Sunday, April 19, 2009

I will honor the Oath



1. I will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. I
will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.


3.
I will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4.
I will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5.
I will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6.
I will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7.
I
will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8.
I
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."

9. I will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10 I 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.



My name is Joseph William Cox, and I am an Aviation Mechanic in the United States Navy.
I am stationed in San Diego, Ca and I take the oath listed above.
I took another oath when I joined the military, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
I will honor that even if it is done away with.


11 comments:

Hulagu Khan said...

Thank you for your loyalty Joseph, it would be a Honer to stand with you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your service. I am very proud of our men and women in our Military. I just hope they all will stand by the constitution. The day is coming before long that they will try and take the peoples guns. Its not going to be easy because most would rather fight as to not be free anymore and be our governments slaves. You will have some that will give up there guns without a problem, that will be afraid, but my husband and I will not be in that few, We will not become slaves to our government. We will be standing by your side if the time comes. We are not young anymore but we will not sit around and let our grandchildren and great grandchildren become slaves. We want them to live in a free America. So God Bless you all and stay safe.

Anonymous said...

Everybody please go to www.tubereject.com/index.php?topec=127.0
And see what is happening to James Tracy Cuneo just for speaking out and trying to get our government to do something about a communist group and reminding Military Officers about there oath to the constitution.

JS said...

Hmm.

Well, #1, yeah, sure, I'm there with you. I'm one of those damn liberals, but I'd disagree with the military being ordered to disarm citizens. Unless, of course, those citizens were threatening the military. But then, that could just be used as an excuse… Really comes down to how much you trust the military.

#2, well, hell yes I agree with you on this. Glad to hear you're with us. The ACLU is doing good work in opposing a lot of warrantless surveillance. I'd support prosecution of the folks behind it. Refusing to do it is a good start, and I hope you'll all join me actively opposing it.

#3, again, man, I'm right there with you. I might think it's a little narrow, but just glad to hear you agree (folks on opposite sides get demonized too often, and it's easy to forget what we agree on)

#4, well, that depends. I mean, I know what you mean (or hope so). But I'm pretty sure that states also declare emergencies for federal disaster funding. Wildfires, droughts, floods—all can get the national guard called in as a state of emergency. Posse comatitus, that I'm against.

#5, yeah, see, states don't have autonomous sovereignty. We fought a war over that, and the answer was "No." If you argue states can secede, you've got to be willing to fight another civil war against the Union, and not only do most people not want that, you don't really want that. So while I can respect the impulses behind what you're saying, it's only worthwhile if you're really willing to turn brother against brother and let the Shenandoah run red.

#6, the problem with that is that you've phrased it so that you would blockade cities if they didn't turn them into concentration camps. Best to just drop that part, in the interest of clarity of oath. Otherwise, at least axe the "thus."

#7, I'm back there with you. Totally agree, and would expand—I don't think putting any group in detention camps is a good idea.

#8, I can understand this, though I can think of times when it would be OK. If we get another Katrina, and Mexico could get aid boats in faster? But really, no one's going to invade us from outside—it'd be a logistical nightmare and frankly, we'd kick their asses.

#9, that's pretty much the third amendment, though it seems clumsily worded here. And, frankly, I can think of times when using the military to seize food would be a good thing—again, in disaster relief. We'd, of course, want the military to pay for it (and we're assuming it's not zombies in the streets time).

#10, hey, thanks, great. Way to go! Totally agree.

So, the majority of those I totally agree with. And there are a couple where I think it's just interpretation I'd be worried about, but mostly agree. Then there are a couple that I think you mean well, but aren't real concerns, and one where I think you're dead wrong.

Not bad for one of those leftists.

Anonymous said...

where were you 8 years ago?

Anonymous said...

I would add one: We will prevent a president from extending his presidency without an election by the people and beyond the two term limit by any resistance methods we deem appropriate.

Joe said...

Comments about this website (at metafilter) I've read and agreed with-->
Go back to about 2003 and I guarantee all these teabaggers would be all pitchforks and torches towards anyone reciting this unpatriotic 'oath'.
-----------
The oath is one loaded statement after the other, intended to shape the conversation and discourse on the terms of an oppressive government not governed by the people.
-----------
Interesting that the tenth oath is a partial restatement of the 1st Amendment, but it doesn't mention protecting the freedom to worship or the free press.
-----------
Where were these militant nutjobs when Bush was around and violating at least half of their oaths. Its only when there are liberals in power do the militants start blowing shit up. Thanks again right-wing radio and Fox News!
-----------
See, I agree that the constitution should be defended. I agree basically with what the oath says.
However, these guys seem to be about a lot more than just the oath. The "no king but Jesus" kicking off the rally or whatever it was in one of the articles says a lot.
Unfortunately, it's hard to be a fellow who believes in the constitution but does not believe in religious nutbaggery and anti-tax tomfoolery.
Let's take the second amendment, for example. I believe wholeheartedly that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and NOT just to hunt with. However, 98% of the organizations that I could join to support this cause are right-wing pro-republican, praise-jesus, social conservative types. So I can't really throw my hat into their ring.
Similarly, I'd like to vote in support of the second amendment, but I can't vote for the modern Republican Party. I just can't.
What these people need to do if they ACTUALLY want to defend our constitution is to chuck all the "right-wing crazy" out of their movement so that those of us who believe in the constitution but not in the right-wing social conservativism can join up.
-----------
Trouble with all of these nutjobs is that 90% of what they say is good c*mm*ns*nse. But its the 10% they don't say that would give you nightmares.
-----------
Wait, so they're standing ready to defend medical marijuana in California and gay marriage in Vermont? Hello? Anyone?--that's why these movements are such a farce. These guys are basically into the freedoms that fit their own ideals, which are tinged by religious bias, etc... They don't actually care about true freedom and a real vision of a free America. Like I said, it sucks that these people suck so bad at what they're trying to do, because there's many of us out there who would love to get behind a movement that supports real freedom, true equality, and fair ideals for everyone in our country.

Joe said...

PS--I'm very socially liberal but fairly conservative economically (when Niall Fergeson and Paul Krugman--at opposite ends of the political spectrum--agree we should nationalize BoA and Citi, I'd listen). That said, I agree with JS. I'm totally pro-America, pro-military, but I'm pro-liberty enough to be pro-gay-marriage and pro-gun rights (I carry a pistol and own an AR).

Stewart Rhodes said...

Joe, you make the mistake of presuming without knowledge, and painting with a broad brush. You don't know any of us, or where we were or what we did previously - during the Bush years - but you presume to.

As for me, Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, go read my personal blog, at

www.stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com

There you can read the many articles I wrote, some of them published, criticizing and condemning the Bush Administration's many violations of the Constitution.

Look on the right hand column on my personal blog for links to those articles.

You will see that I wrote a paper back in 2004, while a student at Yale Law School, criticizing the Bush Doctrine of the unitary executive and enemy combatant status. That paper won Yale's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights.

I also wrote about enemy combatant status for Gerry Spence's Journal, The Warrior. The title of that 2005 article is "Enemy Combatant Status: No More Pernicious Doctrine."

I also wrote scathingly critical articles for www.moreliberty.org in 2006. Those are still online.

I even wrote poems making fun of John Yoo and the other neocons.

Heck, some of my articles were linked to by Crooks and Liars.

You'll be hard pressed to find a more consistent, strident, and outspoken opponent of most of what Bush did.

It's funny, and sad, that back then I was called a "damn liberal" by many Republicans for daring to criticize the president, and now, when I am saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING, people on the left want to label me as some Kool-Aid drinking Bushie, or even as a racist - why? Simply because I dare hold the exact same opinions during the Obama Admin?

You, and the rest of the Metafilter gang, should do some homework on people before you start cramming them into little boxes and smearing them. If you insist on labeling me, then call me a libertarian. That is the label that fits best.

And the same goes for Dave Freeman and Jim Ayala. I met them while we were all volunteers for Ron Paul's campaign. So, the core of Oath Keepers is libertarian, not "conservative" and certainly not "neo-conservative."

I worked for Ron Paul, and I agree with him on about 95% of issues. As I said, I am a libertarian and I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution. I do my best to be as consistent about that as a human can be, and I believe in all of the Bill of Rights for everyone.

Judge me, and this organization, by what I have done and by what I write, and likewise for Dave and Jim (just go look at JIm's youtube video page) not on innuendo and supposed guilt by association.

I don't agree with everything the other speakers at the April 19 rally said any more than I agree with everything Gerry Spence has said or written, nor will I agree with everything people write in their testimonials here on this site.

And the same goes for any other events we are part of, such as the June 11 rally we will attend as part of our outreach.

A man who will only associate or speak with those who agree 100% with him is going to be a damn lonely man and will not change many minds, since he only speaks to those who already agree with him.

Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers

Joe said...

Stewart Rhodes,

Even if I think their are a lot of problems with libertarian ideology, I do agree with most social policies JUST as I agree with the oathkeeper oaths--I'm a liberal college professor who believes the South had every right to secede before the war of the northern aggresion. ;o) I agree with libertarian social policies such as supporting gay marriage--or marriage being taken out of gov't.

Your ideology, however thoughtful and however much some of it appeals to myself as well as "JS" above--not only attracts the libertarian Ron Paulers, but because of its militantly defensive and militant-jingo-patriotic overtones resonates with the Glen-Beck "we're heading towards socialism" barrel-suckers, the tea-bagging tree-of-liberty trimmers, and YES, even the arm-chair McVeighs (hopefully no McVeighs with the actual determination to do much more than make youtube videos and register on websites).

While I certainly misrepresented YOU guilty by association, that doesn't mean that you aren't associating with the guilty. It would seem a large majority of these oathkeepers supported Bush while he raped the Constitution and supported McCain and ::shudder:: Palin, both of whom supported Bush. I think your rhetoric should include that

What percentage of the oathkeepers do you think supported Bush, agreed with him, supported McCain and ::shudder:: Palin, but now that the "black" "muslim" "socialist" (in their mind) Obama is in power are suddenly afraid of FEMA concentration camps (supposedly--though rarely mentioned lately--built under Bush)? Your writing that due to "obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive," many states are "courageous[ly]" asserting their sovereignty seems to imply that this is a new and increasing problem--but how many of these states began doing this under Bush, who was the architect of "obscene growth of federal power" and the "absurdly totalitarian" executive power?! Obama wants to reduce this stuff--he wants to limit the executive powers Bush abused via his "signing statements" etc. (though, unfortunately, thanks to Bush's wrecking of the economy, gov't spending seemingly--if you ask brilliant, conservative economist Niall Fergeson OR liberal, intelligent Nobel laureate Paul Krugman) has to be increased insanely in order to keep us from insolvency--though both think we should temporarily nationalize the banks, which--thanks to his trying to play the political middle-ground and not frighten the right--Obama has yet to do.
--jOE f.
PS--thanks for your enlightening response, and--again--I'm sorry for holding you guilty by association. Don't some of your fellow million-man-oath-keepers scare you? Don't you see the hypocrisy in their newfound paranoia about Obama? Why don't you write about that--or would it not go over well?

CaptGooch said...

Joe F.,

I think you May have missed the fact that Oath Keepers is Not political in mission.

Our mission, in case you missed it, is to Reach, Teach and Inspire any and all of those who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic to actually Keep that Oath.

It makes not a whit of difference who is in the Oval Office or any other office for that matter.
If they took an Oath to Serve and that Oath included the passage above then they are Oath Takers.
If they are Oath takers our aim is to get them to become Oath Keepers.

Oath Keepers the Organization is Not Political in that we do not use any label BUT Oath Keeper.

We are not Liberals, [although some Oath Keepers May Be Liberals] We are not Conservatives [although some Oath Keepers May Be Conservatives] and We are not Demopublicans or Republicrats. [although .... but by now you have gotten the general idea I'd wager.]
Oath Keepers has No Political Agenda beyond preserving our Constitution and its Constitutional Republic.

Your insistence that Mr Rhodes ascribe to Your view points is noted. I cannot [of course] speak for Mr Rhodes but I have known him a bit longer than you and I would be willing to wager that he is Not going to be "denouncing" an organization that is his own brains work and his personal effort to correct the out-of-control government we have today.

I would suggest that you read all of the "official" positions we have posted here on this blog site.
Including the "We are Not List".

If you swore an Oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies are you going to Keep that Oath ?

Will you obey an order that you know is unconstitutional on its face just because it comes down the "official" chain of command ?

If you are not an Oath taker do you not believe in the Constitutional Republic as it is proposed by the Constitution ?

If You came here expecting a nest of political activists you are very much mistaken.

Oath Keepers is about Keeping our Oath to the Constitution and about Not obeying any order that is unlawful. Period.