“Being Right” in Defending our Oath

15 Jan


“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.”

So goes one version of the oath taken by our soldiers when entering the military.  Among the various oaths taken by law enforcement, military, and other public officials are the following similarities as specified in the oath above:

  1. To defend (affirm, support, uphold) the Constitution
  2. Obey orders of superiors (or in accordance with State constitutions, and other ordinances).

Sounds simple, right?  Why then would there be ANY conflict? Why would OathKeepers even be necessary?

In April 2014, the Bundy Ranch in Nevada found numerous armed government agents (LEOs, FBI, etc) caught in a stand-off with hundreds of armed “We the Peoples” as well as many Oath Keepers in a conflict over this very issue.  These government employees apparently felt as though they were putting their lives on the line for following orders in compliance to their oath.  The “Patriots” were also putting their lives on the line in defense of the Constitution and Liberty.  Both sides saw the issue differently and were willing to die for that belief.

I don’t question the resolve of either side.  I am sure if you asked, the men on both sides would insist that they were all acting in compliance to their oaths.

So which side is truly “right”?

The million dollar question is: how do you defend the Constitution (or encourage and hold your elected leaders to do the same) when the ‘order’ is in direct contradiction to the Constitution itself?  How do we handle the conflict?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”.  In case you didn’t notice, the operative component here is “lawful”.  The moral and lawful obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation to any provision of the Constitution. An Oath-taker and Oath-keeper has an obligation and duty to ONLY obey LAWFUL orders.  This obviously means that the same obligations stands with relation to disobeying UNLAWFUL commands and orders, regardless of who issues them, the president included.

The decision to follow any order by a superior is always a judgment call for the Oath taker. While it doesn’t appear as though most orders involve violating the supreme law of the land, some do; and this is where our knowledge and education of the Constitution has to be the framework for that decision.  As a sovereign man created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), you are always responsible for your choices.

During the last campaign for Baker County Sheriff, I attended a town hall meeting where we questioned a particular candidate running for that elective office.  My question to him was, “If you are elected Sheriff, will you serve a warrant merely based on the fact that it was issued by the court, regardless of whether or not it is valid?

His answer was telling.  He replied that he wasn’t a politician, and that it wasn’t up to him to determine whether or not warrants were valid…that was the judge’s job.  As an agent for the court, it would be his job to serve the warrant regardless.

Thank God he didn’t win that election.  He didn’t get any of our votes.  In truth, as an elected Sheriff as well as the entity that executes that warrant, he has an obligation cemented by his oath of office to serve warrants that are Constitutional and not the mere order of what may originate from a corrupt judge.  So yes, in fact, it is the Sheriff’s OBLIGATION UNDER OATH to only serve valid warrants and to disregard those that are not. And he does have to make that choice.

We have to learn to debate the issues while forming educated opinions instead of merely spewing witty one-liners that break down after one or two questions deep.  Liberals have a field day with the uneducated conservatives and believe me, it fuels them.  Take for instance Nancy Pelosi claiming that The Affordable Health Care Act is valid Law because it falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution. Based on that statement, her support of ObamaCare isn’t unconstitutional at all, so she’s not breaking her oath.  How would you answer that assertion?

In the past, our Chapter has recommended education by KrisAnne Hall, Ken Ivory, Doyle Shamley, Edwin Viera, Tervor Loudon, Dr. Eduardo Rivera, and many more.  These educators deal with real life issues that we are facing here in Baker County. They are helping the seekers of truth to better understand how we can be right in defending our Oaths at a local level.  These teachers have written books, blogs, and host websites with their messages in addition to many hours of lectures and instruction posted on YouTube.  I have found ($99/year) to be an extremely resourceful website with complete lecture modules on the Constitution, history, economy, Law, and more.  They are offered by the leading Constitutionalists and Libertarians of our time.  Furthermore, each lecture can be downloaded in audio format so that you can turn those long road trips or monotonous working hours into classroom instruction.  If you listened or read for 1 hour each day, you’d amaze yourself after only one year at the change in your world view and how easy it would be to support.

If we as Oath Keepers do find ourselves in situations where we stare mortality in the face, our choices have to be right.  Some we can analyze, others will be snap decisions.  In either case, we have to stand on disciplined principle and support and defend the Constitution with the same tenacity and dedication that our countrymen did at Valley Forge. The Bundy Ranch incident as well as the security measures taken at Ferguson, Missouri found Oath Keepers in situations where these types of choices had to be made.  As our world spirals down the path of its current trajectory, we will find ourselves in similar situations wherein we have to be right in making those decisions with resolve and discretion.  If our health, safety, and welfare hang in the balance and are worth defending with our lives, then we have to be right!

Jake Brown
Baker County Oath Keepers
Assistant Coordinator

1 Comment

Posted by on January 15, 2015 in Constitution Education, General


One response to ““Being Right” in Defending our Oath

  1. Jim

    January 15, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    Jake, when you put the Sheriff candidate on the spot, he could not have answered in any other way. After all, he is an officer of the court, and his job under the Constitution is to serve court papers.

    As an employee, it is not in his job description to make a legal determination about the lawfulness of anything he is required to serve. He is not an attorney, and the judge is.

    But your point is good that any public official who has sworn his sacred Oath to protect and defend the Constitution (even though he does not know WHICH “constitution” is involved) has a overriding DUTY to educate himself to the point that he MUST be able to make such a determination and to avoid participating in any unConstitutional scheme.

    He needs to know WHICH constitution is in operation, and which RIGHTS (if any) attach and apply.

    In the scenario you used, it is often very apparent that court process is defective. Just look at the Fourth Amendment, for example:” …No warrants [for arrests or taking of personal property] shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…”

    The simple TRUTH is that NO WARRANTS that I have ever seen are “supported by Oath”! They are all based on a mere unsworn “information” or other inferior, defective commercial process.

    Mandated OATHS under the constitutions require the actual SWEARING of an affiant, before a qualified administrator, of his first-hand, personal knowledge of certain and specific relevant facts that constitute an arrest-able crime.

    This never happens. There are ALWAYS “defects” of process that are NEVER challenged by BAR attorneys on either side. To do so would dis-bar them, as they are all officers of the “court” and they are pledged to keep the scheme going forever and to confiscate all the funds they can from the Sheeple. Somebody please tell me that I am wrong.

    The only lawful exception I know to this requirement of a sworn affidavit is that someone can be arrested by a Citizen or police officer when personally observing a felony in progress.

    Back to the example above, your Sheriff candidate should have understood his solemn DUTY accompanying his Oath, and he had the obligation to properly inform himself of the many elements of “Due Process” so that he could have sufficient knowledge to disobey unlawful court orders.

    The reason that there can be no actual lawful SWEARING to support warrants, as required under the Fourth Amendment is that all courts today are operating in a private commercial venue as private corporations. Nobody can swear under oath that someone has committed an arrest-able crime because all “crimes” are now commercial and governed by the UCC, and all defendants are presumed to volunteer into that commercial venue. “Arrests” of LIVING MEN within the fictional venue is not possible, and the actors doing so commit treason.

    Further, in commercial corporate “courts”, the only “defendants” are corporate, the names written out in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. These are corporate entities, not real living men. Who in his right mind is going to swear on an an affidavit that an artificial corporate entity committed a crime?

    Serving Warrants issued by a “judge” [they are NOT “real” Judicial Department “Judges” anyway!] that a deputy KNOWS are not Constitutional or Lawful is a violation of a QUALIFYING OATH, and the deputy has knowingly vacated his office and his acts are void.

    It is a serious matter, but the “system” relies on the blind obedience of its employees, who are well-paid for their treasons.

    Further posts will more fully expose the private corporate “court” system, and its FRAUD upon the people.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s