“I AM THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MY NAME IS “OLD GLORY”. I FLY ATOP THE WORLD’S TALLEST BUILDINGS, I STAND WATCH IN AMERICA’S HALLS OF JUSTICE, I FLY MAJESTICALLY OVER GREAT INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING, I STAND GUARD WITH THE GREATEST MILITARY POWER IN THE WORLD. LOOK UP! AND SEE ME.“
I STAND FOR PEACE – HONOR – TRUTH AND JUSTICE. I STAND FOR FREEDOM. I AM CONFIDENT I AM ARROGANT I AM PROUD.
WHEN I AM FLOWN WITH MY FELLOW BANNERS, MY HEAD IS A LITTLE HIGHER MY COLORS A LITTLE TRUER I BOW TO NO ONE!!!
I AM RECOGNIZED ALL OVER THE WORLD, I AM WORSHIPED – I AM SALUTED – I AM RESPECTED. I AM REVERED – I AM LOVED AND I AM FEARED!
I HAVE FOUGHT IN EVERY BATTLE OF EVERY WAR FOR MORE THAN 200 YEARS: GETTYSBURG, SHILO, APPOMATTOX, SAN JUAN HILL, THE TRENCHES OF FRANCE, THE ARGONNE FOREST, ANZIO, ROME, THE BEACHES OF NORMANDY, GUAM, OKINAWA, TARAWA, KOREA, VIETNAM, THE PERSIAN GULF AND A SCORES OF PLACES LONG FORGOTTEN BY ALL EXCEPT BY THOSE WHO WERE THERE WITH ME, I WAS THERE!!
I LED MY SAILORS AND MARINES, SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN I FOLLOWED THEM I WATCHED OVER THEM THEY LOVED ME!!
I WAS ON A SMALL HILL ON IWO JIMA, I WAS DIRTY, BATTLE WORN AND TIRED BUT MY SAILORS AND MARINES CHEERED ME! AND I WAS PROUD!!!
I WAS AT GROUND ZERO IN NEW YORK CITY ON SEPTEMBER 11TH AS COWARDLY FANATICS ATTACKED AMERICA. I WAS RAISED FROM THE ASHES OF ONCE PROUD BUILDINGS BY BRAVE FIREFIGHTERS. HEROES, WHO RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE OTHERS, SHOWING ALL THAT AMERICA, ALTHOUGH BLOODIED, WILL NEVER BE BEATEN.
THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY ME CANNOT WIN FOR I AM THE SYMBOL OF FREEDOM, OF ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I HAVE BEEN SOILED, BURNED, TORN AND TRAMPLED ON THE STREETS OF MY OWN COUNTRY AND WHEN IT IS BY THOSE WHOM I HAVE SERVED WITH IN BATTLE, IT HURTS. BUT I SHALL OVERCOME FOR I AM STRONG!
I HAVE SLIPPED THE SURELY BONDS OF EARTH AND FROM MY VANTAGE POINT ON THE MOON; I STAND WATCH OVER THE UNCHARTED NEW FRONTIERS OF SPACE.
I HAVE BEEN A SILENT WITNESS TO ALL OF AMERICA’S FINEST HOURS, BUT MY FINEST HOUR COMES WHEN I AM TORN IN STRIPS, TO BE USED AS BANDAGES FOR MY WOUNDED COMRADES ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE WHEN I FLY HALF MAST TO HONOR MY SOLDIERS, AND WHEN I LIE IN THE TREMBLING ARMS OF A GRIEVING MOTHER, AT THE GRAVE-SITE OF HER FALLEN SON OR DAUGHTER I AM PROUD!!!!
How do you feel when you see images of the U.S. flag burning?
I find it to be personally repugnant, insulting, and angering; however, being offended is the price of freedom. I am saddened to think that people find it necessary. As a veteran, I also find it to be disrespectful, not only to me, but for the millions who bled on the battlefield in since the founding of America.
If you saw someone planning to burn a flag, what do you think you would do?
It’s difficult to say with total certainty. I believe that I would engage them in conversation, ask them if they were renouncing citizenship, listen to them and appeal to their conscience to dissuade them. If unsuccessful, I would depart.
As a real warrior, I handle threats differently than social justice warriors who run around in a fantastic crazed state of screaming and being offended.
Now, If they came over to my house to burn my flag, they would have a very bad day.
Do you think burning a U.S. flag is a legitimate and effective form of protest and subject to 1st Amendment protections? Why or why not?
I think it’s a real form of stupidity; however, I will concede it as a freedom of expression that has no victim.
Is flag desecration is a serious enough problem that it warrants a constitutional amendment? Explain your point of view.
No. This is a legislative issue, not a constitutional issue.
Besides, legitimate constitutional amendments are usually designed to restrict the power of government, not the rights or activities of the people that do not violate the life, liberty, or property of others.
There are only three federal crimes a citizen can commit in the main body if the Constitution. All others are reserved for the states. While I’m not a fan, I support the court’s decision in Texas vs Johnson. I see the action of burning a flag oversees as protest as an expression of hatred related to US foreign policy. I think it is also protest here. Instead of being offended by it, I mostly dismiss them as angry idiots. It is not the most effective means of activism as far as I’m concerned. Their time would be more productive by connecting with more people through more positive outlets.
An Article V Constitutional Convention for a new amendment is extremely dangerous. This is the worse congress in history and the next one is likely to be even worse than this one. I have no doubt that meddling with the Amendments would result in the evisceration of massive sections of the Bill of Rights. That is a deal breaker which would dissolve the Union according to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. Even with more egregious edicts that need to be overturned like the 16th and 17th Amendments, the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
In spite of the US Supreme Court cases, most States still have laws against the intentional desecration, mutilation, or burning of the US Flag, applicable State Flags, and the Confederate Flag.
Listen for epic round-table discussion on Trump’s VP pick, secret 28 pages on 9/11, Islamic terror attack, Turkey coup and more.
This is perhaps the biggest and best edition of The Maverick Live yet, it’s the one year anniversary special featuring an epic all-star round-table discussion!
In segment one, host and Trump campaign contributor Benjamin Knight breaks down the war on police and what the New World Order end goal is with regard to the implementation of a U.N. peace keeping force. Then, a warning on the potential for civil unrest and a global collapse with four crises in particular that could be on the horizon. Finally, a quick recap of the RNC thus far and what Donald Trump’s ascendancy means for the Republican party.
The all-star panel talks Donald Trump’s VP pick, the latest terrorist attack in France, the Turkey coup, thoughts on the release of the 28 redacted pages of a joint 9/11 Inquiry Report, what this year’s RNC truly means, and more.
There is a new development that may not only further exacerbate the police public relations, it can bring us closer to “fundamentally transforming America” as Obama announced in his inaugural speech. In the wake of the horrific massacre of multiple police officers in Dallas, TX, comes news that a robot was used to deliver a bomb that killed the suspect. In order to understand the possible future social and political ramifications of this unprecedented use of a non-areal drone to kill an American on American soil, it is necessary to review the development of drones and drone policy from multiple points of view and examine how they are already changing the political landscape on a global scale.
Charles Krauthhammer, foxnews.com
In what was recognized to be a public relations crisis for aerospace manufacturers, coupled with a public affairs crisis for the US federal government, “I would predict the first guy who uses a second amendment weapon to bring a drone down who is hovering over his house will become a folk hero,” claims Charles Krauthammer, a Fox News analyst who openly supports the use of drones overseas but not domestically. He enjoys the American empire, however, does not want to live under it. Calling for an outright ban on domestic use, Krauthammer declared, “Drones are instruments of war. The founders had a great aversion toward using instruments of war, the use of the military, inside the United States.”
John Oliver, HBO.com
John Oliver, host of Last Week Tonight on HBO deflected the severity of domestic use by shifting gears, referring to drones as “the third-most annoying thing in the sky after mosquitoes and plastic bags caught in the breeze.” He added, “Overseas, drones are a slightly more serious matter.” “During the Obama administration, we launched eight times the drone the number of drone strikes as his predecessor.”
Conservatives concerned about privacy and liberals aghast about the loss of life seemed united in their resistance to the use of unmanned remotely controlled aerial vehicles known as drones, particularly the systems of reconnaissance and weaponized vehicles like Predator and Global Hawk.
Global Hawk drone, AF.mil
Predator Drone, AF.mil
Michael Toscano, Linkedin.com
In response to the outrage concerning drone use the Washington based Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) President Michael Toscano went scrambling into damage control mode with the bold statement, “People who don’t know what they’re talking about say these are spy planes or killer drones. They’re not.” He referred to them as “remotely piloted vehicles.” He continued by adding 35,000 car death statistics per year for death toll comparison and lauding the virtues of the firefighting and search and rescue capabilities. Comparing them to mother and apple pie may not have had its intended soothing all-Americana outcome. They were marginally efficacious at best.
Leon Panetta, Defense.gov
In reference to fighting Al Qaeda in 2009, CIA director Leon Panetta called drones, ‘The only game in town.” Yet, It is very difficult to run a successful public relations campaign for a program that exists on record but is not recognized by official sources. In February of 2013, in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, said that he was told “You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution explicitly prohibits a Bill of Attainder: That is any list that arbitrarily finds someone guilty without due process of law: no judge, no jury, no trial, no evidence, no charges, no lawyer, and no witnesses. The right to trial by jury is the only right that appears three times in the Bill of Rights. Laurie Calhoun is the author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age. In an interview with on theTom Woods Show podcast, she noted how drones, originally covert in 2002, have grown to become standard operating procedure. He also noted that for ten years, with few notable exceptions like Rand Paul, there was no public debate in Congress between 2002 and 2012. Obama said on Google Chat “look what I’m doing to keep you safe.”
Tom Woods, Tomcods.com
“The reality is that all of the people killed are suspects. This is unprecedented in history and in criminal justice.” She added that suspects are considered “shady” because the evidence is provided by bribed locals, a similar process that led to of the detainees who were incarcerated at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for years without due process, 86 percent of which were innocent. “The very same tactics are used for intelligence gathering in drone strikes.”
The counter argument as to how do we deal with shadowy stateless enemies that intend to do us harm. The choice between Tomahawk cruise missiles and full scale invasion or drones in order to prevent even more objectionable policies “false dichotomy,” Calhoun told Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh, Reuters
According to Calhoun, public relations concerning drones has already led to civil war and humanitarian disaster. In Yemen during November 2002, President Saleh authorized drone strikes by the United States. The fear of drones was so pervasive that Zubair Rehman a thirteen year old drone strike survivor told the US Congress in 2013, “I no longer love blue skies.” During gray skies he continued, “The mental tension and fear eases.” This was considered to be a way to eliminate his political enemies by labeling them as terrorists and forwarding the information to the United States. This eventually resulted in the Houthi Coup and a civil war. Saudi Arabia does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the new government and is using the crisis to continuously slam Yemeni militants with billions of dollars of US supplied heavy weapons.
Calhoun continued, “There are allot of groups of angry people who posed no existential threat to the United States, even if they hate us, because they do not have the means to come over here, have all been conflated into a single group of evil terrorists, [Saleh was] using his collaboration with the United States to eliminate political enemies.”
“They are assumed to be combatants unless otherwise proven” according to Calhoun, some are “defending their homeland from invasion” and, “Throwing them all into one barrel of evil terrorists (posthumously) akin to Osama bin Laden and I reject that premise.” In Calhoun’s book, Norm Chomsky states, “The drone assassination campaign is the most extraordinary global terror campaign yet conceived and executed.
In “Why Drones Fail” Cronin, a Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, asserts that Al Qaeda is resilient, drone strikes significantly enhance their propaganda, and that drones are a form of remote control repression and serve primarily to keep them it in check rather than dealing directly or eliminating threats. She adds that drones are transforming relatively harmless local conflicts into international fights and draw in new terrorist recruits. Also, they make “lifesaving” interrogations impossible and a “pass the remote attitude” that uses technology and fear to solve sophisticated conflicts.
Audrey Cronin, GMU.edu
The essay also displayed a picture of three Pakistani tribesman holding pieces of a missile with the caption “Don’t drone me, bro!”
While drones have appeared seriously in only a few Hollywood movies like Syriana, with George Clooney, they are slated to be the main feature of controversy in upcoming movies. Good Kill with Ethan Hawke deals with the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) faced by drone remote operators who return home to their families and barbecues every night as though nothing has happened. American Ultra starring Jesse Eisenberg and Kristin Stewart makes a comedic approach to the casual use of drones.
The CIA Entertainment Industry Liaison can be found at CIA.gov. Their stated function is to assist anyone creating media pertaining to intelligence for public consumption and bring authenticity to convey how intelligence is “exciting, challenging, and essential.” They appear to be working hard to fix the image of drones, or at least inject them into the narrative as a multifaceted and sophisticated part of the political debate, reflecting the realities of twenty first century warfare.
Eye in the Sky, Raindog Films 2016, IMDB
As great example of this is the intense drama Eye in the Sky, starring Aaron Paul and Helen Mirren and coming out in 2016 will feature the philosophical implications of the drone use as center stage. The plot revolves around the moral decisions that must be made quickly when using Hellfire missiles to take out a structure that houses a radical group arming themselves with suicide vests while a young girl plays outside nearby. The focus is on the conflict that arises internally within the intelligence organizations when remote pilots only see the outside of the building and refuse to fire. “If they kill eighty people, we win the propaganda war; if we kill one child, they do” is a talking point.
John Oliver commented on drones during a broadcast of Last Week Tonight. He showed Pakistani cartoons featuring drones that converse with mosquitoes and drone strike green screen graphics packages for local news outlets. “When children from other countries are telling us, we’ve made them fear the sky, it might be time to ask some hard questions.”
Gerald Celente from the Trends Journal Magazine commented in a 2014 interview on the Alex Jones Show, “How would Thomas Jefferson react if he saw a drone out the window of Monticello?” adding, “Oh, the King just wants to make sure you are safe.”
US Navy Joint Unmanned Air Vehicle (JUAV) for Combat Search & Rescue, Navy.mil
X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D), Navy.mil
Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni youth activist and writer, testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights that “The drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis.”
In October of 2015, RT.com published a report in which whistle-blower Brandon Bryant, a former drone pilot, describes a staggering ninety percent of people killed were not the intended target, adding “They don’t care who gets killed as long as they hit the target.”
The framework for the justification of the use of deadly force, as per former Defense Department advisor and Georgetown University Law Professor Rosa Brooks who reported to Congress is: “We have an executive branch making a claim that it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on Earth, at any time, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence, in a secret process, undertaken by unidentified officials.
President Obama at the WHCA Dinner, C-span.
“I have two words for you, Predator Drones” warned Mr. Obama to the Jonas Brothers boy band from a podium in reference to the protection of his daughters at a party speech. Amidst the ensuing laughter he added, “You will never see it coming.”
While Obama’s promise to Fundamentally Transform America was eye opening for some, Fundamentally altering our altering our forms of government was one of the 27 grievances against England listed in the Declaration of Independence. His bold statement was followed up with “For those who challenge the scope of our ambitions fail to realize that the ground has already shifted beneath them.” While the ambitions of government to grow always carries with it increased negations of liberty, he was right about one thing. Most people are unaware of the shifting.
What happens to a building when its foundation is ripped out from underneath it?
Thomas Jefferson said, “The state of war always serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.”
While the police were correct to put an end to the shooting in Dallas, was the use of a robot to kill the shooting suspect in in Dallas the best or only option? Time will tell as more information is released.
Rand Paul’s drone filibuster, foxnews.com.
The advent and strategic use of drones, whether areal abroad or rolling at home, is a shifting force that must be recognized. Meaningful discussions on Capital Hill like the one between Senator Rand Paul andAttorney General Eric Holder with his response and the Filibuster of John Brennan’s appointment as CIA Director, because of his support for domestic use of drones, are few and far between. A robust debate among policymakers and candidates for office concerning the use of drones and the militarization of the police is long overdue. It’s time to be more sophisticated in the pursuit of liberty with a deeper understanding of the rule of law and the impact of foreign and domestic
policies and bring that full spectrum analysis to the public discourse. As the preamble to the Bill of Rights describes, further declaratory and restrictive clauses on government (especially one lacking transparency) would go a long way to restore public trust and confidence in government which is beneficial for all.
Of particular concern is not only the extrajudicial nature and the ability of the president to conduct strikes from the comfort of his office; it is also a concern as to what these guidelines do or do not reveal about how targets are chosen and who else has the weapons release authority to launch a drone strike.
Here is the newly released Source Document that appears to be three years old on the date of release. 2013.05.23_fact_sheet_on_ppg (1) . Contrary to Obama’s statement suggesting the guidelines are newly revised.
As the guidelines were released, RT published Game of Drones which documents how these extrajudicial killings are taking place in Pakistan and how one country engaged in continuously bombing an ally country is unprecedented in the history of the world.
Byman, D. (2013, July 1). Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of
Choice. Foreign Affairs, 92(4), 32-43.
Calhoun, L. (2015). We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the
Drone Age. London: Zed Books.
Cronin, A. (2013, July 1). Why Drones Fail: When Tactics Drive Strategy. Foreign
Affairs, 92(4), 44-54.
Seitel, F. (2014). The Practice of Public Relations (Vol. 12). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Woods, T. (2015, November 12). Episode 538. The Bipartisan Mainstreaming of
Drone Warfare. The Tom Woods Show. Retrieved November 24, 2015, from
While the concerns of the press are legitimate and there has certainly been physical forced used against journalists by the military in the past, a closer look into the claims shows part of the story to be inaccurate and other pertinent details that would alleviate concerns were omitted. A comprehensive overview of the dynamic policies involved reveals a reason these developments can still be quite disturbing, but not for the original reasons given.
In 2010, a video was released by Wikileaks.org that captured global attention. The viral internet video was taken from military helicopter footage. Showing unarmed journalists in Iraq being mowed down from the air by the blasting fury of heavy helicopter machine gun fire, it was infamously dubbed “Collateral Murder.” This attack footage, and other videos like it were a damning indictment on the military establishment. This event culminated in the court-martial of Bradley/ Chelsea Manning, resulting in a conviction and 35 years in prison.
In a joint effort to create continuity for the conduct for military personnel throughout the services, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a unified Law of War manual on June 12, 2015. This Behemoth Bible, as Vice.com called it, contains 1176 pages. Previously, each branch of the military contained their own regulations for wartime. The Geneva Conventions Code of Conduct for the behavior of US service members in captivity does contain six universal articles that are part of required basic training for all recruits. The rest were service specific; Until now.
The Law of War Manual defines journalists as mostly civilian, military personnel, and authorized correspondents attached to military units. The cause for alarm stemmed from a phrase that describes that some journalists could also be “unprivileged belligerents.” This term is new to the military lexicon as it pertains to journalists. It is deemed by analysts as a broader replacement for the term unlawful “enemy combatant,” which appears dozens of times elsewhere in the document.
What is the meaning this “unprivileged belligerent.” term? According to an RT newscast, the term is undefined by the Pentagon. Georgetown University Professor of Journalism Chris Chambers told RT in an interview that the Geneva Convention, the internationally recognized law of war “doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’, continuing, “It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side.
Pentagon officials have declined to comment; however, that does not mean there is no official definition. It may not be necessary for the DoD to provide a definition if one examines the US Code of Federal Regulations. A definition appears in Title 10, US Code, Section 948a. “Privileged belligerent” means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War.
These eight categories include Prisoners of war who have fallen to the enemy, armed forces or militias and volunteer corps, armed forces claiming alliance to unrecognized governments, persons accompanying armed forces, merchant marines, inhabitants who resist invasion, persons who were unsuccessful in returning to their forces. Medical personnel and Chaplains are respected as non-combatants by Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.
The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who: has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or was a part of al Qaeda.
The existence of a definition itself does not alleviate all concerns because the definitions themselves may prove to be inadequate in dynamic and fluid or irregular environment where various forms of asymmetric warfare are implemented. Furthermore, the US Code has the word “enemy” in the term and the DoD manual. Does this mean the military can simply murder journalists they don’t like that are neutral or not affiliated with the enemy? A growing number of experts seem to think so. This concern is warranted, however, not for the original stated reasons. The Impact of merging this regulatory term with some very interesting legislation has the potential to be devastating.
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) authorizes the president identify the enemy based on secret criteria and even appoint them as commissioned officers in the enemy forces. No due process is involved. This may seem fine during the clear and present dangers where the public safety may require it on foreign battlefield of war, but there is a new problem.
Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes authored the essay “Solving the mystery of enemy combatant status” in 2004, two years before the MCA when he graduated from Yale. Sections 1021, 1024, 1031, and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 declares the entire world is a battlefield. Rhodes, an army veteran and founder of Oathkeepers.org, says, “NDAA is treason,” because of its indefinite detention without charges provisions in those sections. Proponents of the NDAA refused to acknowledge on the Senate floor that the law does not pertain to Americans in the United States.
In a 2013 Pentagon Press Conference, Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Dr. George Little responded to uniformed subordinates who lamented to being forced to “put out mindless propaganda,” by promising to” engage the media.” Capability, opportunity, and intent have combined with the effects of the MCA, NDAA, the DoD Law of War manual to establish the theoretical legal framework for the justification of the disposal of non-enemy reporters. Indeed, journalism will continue to be a very dangerous profession.
This process can also be applied to all Americans:
1)Declare someone to be an “Unprivileged Belligerent” under the DoD “Law of War” manual.
2)Give them an MCA Commission in the enemy forces without informing them or the enemy.
3)Arrest, Detain, Rendition, Torture, or Kill them in the global battlefield under the NDAA.
Congress Passed a Law in 2004 requiring federal employees to receive training on the US Constitution every September 17 on the anniversary of the 1787 signing of the document.Public Law 108-447and 36 USC 106 require that Commands provide employees with informational and training materials on the Constitution.
DoD training related to Constitution and Citizenship Day is available; however, it is not required nor is there a requirement to document completion because the law originally targeted non-military personnel. The Department of Defense is still in compliance with this law.
Learning objectives from this training include:
(1) Recognition of the major political events that necessitated the writing of the U.S. Constitution;
(2) Identification of the basic concepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution; and
(3) Ability to recall the direct link that DoD employees have with the U.S. Constitution. The DoD Constitution and Citizenship Day Training may be obtained from several sources including:
Oathkeepers are a national brotherhood of Police, Military, Firefighters, Veterans, and Concerned Citizens who take their oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously.
Our primary mission is to Reach, Teach, & Inspire active duty military and police and to remind them of their oath.
The words, “To bear true faith and allegiance to the same”, means that we carry it overtly and still believe in it when terrible things happen. We are always bound to obey lawful orders, therefore, we are also compelled to stand down when given unlawful orders. As Oath-Takers who are not Oath-Breakers, It is incumbent upon us to know the difference.
For a list of specific orders we will not obey, please visit the website:
Our secondary mission is to build and train strong communities that will endure the failure of civility that occurs after a natural or man-made disaster. How do we do well when things are not going well around us? When it all hits the fan, I do not intend to survive alone.
Good leaders do the right thing, good managers do things right. We need to do both. We should always be at the tip of the spear concerning constitutional issues because our oath never expires. Given the extremely unpleasant ultimatum, I would rather cool my heels in the brig for non compliance to an unlawful order than to be tried for treason which is also punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice( UCMJ ).
Together with constitutional Sheriffs and Chief Law Enforcement Officers, Oathkeepers are part of the solution.