Thanks, Tim. Oath Keepers focuses on those who have ALREADY taken a Constitutional Oath, as those will be the individuals that the socialists expect to be their pawns. Everyone is welcome, though. Anyone who takes an Oath and means it is just as legitimate as anyone else. All citizens are encouraged to join. Police or military experience is not required. Just a love of freedom and a commitment to the Constitution.

I am unelectable. I refuse to compromise my principles. My primary focus would be to eradicate all unconstitutional laws, starting with all laws that contain the words gun, arms, firearms and weapons. Show me a reasonable gun law, and I'll show you an unconstitutional infringement.

Besides, I think we are past fixing the situation working within the system. I am just trying to spread the word to my brothers in arms, that it is their duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders, specifically, the 10 Orders We Will Not Obey.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

Oath Keepers is our last chance to save the Constitutional Republic without bloodshed. I have to believe in it. Civil war is too terrible to contemplate, and will only be initiated by those who have betrayed their Oaths.

There is still time, but not much, by my reckoning. My gut tells me that this winter is going to harsh, and I don't mean the weather.

A fellow teacher/instructor who's actually read the Constitution. I'd vote for him. :)

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
-P.J. O'Rourke

I just read the "Ten Orders We Will Not Obey." I support them, with a couple of clarifications:

Does "warrantless searches" include tapping phone lines/cell phone towers without a warrant? I didn't see it described that way. I consider that as important as searching my car.

Also, "Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government." What if the state in question is wrong? Breach of contract is a legal conflict, open to interpretation. Who interprets? It seems inherently flawed to have either that State, or the Federal Gov't, judge such a matter, considering their stakes, although I can't think of a reasonable/Constitutionally-legal solution (which would mean Civil War, period).

Otherwise, it seemed straight-forward to me.

If it isn't in the Constitution, then the Federal government does not have the authority.

Without getting into the weeds, too much, privacy is guaranteed where one would expect to have privacy. Driving down the road pinging cell towers is a bit intrusive, I suppose, but one does not expect to be invisible to the public on the highway. Tapping conversations without a warrant falls under what Oath Keepers will not comply with.

We are strictly passive in our approach. Refusing to obey unlawful orders is our duty. We don't advocate aggression or overthrow of the government. It is a morally and legally bulletproof approach to prevent the collapse of the Constitutional Republic.

Indeed, there may come a day when a civil war is the only possible option, other than submit to slavery. The Oath Keepers' mission is not an end in itself. It is an approach that is designed to make it much less likely that a tyrannical administration would issue unlawful orders, for fear that they would be disobeyed and rendered powerless. In a word- Gambit.