Military Pundits

American Resistance

Posted on March 7th, 2009 by CJ
Filed under: General Military

11 Responses to “American Resistance”

Robin, on March 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm Said:

Wow, CJ. This is great. I knew that I wasn’t alone. As I explained to my two teenage boys, I wear a sidearm every day in public because a right you don’t use, is a right you will lose. I also explained to them that I gave an oath to defend the Constituiton and am willing to perish fulfilling that oath. I may be old and beat up, but my oath will never run out. Ever.
Respectfully,
Robin
Shannon, 16 yr Army wife, on March 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm Said:

I had wondered what the military would do if faced with the idea of martial law being instituted by the government. I had hoped to hear that the military members would defend us, and I have found solace in this man’s words. Thanks for the video CJ, It’s heartneing to know we are not alone.
NY-David, on March 8th, 2009 at 10:31 pm Said:

Boy, talk about fear-mongering. This guy claims to know the constituation, but doesn’t seem to practice it. Perhaps he should recall the other part of his oath that included ” obey the orders of the President of the United States”. The other item he doesn’t seem to want to define is while we do live in a Republic, its a Democratically elected one.
Perhaps the idiotic mask is affecting his brain activity.
NY-David
CJ, on March 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pm Said:

But, David. What is a Soldier to do when the orders of the President violate the Constitution? It hasn’t happened yet in the strict sense of the word, but what if it does? Is the Soldier who takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” supposed to actually do that or “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”? I think the answer comes from the fact that we only have to obey orders “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” So, if the President or any leader in the military orders us to do something unconstitutional (martial law), we can ignore those orders. Again, these are extremes that I believe the Marine is addressing. While I don’t personally think we’ll get there, we’re on the swift road in that direction.
NY-David, on March 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am Said:

I might suggest we compare this against soldiers who stood down at the beginning of the Iraq war. They didn’t feel that this war was necessary to the defense of the US and therefore unconstitutional. While I think if we have to take a poll amoung the troops before we engage in any war effort, this will effect our effectiveness overall.
Frankly, if we are on the swift road in that direction, we’ve always been there and haven’t realized it. It’s not easy being us.
Along the same lines, when Federal Marshalls escorted Ruby Bridges to school many years ago, despite the threats of the governor, perhaps these marshalls could have stood down as well.
NY-David
NY-David
William R. Shepherd, on March 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pm Said:

NY-David has very little knowledge of the Constitution and none at all of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In his mind the military is supposed to blindly obey the an order from the president. The oath we take also says: “…support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. ” The president cannot contravene the Constitution; any military person that obeys such an attempt would violating the UCMJ and subject to court-martial.
NY-David, on March 10th, 2009 at 11:49 pm Said:

Sorry, Mr. Shepherd, I’m quite knowledgeable in both. As CJ indicated, we are talking in extremes. Certainly a president isn’t to be “blindly obeyed”, but the authority has to start somewhere. As I think you and I both agree, it begins with the Constitution. The president can be removed from office under the articles of impeachment. A disagreement wtih the president doen’t give license for a soldier to decide not to enforce the orders given if he/she decides they are not the soldier’s idea of what the constitution meant. Vigilence over our rights is nothing new, just because perhaps your choice of president isn’t in office.
NY-David
WOTN, on March 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am Said:

Regardless of the veracity of any or all of his statements, when he put on that Uniform to make those statements, he was WRONG.

True: US Troops will NOT kill US Civilians in support of removal of the 2nd Amendment.
(US Troops would put down an armed rebellion.)
False: Martial Law is unconstitutional. It is Constitutional, but only under specific circumstances.

Troops swear to uphold the LAWFUL orders of the President with the overriding OATH to protect the Constitution.

This Nation, nor the extremes who have called for a civil war, are served by an actual civil war. The First Amendment is the best method of protecting the US Constitution. There is an election in 2010 to replace the members of Congress. The internet allows for low budget campaigns by REAL citizens to put in the House those that understand and will uphold their oath to the Constitution.

We need to elect Representatives, like this Independent: http://tennesseetaylorfor6th.blogspot.com/ who is running against one of the most powerful members of the party of absolute power.

We need to use our voice, our words, Our Right to Free Speech, to peaceably change Our Government, to return Our Nation to the Constitution.
William R. Shepherd, on March 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Said:

WOTN: I agree that the Marine was WRONG to wear his uniform while making those statements. “Troops swear to uphold the LAWFUL orders of the President with the overriding OATH to protect the Constitution.” Well said, I wish I’d included that in my post.
NY-David “Vigilence over our rights is nothing new, just because perhaps your choice of president isn’t in office.” Not sure what point David is trying to make here but he does identify himself as an Obama partisan.
Robin, on March 12th, 2009 at 9:25 am Said:

I’ve been thinking about the argument that this Marine was wrong to wear his uniform and I must disagree. If he had been making a partisan political statement, I would agree it was wrong. He was making a statement about defending the Constitution and it is entirely appropriate that the citizens of the United States understand that military members are NOT little robots.
Military members have the right to refuse orders they consider unconstitutional as long as they are willingly to accept responsibility for their actions. The soldier in Germany that refused to wear UN headgear comes to mind. I respect him quite a bit. I think he was wrong, but he had the guts to accept responsibility for his beliefs. That is integrity and honor.
Respectfully,
Robin
NY-David, on March 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm Said:

I’ve nothing to hide, Mr. Shepherd. My point is that I’m hearing a lot of trepidation that our rights are under siege. The same was said when Mr. Bush was elected. Either way, vigilence isn’t new.
NY-David