Posts Tagged ‘military’

Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands

March 18, 2009

Posted: March 17, 2009
11:21 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Campaign urges members of military to ‘steel resolve’ to ‘do the right thing’

 

An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including “state of emergency” orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.

Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization’s goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president.

He said the organization deliberately does not collect the names of those who subscribe to Oath Keepers’ beliefs because of their status mostly as active duty soldiers.

He told WND he is scheduled to talk about the issue on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio program tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and he’s begun working with “Gathering of Eagles” on several projects, including a Pro Troop Events gathering scheduled in Washington in June.

Rhodes said his goal is to “teach them more about what they swore to defend so they will be better able to see when an order violates the Constitution and the rights of the people, and is thus unlawful.”

That review must be done immediately, so they have an opportunity to decide what is right and wrong and then to “steel their resolve to take a stand and do the right thing, whatever the cost,” the organization says.

The U.S., Rhodes noted to WND, was launched as a natural law republic, meaning the founders recognized all rights come from God, not the government.

The founders, many of whom ended up active militarily in the revolution, rebelled “against the principle” that a king or parliament could rule them.

“That’s where we are. We want to make sure men in the military understand in advance what the line is they won’t cross,” Rhodes said.

One testimonial posted by an active duty Army soldier, who was kept anonymous, said that message already has gotten through.

“I want you guys to know I’m with you 100 percent and so are a lot of my fellow soldiers. These kinds of discussions go on between us often, and we all know that we did not swear an oath to any politician (of either party),” he wrote.

“And just for the record not me or anyone else in my platoon would ever follow an order to disarm the American people,” he wrote.

The organization describes itself as a non-partisan group of members of the military as well as peace officers “who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.”

Among the orders the soldiers are pledging NOT to obey:

  1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. … Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.
  2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. … We expect that warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.
  3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. … Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.
  4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor. … It is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.
  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. … Such tactics … by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turn[ed] entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.
  7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. … Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used.
  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” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
  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.

“We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic,” the organization’s website states. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Rhodes said the organization has not even had time to complete its website, but the word is spreading so quickly through its blog that thousands of people are investigating the site each day.

Plans had been to wait on the campaign until a website was established, but recent events accelerated the effort, he said.

One such situation was a training exercise planned by the National Guard in Iowa on which WND reported.

Rhodes said the effort is not a response to President Obama or his policies.

He said the accumulation of power in the executive branch in recent years has been alarming. The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power.

That, he said, is a “powderkeg.”

“We do feel in our hearts that this effort has the potential to change history for the better and to forestall or even prevent this nation from ever experiencing the horrors that plagued so many other nations in the 20th Century,” the website says.

“We are convinced that it is not too late, that there can be a turning of the tide – if we (and that means you too!) can reach enough of our brothers in arms and remind them of their oath, teach them more about what it is they swore to defend, and steel their resolves to stand firm if/when their oath is tested. We feel honor bound to do all we possibly can to achieve that mission.”

WND already has reported on several members of the U.S. military who have raised concerns about the implications of Obama’s possible ineligibility to be commander-in-chief.

One officer who signed onto a case filed by attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist with the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, immediately was ordered by his commanders not to speak to the media.

The officer’s identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.

Taitz said she’s working with more than 100 members of the military in her case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born

Feds reverse policy cutting ammo supply

March 18, 2009

Posted: March 17, 2009
9:00 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Respond to senators representing outraged gun owners nationwide

 

Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.

The policy already had taken a bite out of the nation’s stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail last night to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.

The small arms cases were identified as a senstive item and were held pending review of policy, he said.

“Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale,” Cunningham wrote.

One of the companies that brought attention to the issue is Georgia Arms, which for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass shell casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cut a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

Learn here why it’s your right — and duty — to be armed.

The policy compelled Georgia Arms to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, rounds used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. had announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

“They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?” Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. “We’ve been ‘going green’ for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we’re going to destroy it based on what? We don’t want the civilian public to have it? It’s a government injustice.”

As WND reported, firearm sales have spiked since the election of a perceived anti-gun president, and Americans stockpiling bullets have produced a stressed ammunition market.

The Orlando Sentinel reports months of steady, heavy buying have left gun dealers in Florida facing shortages of ammunition.

“The survivalist in all of us comes out,” John Ritz, manager of a Florida shooting range, told the Sentinel. “It’s more about protecting what you have.”

“People are just stockpiling,” said a spokeswoman for Georgia Arms, which has seen bullet sales jump 100 percent since the election. “A gun is just like a car. If you can’t get gas, you can’t use it.”

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense’s largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment at this time.

Other gun advocates, however, sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.

“It is an end-run around Congress. They don’t need to try to ban guns – they don’t need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit ‘assault’ weapon sales,” writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. “Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.”

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspects the policy change is an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

“This policy didn’t come out of the blue,” writes Owen. “The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can’t do it through regulatory action, he’ll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production.”

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company may be forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

U.S. border police arrest Mexican troops

February 27, 2009
 

PHOENIX (Reuters) – U.S. border police arrested seven Mexican soldiers after they accidentally strayed over the international boundary into Arizona, authorities said.

The U.S. Border Patrol said agents encountered the troops in a Humvee a short distance north of the border near Yuma, in far west Arizona, early on Friday.

“The Border Patrol agents on scene established a dialogue with the subjects, who identified themselves as members of the Mexican military,” the Border Patrol said in a news release.

“The … agents informed them of their presence within the United States. Upon notification, the subjects were peaceably taken into custody,” it added.

The soldiers, who were assigned to the 23rd Regiment Motorized Cavalry of the Mexican Army, said they had become disoriented while on patrol and had accidentally crossed the international boundary, the Border Patrol said.

After relieving them of their arms, agents took the soldiers to the San Luis, Arizona, port of entry where they were processed and repatriated to Mexico, along with their weapons and vehicle.

The incursion was the second by Mexican troops in recent months.

In August, a group of four Mexican soldiers briefly held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint in a remote stretch of the Arizona desert after they mistakenly strayed north across the border.

(Reporting by Tim Gaynor, editing by Eric Beech)

Bill forces citizens to submit DNA

February 7, 2009

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Police to obtain samples for state, federal databases – without charges filed

Posted: February 05, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 


Citizens who have been arrested may be required to submit DNA samples to authorities before being convicted of any crime – and those records would be kept in state and federal databases.

The Washington state Legislature has introduced a measure that would require police to obtain the samples from even suspects accused of minor crimes such as shoplifting, according to the Seattle Times.

The proposal is part of a new movement in several states to adopt similar measures. More than 12 states already permit police to collect samples prior to convictions and three more are considering adding the provision.

Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told the Times he welcomes the proposal.

“It is good technology. It solves crimes,” he said. “We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is a lot more intrusive.”

Critics claim Washington’s HB-1382, sponsored by Rep. Mark Miloscia, D- Federal Way, is unconstitutional because police and jail staff would be required to keep DNA records on adults and juveniles arrested on suspicion of a felony or gross misdemeanor.

Currently, police are required to obtain a search warrant or the suspect’s permission before collecting DNA by swabbing citizen’s cheeks.

“This bill would take the next step in the use of DNA technology to help catch individuals who have gone out and harmed people,” Miloscia told the Times.

According to the bill, authorities would remove a suspect’s DNA information if they were not charged or found guilty.

Each DNA test costs taxpayers $82, and the price tag for the plan could reach $1 million over two years. Miloscia said Washington could look to the federal government to recover some of those costs.

Jack King, staff attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., told the Times his group has been battling DNA-collection measures since 2004. He said requiring authorities to obtain DNA before convicting a person would violate their constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

“DNA samples reveal the most personal, private information about a person’s physical and mental makeup,” King said. “It is terribly unfair to an arrestee.”

Upon learning of the controversial, several readers posted the following responses:

  • This goes beyond stupid. They say that if the person isn’t convicted that they will destroy the sample. That is a lie. The federal government will not destroy records simply because a state destroyed theirs.
  • I don’t like it one bit. There should be a warrant provided before they take my DNA.
  • What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if found guilty, this is extreme for minor offenses.
  • The idea is to build a national database with everyone in it. This is just another step in the process. Next you will be required to provide a DNA sample when you get your driver’s license, and then they will simply take it at birth when you apply for a birth certificate. The point of the measure is not identification. They can already ID you. The point is to make it normal for people to give DNA samples to the national database. After all, only people with something to hide would object to this type of intrusion and surveillance. Right? Everyone needs to e-mail their legislator and tell them you do not want this or else they will just do it. This is not about criminals.
  • To the morons who say, “If you aren’t a criminal don’t worry about it,” our Founding Fathers gave us a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom from such sorts of unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has no right to my DNA chain until I am convicted of a felony and not before. As one of our great Founding Fathers has said, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
  • I wouldn’t trust the government promising to destroy the sample. When I joined the military, they took my fingerprints “for a security clearance check” – and they went into the great big database with all the criminals. Later, they took my DNA — “so there would be no more unknown soldiers” – and later Congress passed a law making this DNA available to any police department that requests it. And there is no provision to request destruction of the sample. Once you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.