't Leviathan continue on the same course and speed?
Ask Michael New.
Leviathan ruined him over a powder-blue hat.
What do you think Leviathan's minions will do in the near future to a young enlisted man who refuses to stand a post at an "anti-terrorist" roadblock in rural Georgia?
UPDATE 5 JANUARY 2010 2327 EST: Go immediately and read Vanderboegh's essay in response to Baugh's article, which features commentary by another service academy graduate and career officer.