A few response from the Oath Keepers.

Many Oath Keepers have responded to my message. Sadly, a few of them seem to be rather silly. Let me post some of them.

"We need to view Oath Keepers as an educational organization looking to reach teach and inspire those who have taken an Oath to follow, support and defend the constitution. That is our charter. We need to be careful about political activism as this organization is nonpartisan.

As a volunteer organization we can try to help those like Lt Colonel Larkin perhaps with a fundraising effort but right now you really have to consider our small size and resources. We are less than 20,000 strong while other constitutional organizations like the Tea Party and NRA are millions strong." - Dennis LaGrua

My response:

So Dennis, you're saying that as an outreach program (for lack of a better term), we should not draw attention to the people doing what we ask? Doesn't that seem a little "do as I say, not as I do"-ish?

Numbers are not as important. I might remind you, only 3% of the colonists actually fought against the Crown's troops, and we still won.

And as a volunteer organization, we should be doing all in our power to help these people. Stewart and the crew are going across the country to promote Oath Keepers. They're going onto media outlets to protest groups like the SPLC defaming them. But the people who should be getting the attention from the group are ignored. Seems a little backward to me.

"Oath Keepers are in it. The unspoken ones are out there being active as individuals. They can't be politically active and represent themselves as OK. Most oath keepers are not members. But that's where the political activists come from. I attend three GOP county meetings each month. My county chair is a SEAL. The county chair west of me is a Gunny. I found out Saturday that the other chair is Army, Korean combat veteran with Purple Heart. The oath keepers are active and the Oath Keepers need to join with them.

Virtual support through a computer keyboard will not be enough. Shoulder to shoulder is what it's going to take." -M. J. "Zeb" Blanchard 2

I'm sorry, what? Oath Keepers can't declare themselves as that? Why? Out of fear they won't get the votes? People, if you stand by the Constitution and listen to your constituents, you won't see a problem getting those votes. People love it when someone in the government defends them.

"Guess what? You don't get to change the mission. It is what it is for good reason. The fact that you don't understand it changes nothing about its validity. This is not a democracy. However, you do get to vote...with your feet...in or out. You don't like it, go start something better . If your vision and approach is superior, you will siphon off the majority. Quit whining about it and go do something." -Cindy Sullivan 2.4

My response:

Who's changing this mission, Cindy? All I see if a group of people being put on the defensive and being reactive, droning on about smear tactics used by the SPLC for months and months. A grudge is kept and isn't allowed to die.

The mission changed from RTI to "huddle up, we need to keep ourselves safe!" the moment the founders of this organization allowed these groups to gain a foothold in their operations.

The SPLC is winning with every speck of attention given to them.

"Patrick,

We are discussing the Terry Lakin issue. He says he is refusing all orders based on his questions regarding the Presidents citizenship status which, if he can prove his case, makes his argument valid.

The Orders that Oathkeepers encourages MIL/LEO to disobey are unambiguous in there unconsitutionality, and do not need to be 'proven', such as Orders to disarm the American People, or put them into detention camps, or conducting warrantless searches. There is a lot on ambiguity in the route that LTC Lakin has chosen. We are discussing it.

That being said, you joined less than 24 hours ago, and here you say:

" You should have known this would happen, and like they wanted, you toned down the message and went on the defensive. That, my friends, is not what I signed up for.
."

Well, if you weren't too scared to join us months ago, maybe you could have shared your impeccable insight with us and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Too bad."

My response:

Clearly, Ray, you didn't read everything I said. Otherwise, you would have seen "I fell out of touch with the group around last January". So, no, I did not join "less than 24 hours ago", sorry to burst your bubble.

Second, the Constitutional orders also reflect upon the Constitutionality of those elected. If the President has failed to conform to the Constitution in his eligibility, then every order given is nulled. This includes deployments to combat zones. In this case, a man is alleged to have illegally obtained the office of President of the United States through false pretenses, and as such has thumbed his nose at the Constitution (assuming it is true).

I don't think you understand the implications of this. LtCol Lakin is not the first person to have decided to disobey orders until Mr. Obama proves that he meets the criteria as established BY THE CONSTITUTION, but he's the highest-ranking active duty officer to have one so. Two other officers have done the same, and in one case the Army rescinded the orders rather than court-martial to officer in question. You know what this means?

If Obama refuses to show the proof that he is a natural-born citizen, this is a "get out of war free" card. Any soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine can say, "You know what? I'm declaring these orders illegal until the President proves his eligibility to serve in that capacity", and precedence says they will be allowed to serve back home and ignore deployment.

As I said, my issue is that the people actually doing what this group espouses as its core values (that the Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND should be followed by the federal government, and that the military should hold the powers-that-be accountable under it) are being ignored, while the Oath Keepers lick the superficial wounds inflicted by a group pretty much ignored except by those without a brain.

As Chesty Puller is quoted as saying, "We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem of getting to these people and killing them." You're surrounded by the enemy and allowing those that are fighting alongside you be destroyed. All to preserve what little honor this organization maintains. And just like the Army at Chosin Reservoir during the Vietnam conflict, those men are being left behind. Don't expect the Marines to save your fallen Army comrades this time.

As an addition, Ray, Obama has put millions into paying for lawyers in order to quash these requests to see the paperwork. No judge is allowing any case to go forward, and in one case in 2009 (I believe), a judge even ruled that a case was filed frivolously, and in his ruling claimed that the issue had been "twitted and blogged" and vetted. You can't prove a case if people won't allow it to go forward.

Now to see if anyone such as Stewart will respond.

My challenge to Oath Keepers.

I posted the following on the group's national forums. I'm waiting to see what kinds of responses I get.

"I've been monitoring Oath Keepers' main website for a few months. I fell out of contact with the group once again in January, I believe, and simply ignored the group as a whole, especially after the second fiasco. However, I've noticed the trend.

"Every time an op-ed piece comes out depicting Oath Keepers as a fringe, radical group, it gets front page status on the website. Then there are posts about how clearly the people writing such nonsense are lunatics and unworthy of the time of day.

"What the hell happened? Has the group become so afraid of public perception that they've gone into defense mode, and tried their hardest to protect their image? You should have known this would happen, and like they wanted, you toned down the message and went on the defensive. That, my friends, is not what I signed up for.

"Going back, I see plenty of news articles and videos about how the SPLC and other such organizations are handling the Oath Keepers, and counter-pieces. It has mainly focused on Oath Keepers, or members of the group. Believe it or not, guys, WE ARE ALL KEYBOARD COMMANDOS.

"And then we go out, and we find people like LtCol (LTC for you Army brats!) Terry Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon who says he refuses to take orders until President Obama proves his eligibility under the Constitution. And where on the front page is there anything about this man, this true Oath Keeper?

"It's one thing to reach out and inspire our active duty military members. It's what we should strive for. It's something entirely different to ignore the ones that put themselves on the line and actually do something about that Oath. A true Oath Keeper, LtCol Lakin embodies that which our Founding Fathers envisioned in such Americans: the willingness to do what is right, and damned be the consequences.

"When is someone going to give this man the recognition on this site? Stewart and the crew should have jumped all over this the day it came out. Instead, almost a week later, I saw one thread in these forums about him. And no recognition from the group. Is this man going to be ignored, and are you going to throw him under the bus?

"And now the Democrats are attempting to pass a new bill, H.R. 3335, the "Democracy Restoration Act". With this bill, convicted felons will be able to vote once again, thus trampling all over the States and their sovereignty. In no point in Greece or Rome (I'm talking the periods of antiquity) were those who broke the law afforded every right a citizen of the state had. But the Democrats want to give these rights back to these people. And it's because polls show most of these felons? They'll vote Democrat.

"But nowhere in that bill does it say they'll acquire the other rights lost, such as the right to own a gun.

"So I would love to know, is LtCol Lakin going to be helped by Oath Keepers? Or is it simply going to remain more glory seeking from the upper echelons of the organization. You can answer this question, if you wish.

"And remember, what you do speaks so loudly that what you say, I can not hear.

"Semper fidelis."

I'm a horrible blogger.

Seriously, five months away from this blog? It's been that long? Wow, I'm slacking.

In all seriousness, I apologize. I've been working on a few things, and lately my lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard took the bulk of my time. I was successful to an extent in getting my case heard and judged upon, and was able to get a quarter of what I sued for. Not what I had hoped for, but it's good.

Anyways, I've been watching a few things happen lately. Obviously, we all know about Obamacare and the nationalized healthcare plan. Did you know that there's now a bill before the House of Representatives, or at least a subcommittee of the House.

H.R. 3335, the "Democracy Restoration Act" is a bill being pushed by the Democrats that will trump state laws and allow convicted felons to vote again. The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., states, "The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election."

Advocates of the bill point to the disproportionate number of minorities (namely, African-Americans and Hispanics) that have been convicted of felonies, and thus have lost the right to vote. Critics point out that justice is blind, and that the laws aren't targeting blacks and latinos specifically. However, this bill is. They also claim that this is, once again, a clear showing of the federal government stepping on the rights of the States and violating the Constitution.

However, nowhere in the bill does it give those same felons any of the other rights that they lose when convicted, such as the right to own a weapon. Then again, the Democrats tend to be highly receptive of gun control, so it's not surprising, I guess.

Also important to note: Greece and Rome followed the same model. IF you were a lawbreaker and convicted, you lost many of the rights your fellow citizens had.

There was a lot of talk of illegals being granted amnesty. With that comes the right to vote. And the Democrats, who are in the dog house according to polls because of this health care debacle, wold be able to keep seats because the amnesty would provide thousands of votes, most of whom would vote for Democrats. Another sticking point was the claim that Obama himself may be an illegal immigrant, and that by granting amnesty, he'd be pardoning himself.

Please note, the final portion of the above paragraph is pure speculation on the part of others, and I am attempting to distance myself from this viewpoint. This is not the view expressed by myself, I simply report.

Instead, Democrats and turning towards a group not commonly thought of for votes. Will it work? Who knows.

The second issue I want to touch upon is Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, an Army flight surgeon who recently posted a video saying that he will disobey orders given by the President until such time as Mr. Obama releases his full birth certificate. He even admits that by saying this, he is inviting his own court martial. The Army has not made an official statement.

LtCol Lakin is the highest-ranking active duty officer to have publicly questioned the validity of Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility. He's even made it clear he will not obey the orders given to him, because all orders originate from the Commander-in-Chief (or, the President of the United States). This includes the order to mobilize for a deployment to Afghanistan.

Interestingly, groups such as Oath Keepers are not reporting on this. You would think they would be all over this, as a member of the armed services - active duty, no less! - is requiring a member of the federal government to hold to the Constitution. In the case of Oath Keepers, more important to them is the apparent Southern Poverty Law Center "smear" campaign being run against them. Nothing is mentioned of the above issue, but there are plenty of recent articles and videos showing the supposed SPLC smear tactics, as well as letters to the editor of local papers detailing the success of local Oath Keepers meetings.

Now, I was - and to an extent still am - a member of Oath Keepers. However, the sight has slowly become, "Well, how do we manage to survive this?" As an organization, the founding principles of it are superb and founded in recent history as documented. They have turned away from true Oath Keepers such as LtCol Lakin (I know, the Army abbreviates the rank LTC, but I'm a Marine!), and allowed him to pass in relative obscurity. I am critical of groups that require me to be. And if I am part of a group, I would expect that they would serve as the true patriots they claim to be. I've seen a lot of "Keyboard Commandos", and undoubtedly many will think the same of me. That is fine.

Oath Keepers, time to start giving publicity to those who deserve it, like LtCol Lakin, and to ignore the people who don't rate the time of day, like the SPLC.

[Sources]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=131313, "Forget amnesty, look where Democrats now stoop for votes!" - World Net Daily

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/support-the-foundation.html; LtCol Lakin's message

Addendum to Previous Post:

There has been talk that the Copenhagen treaty will not be signed this year, but rather fleshed out and brought to the table next year. While I have not been able to confirm this, Iw ill look into it. This does not invalidate the threat, merely postpones it.

On Global Warming, National Sovereignty, and Oath Keepers.

It’s been a bit since I last wrote. I apologize; I’ve been pre-occupied with a lot of things, namely finding a job. Sadly, I have had to do as was offered when I was in the military and file an unemployment claim. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is sponge off the government, federal or state. But I need to get by, and I won’t justify it. Life goes on, as does the search for employment.

A few things have transpired since I last wrote. I’ll go into the threat, first.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (you know, the one who authorized the British Army’s Special Air Services to rescue the hostages in the Iranian Embassy) was recently in St. Paul, Minnesota. He gave an incredible speech about the fallacy that is global warming and even offered definitive proof that the entire thing is far-fetched and is the greatest scam of all time. Let me explain.

You know how one of the things that the global warming posse likes to use is the ice caps melting during the summer? Well, here’s the thing…IT’S SUMMER. Of course the ice caps are melting, because more sun is focused on them! When the ice caps melt, the seas rise. But does it really? I want you to make an ice cube and put it in some water. When you’re done with that, feel free to continue on.

Now that you have your ice cube in the water, notice how it sits up out of the water a bit? That’s what happens with glaciers and icebergs: they displace the water. When they melt, there’s no displacement, simply more liquid water. Amazing, isn’t it?

In short, there’s no rise of the oceans, there’s no global warming. The earth has been going through these cycles for millennia, and we have exited an ice age not too recently (at least according to universal time), so of course the planet is getting warmer. I’ll leave that to the real climatologists, the ones with the PhD’s.

But he didn’t end it on that (it was an incredible speech). He came about to a “more serious” note.

In December of this year, the world governments will meet. At Copenhagen, there will be a treaty. This treaty will serve to form a new world government, and transfer the “wealth” of the western nations to the “developing” nations around the world. They call this coyly a climate debt. However, there is no global warming; it is a farce, as Lord Monckton shows us.

What makes this dangerous is that it will trump the Constitution. No treaty may hold more power then our Constitution, it is written in the Constitution itself! The Constitution of the United States is to be the fundamental and be-all-end-all of this nation, and we are not to be subjugated to any other nation or group of nations.

This is why the United Nations is unconstitutional.

According to this treaty, we as a nation will be unable to reconcile from it. We will never be able to pull out of it simply because every other nation must agree to let us pull out. However, we will be the biggest paying county there. Do you think they’ll go for that?

We are serving imprisonment right now. Our nation is, as the data says, borrowing almost $10-billion dollars a day – read that again: $10,000,000,000. That is a lot of zeroes! And this is a debt that will force our country into bankruptcy faster than Bush would have under his economic plans.

Please let me state right now, former-President George W. Bush is not a man I will remember for being anything special. He is no Ronald Reagan, that’s for sure.

When September 11th happened, we all remember the look on President Bush’s face as the Secret Service agent told him about the second tower being struck. We all remember how he sat there, struck with a dilemma: offer these children some sense of normalcy for another five minutes, or rush out and cause a panic. At that point we didn’t know who had done what, and we weren’t 100% sure that it had been an attack (though seriously, it was glaringly obvious even to me). But he sat there, and then when it was finished he stood and explained what had happened.

Look at President Barack Obama on the day of the Fort Hood massacre. He’s spending a few minutes giving “shout outs” and joking with those who had invited him to the Tribal Conference, then it’s on to the shooting. Everything he said was written on cards – you can tell because he’s looking down at the podium every few minutes. It was not something coming from the heart.

President Bush’s reaction to September 11th was to go out there and kill the people who attacked us. President Obama’s reaction has been to make excuses for Major Hassan, the Army officer accused of committing this attack on our soldiers. The good Major was claimed to have jumped on a desk and shouted, “Allahu Ackbar!” – Arabic for “God is great!” – And then opened fire. This, if true, makes it a terrorist attack because not only were soldiers killed, but also civilians. President Bush also made an immediate (or close to it) beeline to Fort Hood to see the families of the slain, along with his wife. He did this without cameras. Obama brought the entire cadre of paparazzi.

The final topic I wish to touch on is a group I have been with. I am a member of a group that I have harped on about as a great idea and something that this country needs. I won’t go on and preach the Oath Keepers message and mission statement, because I’ve done that already and done it before.

Oath Keepers still remains one of the best things I have seen in the past few years. The mission statement is admirable and, for all intents and purposes, is the thing we need in order to scare some sense into the government. Is it working? Well, there’s been a lot of “bad press” coming from the Obama administration’s puppets, i.e. the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, and mainstream media outlets like CNN. You’ve seen me respond to the Veterans’ Today op-ed piece by Major Hanafin (and I hate to say this, I dropped the ball and neglected to get what info I need to request through BUPERS his information). I stand by my statement that this outfit is incredible, and every military member (both current and former) as well as law officer should be required to join to be held to the Constitution.

Anyone who has joined knows of the forums. The forums, sadly, are where the group has been lax. Especially after Stewart Rhodes appeared on “Hardball with Chris Matthews”, the population base for the group jumped considerably. Suddenly, the forums were attacked by racists, anti-Obama propaganda, and the like. The mission statement of Oath Keepers is and always has been that they are apolitical, and as a non-moderator, I attempted to curve people back to our stated mission. However, I was ridiculed by several people, and was even told by a “Christian” that he hopes I “enjoy the special place in hell for [me], along with all the child molesters and rapists”. This was all because I attempted to stop his propaganda against Obama, and because I didn’t take a stand against Obama I was “clearly a puppet of BHO” and that I was unworthy of being in “God’s sight”.

Since then, there have been daily posts about the “unconstitutionality” of some laws being passed, of the need to begin planning for “armed revolution”, and of various other conspiracy theories. All of this falls out-of-line with the mission. I attempted to be polite, and after a bit I snapped and said some stuff (there were a lot of curse words in one posting). People understood and accepted that I had snapped, and some tried to approach me and say that I needed to back off and rest from the forums. I had one in particular tell me to “STOP PLAYING DADDY BECAUSE IT’S NOT YOUR JOB” (I used CAPS lock to illustrate how she wrote). I finally just started taking things less than seriously, and began actively trolling some of the threads. I even signed them “Patrick M. Fahey, President, Oath Keepers Forums Troll Association” to show the fact that they were acting stupid and didn’t warrant any serious responses.

Apparently that upset someone. After one discussion I started, pretty much insulting conspiracy theorists and the like, I was given a warning by the site moderator, Elias Alias. If I did it one more time, I would be banned from the forums. Well, I didn’t post anything close to the scathing response, but I continued to troll and show them how foolish they were acting. I attempted, basically, to bring sanity and logic to forums (I really need to stop doing that). In response, I was banned.

Now keep in mind, these threads were being kept up. They were being moved to the Archives, not deleted. All these things that detracted from our stated goals were kept around for everyone’s perusal. Anyone who was new would see this and instantly think we were all crackpot conspiracy theorists and anti-government, when we weren’t. It would mean all that Stewart had done was for nothing. However, anything that insulted Oath Keepers was removed permanently.

These same posts about how evil Oath Keepers is were no different then the anti-Obama posts. But anything that wasn’t attacking Oath Keepers as an organization was kept around. Every day you’d see “different” people post the same subjects, sometimes with the same headings, as if the forums were their own and that if they wrote it, it must be true and we should act.

I want to say this right now: it is not the job of the military or the police to remove the problem that was elected by the citizens of this country. That is a military coup, and it is dangerous. If the elected officials make an overt move to destroy the Constitution, then we should act, and chances are we will.

I love Oath Keepers; I will remain a part of it. However, my displeasure is there and needs to be aired. I promised Stewart when I made a second account to mail him that I would not bad-mouth the group, and I hope no one sees this as such. However, I would request that anyone who goes to the site to look them over not take the boards seriously. There aren’t enough moderators to handle them, despite the fact that people have asked to become moderators, and we have made points to telling them they need to police it better.

I would like to give a shout out to the United States Marine Corps as they celebrated 234 years of faithful dedication to the Constitution and to this great nation. November 11, 1775 was the creation date of my beloved Corps and it continues to do what it was created to do: kick ass and take names.

I would like to end this diatribe with my heartfelt condolences to those families who lost people in the massacre. Know that my family and I pray for you to find closure, and that your family members are in heaven now.

Semper fidelis.


VIDEO

Lord Christopher Monckton’s speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
President George W. Bush on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5NvKpJfKE
President Barack H. Obama after the Fort Hood shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_N1MMll4Xk

ARTICLES:

Copenhagen Climate Treaty: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/

SITES:

Oath Keepers: www.oathkeepers.org

And the revolution begins...

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I don't hold to the "9/11 Truther" movement, I don't believe the government killed JFK, and I don't hold to the belief that martians are abducting us to use for experiments.

Okay, maybe the last one is believable.

Beyond this, I have watched for a year or two as the signs of our republic losing itself became increasingly clear. I watched the creation of the Patriot Act; I watched the government violate the Constitution with warrant less wire taps of it's own citizens in the name of "security"; I've watched our intelligence services and military forces be weakened to the point that they can barely maintain a standing presence on our own shores and abroad. Most importantly, I've watched this current administration chip away at the rights of our citizens and our states.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has begun the small slide that has the power to begin the second American Revolution. Thursday, October 8, 2009, the state legislature passed Massachusetts Pandemic Bill s.2028, effectively giving control of the state to the governor at any time on the basis that "...an emergency exists which is detrimental to the public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency under chapter 639 of the acts of 1950, as amended..."

Under this bill, the governor can declare a "state of emergency", effectively installing martial law (or close to it) on the basis that a virulent disease is spreading.

In other words, at this time all power can be centralized to the Governor, Duvall Patrick, on the basis that the H1N1 virus (more commonly, though incorrectly, referred to as the "swine flu") is a pandemic. He could declare it tonight.

This bill allows them to force vaccinations on anyone. Penalties for refusal include confinement to one's home, confinement to a prison or hospital (and you know if they confine you there, they will force the vaccine on you), and/or a fine not exceeding $1,000/day you refuse to take the vaccine. Among other problems is the following unconstitutional clauses found in the bill:

(1) Public safety / health care / volunteer personnel waived from any criminal / civil liability for any civil or medical negligence / rights violations / death / injury (lines 19-24, 180-81, 190-192, 292-98).

Explanation: In the military, we are not able to file a lawsuit or grievance against the government or the military medical corps for improper procedures or improper diagnosis of an issue. Jokingly, we used to say that the reason it said "Property of the United States Government" on the CAC cards solidified this. However, this allows congress to use improperly-tested drugs ("vaccines") without fear of repercussions. After all, now a doctor doesn't have to worry about a medical malpractice suit if you suddenly end up with a life-threatening cancer from the drug!

(2) Allows dispensing controlled substances i.e. drugging people against their will (line 65).

Explanation: A lot of people would say this isn't so bad. After all, who doesn't enjoy the highs of percocet and the like? But the problem is, with this they can force it on you, weakening your resistance and resolve. You'll get that H1N1 vaccine that isn't properly tested whether you like it or not!

(3) Persons violating unconstitutional orders of a local public health authority shall be punished by Up to: 6 months imprisonment / $1000 fine (lines 77-80).

Explanation: Okay, this one is worded a bit differently, so let me clarify. I've stated before that as a member of the military it is your duty to refuse orders that are unlawful and, thus, unconstitutional. If the police come to your door and attempt to enter without a warrant, which they can do during this "state of emergency", that is a breach of your fourth amendment rights (protection against unlawful search and siezure), and because you exercise your rights you can be held as a prisoner, and/or fined.

(4) Government control over: transportation, materials, facilities, including but not limited to: communications, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, shelter (lines 81-84)

Explanation: Just start singing the anthem of the former-USSR now. Propaganda, the inability to contact loved ones...you'll be forced to be subjugated, or you're not getting food, water, electricity, etc. As we saw with Katrina, even if people do as they're told, they may not get these anyways (FEMA made sure of this).

(5) Determination of reasonable cause to believe that a “condition dangerous to public health” (could include firearms) exists or may exist authorizes: investigation, isolation, quarantine, obtain medical records and other information, monitor, prevent, control (lines 134-35, 204-210) Notwithstanding and regardless of any GOAL position, the chief author of the Model State bill used to craft S-2028 / H-4271 wrote / testified / promotes proven false theory that: “Firearms are a public health crisis … firearms actually make the public less safe.” H-4271 fails to exclude and protect 2nd Amendment / Article XVII well-regulated right to keep and bear tools from being determined by health authorities to be a “condition dangerous to public health”.

Explanation: This one should be self-explanatory. You can't put up an armed resistance if you don't have weapons to do it with. This goes along with (3), in that they are removing your fourth amendment rights in order to make sure you don't have a second amendment right. It will be just like Katrina, in which government officials confiscated weapons that were legally owned and registered, even though looters were running around armed.

(6) Forced isolation / quarantine to other private or public premises / area i.e. kidnapped / taken to undisclosed location / camp (lines 219-222)• May take such action to assure maintenance of public health / may establish procedures to ensure continuation of essential public health (lines 4-14) >> too vague; opens door to abuse.

Explanation: Ever hear those "crackpot" theories that the government likes to swoop in with armed men in black "pajamas" to sweep dissidents out of their homes in the middle of the night? Doesn't seem so crackpot now, does it? You don't want the vaccine "willingly"? Fine, you're coming with us and you're getting it at this undisclosed location. That, ladies and gentlemen, is kidnapping, a federal offense.

I'm taking the numbered portions from the following: http://www.masslpa.org/content/urgent-s-2028-pandemic-swine-flu-vaccine-action-thread, under the comments.

This is dangerous, ladies and gentlemen. I know many of you may be reading from other states and thinking to yourself, "Well, at least I don't live there!" The fact of the matter is, this passing the legislature sets a precedent. Any state can now draft a bill similar to this, tweak it to make sure it's "constitutionally acceptable" under the state constitution, and viola! You now have the possibility of the federal government, through the states, declaring martial law!

I'm speaking specifically to those who took an oath, now. You see your enemies. Those enemies are not in far-off shores, those enemies are sitting in the state and federal capitals of this great nation. These United States are being torn apart by internationalists. We are being destroyed by both the political left and right, by the Republicans and Democrats. We are being backed into a corner, and those of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution should now see their choices. I will tell you that as soon as this is enacted (the first time Duvall Patrick declares a "state of emergency"), we are at war with each other once again. You have a duty, to the Constitution and to the people of this great nation to defend them from tyranny.

Say what you will, but this is a very dangerous time to be alive. Let us pray for peace, but be ready for conflict.

DON'T TREAD ON ME!

Veterans Today Piece on Oath Keepers

As I have said before, I belong to a group called Oath Keepers. We are a non-partisan group who focus on reminding those who took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of what that truly means. Under that oath, you swear that you will defend the people if the government oversteps its boundaries, and you will defend the country against any threat that may come, from a foreign nation-state or from terrorist groups. Stewart Rhodes, our founder, has even said that if a tyrant comes form the left or the right, it won’t matter because we will treat him as an enemy just the same.

In short, we don’t care what your political affiliation is: we’ll stand up for what is right, which means we will stand by the people if that time comes.

Recently, Veterans Today published a piece on Oath Keepers. In it, retired Air Force major named Robert L. Hanafin accused Oath keepers of being a right-wing organization and, beyond this, that we actively encouraging active duty service members to disobey orders.

You can read the article here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8752#

Now, Mr. Hanafin has stated that refusal to follow an order (whether lawful or not) is against the law (both under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Hatch Act). Let’s look at both of these:

There are two different Hatch Acts, according to federal legislation. The first is the Hatch Act of 1887, which created agricultural experiment stations. The second is probably what he was referring to: the Hatch Act of of 1939, whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform).

The Hatch Act of 1939 lists out what a federal employee can and can not do. No where in the general provision or any amendments to the law does it say that violating a military order is against the law and is punishable as such. So when Mr. Hanafin says that it is something “most of our troops, including Junior Officers don't know the meaning of”, I think he is incorrect. I think it is something that he doesn’t know the meaning of, and I’m hoping he reads this and does some research of his own.

Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances. This would fall under several articles, namely Article 81 (conspiracy), Article 88 (contempt towards officials) if they are a commissioned officer, Article 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 94 (mutiny or sedition), Article 98 (noncompliance with procedural rules), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and Article 134 (general article). My, that’s a lot of articles he has to stand on, isn’t it! Let’s take a look at a few of them, shall we?

Article 81 reads as such: “Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Article 81 states that any person who enters into agreement with another person is guilty of being a co-conspirator. However, what does this mean? Conspiracy to commit a felonious act, such as murder, is what is covered here. For all intents and purposes, a conspiracy is how they are able to get witness testimony from other guilty parties, assuming the prosecution does not want to offer leniency on the other charges. Is Oath Keepers a conspiracy?

To meet the requirements, it would have to be proven that:

(1) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to willfully disobey lawful orders from their chain of command;
(2) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to act against superiors, and;
(3) Oath Keepers is attempting to solicit the general attention of the military and, thus, interrupt the good order and discipline of the military.

Does Oath Keepers meet these requirements? No, they do not. Oath Keepers is not asking the military to disobey the lawful orders given by their chain of command. We expect that those who serve would remember their oath to the Constitution so that if the time comes to choose between protecting the rights of the people and acting as the government’s arm to remove those rights, they will do the right thing and live up to their oath.

The next article, Article 88, reads as such: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In short, Article 88 says that any officer who speaks openly against the Executive branch, Legislative branch, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of (fill in the blank with the appropriate military branch), the Secretary of Transportation, or any state government is guilty under this article. Going back to conspiracy, Oath Keepers is not requesting that officers act out against the government under normal circumstances.

Now, I can go on and list out the articles themselves, and I can list out how those who do as they are required by their oath do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a former commissioned officer, Mr. Hanafin should understand the UCMJ better then he lets on. If anyone wants me to list out the rest of the articles (I have a copy of the Manual for Courts-Martial, so you know), I will be more then happy to do so and explain exactly how Mr. Hanafin is incorrect.

Suffice it to say, my belief that Robert L. Hanafin was an Air Force officer is gone. Not only is his argument faulty, but his responses to some of the people who leave comments contradicting his “article” leave something to be desired. I expect someone who claims to be a retired major and, beyond that, a former GS-14 with the Department of Justice to be a bit more tactful and respectful of dissenting opinions. Adding insult to injury, in one rebuttal of a reader’s comment he use Wikipedia as a means to provide “factual information” to solidify and back up his statements. I will be contacting the Air Force BUPERS to find out if there truly was a Major Robert L. Hanafin, under the Freedom of Information Act. I am truly interested in finding out the legitimacy of this man’s status.

Semper fidelis.