FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Are Right Wing Extremists Trying to Recruit Our Troops?
by Bob Hanafin, Staff Writer
A few months ago there was a controversy that got just as much a radical reception from the right-wing as the tea parties and Fox news coverage of the never ending Health Care debate.
The controversy I’m really talking about is when the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano was forced by pressure from right-wing talk radio commentators and other conservative mouth pieces like the American Legion to apologize to America’s Veterans and Troops for something that actually is a real threat. The potential threat of right-wing extremists or domestic terrorists attempting to recruit our troops is real as this story will affirm.
The American Legion meant well but takes it for granted our troops are too patriotic to be recruited by right or left wing extremists. WRONG! It is just that patriotism that patriotic extremists play on and manipulate. [See Right-wing extremism memo controversy in comments section. VT. Ed]
We will leave it to the Department of Homeland Security (unless they have been too intimidated by the right wing), Department of Defense, and our readers to decide if what Oath Keepers is doing to attract our troops to take an Oath to potentially disobey orders from their Chain of Command is legitimate or if the Department of Defense and Homeland Security needs to closely monitor such recruitment.
Taking oaths to disobey orders of any Chain of Command is not only illegal under the UCMJ, but it is also illegal under the Hatch Act which most of our troops, including Junior Officers don’t know the meaning of.
Keep in mind, Oath Keepers at this time is only asking our troops to Take an Oath in addition to the one they already took to the U.S. Constitution the only difference is they are asking OUR TROOPS to endorse their unofficial version of the Constitution.
It is an Oath selectively designed to be attractive to Gun Nuts and the Second Amendment over all other amendments in the Constitution. The threat is twofold: (1) how many troops can they reach, and (2) will their oath someday go beyond debating the Constitution to recruiting our troops to keep their weapons at the ready when they come home in order to defend the Constitution as Oath Keepers defines it against our duly elected government.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Veteran Advocacy Editor
Veterans Today News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder
We at Veterans Today have been asked to consider posting a story by such a conservative right-wing group that approaches being extremists when it actively recruits our active duty troops. In all fairness Oath Keepers has their selective and narrow view of what the U.S. Constitution means and the document is all about the Second Amendment and nothing else worth mentioning. However, this group is actively trying to recruit our troops into their organization with an emphasis on the Second Amendment and of course First Amendment rights as they apply to the Second Amendment. Don’t they realize that there’s a rational and logic reason why the Second Amendment for Gun Nuts is just that – second and not First Amendment?
This emphasis on the second amendment we can almost live with out of respect for THE FIRST, but recruiting active duty troops for any domestic challenge to the Constitution brings into question too many issues more in the jurisdiction of Homeland Security and DoD. It was just this concept that eventually led to the West Point class of 1861 spitting up to head North, South, East and West to kill one another. It is this concept that gave rise to the Southern militias that would be the backbone of the glorious Confederate Army.
In their own words, "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." Direct quote from Oath Keepers.
In response to Oath Keepers request to post their story, we will on condition that they change the Oath to the revised one recommended by Veterans Today News Network.
Lastly, we want to remind our readers including members of Congress that only the Department of Defense working in cooperation with Homeland Security can determine if groups like Oath Keepers pose a threat to the U.S. Constitution, our legally elected government, and of course Homeland Security. Surely the fact that either left or right-wing extremists groups may be trying to recruit active duty troops can’t be based on but one group thus a closer examination is warranted.
Revised Oath Recommended by Veterans Today News Network for taking Oath Takers serious:
We at Veterans Today have no problem with our troops taking this revised Oath:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people or any other people in the world to show serious consideration for the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment is good enough for us, it should be an aspect of democracy we export.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrant less searches of the American people or any other people in the world.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens or any other citizens of the world as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal. This means the immediate closing of GITMO. Once again if detention of U.S. citizens is not good enough for us then it only stands to reason that it is NOT GOOD for the rest of the world.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or any nation in the world meaning an immediate cease and desist from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state or nation that asserts its sovereignty, which means when asked to leave Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else we are not welcome by all the people WE LEAVE!
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American or international cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. [So much for our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. VT. Ed]
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens or citizens of any other nation into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Thus, GITMO plus any secret detention camps still maintained by our government must go as well as immigration detention centers.
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." By the same token we will NOT obey any order to assist or support foreign troops on foreign soil against the people of any nation in the true spirit and meaning of our U.S. Constitution.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, or any other people in the world, 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. In sincere respect for the First Amendment, we believe that right should be exported as our gallant noble cause to show the world how America really works. Free speech to all – everyone in the world.
To see the original go to Oath Takers, but until they revise their oath, we don’t take it serious.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/
If Oath Takers will make the above revisions, we at Veterans Today just might take you serious, it is up to Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to consider you a threat to National Security.
Just don’t dare Tread on my property with your guns, because I too am a Gun Nut.
Robert L. Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Veteran Advocacy Editor
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=8752
Posted by Robert L. Hanafin on Oct 1 2009, With 0 Reads, Filed under Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
THE AMERICAN LEGIONS OWES NAPOLITANO AND HOMELAND SECURITY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AN APOLOGY!
The reason I say that the American Legion and other Veterans who support the view that our troops are insulted when left or right-wing domestic groups attempt to recruit them is that right-wing intimidation and indignation pressured the Director of Homeland Security more than rational thought and analysis of a true and sincere threat.
POINT: How come the American Legion and others focused more on our troops and Veterans being insulted (I’m among the majority of Vets who were NOT) in order to divert attention away from a REAL THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY – Home Grown Terrorist Groups posing under the guize of defending the U.S. Constitution ala Red Neck Border Patrol the Minutemen.
The real question needing answering and still require an answer today is ARE LEFT OF RIGHT WING HELL ANY EXTREMISTS organizations actively recruiting our active duty troops or encouraging them to sign oaths to disobey their Chain of Command? How wide spread is the practice, and how closely should it be monitored by both Homeland Security and the Pentagon?
If our troops are not prone to being recruited by groups such as Oath Keepers to disobey order of their Chain of Command logic tells the few intelligent people left in the United States that Oath Keepers would not be making such a concerted effort to do just that.
Example of prone to be recruited and this comes from a Junior Air Force officer who though the Facebook poll on killy President Obama was funny, and he was curious to know the results. An Air Force First Lieutenant had the ignorance to tell a Senior Officer this, and I let him know he was wrong. What are superior officers teaching their charges today???
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Right-wing extremism memo controversySecretary of Homeland Security Napolitano was the subject of controversy after a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment report initiated during the administration of George W. Bush [en.wikipedia.org], entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," [1] [en.wikipedia.org] was made public in April 2009. The report indicated several factors, including the election of the first black [en.wikipedia.org] or mixed race [en.wikipedia.org] President in the person of Barack Obama, perceived future gun control [en.wikipedia.org] measures, illegal immigration, the economic downturn beginning in 2008, and disgruntled military veterans’ possible vulnerability to recruitment efforts by extremist [en.wikipedia.org] groups as risk factors for rightwing extremism. [2] [en.wikipedia.org]
On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center [en.wikipedia.org], a conservative Christian [en.wikipedia.org] public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan [en.wikipedia.org], filed suit against DHS on behalf of radio talk show host and political commentator Michael Savage [en.wikipedia.org], executive director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform [en.wikipedia.org] Gregg Cunningham, and Iraqi War [en.wikipedia.org] Marine veteran Kevin Murray. [3] [en.wikipedia.org] [4] [en.wikipedia.org] Savage stated that the document "encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs." [5] [en.wikipedia.org]
Napolitano made multiple apologies for any offense veterans groups had taken at the reference to veterans in the assessment, and promised to meet with those groups to discuss the issue. [6] [en.wikipedia.org] The Department of Homeland Security admitted a "breakdown in an internal process" by ignoring objections by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to an unnamed portion of the document. [7] [en.wikipedia.org]
While the American Legion reportedly criticized the assessment, Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars, defended it generally, saying it "should have been worded differently" but served a vital purpose. "A government that does not assess internal and external security threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," he said in a statement. [8] [en.wikipedia.org]
SOURCES:
HANAFIN: IF YOU WERE ALIVE DURNING THE REVOLINARY WAR (just too bad you weren’t) you would have been SHOT, by the Citizen’s Army of America. Citizen Soldiers who carried GUNS, in order to KEEP FREEDOM, which is/ and was being taken away! I’ll volunteer for your firing squad. ~~~~~~~~~The need for Citizens to organize AGAIN is paramount to salvation of FREEDOM in America. Pull your head out from your ass.
DC Liberty,
Though our editorial board banned you for being a NUTCASE!!!
What did you do sign back on with a differenct IP, fret not Homeland Security can track down any IP (wink).
Anyway, I was going to have your comment removed plus whichever IP your are signing in on BANNED.
However, I’ll let others who really take you that serious do that.
Frankly, I prefer to leave your ignoramous comment on to reinforce our concerns that nutcases like you are what this organization Oath Keepers is composed of – NUTCASES like YOU!!!
Goes to show just how little you know about the Continental Army or the various militias that made it up. Truth be told I would have been shot for taking a similar oath to disobey the officers above me and threaten Congress.
Since we had no President at the time, suffice it to say if an officer in the Continental Army I would have been shot for threatening the life of the Commanding Officer General Washington had I encouraged other officers and troops to disobey his orders.
Why am I wasting my time even taling to you. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
You have no clue what I’m saying.
Exactly what do you find wrong with the revised Oath I’d be willing to take???
Major Hanafin
OK , BUTT HEAD, I MEAN YOU HANIFIN. Your Flatuation smells of Communism. When the skids get greased to propell actions to advance future political agendas. STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU, CAN NOT EVEN MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF INTILLECT ALLOWING THEM/YOU TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS COMMING. a PERSON LIKE YOU SETS AND WAITS TO BE HIT IN THE HEAD(out of stupidity), BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER FIGURE OUT WHAT IS COMMING AT YOU, BEING THAT YOU ARE TO BUSY JERKING OFF TO SOME RAP MUSIC, WHILE YOU BITCH ABOUT YOUR LACK OF BENIFITS FROM THE V.A. AND THE FOOD STAMP CHECK IS LATE, WHILE COMPLAINING TO YOU SIGNIFING OTHER TO GO GET YOUR LAZY ASS SOME MORE BEER. Hey Jerk off. Lets see you ban me ?
Major?
You are way out of line with your uninformed article, your facts are vague, your sources are dubious at best.
The Oath you took as a Commissioned Officer of the US Air Force requires you to defend and protect this document.
As a Comm. Officer retired or otherwise you should conduct yourself with a higher level of respect for the “Committment” that one affirms when taking the Oath in question. After all you are affirming duty to a calling far above the petty desires of any person or group of persons.
I strongly suggest you take the time to research the Constitution before
slandering the upstanding men and women whom have chosen to answer the call to protect the besieged Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Oath Keepers Organization does not promote violence. The goal is simple, remove the proverbal chess pieces from the field. Once this is accomplished the persons whom might wish to usurp the rights and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution by the power of the sword will be without the sword.
If taking a stand to defend the Constitution makes one a “RWE” then count me in sir!
The Oath you took has no expiration date.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN.
I’m sorry to inform you, but your assessment of the Oath Keepers is completely incorrect . This organization is not asking people to take an Oath to another Constitution, it is asking them to re-affirm the Oath they already took, for example not to follow ” Illegal Orders”, such as “Posse Comitatus Act” which you, as a retired officer should well know of. and to accept orders that are against the law. It’s sad that as an AF Officer you did not take advantage of the wealth of Educational sources available to you, while you were on active duty, and I’m very sorry that you are so bitter that you no longer believe in our Constitution and now embrace Communism.
I will take whatever oath that I want to take, I will believe whatever I want to believe, I will dislike whoever I want to dislike, and I think you and the other 2 morons on that site are a clear and present danger to our republic form of government.
That’s Great DA and DC you Bozos take whatever Oath you feel comfortable with you earned that right so to speak.
HOWEVER, THANK GOD YOU GUYS ARE NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY!
The point of this article is recruting active duty troops to disobey orders period, now instead of showing how many names we can call someone, you guys most likely have me beat at poor English, try convincing our readers that both left and right wing groups are not recruiting our troops to take any oath to disobey those in their Chain of Command including the President.
In fact, that’s your real hang up, and the Homeland Security Assessment got it and you right.
The report indicated several factors, including the election of the first black [en.wikipedia.org] or mixed race [en.wikipedia.org] President in the person of Barack Obama, perceived future gun control [en.wikipedia.org] measures, illegal immigration, the economic downturn beginning in 2008, and disgruntled military veterans’ possible vulnerability to recruitment efforts by extremist [en.wikipedia.org] groups as risk factors for rightwing extremism.
BTW – which Red Neck militia do you guys belong to?
That said, as long as THANK GOD you are not on active duty, who really cares which right-wing extremist group you are part of except Homeland Security. If on active duty, both Homeland Security and DoD should be very interested in what oath you take.
UNDERSTAND!!!
Now, the only thing you’ve accomplished is inspiring VT to dig deep to find out exactly how many groups you apologize for are really going out of their way to recruit ACTIVE DUTY troops.
The Secretary of Homeland Security wasted an apology on a few ignorant Veterans. In fact, anyone who was insulted by this assessment may definitely be a threat to our national security.
Robert L. Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force – Retired
I am not right wing, I don’t belong to anything except veterans organizations and a union and it pisses me off when idiots try to tell me what to think. The veterans are our best and they should be able to make up their minds on what oath to take and what organizations to join. I am not into guns or gun control and I think the NRA and the left wing gun control freaks are all a bunch of idiots. The only person on this site that writes with a shred of common sence is Duff and that is only about half the time. I think you people do a grave injustice to all veterans when you trash the United States. If something is not right, identify the problem and state who is responsible by name. There are to many half truths and outright lies on this site for you to be credible.
This is a nice website and I enjoy visiting here but you really need to work the bugs out of your comments section. This is the third time I’ve tried to post a response to this article.
I am a progressive and a member of Oath Keepers. We do have many right wing members and some of their views are disturbing. We have members from the entire political spectrum and we have had spirited debates in a search for common ground. That common ground is the U.S. Constitution.
Oath Keepers mission is to recruit Law Enforcement, Military, and Veterans to remind them and to encourage them to remind their peers of the oath they took. We are not seeking, nor encouraging the overthrow of the current government.
I want to say I appreciate the Oathkeepers. I have come to see that ‘My nation right or wrong’ is wrongheaded and dangerous. I love and honor the ideals of this nation not the government of it.
Oathkeepers is working to remind those who bear the responsibility of legalized force in this nation, that their duty is to the Constitution, the ideals of this nation, not the government.
Following an order that violates the Constitution is against the law no matter how high the command comes from. These men are reminding others of that fact.
The author of this hit-piece suggests quite plainly that you follow orders regardless of what those orders are. Would he have thrown Jews into the ovens? Cut off the arms of babies? Those were orders from on high once too. We must never forget that everything Hitler did was ‘legal’ as well in the corrupted code he wrote.
I want the men who bear arms in this country to say they will abide by the Constitution and refuse to follow orders that violate it and anyone with a shred of common sense or the least understanding of history should want the same.
As for the revised oath… what a juvenile baiting. The concern citizens have right now is that their rights are dwindling and force may be brought to bear against them. They want assurances of their OWN safety.
Finally, is this author the one who owns this site or something? I can’t imagine what rational editor would let him write. He’s just terrible.
I have stood with all of you and watched our Republic be destroyed internally by corrupt politicians. I have debated points, written letters, and attended protest to no avail.
Oath Keepers has asked me to look beyond my own partisan beliefs for the greater good, and I have accepted. I’ve joined with those of like mind in the belief that we can accomplish nothing for our country until we restore the foundation to it.
If the Tyrants in Washington fear our organization, good. That is the way the founders intended it to be.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!” and that means we will not sit idly by while the Country we bled for, that our fathers and their fathers bled for, is lost to the unconscionable scoundrels in Washington D.C.
Hey Daniel-How do I join this group? I served my country and its time my country served me,not by taking away our rights and controlling us.I want to continue to protect my family and the way of life our constitution promised.
http://www.oathkeepers.org
Visit that link Lee and welcome to the cause! You will be encouraged to join your state group and actively recruit your local peace keepers, firemen and veterans to reafirm their oath and join us. Right now thats the mission.
We did have our Montana chapter recently “fire the first shot” by contacting the county sheriff in Montana and insisting they investigate and arrest this private police force (APF, aka: American Police Force), that recently moved in to one of their towns. There is a story on the website about whats going on with this and some of the details are pretty alarming.
I ask all of you to look at Oath Keepers and decide for yourself. We are at the bottom of the slippery slope and time is short, Our moment is now. We have drawn a line in the sand and we will stand our ground. Our message is ” NO MORE!” You Representatives of the people will Represent the people, and you will abide by the Constitution in doing so.
LET’S SEE, our younger troops come home, see it takes decades/years to process a claim with V.A., see’s V.A. Employees shred/destroy documents regarding a veterans claim AND NOBODY IS ARRESTED !! The see veterans marriages break up, veterans lose homes while standing in line for benefits/entitlements they earned. Then they learn they have been stabbed in the back with a SPN, SDN, or SPD code, of which, there is nothing in their records that indicate they should have such a code, and they are BLACKLISTED from those items deemed orderly in a democratic society. WELL, i guess they are sick and tired of the Am. Leg, and V.F.W. which should have CONGRESS close them down for being ANTI-VETERAN RIGHTS. Who are these people who allow V.A. EMPLOYEES to commit criminal acts and GET AWAY WITH IT ?? Can you blame them for looking for JUSTICE FOR ALL ?? Having been branded with a secret coded number making you a HOLOCAUST II victim is enough for anyone to LOOK ELSEWHERE for JUSTICE.
Dam…………….. when you get it right you get it right
It is my understanding that Oathkeepers are warning the New World Order they will not fire upon American citizens. Am I wrong?
I have a question. Who specifically is the “New World Order”? Just curious.
Ron
“CORPORACRACY”
As an organization We are assembling to remind all that took the oath to perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution. As individuals, we have our own beliefs and motivations.
I personally joined because I want to see government brought back to some level of Constitutionality which I believe motivates most of our members. Whether Oath Keepers evolves into an Organization that can acheive that goal is yet to be determined, but it can’t be any worse than the status quo.
To :
By D.C. Liberty on 2009-10-02 14:11:06
“CORPORACRACY”
In other words… that and the right wing nuts and republicans that support it. like your self Think not ? Where do you stand on health care? Are you afraid that the poor insurance companies are going to lose money. how about thinking what your Jesus would vote for…. It sure wouldn’t be for the insurance companies as the republicans do. I didn’t see anything in the bible about him asking for a insurance card before healing people!!!
He D.A. I’m with you on the Health Care issue. I want single payer, universal H.C. and I want them to use tax dollars they already collect to provide it. If they can’t acheive it that way, then I want them to increase the taxes on the top 10% of our population to the levels they were in the 1950′s and pay for it that way.
We aren’t ever going to see that as long as the insurance industry is allowed to openly bride our elected officials. We need our Constitution back. We need you to help us get it back. Think about it.
Dan
Sorry for the unintended insult. I meant to address that last comment to Da_old_warrant.
Apologies Sir.
Dan
To : Daniel Botsford I happen to agree with what you have said about taxes and health care .Did I not come across that way ?
No sir, I just misspelled your screen name with an “insane persons”and was afraid I might have offended you. I consider you an intellectual ally!
Don’t worry about the insane comment I wouldn’t take offense even if it was aimed at me , after all the VA says I’m’ half nuts anyway…. ptsd 50% sc
I am a member of the American Legion but do not attend meetings. I got tired of listening to members talk about tough it was to be stationed in Hawaii, Ft McClennan GA, Ft Dix or any of the other continental based Forts. They, the Legion often times are more interested in raising money for teams in the area, members buying hats and jackets (priced so damn high its rediculas),having breakfasts and spagehetti feeds etc. Very little is ever spent on either writing letters about VA errors made or what is going on at the local VAMC.They could learn something from the Paralized Veterans of America.
Good Morning Folks,
The silly season is back I see. My understanding of the oath taken up induction into the military is all inclusive, no exceptions please.
For those who don’t understand or require a further clarification of this, there will be a meeting at 1730 in the stockade.
The men and women who join our armed forces are, by and large level headed and mature enough to know why they joined and what their obligations to both the Constitution and the military are. i would think that they can and will see through this right wing bull sh**.
ALLONS,
Byron Sknner
Silly comments come in all seasons, particularly following silly and erroneous articles. Half an effort to research would have corrected many errors in the original. There is no subsequent or additional oath. Given, required, taken, whispered, encoded on hidden tatoos or implied. Anything there you do not understand? The reference is to the original Oath, and a commitment by those who took it..to keep it. An affirmation by members, active, retired, police, LEO, vet, and all others interested: that they will keep it. No rocket science here. I don’t find the constitution or a commitment to support and defend it particularly right wing. If you do..you are wingless nuts, sinking fast in water way over your head. The commitment is composite of the required Standard USDA approved Oath,
and we’re talking the same constitution that has been around and a center of the oath for a couple centuries. 
Some seem to be slow learners, and silly enough to run mouth without brian in gear or truth checked. How hard is it to check an easy to find web site of an organization that is 20 K strong and growing daily. Sheesh..one run of Oath Keepers in google will debunk most positions taken against, in this entire column..all the way down. I am: Maj. US Army SF (Retired) ..and an Oath Keeper. I and the constitution are about as “extreme” as the average temperament of American Shorthair cats named fluffy-pooh.
The way we treat our veterans reflect s on our National Security. Yes, soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling accessing adequate care from the Veterans Administration. The White House is implementing programs as quickly as they can to help out, but the problem is with the entire VA system, which cannot adjust quickly enough to resolve issues. The Directors who run 21 VISNs for the most part have no idea and do not care to engage with veterans who receive healthcare and other benefits for the department. No one is talking to the veterans about obstacles in receiving and accessing these benefits. Every Tom, Dick and Harry have joined the band wagon on soliciting money for returning veterans and like the VFW and other VSOs the money is not being used for the returning veterans. I know this by personal experience in trying to get help for my son. On September 30, 2009 Secretary Shinseki announced through a press release that would allow Post 9/11 veterans to Sign up for Emergency Education Benefits on a VA-Site on Friday. It would also provide on-the-spot emergency payments up to $3,000 to students who had applied for their educational; benefits. This early morning my son along with other veterans who had been directed to the clinic in San Antonio, TX waited to sign up for these funds. At 0830 they were informed that they had to apply online for this emergency payment and a check would be mailed to them. The second option was to drive to Houston, TX about 4-5 hours one away to receive their money. They would be required to be on the road about a full day. Transportation was supposed to be provided by the VA but they had not arranged for any such thing. This is the problem the lower end of the stick gets no attention. There was no planning involved before sending these veterans somewhere where they would be turned away. Yes, it is discouraging. Let me tell you these veterans are Americans true and through. When we start dishonoring them than maybe we may have an issue.
I am a veteran also I have been out since 1992 and am still waiting for the benefits I paid for.The GI bill gave me no schooling-they turned me down and said I wasn’t authorized, no health care-they told me to see my civilian doctor-its bullshit I did my time and they make you feel like a criminal if you use any of your so-called benefits-then they reject you anyway.That was my experience with the V.A.
The Amercian Legion is for REMF’s and the VFW has more combat vets. Its a known fact.
Do whom ever prepare and sumitted this article, are you some kind of left wing nut job or what?
Hey, I’m rep and I haven’t bomb any place yet or destoyed peoples property like you left wing nut jobs have. At the last Tea Party rally in D.C. they even clean up after themselves. You won’t find any left wing nuts jobs doing that, they trash the place, bomb the place, loot, and destroy other peoples property (Now thats a proven fact).
The current Head of Homeland Security was my Gover here in AZ and everyone had a sign of happiness when she left for a real woman took her place, if you don’t know she is gay. (no offense towards gays).
She has a great case of the stupids when it comes to homeland security, branded our GI’s as terrorist coming home from Iraq and Afgan, wonder what she thinks of us Nam vets and Gulf War Vets, or for that matter any one in the Armed Forces past and present…she must be listening to John the commie Kerry…or maybe Murtha!
She is now trying to bust and or bring down our Sheriff here, you now the guy who feeds you pink food and clothes…and deports illegals…yep she has sic homeland security on him…
Nice person…Yea right.
Mr rick you are closer to Timothy McVeigh than you know. ……………………….see wiki……………. Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge or to inspire revolt against what he considered a tyrannical federal government. The bombing killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2] He was convicted of 11 federal offenses, sentenced to death and executed on June 11, 2001……………………so keep on ranting
The “United States of America”™ that we were sold doesn’t even exist.
Our leadership is completely compromised and in the pocket of a rich minority.
It is naive to think that our military won’t be abused domestically, as that is exactly what has been happening around the world for quite some time.
If encouraging citizens to follow the constitution is a revolutionary act, then our country is truly screwed.
Notorious, you have hit the nail on the head, my friend.
Yep. Both counts.
The only deaths that have occurred here in Iowa, have been from left wing groups. They also have caused extensive property damage. I feel safer with a right wing wingnut thankyou. USMC 1968-69
what did they do ? and what ones ?
I’m an Oath Keeper. I enlisted in 2005, served as a motor transport operator in both Okinawa and on Camp Lejeune. I served several months in legal in Okinawa, Japan, and I consider myself somewhat better- read in terms of what is a lawful ordr, and what is not. It is sad that you “veterans” would put forth the idea that this country should be willing to bow to the whims of other nations, at the cost of our own soverignty and security. You make me sick.
“1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people or any other people in the world to show serious consideration for the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment is good enough for us, it should be an aspect of democracy we export.”
Your perversion is obvious, here. Without the will to go ahead and “disarm” nations like Iran and North Korea, we would be facing leaders of world powers who seek to cause war (Iran with Israel/the west, North Korea with South Korea, Japan, and China) with nuclear weapons. Let’s think about that for a second.
I was always taught that officers are “smarter” then the enlisted, at least book smarts. It’s good to see, “major”, that you are the stereotypical boot lieutenant who doesn’t think before he hits the “post” button.
God bless the Constitution, God bless the United States of America.
Semper fidelis.
Dear Mr.Hanafin,
Without knowing anything more about you than I learned from your article and the list of organizations you list as belonging to, I have tried to get an understanding of your persepective. Before I tell you what I learned, let me give you my perspective. I am a USN veteran. I am proud of being a veteran, but it has not been the focus of my life. By the way, I am also an Oath Keeper.
I think you believe the war in Iraq was wrong for many reasons, based on your relationship with Iraq Veterans Against the war (IVAW). The one thing the IVAW site does not list as a reason for opposing the war is that it was unconstitutional. Why is that? The Iraqi war was not a declared war, thus outside of the Constitution.
From the Veterans for Common Sense site: “Our mission, based on the pragmatic ideals of the American patriot Thomas Paine, is to raise the unique and powerful voices of veterans so that our military, veterans, freedom, and national security are protected and enhanced, for ourselves and for future generations.” I suspect you have read Common Sense so you are aware Thomas Paine was one of the loudest voices in the Colonies calling for independence from an oppressive government. Thomas Paine believed independence was necessary to secure the liberties provided by God and by nature. As a proponent of their website, I assume you also believe in Mr. Paine’s ideal.
Based on what I can understand about your beliefs, they are congruent with the beliefs of the Oath Keepers. What I have not learned is exactly what you mean by “Patriotic Extremists.” Do you believe someone who wishes to uphold Our Constitution as written is extreme?
Your article incorrectly states the Oath Keepers ask military personnel to take a different Oath. We ask military personnel to uphold they took when the joined the military.
Your article incorrectly states Oath Keepers ask military personnel to disobey orders from their chain of command. We only ask all members, active duty military and military veterans, active and retired law enforcement officers, and others to remember, and honor the oath they took to the Constitution. Is there something wrong with upholding an oath, Mr. Hanafin?
As a retired military officer, you surely know it is every officer and enlisted persons right, obligation, and moral duty to disobey unlawful orders. We are asking our military (and others) to remember their oath, and to consider what may be an unconstitutional, thus unlaw order. All military members have to make the decision on if a order is lawful. Wouldn’t It would be better for all if they had given the issue some forethough? Does Katrina bring back any memories? Nuremburg?
Lastly, your article incorrectly characterizes Oath Keepers as a right wing organization. We are a non-partisan group. Since when is following the Constitution right or left?
Describing the Constitution’s Second amendment as the “Second Amendment for Gun Nuts” clearly show your website is the organization with an agenda and ideology. In case you are truly so ignorant to not understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, there is a Constitutional requirement for militias, and for Congress to fund and organize militias. If Congress (as our servants) has been neglectful in their duties, it is the obligation of the people to do it for themselves.
For accuracy, Oath Keepers is not a militia, and has no ties to any militia. Also, our current web address is http://www.oathkeepers.org
Thank you,
Jim Bridgens
Madison, Ohio
P.S. Please keep up the outstanding journalism, you may become our best recruiter.
"As a retired military officer, you surely know it is every officer and enlisted persons right, obligation, and moral duty to disobey unlawful orders. We are asking our military (and others) to remember their oath, and to consider what may be an unconstitutional, thus unlaw order. All military members have to make the decision on if a order is lawful. Wouldn’t It would be better for all if they had given the issue some forethough? Does Katrina bring back any memories? Nuremburg?
Lastly, your article incorrectly characterizes Oath Keepers as a right wing organization. We are a non-partisan group. Since when is following the Constitution right or left?
Describing the Constitution’s Second amendment as the “Second Amendment for Gun Nuts” clearly show your website is the organization with an agenda and ideology. In case you are truly so ignorant to not understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, there is a Constitutional requirement for militias, and for Congress to fund and organize militias. If Congress (as our servants) has been neglectful in their duties, it is the obligation of the people to do it for themselves."
We see that you are almost as good as background checks as we are at Veterans Today. However, I for one am not going to have a background check run on you or anyone else that stopped being my job over a decade ago.
However, your inference that I’m ignorant aside, your commentary was the most respectful and conheirant out of all responses except those that almost agree with me or understand where I’m coming from.
First, you are right about the rights, obligations, and moral duty to disobey unlawful orders as each officer and enlisted members interprets it. However, that depends on the individual member. For example: though many professional military members may interpret something ethically, morally, and even religiously wrong with guarding detention camps how many have disobeyed orders to do so at GITMO?
You say that you want us to take your oath, excuse me remember our oath to not place U.S. citizens in detention camps, but that it is OK for us to place immigrants (illegal or otherwise) in detention camps plus place Muslims in detention camps until we determine if they are terrorists or not. That does not quite flow.
"Lastly, your article incorrectly characterizes Oath Keepers as a right wing organization. We are a non-partisan group. Since when is following the Constitution right or left?"
Nope my article assumes Oath Keepers is a right-wing organization it is up to Homeland Security, the FBI, and DoD to define Oath Keepers as a right wing organization and they already have as early as 2005. (See my next article on how DoD defines extremists groups they screen recruits for)
Frankly, neither DoD nor the FBI who also came out with assessments as to what extremists groups were named Oath Keepers specificially, because you had not drawn any undue attention to yourselves. However, by definition and I’ll provide you the links and evidence the federal government has defined you as an extremists group.
That said, revised proceedures were put in effect by military recruiters to screen out members of extremists groups such as White Nationalists or Aryan Nation and such, Oath Keepers falls nowhere near such extremism I don’t think.
However, you will see that you do fall within the definition of what DoD looks out for in recruiting.
That said, DoD also came to the conclusion that the threat of extremists accessing the miltiary IS NOT IN MILITARY RECRUITMENT OR ENLISTEES, for the number of troops found to have extremists ties to any religious, racists, or nationalists groups are minicule compared to the thousands of level headed and intelligent troops enlisted annually.
The real threat as DoD sees it is recruitment of career active duty troops or disgruntled troops by outside organizations like yours that asks them to take an Oath to not trust the government they serve.
I say you are asking us to take a seperate oath from the one we took upon enlistment or reenlistment. Convinve me that your 10 point oath does not potentially place us in a position of disobeying the orders of officers and civil authoritis over us that we also took an oath to obey.
Lastly, your Oath Keeping would be taken a bit more serious if not for the company you keep, the FEAR that our goverment, any government is out to get us. You contend that our government, elected officials, from the President on down (and that includes both the Bush and Obama administration – fine) is in consistent violation of the U.S. Constitution, especially those parts related to the Second Amendment.
We at Veterans Today, beginning with me, do not buy that, and even if we did the last thing we would do is make any attempt to get our Armed Forces to play anythign less than a neutral role.
In fact, the wording in some of these responses from Oath Keeper members is on the keyword listing that most law enforcement agencies from federal to state level use in monitoring extremists activity.
Case in point: "In case you are truly so ignorant to not understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, there is a Constitutional requirement for militias, and for Congress to fund and organize militias. If Congress (as our servants) has been neglectful in their duties, it is the obligation of the people to do it for themselves."
No Sir, I am not so ignorant as to not understand the real purpose of the 2nd amendment for its time long before we had official state militas. Your a Veteran and maybe a career military member like me. Last time I recall these authorized militia were called the Army and Air National Guard not the Minutemen who patrolled our SW Border in their hatred for Mexicans.
If you are saying that Congress had been neglecting their duties to fund and organize militias, the National Guard, then so much for states rights. Why give the central government authority and responsibility for something that goes against the 2nd Amendment Sir?
You do know that realistically speaking the runding, manning, and training of state militias (we prefer to call them National Guard troops) is a responsibility and function of the states is it not or it should be.
That said, we suggest that if Oath Keepers feel as you do about Congress neglect of state militias that instead of asking active duty troops to take some Oath they’ve already took DAH, instead Oath Keepers should be doing more within the system to take control of our national guard troops at state level.
One place to start is that if you do not believe Congress or the administration (any administration) is using our state militias (National Guard) in ways Oath Keepers deem as Constitutional a decent place to start is by refusing to provide state level support for your state militias being deployed anywhere outside YOUR STATE.
Then of course you will need to digest each states constitution at state level to determine if federal authority over your state militia has become well EXTREMISTS.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
GS-14, U.S. Department of Justice-Retired
Mr. Hanafin;
Yoru article expresses exactly what we, as a group, have feared. Veterans took an oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States form all enemies, foreign and domestic. You need proof that the government is infringing upon our rights? Let’s look at the facts.
1.) During Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, FEMA ordered that no person in the New Orleans area would be allowed to own a legally-registered firearm, breaching the second amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, FEMA offered anyone who came to the Superdome in New Orlenas food, shelter, water, and everything they would need to survive. The reports said barely anything was given to those people, and they were locked in there. Checkpoints were established to prevent people from entering or exiting the area, and at times were manned by the National Guard.
2.) After a shooting in Alabama on March 10, 2009, active duty Army from Fort Rucker, Alabama were deployed in a “policing action”, violating Posse Comitatis.
3.) Warrantless wiretapping of “suspects”, violating the fourth and sicth amendments.
4.) Massachusetts house bill s.2028, allowing the commissioner of public health in the state of Massachusetts to send law enforcement or national guard into your house without a warrant, once again violating the sixth amendment (I understand s.2028 has not passed yet, but the fact it is even being brought up is a travesty to the due process and civil rights).
I’m 23-years-old, enlisted in the Marines, as I said, when I was 19. I served in legal for the Marines for a short stint, even pulling the billet of a lieutenant when asked to because my working knowledge of civilian and military law was something that they did not see in entry-level Marines. I understand the law, I understand what to look for in breaches of the law. It’s why I study criminal justice and intend to rejoin the armed forces (specifically, the Air Force) as a JAG.
Your claim, Mr. Hanafin, is that we should allow the military to be neutral if and when (it really is a matter of when) the government decides to impose it’s will upon us. Neutrality is what gave rise to the USSR and allowed Stalin to kill 20 million of his own people. Neutrality of the military allowed the Nazi party to commit the Holocaust. I hate alluding to these events, because I just Godwin’d this argument (in theory), but it’s true. There can be neutrality. As Mr. Bush said, “You’re either with us, or against us.” If you’re with us, you stand beside your oath, and you stand beside the Constitution of these United States, the contract that created the greatest nation that ever lived. And if you’re against us, the borders are open, get the fuck out of my nation.
Semper fuckin’ fidelis. Carry on.
Mr. Hanafin,
You are mistaken Mr. Hanafin. Or maybe I don’t know a joke when I see one. I did not do a background check, I simply looked at the websites of organizations you listed under your name at the VeteransToday Staff Writers link:
Robert L. Hanafin
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Veterans for America (VFA)
Veterans for Common Sense (VCS)
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)
Regarding implying you’re ignorant, I know you are not. I actually directed that at the comments below your signature. Informed people can make ignorant comments: “Don’t they realize that there’s a rational and logic reason why the Second Amendment for Gun Nuts is just that – second and not First Amendment?” Surely you can understand how that would be construed as ignorant.
You insist on seeing the statement of orders we will not obey as our Oath, That is a misstatement of fact. Our is identical to yours. The statement is simply a declaration of orders that are unconstitutional. It is not an Oath to disobey orders. As we both pointed out, what constitutes an unconstitutional order is an individual decision.
For the second time, let me clarify: The Oath Keepers are not a militia, we do not run around training in the forests as some in (might I say left?) organizations have portraited
These are my comments and thought about militias, no one else’s I only included comments about militias because you did.
Your comments about organized militia and the name you signed you response with (National Guard Are The Only Militias – PERIOD! ) do not agree. It seems to me if you know there is an organized militia, you also probably know there is an unorganized militia required by, not only the constitution, but also federal code.
Title 10 U.S Code Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The unorganized militia is the citizens. The Ohio Constitution is similarly worded. I do not know about your state.
I didn’t assign Federal responsibility for funding the militia, Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution did that. It also gives the states the authority to train the militia and appoint officers.
I have no beef with the National Guard. Should they be used outside our borders? No, I do not believe they should. I have a feeling you and I agree on much more than we disagree.
Lastly, I agree with your assertion that constitutional abuses were happening under the previous administrations. No doubt about it. I also wish you, me, and hundreds of millions of others would have been more vocal about it over the last 80 years. We we not, but that does not relieve us of the responsibility of trying to guide the country back within constitutional bounds. That does not mean anyone is looking for, or wants a revolution (there is another one of those DHS search words, I suspect). The Constitution is such a beautiful and simple document, and if prior generations, as well as ours, had insisted our federal government live within it’s bounds, we would not be in the mess (debt, unemployment, foreign entanglements, loss of liberty, etc) we are in today. I have a feeling you and I agree on much more than we disagree.
Jim Bridgens
Madison, OH
Mr Hanafin,
You are clueless and intelectually lazy.
Go blow smoke up someone elses ass who cares about you biased misinformed opinions. You don’t have the honor, courage or fortitude to be an Oath Keeper.
Hanafin:
Time for you to come take me.
Love,
Your anti-psychotic meds
Mr. Hanafin;
Yoru article expresses exactly what we, as a group, have feared. Veterans took an oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States form all enemies, foreign and domestic. You need proof that the government is infringing upon our rights? Let’s look at the facts.
1.) During Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, FEMA ordered that no person in the New Orleans area would be allowed to own a legally-registered firearm, breaching the second amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, FEMA offered anyone who came to the Superdome in New Orlenas food, shelter, water, and everything they would need to survive. The reports said barely anything was given to those people, and they were locked in there. Checkpoints were established to prevent people from entering or exiting the area, and at times were manned by the National Guard.
2.) After a shooting in Alabama on March 10, 2009, active duty Army from Fort Rucker, Alabama were deployed in a “policing action”, violating Posse Comitatis.
3.) Warrantless wiretapping of “suspects”, violating the fourth and sicth amendments.
4.) Massachusetts house bill s.2028, allowing the commissioner of public health in the state of Massachusetts to send law enforcement or national guard into your house without a warrant, once again violating the sixth amendment (I understand s.2028 has not passed yet, but the fact it is even being brought up is a travesty to the due process and civil rights).
I’m 23-years-old, enlisted in the Marines, as I said, when I was 19. I served in legal for the Marines for a short stint, even pulling the billet of a lieutenant when asked to because my working knowledge of civilian and military law was something that they did not see in entry-level Marines. I understand the law, I understand what to look for in breaches of the law. It’s why I study criminal justice and intend to rejoin the armed forces (specifically, the Air Force) as a JAG.
Your claim, Mr. Hanafin, is that we should allow the military to be neutral if and when (it really is a matter of when) the government decides to impose it’s will upon us. Neutrality is what gave rise to the USSR and allowed Stalin to kill 20 million of his own people. Neutrality of the military allowed the Nazi party to commit the Holocaust. I hate alluding to these events, because I just Godwin’d this argument (in theory), but it’s true. There can be neutrality. As Mr. Bush said, “You’re either with us, or against us.” If you’re with us, you stand beside your oath, and you stand beside the Constitution of these United States, the contract that created the greatest nation that ever lived. And if you’re against us, the borders are open, get the fuck out of my nation.
Semper fuckin’ fidelis. Carry on.
P.S. Please forgive the doubnle post. The first came out incorrectly in terms of proper paragraph placement and I can’t figure out how to delete it.
Mr. Hanafin;
I’m interested in your rebuttal to my blog post on this article. You can find it here:
http://republicdefenders.blogspot.com/2009/10/veterans-today-piece-on-oath-keepers.html
Major,
It seems you have forgotten some very important facets during the above tirade;
1) We men and woman of the Armed Forces are not your chattel.
2) The Free and Sovereign Citizens of this Country are not your chattel.
3) Nuremberg taught us not to follow an unlawful order.
4) If you are not willing to put yourself between the unarmed Civilian and an armed attacker, you have reneged your Oath.
Both “Parties” have shown there true colors, and it is not Red, White and Blue. Do you, Sir, intend to fire on American civilians, just to “follow orders”?
Please reacquaint yourself with the Constitution, your Oath, and to humble Americans everywhere.
Additionally, you may want to Google the following;
Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC
Twice decorated withe the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a tough China Marine with additional, long experience in Central and South America.
Will you willingly ignore the words of a Superior Officer, Major?
I was going to come to the aid Of OathKeepers, but I see the issue is not in doubt. Well done, comrades.
All anyone that still has a question needs to do is:
1) check the OathKeepers site (easy: Oathkeepers.org) for themselves and see the dedication and sincerity of those willing to give EVERYTHING for our republic – under the Constitution;
2) check the obviously and simplistically doctored version of the “ten orders” presented by the left here (along with the mis-stated UCMJ);
3) review the oath they took, which has in chief place “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, before the President and all officers appointed;
and
4) give serious consideration to joining an honorable group of men and women.
Obvious lies are great recruiting tools for the truthful.
I’m speaking as the director of Oath Keepers for the State of Montana. I wish to clear up a point or two for Major Hanafin.
1) Oath Keepers is not asking any law-enforcement or military or veteran personnel to take a second oath of any kind. Oath Keepers merely asks that all who took the oath to the Constitution honor their oath. Period. Therefore, it is wrong to claim, as your quaint illustration of Uncle Sam on this page suggests, that Oath Keepers is asking for an “oath to disobey orders of your chain of command”.
2) In the proud tradition of the U.S. military, Oath Keepers is apolitical, and as Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes has noted, “I don’t care if the illegal order comes from a Democrat or from a Republican – if they violate the oath I’m gonna call them on it, and so should you.” Oath Keepers is not a tool for either the “right” or the “left”. Oath Keepers is a tool for the spirit and letter of the highest common law of our land, the U.S. Constitution as written, that founding legal charter which created its servant Federal government.
3) As an honorably-discharged U.S. Marine and Vietnam veteran, I recall the My Lai incident, in which some U.S. soldiers followed clearly-illegal orders to murder unarmed civilians including women and children. Oath Keepers decries that sort of mindless “orders-following” behavior as unworthy of the service intended for and by enlisted or commissioned military persons.
4) The SPLC obviously works in tandem with the fear-mongering power-damaged mentalities which direct the Department of Homeland Security, as parallels between Fusion Center memos-of-understanding/reports and published attacks on Oath Keepers on SPLC’s website clearly indicate. SPLC is a private sector think tank and is not an elected element within our lawful Federal government, and its biased opinions should not be given credibility when they imply that returning war veterans should receive increased police surveillance and scrutiny on grounds that they “may” be approached by “extremists” and coerced or influenced to become “threats to law enforcement”. A government which fears that its own veteran community might awaken to the abuses suffered by undeclared wars abroad, and which openly characterizes its veterans as potential problems for law enforcement simply because they may come to see through the illusion perpetrated by “policy” in Washington D.C. is a government which has something to hide. Propaganda generated by such outfits as the SPLC and then dispersed via official DHS/Fusion-Center proclamations is a spit in the eye of every American veteran as well as current-serving personnel.
5) I’d like to ask one simple two-part question relevant to this discussion – Sir, for what did 58,000 of my brothers and sisters die in Vietnam? Did the U.S. Federal government declare war on Vietnam, thereby granting moral ground for the intrusion of uniformed U.S. military into Vietnam? Was there ever any plan to win militarily in Vietnam? If we served and died in Vietnam to fight communism, what in hell is the Federal government and its cronies on Wall Street doing trading with the biggest communist nation on earth today? Do you smell a rat here? Could Vietnam have happened the way it did if the Big Brass at the Pentagon had held to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, which clearly calls for a declaration of war by Congress prior to fielding our military in foreign lands and nations? Can we not all see the value in honoring one’s oath to the Constitution? What about that bothers you, Sir?
I submit that the only people who have a problem with our troops and peace officers honoring their oaths to the Constitution are those who have a politicized motivation to act outside the bounds of the Federal government’s founding legal document for the destruction of American sovereignty in the name of a one-world government led by the United Nations, as President G. H. W. Bush himself advocated, or the even more-imaginary quest for an “American Empire”.
I respectfully invite you to reconsider your perspective on the organization named Oath Keepers. Honor your oath. Join us.
Salute!
Semper Fi!
Elias Alias, director, Montana Oath Keepers
Major,
It seems you have left the reservation. You wrote this hit piece, you may want to defend it and your own “honor”.
Or do you not have time to mix with we mere commoners?
Randall Covey
American
Let them say as they will. It allows our numbers of informed,Constitutional, Lawful order following Patriots to increase. Let us not forget it we are the minority but sometimes it only takes 3%!
Hanafin, you qualify as one of Nobama’s Czars with your asinine ideas.
RE: Article on Oathkeepers–I love the way you and the administration call everyone you disagree with “right-wing extremists”. Next they’ll call us ” “American Rebels”. I wonder if the Nazis would have considered us Right-wingers,too?
As I informed several other Oath Keepers, I do not intend taking Oath Keepers name in vain in the last part of this series of article.
I don’t have to.
It is not my responsiblity, obligation, or job to pass judgement of Oath Keepers otherthan disagree with any outside organization asking our troops to take any Oath.
Frankly, and you know this to. It is up to Homeland Security, DoD, the FBI, and related federal law enforcement like Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and local law enforcement to make that determination or take appropriate action.
All I’ve said is the we at Veterans Today only assume Oath Keepers is right-wing extremists according to the right-wing ideology profile and training given our active duty troops.
In fact, without even mentioning Oath Keepers my last article and last I personally have to say on this details the criteria that federal law enforcement, and DoD uses in identifying extremists groups.
I really don’t see why so many are getting so upset and passionate about what anyone on an independent media outlet writes, we are not mainstream media, and I am not a national voice as we assume the leadership and Board of Oath Keepers are.
The upper crust of Oath Keepers must have more national clout than little old me.
And, if I’m all the nasty things that I’m called for assuming you are right-wing, why even read what I have to say if I’m nuts????
Don’t you see that most of the comments chucking spears at me just miss the point of the original post and is really off topic, but I welcomed you keep debating the issues anyway? What other Veterans advocacy website is going to allow this kind of exchange? The only websites that are going to allow this kind of discourse are those the agree with you – period.
In fact most of the comments have been negative about the post, and even a few are almost had me wanting to join Oath Keepers, but I’m intelligent enough to understand the U.S. Constitution, and I have read it repeatedly in my job with the Justice Department before I retired. You want to focus on my military retirement, but I also retired as a GS-14 from the civil service over various poltiical extremes and administrations.
Not ONE comment responded to the initial post:
We at Veterans Today have no problem with our troops taking this revised Oath:
However, I’m the only member of our editorial board or writing staff for that matter that would even take the above Oath serious or think about asking active duty troops to take it. Why?
Bryon Skinner who I don’t know from Adam said it best and in words that any Veteran, Military Family member, or active duty trooper can understand.
"My understanding of the oath taken [at] induction into the military is all inclusive, no exceptions please. For those who don’t understand or require a further clarification of this, there will be a meeting at 1730 in the stockade. The men and women who join our armed forces are, by and large level headed and mature enough to know why they joined and what their obligations to both the Constitution and the military are. i would think that they can and will see through this right wing bull sh**.
ALLONS,
Byron Sknner
Seriously, if Oath Keepers doe not believe young people are smat enough to understand the Oath they take, it would behoove you to get more involved in counter-military recruitment to ensure youngster willing to join Oath Keepers do not join the All Volunteer Force.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Mr. Hanafin
I suggest that you take another look at the Oathkeepers site.
The Oath that You keep posting and referring to is of your own make.
No where on the site does it refer to any oath other then the Oath
You took when becoming an Officer of the U.S. Air force .
What you keep referencing is the Declaration of orders We will not obey!
This is not an Oath but a detailing of Illegal orders, orders that
no man/woman who took an Oath to the Constitution of the United States
should ever be given or follow if given.
You seem to be deliberately attacking your fellow service men/women
by implying that they cannot understand their oath here it is for a refresher
since you do seem to have forgotten it
“”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; 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.”
If you will notice the order of the oath you will note that the Constitution comes first then the president then officers. This shows that the Constitution takes precedence over all other orders and that if those orders are Not Constitutional they must be Disobeyed.
Repeat after me, Hanafan: “There is no subsequent Oath”. Ain’t there. Oath Keeper, out.
Hanafin is a left-wing liberal that stands by the traitor John Kerry. For more info on this guy – http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=960313806
Let me help you with that LINK MP!
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=960313806 [www.zoominfo.com]
Left wing liberal, I’d say left of center of the Libertarian Party would be more accurate. A closer background check would show that I was apolitical when I enlisted in the Army at the age of 17. Remained apolitical until I returned from Nam. However, I was by then so immune to hurt, pain, suffering, and death that I worked in two VA Hospitals as I worked my way through college watching mouth shut as the VA spit on most of my returning brothers and a few sisters.
At about the same time that I got religion, let’s say born again, I also got political but not born again. Despite still being in the Army and about to go into the Air Force as an officer, I registered and voted Democrat. Hell, I’m still proud that I voted for Jimmy Carter until he proved to be more a man of peace instead of a man of war blowing it with Iran. Then, I switched parties to the Repubican Party and voted for Ronald Reagan. From 1980 until 2000 I voted straght Republican and for every Republican President of which there was only two (Reagan and Bush 1).
If not for the trashing that my party gave weak dick John McCain (who is a weaker man than John Kerry) I most likely would still be a Republican and still be conservative. Ultra-conservative or bordering on fascists, I don’t think so, hell I most likely never will qualify for the PNAC or American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Would want not part of any militia unless it was the Army or Air Natonal Guard and under state control. Speaking of which, where was Oath Keepers when most every governor of every state gave over their national guard to the central government??
I’d be more concerned about organizing and putting political pressure on the local and state level to take back YOUR national guard units – YOUR state militias. If you did that Oath Keepers would be in a better position to mentor state troops on honoring the oath they already took.
Stands by the traitor John Kerry. Ok, to be more accurate stood by John Kerry who is just about as much an American Traitor as George W. Bush was a combat Veteran or hell Veteran at all. Well Bush was a coward who did not have the balls to do anything John Kerry did heck at least Kerry went to Vietnam even if he did or did not earn his medals. How many medals did Bush or Dick Cheney ever earn???
Just like one can change their mind about which political party and ideology to support and believe in, one can change their mind about which man or woman to stand by. Oath Keepers would call that FREEDOM OF CHOICE and most likely one of many things we have in common.
Demonizing me by association with John Kerry, John McCain, or Jane Fonda, is just about as effective in the 21st Century as saying a man or woman of mixed blood can’t be President of the United States or Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces, and folks THAT is really what bothers YOU.
That is what Oath Keepers really is all about and demonizing those who don’t agree with you (in the modern age we call it swift boating and it is a term about as honorable as fascism and treason).
Now I’ve not stooped to the level (hell below sixth grade education level at that) of assassinating anyone’s character or doing a back ground check on anyone on line who disagrees with me or hates me (though I’m perfectly capable and have the assets to do so). Calling me a liberal is about as effective as me called each of you fascists, because labels just don’t stick.
I sure as heck do not think that every member of Oath Keepers is a right-wing lunatic, fascists, or Nazi, but if calling those who don’t buy into your act left-wing liberals and associating us with the traitor John Kerry, John McCain, Max Cleland, Marine Colonel John Murtha, General Colin Powell or Barack Hussein Obama plus posting a link so that other Oath Keepers can find out more about this guy or gal is what Oath Keepers is all about, I sure as hell don’t want anything to do with YOU. Most people I know on active duty who knew our son sure want nothing to do with you unless they are extremists already of which our Armed Forces Thank God has precious few.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Editorial Board
Veterans Today News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder
How many liberals have or had a son or daughter in the All Volunteer Force?
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=960313806 [www.zoominfo.com]
Check out the 3rd page of the above link it is an article about Bobby Hanafin that appeared in an academic journal circa 2005:
Bobby Hanafin,called,Army Dad, in reference to his son who recently served two combat tours in Iraq,also served himself as a grunt during Vietnam and as an intelligence officer in the first Gulf War.He entered the army in 1969 under Robert McNamara,s Project 100,000. ,The army lowered entry standards to accept high school dropouts, people with low IQs bordering on the mentally ill, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans who couldn’t speak English,, he told the audience. ,The first place the army marched us when we went to boot camp was to a GED office where they gave us a few classes and handed us a rubber stamped high school equivalency certificate in order to be able to tell Congress that its standards weren,t lowered., Having been shortchanged on education once, Hanafin later used GI education benefits to earn his college degree.
He stressed the importance of community colleges in enabling veterans to gain an affordable education. ,Of course,, he adds, ,we really had to do the work then, and learn.,
Hanafin ,reluctantly, joined MFSO in 2004 when both major presidential candidates,Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry,failed to question reasons proffered for invading Iraq, to take seriously the war,s many costs, or to offer an exit strategy.Hanafin explained how he now engages in counter-recruitment activism but stressed that, ,having spent thirty years in (and out of) uniform I could never take a straight anti-military approach,.Rather he informs potential recruits about the military,s ,downside, and the Bush administration,s poor treatment of veterans,not in order to disparage the military but to provide a more balanced review. ,The military had positives to offer [me],, he says, ,but when military recruiters only present the positives, especially during wartime, that is unethical,.
Ironically, along with counter recruitment, Hanafin also was a member of a group called Americans for Self Sacrifice which advocates the draft. ,Our approach to antiwar is probably the most unique in history,, he said.We are ,an antiwar group proposing national conscription in order to wake the populace up to the dangers [of war] and to gain recruits for the overall antiwar movement,.The draft is crucial to the antiwar movement, he explained, because ,the main ingredient missing in the current antiwar movement is the radical participation of our college campuses. . . . And our campuses will not get involved unless there is the serious and believable threat of the draft.,
An effective antiwar movement, Hanafin added, must also include (career) military people.He believes that too often ,the peace movement is made up of the academic intelligentsia who can be easily discredited for not knowing about war., Furthermore, he points out, (military retirees) veterans can lend legitimacy to the peace movement as well as help focus criticism on the current war, as opposed to targeting the military per se.
Retaining respect for the military and military personnel is important to Hanafin, not only for broad appeal but also for ethical reasons.Thus, he takes care to distinguish his opposition to the current war from his feelings toward individual service members, many of whom have been pressured by what some call ,the poverty draft,.And while he pursues counter recruitment his sympathy extends even to recruiters. ,Well, they,re in the wrong line of work,, he told the audience, ,but after spending nearly thirty years in uniform, I can tell you that, even in the best of times, military recruitment duty is not a voluntary assignment. . . .No one in his or her right mind wants that duty during an unpopular war.,
Underscoring his defiance of the ,peacenik, stereotype, Hanafin declared he is (was) ,a card-carrying Republican,.His views seem less determined by any party affiliation, however, than by his analysis of who pays and who profits by current policy. ,Bottom line is that our tax dollars are going for tax cuts for the wealthiest minority among us, while we mortgage our children,s future to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . and the defense industry takes advantage of the situation to profit. . . . The only people in our society asked to truly sacrifice are military families who pay with their loved ones, lives., Hanafin balanced his strong antiwar views with a concern for plurality within the peace movement. ,Mark Hartford is from the left wing and I,m from the right wing of the antiwar movement,, mused, adding that ,people don,t realize it but there is a lot of diversity within the movement.,
…
However, the diversity that Hanafin sees involves not only a divide between military and nonmilitary activists but also differences within each of these groups reflecting both issue based interests as well as individuals, efforts to grapple with complicated historical situations and their refusal to be pegged to a label that reduces politics to ready-made positions.
My forefathers invented America starting in 1630 Massachusetts Bay colony. They fought and bled for Liberty.
Blindly following orders is the very sheep-like peasant’s attitude that caused them to leave England for the American wilderness.
Put not your trust in man but in your father above. Fools like this major are the primary cause of our present deteriorated condition – and why it is likely all of us may live to see the final collapse of the United States.
Sheople will suffer. Those of us who carry the Liberty Gene (i.e., my Pilgrim ancestors) will simply regroup elsewhere and those left behind can enjoy the fruit of their labor and their just reward of desolation and chaos.
Sign me,
The Spirit of 1776
“My forefathers invented America starting in 1630 Massachusetts Bay colony. They fought and bled for Liberty.
Blindly following orders is the very sheep-like peasant’s attitude that caused them to leave England for the American wilderness.”
Now I’m not going to stoop down to the sixth grade education level of a all the name callers and hate mongers commenting here, but this ignorance deserves at least a high school GED response.
Having been born and raised in one of the original 13 colonies, Maryland that was the only English colony founded by Catholics who were being persecuted by Protestant worshipers of King George.
That said, your ancestors nor mine DID NOT come to our shores to escape blindly following orders from any government – DAH. They came to the New World as they called it to escape religious persecution. I mention Maryland because of colony being founded by Catholics thus unique.
However the vast majority of colonies, especially the northeast that means the Massachusetts Bay colony. were founded by religious zealots called the Puritans who were not accepted by most other Protestant denominations in Europe (especially England).
In an old hymn I once heard I remember this one line about America, prior to 1776, the New World was a place to stand or a place to hide.
Most of the founding fathers came not only to hide from religious persecution but to eventually stand up to it.
You are among most the the Sons of the American Revolution who know nothing about the founding of America.
The last thing on the minds of the original colonists from Western Europe because not all were Brits, was Revolution, anarchy, or resistance to the British crown or Parliament.
Food for thought to all you wannabe militia members who want to push your oath, and spit on those of us who care not to take your oath.
It was not the American Revolution that defined Americans as a people, it was the American Civil War that defined the ideals of America. Reconstruction was a joke for the South that got the short end of the stick, but hell to the victor goes the spoils of any war.
Problem with Oath Keepers once again is the company any level headed and true patriot keeps with talk of succession, unauthorized militias and such. DREAM ON!
Should there be a second American revolution it will not be a revolution anywhere near the image of the first one.
How much you want to bet, it will be more like 1861-1865, but much worse???
My military family prays that it will not be in our lifetime. My family name ended when our son left for Iraq the first time. Thus, frankly we have nothing more to sacrifice for this nation. Do what you want with it but do so after we are GONE.
Let us pray that the side carrying the banner of the federal Union once again wins any internal war to divide the nation as physically and territorially as it already is MENTALLY!!!
I was recently referred to Oathkeepers. I read the whole site, & followed all the links. I didn’t need to think about it. I joined immediately. This is what I understand Oathkeepers to be about: Re-inforcing one’s original oath to “Protect & Defend the Constitution of the U.S.of A, *and her people*, against any and all enemies, foreign, and *especially* domestic”. Sure, I added my own emphasis there…I do see the very real possibility that in the near future, our American way of life, Constitution, &etc., will be threatened. Oathkeepers is promising to protect and defend against that threat. Just because any government act occurs, doesn’t make it legal. The rule of law is paramount. The Law in discussion here is the Constitution. All troops have a duty to *NOT OBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS*…that duty’s already in place, under UCMJ…Oathkepers is only following that thought further…I don’t see Oathkeepers as encouraging anybody to disobey a lawful order, or even dis-obey an unlawful order. I see Oathkeepers as being a guardian at the gates, warning especially *DOMESTIC* enemies that we are on watch. And yes, I do truly believe that many of the provisions of those Great Terrorist Victories, the so-called “Dept. of Homeland Security” & “Patriot Act”, & FEMA, &etc., to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!…I ain’t scared of a bunch of camel jockey-towel-heads. “Homeland Security”???…***HAH! Tell that to Crazy Horse, or Chief Sitting Bull! Custer Had It Coming!***GOD BLESS AMERICA!…(…I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny! Git ‘er dun!…)*grin*SEMPER FI / HOOAH!
I see Oathkeepers as being a guardian at the gates, warning especially *DOMESTIC* enemies that we are on watch. And yes, I do truly believe that many of the provisions of those Great Terrorist Victories, the so-called “Dept. of Homeland Security” & “Patriot Act”, & FEMA, &etc., to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!…I ain’t scared of a bunch of camel jockey-towel-heads. “Homeland Security”???…***HAH! Tell that to Crazy Horse, or Chief Sitting Bull! Custer Had It Coming!***GOD BLESS AMERICA!.
Well you’ll fit right in, sounds like your idea of an unauthorized militia. Have at it.
Frankly, more power to all of you taking this oath, however can’t understand how your focus can be domestic while we are fighting THEM over there to keep them from coming here. That’s not domestic!
Anyway, be as domestic as you wannabe, but domestic stops are the boundaries of my private property or learn pretty quick just how liberal I ain’t.
The Mustang Major
A militia has nothing to do with the armed forces or national guard.
The definition of militia is and has always been, ” an unpaid army of the citizenry”.
“The definition of militia is and has always been, ” an unpaid army of the citizenry”.
So????
What’s your point Bruce?
I may agree or disagree with comments made on this post, but at least most commenters know that a militia has everything to do with the National Guard, especially under the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions – DAH.
You say a militia has nothing to do with the armed forces or national guard and has been defined as it always has been WRONG!
Militia (məlĭsh`ə), military organization composed of citizens enrolled and trained for service in times of national emergency. Its ranks may be filled either by enlistment or conscription. An ancient Greek prototype was the national militia developed by Philip of Macedon and later used by Alexander the Great to conquer the Persian Empire and North Africa. However, the modern concept of the militia as a defensive organization against invaders grew out of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. The militiaman, in times of crisis, left his civilian duties and became a soldier until the emergency was over, when he returned to his civilian status usually a peasant, farmer or both. Militias persisted through the Middle Ages, especially in England, Italy, and Germany; after the rise of large standing armies they declined. They continued in the Orient in China and Japan late into the 19th century in China and until commoners were no longer allowed social mobility into the Samurai class in Japan. Not until the Meiji Restoration and destruction of the Warrior Class were average citizens allowed to carry weapons, join militias or enlist in the Japanese Imperial Army or become commissioned officers in the early 20th century.
In America, however, militias survived the European Middle Ages. The Military Company of Massachusetts was the first militia organization in America and was followed by similar groups in the other colonies. Local control and voluntary service prevailed. Payment varied by colony and later state but was meager compared to regular military units. Although the militia was valuable and essential throughout the American Revolution, it proved undependable in the War of 1812 in preventing British invasions of Washington DC and other U.S. territory. Therefore, no militia forces were used in the Mexican War.
However, during the Civil War, when manpower needs were greater, and the standing U.S. regular Army so small and disunity splitting the ranks, both sides resorted to the use of militia to be later replaced by State Regiments paid out of state funding. These would later be consolidated into Regular Union and Confederate Divisions or Corps paid by the central government in Richmond or Washington, DC except for those governors of Southern states who placed states rights over national survival of the Confederacy. After World War I, state military units were established under the term National Guard
The National Guard, is the U.S. militia: The U.S. militia as recognized today by symbol, logo, and concept is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which also defines the militia’s functions and the federal and state role.
Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
Note the focus on suppress insurrections goes far beyond terrorist threats from abroad to encompass domestic insurrections against states or the federal government.
The U.S. Congress was entrusted with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but the appointment of officers and the training of the militia were reserved to the states.
Further provisions were made in the Second Amendment.
In peacetime the National Guard is placed under state jurisdiction and can be used by governors to quell local disturbances, as in Newark and Detroit riots in 1967, the rise of unauthorized miltias such as Nationalists groups, and to help in times of local disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.
In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States and the president is commander in chief.
The National Guard has been partially mobilized during the Korean War, the Berlin crisis of 1961, and the Persian Gulf War First Persian Gulf War, Jan.–Feb., 1991, was an armed conflict between Iraq and a coalition of 32 nations including the United States, Britain, Egypt, France, and Saudi Arabia. It was a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait
and for peacekeeping in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The National Guard’s equipment and personnel are standardized to conform with U.S. army regulations. Enlistment is voluntary; compensation, paid by the federal government, is given for periods of drill and field training. The Air National Guard was formed in 1947.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press. http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
In 1995 the bombing of Oklahoma City’s federal building focused national attention on self-appointed “militias” or, as they often call themselves, “Patriots.” These armed, typically rural and predominantly white male organizations, many of which are in Western states, have a membership largely consisting of a mix of survivalists, white supremacists, gun-control opponents, government limitation of the purchase and ownership of firearms, , “Christian Identity” adherents, and others adamantly opposed to most involvement of the federal government in the daily lives of U.S. citizens.
Many in the militia movement were particularly angered by the FBI siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (1992), the destruction of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Tex. (1993), and the passage of the Brady Bill handgun control legislation (1993); these events spurred the further growth of the American militia movement in the 1990s.
In closing, the self-appointed militia movement was allowed to flourish under the Bush administration with such unauthorized militias as the Minuteman Militia that patrolled the SW border states until the administration was forced to divert official National Guard troops to the region.
With the election of a mixed race President and Commander-In-Chief came a resurgence of the White supremists and Nationalists elements of the unauthorized militia movement based on religious extremism and the manifest destiny of America not to lead the world but to conquer it.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Dear Mr. Hanafin,
I was wondering what your feelings were about Army Specialist
Michael new who was court-martialed for refusing to wear a UN
beret or insignia on deployment? He took his oath to the Constit-
ution seriously and disobeyed a clearly illegal order. He showed
more integrity than his fellow soldiers or his Commander In Chief.
“I was only following orders” wasn’t an excuse 64 tears ago, so
why should it be now? What about the police and National Guard
who followed orders to disarm citizens in the aftermath of Katrina?
Watch the footage on YouTube of an elderly woman being tackled
by police because she had the audacity to keep a gun in her house
for protection. If watching that doesn’t make you angrey, it should.
There are different kinds of courage, and refusing a clearly immoral
or illegal order is one. Blind obedience is not.
Wes,
Frankly, as left of center of the Libertarian Party, plus in opposition to both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, I’d have to put your question in perspective.
This happended during the Clinton administration right, and when anyone does a Google search on the case the vast majority of links are right-wing, so you think that you are asking me a loaded qustion. Nope.
By the same token if any of our troops sent by George W. Bush or Barack Obama had been ordered to take down the American Flag once they had entered Baghdad, I would have interpreted that as an unlawful order. I personally would not have ordered no Marine or Army grunt proud and excited about our victory over the Iraqi military to take down Old Glory because we just might insult the Iraqi people.
Hell, we had just defeated their friggin Army since they had no Air Force or Navy worth mentioning. However, I can’t blame President Bush the Commander-In-Chief for the actions of some lower level officer or NCO (most likely a political affairs weenie in uniform) who gave that order.
Tough I can almost agree with Pat Buchanan, I never would vote for the Tricky Dick Nixon protege. First I learned about this case was when Buchanan was running in the Repubican primariies against Bob Dole and Phil Gramm way back when. Bob Dole of course finally got the nomination, and I voted for Bob.
And I quote from Pat’s press release,
"DOVER, NH — Pat Buchanan pledged today to pardon Spc. Michael New, and asked why his rivals Bob Dole and Phil Gramm had not taken action in the Republican Senate to stop American soldiers from being forced to wear U.N. insignia, helmets, and to serve under U.N. command. “When I walk into the Oval Office on inauguration day,” Buchanan said, “I am going to sit down and sign a pardon clearing the record of Spc. Michael New. From that day forward no American will ever be sent anywhere to wear a blue beret for Boutros Boutros Ghali. (Why because he is black or even worse African?)
“Michael New is a hero of conscience. He did not believe it was right and lawful for a soldier who has sworn an oath to defend the United States Constitution to be forced to wear the uniform of the United Nations.
“Michael New is absolutely right and Bill Clinton is absolutely wrong.
“What I don’t understand is how Bob Dole and Phil Gramm could sit on their hands when the case of Michael New came up and do nothing in Congress to prevent Clinton from sending Americans into Macedonia to wear U.N. insignias. Real leadership on this issue called for standing up against the President and pulling our troops out of Macedonia, and out from under the blue berets.”
I think our readers get the picture, what I think about Specialist New’s case is really worthless when conservative leaders (which I am not one) can’t get their act together on it, and used Michael to play political football just like you are Bro.
Now you tell me where did Michael get with his appeal?
He showed more integrity than his fellow soldiers or his Commander In Chief. Frankly can almost agree with you there, quite a few troops have showed the same Courage to Resist redeployments to Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush and Obama because they few in number see the war as illegal, and if in the National Guard do not view patrolling or guarding a foreign land as the duty of a militia designed to defend a state in both natural disasters and uprisings against the state constitutions. They have no role in enforcing uprisings against the federal government unless federalized. Any governor of any state can refuse to provide state militia to the central government if said government desires to use them against citizens of the state. This is something the states gave up during the Bush administration and need to take back.
Anyway you may or may not be surprised by my answer. By the same token if Specialist Michael New was ordered to wear the insignia of the Iraqi Armed Forces or some sort of Afghanistan ragtag militia or Army I’d be the first to raise the bullshit flag, especially if Michael were in the U.S. National Guard.
Thus, if if seen it both wrong and illegal for Our Troops to be wearing anything identifying them as Iraqi, or Afghan military even a medal from the Iraq or Afghan government, and they refused to wear such insignia, I’d have to support their conscencious decision. That said my answer is I support what Specialist New did.
However, you see this is a courageous decision made by Michael that did not need the prompting of Oath Keepers or any such organization asking Michael to take an oath to not wear a UN uniform even if he has to violate orders from his chain of command.
You see the vast majority of Our Troops despite the Army lowering standards, they are not THAT low, have Brains. Our youngest generation of troops can THINK for themselves. The question is not so much do they need to take a secular oath to remind them that their first duty and obligation is to the U.S. Constitution, the real question is can they tell the difference between a legal and illegal order, and in most cases out troops can.
You may ask, then why is their number so few like Michael? How many other troops besides Michael throughout the U.S. Army refused to obey this illegal order? I bet you that more troops felt the same way Michael did!!!
The reason why too few troops are as courageous as Michael is that too few have the Courage to Resist. Put another way, I believe that if Michael were still in the Army today, and he was ordered on his fourth deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan and ordered to wear a Iraqi Army or Afghanistan Army helmet, beret, or arm band in violation of his conscence, Michael would have the courage to resist the deployment at all.
What about the police and National Guard who followed orders to disarm citizens in the aftermath of Katrina?
You’d have to illaborate on this one. The only incident I recall about the use of arms against Katrina survivors was the good white citizens of a town outside New Orleans blockading a bridge leading to their town with local law enforcement and self proclaimed milita blocking the bridge with weapons to prevents people (mostly black) from leaving the devastated city for FEAR of potential rioting.
That said, the only significant incidents of police (most of which fled the city leaving the citizens to fend for themselves) or National Guard was to disarm anyone expected of doing looting or rioting.
I believe you are throwing the example of the elderly lady in New Orleans being arrested for having a gun at me cause you THINK I’m black. WRONG!!!
There are different kinds of courage, and refusing a clearly immoral or illegal order is one. Blind obedience is not.
Amen to that, in fact I’d strongly suggest that you check out the website Courage to Resist and we both can agree with what you just said.
POINT: I believe instead of asking our troops to take any oath otherthan the one they already took, Oath Keepers should change it’s name to Oath Reminders to better reflect a more positive mission of reminding not only active duty troops but potential enlistees what the U.S. Constitution really means (even if in right wing spin what the heck). What is needed is education on the Constitution not another oath.
That said, the ground forces have experienced a SURGE in enlistments due to the economic meltdown that frankly makes taking any oath meaningless. Why?
Most troops enlisting today are economically motivated thus will take any oath put in front of them. Now of course there are a few exceptions like the children of Veterans, Military Retirees, ME, and others in the very small Amerian Warrior Class and even some of us enlisted for socio-economic reasons so long ago so I’m sure not knocking it. For most of us the Oath, Patriotism, and all that came later, and it was part of our lifestyle, we lived patriotism everyday, so it was impossible not to be a Patriot.
Now, my turn to ask a question. Do you or other readers believe that youngsters should not enlist in the Armed Forces today, and refuse to go on deployments because their Commander-In-Chief’s citizenship is in question, or he is a socialist, communist or whatever? If so, then instead of slinging oaths around convince youngsters not to enlist until they have a Commander-In-Chief you and they can be satisfied with. Would YOU go on a fourth, fifth, or sixth deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan for Barack Obama?
Mind you I’m not advocating that, but if a trooper or their love one, parents etc feel that way (1) they should not have enlisted in the first place, and (2) really believing their Commander-In-Chief is not as he appears could be intepreted as following one’s conscience. However, the price they pay for such courage is no different than the youngsters who passionately feel the wars are illegal or unjustified -whatever. They will all be courageous together in Leavenworth.
But with support groups like Oath Keepers those troops with conscence as you define it can endure a few years in a military prison and bad conduct discharge. Heck you folks could even fight their discharges.
I’m trying the make the point that you are onto something about Courage to Resist, but Bro that courage has to be applied across the board not selectively based on left or right-wing spin on the U.S. Constitution.
My own personal experience is that I blindly followed orders in the Army back in the day (Brown boot Army) because that is how we were trained, however once I got into the more civilianized (started to say civilized) Air Force where miitary people were expected to be smart and thinkers I found myself not blindly following orders or conforming. If I had blindly followed orders or conformed to every political swing in the officers corps I would have retired a General instead of a Major.
That’s my way of saying that if I passionately and strongly felt that wearing any uniform or insignia outside the state or nation I swore and oath to serve, I too would have questioned that order. Up to the point of going to jail, I’ll be honest with you and say I don’t have the kind of courage shown by Michael New or the youngster sitting in military prisons today for refusing deployment to wars they passionately and morally believe to be WRONG.
Frankly, if I were on active duty (Thank God not), I would be eventually faced with the decision to either leave the military or resign my commission in protest even if it meant going to jail. But the interest of my family would take precidence.
Major Hanafin
USAF-Retired
Major Hanafin,
Thank you for your reply. To answer your questions, I never
assumed you were black. The lady I mentioned was in fact white.
Go on YouTube and look up “NRA: The Untold Story Of Gun
Confiscation After Katrina.” If you have not seen it I would also
recommend Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership at
http://www.jpfo.org, who want to abolish the BATF and any Federal agency
that violates Second Amendment rights.
As to whether I would encourage young people to enlist, I have a
teenage neice and nephew and would ask them the same thing:
Would you wear a UN beret or take orders from a foreign officer
if told to do so? Would you follow orders to detain or disarm Americans?
At http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle520-20090524-o3.html is an article
called, “Memorial Day 2009: How About A New Meaning?” by
Russell D Longcore. He examines the Constitutional legality of
the wars America has been in and concludes there were only two
that met this criteria. He does not blame the military, but rather the
decisions of so-called leaders who put troops in harms way. I forgot
to include this earlier.
“He examines the Constitutional legality of the wars America has been in and concludes there were only two that met this criteria. He does not blame the military, but rather the decisions of so-called leaders who put troops in harms way.”
Wes,
Though I don’t take as gospel everything Longcore says, being left of center of the Libertarian Party I did find this view of not only war but Memorial Day quite thought provoking. In fact, I plan on doing an article on it not as a slam dunk, but from the point of view that there is a bit of validity in some of the things he says.
You see I’m not totally turned off by something I read because a few paragraphs tend to lean too far right or has a slant on history.
As a civil war reenactor at one time (willing to galvanize at that as in Galvanized Yankee) I may not agree with but understand and respect a Southerners calling the Civil War, the War for Southern Independence. BTW I’ve heard it referred to in both scholarly history and among reenact rs (believe it or not living historians because of the research they do to be authentic) as the War for Southern Independence I’ve never heard it referred to as the War for Southern Sovereignty.
In many ways it frankly was, but unfortunately historically speaking it was the Southern state passion about state’s rights that doomed their effort to be free and united. If one really gets into the reasons the South lost that war at least from a military standpoint what will you find?
I can’t name them off the top of my head but the governors of several Confederate states reached a point late in the war that they refused to provide State Regiments to the Regular Confederate Army, to add to the confusion there was competition and bickering between Army Generals not only within each theater of war but between regional commanders. Think about it. Confederate General James Longstreet was very reluctant to take his corps to the western southern Army by railroad not only because it had been decimated at Gettysburg but he was reluctant to be placed under command of a westerner General Braxton Bragg . Regardless, Longstreet’s corp was instrumental in the Confederate victory at Chickamauga, Georgia by not only throwing his corps into fill a gap in the Confederate line but pushing them forward to break the Union line.
Well enough of being a Civil War buff, suffice it to say that I’ve personally had a respect and sympathy for the underdog in all wars, and no one can doubt that the Confederate Army was the underdog of that war holding its own in both theaters of war for at least two years maybe three. But the Army too could not get adequate support from the civilian government in Richmond nor a few states that wanted to hold onto their state units or recall them home to guard the state against Union advancements.
Suffice it to say that I agree with you whole heartedly on the Libertarian views on war that is why I was so disappointed when Ron Paul refused to accept our parties nomination.
I am also a strong advocate of destroying the political power of two party rule and have a vision that the American government at all levels would be a lot better off by making it easier for third parties to run decent candidates for office at all levels, but not at the point of a gun.
Simple as that.
Major Hanafin
It seems that I will not be providing any support for Veterans Today from here on out. While I support the major’s right to write anything he feels he needs to. I am more than shocked that he is here on this site posting reply’s to the many comments in a manner similar to that of a middle school kid.
And his remark above saying he was going to report a poster to Homeland Security confirms my thinking that he is nothing more than a Statist apologist who needs to reexamine his loyalties. Clearly they lie with the federal government and the folks at DHS. Mind you that it was DHS that labeled all us Vets as the primary threat facing the nation, but I see the major is on their side not that of patriots who question the writings of large federal organizations. What the Major calls extremists, I would see as the loyal opposition.
Again, my money will go to the Oath Keepers and not to Veterans Today thanks.
Again, I find it laughable how childish the Major is in his responses to the posts here. He really does remind me of the middle school kids who act all e-tough online. I will follow up this post with an email to the editor expllaining that thanks to this article Veterans Today has lost my support, but Oath Keepers will get a donation on my behalf. And that donation will be in addition to my membership dues.
See how this works Major? I vote with my wallet. I support those who do good work and boycott those who don’t.
Best,
Dave
Also a member of the 82nd, but I’m enlisted, so I know what a woobie is and unlike the REMF Major I use mine.
"My money will go to the Oath Keepers and not to Veterans Today thanks." Dave
Dear Dave,
First off, Veterans Today does not ask for donations, charitable contributions, or for our readers to take any Oath to agree with what is written or discussed on our News Network.
However, by virtue of you and others who agree or disagree with our writers or any content on Veterans Today just taking to time to read and reply as you did is well PAYING US!
We get monetary credit for every hit on an advertisement, discussion, or article regardless if someone agrees with us or not. Guess in that respect you only need to stop reading and replying to anything on VT in order to yes hurt our pocketbook, but so what we’ll still survive and be around.
So Dave you are not going to be providing support to VT from here on out. Fine, could you please enlighten our readers, VT Editorial Board, and our managing Editor (among the few paid staff members we do have) exactly what support you have provided Veterans Today?
How many articles have your written about whatever? Regardless if we agree or disagree with you. Mind you we are a classy outfit that draws the line on post that are ridiculously too far left or right-wing or as you admit being an EXTREMISTS.
"Posting reply’s to the many comments in a manner similar to that of a middle school kid."
Well Dave that’s your opinion, but wo give me a break the Army only gave me a rubber stamped High School GED not worth the paper it was stamped on. I had to go to night school to get that Army GED respected by any college or university in the nation during Vietnam.
"More than a Statist apologist who needs to reexamine his loyalties. Clearly they lie with the federal government and the folks at DHS."
Could you kindly enlighten our readers on exactly what a "Statist apologist" is?
You got me wrong on reexamining my loyalties whatever that means. My loyalties have been with the U.S. Constitution (as I interpret it) and yes the federal goverment that I worked for near 30 years in and out of uniform. Mind you my loyalties and sensibilities were intakes regardless which political party controlled Congress or who was President.
Saying I’d report someone to Homeland Security or the Secret Service (more appropriately) is more so something I’d like to do but will not. Having anyone from Homeland Security or the Secret Service read what I write will suffice.
That is not loyalty to Homeland Security or the Secret Service, reporting potential threat to our form of government laced in patriotic rhetoric and symbolism is more what a real patriotic citizen should do. It is our civil duty to report attempts to recruit active duty troops to take a seperate oath to understand the U.S. Constitution according to some fly by night interests group(s). Hell, Jim Jones could have spun the U.S. Constitution to his religious cult fanaticism and the results would have been the same – cool aid drinking.
"Dave Also a member of the 82nd, but I’m enlisted, so I know what a woobie is and unlike the REMF Major I use mine."
Thank you for your service in the 82ns Airbourne, I am awed that you were a combat Vet also, many of my friends and mentors have been and are combat Vets, we even have a few combat Vets on staff at VT.
However, you need to do a closer background check on me. I am not a REMF Major for one thing. Almost a REMF maybe but not a REMF. That said you insult the name of every REMF on the Wall that (cough) heals – the Vietnam Memorial. What exactly is wrong with being a REMF as long as I don’t claim being anything else like for instance REMFs like B.G. Burkett who claim Stolen Valor when they have no valor to be stolen?
Lastly, I’m not exactly a federalists.
In fact, I challenge you Dave, and more so I challenge every member of Oath Keepers regardless if I agree with you or not. If Oath Keepers truly sees our central government as not following the spirit or law of the U.S. Constitution, and moreso if Oath Keepers places just as much passion on states rights and State Constitutions, HERE is one area that not only would I support you on but maybe even join Oath Keepers.
Instead of targetting active duty troops to take another Oath or any oath otherthan the one they take upon enlistment, I strongly suggest that Oath Keepers focus more on demanding that our state legislators and governors get an handle on and command of our State Army and Air National Guard.
Place demands that the Guard no longer be used for operations in foreign lands but instead be used to secure our borders, disaster relief, and defend the border of the United States of America plus or territorial possessions.
In closing, the Massachusetts National Guard, Virginia National Guard, Rhode Island National Guard, Georgia National Guard, North Carolina National Guard, South Carolina National Guard, Connecticut National Guard, New Hampshire National Guard, Delaware National Guard, New Jersey National Guard, Pennsylvania National Guard, Maryland National Guard, and New York National Guard should be returned to the command and control of each states’ legislature, and governor, and conform to each state’s constitution. That goes for all the other states, yet Oath Keepers mentions nothing about how our Army National Guard troops tend to be more loyal to our federal government than citizens of each state. How come they can be more loyal to our federal government, and I cannot????
Dave desires to call me more loyal to our federal (central) government, but nope I contend that I’m more loyal to my state, but just do not embrace succession, since I live in the 21st Century. However, just because I do not embrace succession does not mean I cannot relate to how those who do feel.
Nope, I’m more loyal to my state, and given that, I believe that Oath Keepers should focus more on ensuring our legitimate state militias are under the control of citizens of each state (Oath Keepers if I may) instead of being loyal to our federal government.
Put another way, I’m accused of being more loyal to our federal government than what? Then I join the vast majority of National Guard troops across the nation who are more loyal to our federal government (or have been over the past ten years) than they have been to our state’s and citizens of each state. What’s wrong with this picture???
BTW – Ironically, New York was the only British colony reluctant and afraid to revolt against the tyranny of King George the Third and a British Parlement that ignored the rights and liberties of British citizens in the Americas.
Dave, I’m also the Mustang Major, any accurate background check would note that I served in the 4th ID in Vietnam and at Fort Carson, CO during our transition from an Infantry to Mechanized Artillery BDE, I was also a Private, PFC, Specialist Four, and Specialist Five (Yes the Specialist enlisted rank identifies me as a REMF, but do you realise how many SP4s and SP5s names are engraved on the Vietnam Memorial? Being a REMF was not an instant shield from death or wounding. Claming to be a combat Vet when one actually was a REMF is not only ludicrous but an insult to those Specialists who died in the war(s).
One thing we emphasize here at VT is freedom of choice, Dave if you choose not to read Veterans Today, we lose money so GO FOR IT you have that RIGHT!
Bobby Hanafin
The Mustang Major