Comparing Military Enlisted and Officer Oaths

Per a recent posting by Dr. Taitz, one of the military Plaintiffs in her upcoming lawsuit designed to order the President to furnish his vital documentation wrote the following analysis in comparing the two oaths:

There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office. The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows [per this link]:

Enlisted Oath

“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.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath –

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constiution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

I have had numerous commenters who do not support questioning the President’s background who seem to suggest that certain Plaintiffs in Dr. Taitz’ proposed legal action may find themselves in a precarious situation with respect to their oaths of military service. Clearly, per the above, at least for the officers involved, the unnamed individual makes an excellent point.

What point is that? Quite simply, just as there are federal civilian officers (e.g.: President, Senator, Representative, Secretary, etc.) who are tasked with the responsibilities and obligations as specifically enumerated within the US Constitution, so, too, are there military officers. These officers are similarly tasked with carrying out their duties per the oath, above (along with their prescribed military branch duties). They must have the lattitude of making decisions for the good of the scope of their responsibilities, whereas enlisted personnel — while certainly no less important — are primarily order-takers, and hence do not have the same jurisdiction over matters as do officers.

Hopefully the above will go far in explaining exactly why numerous military officers have agreed to become Plaintiffs in this upcoming suit.


More Military Personnel Consent as Plaintiffs to Dr. Taitz’ Upcoming Suit

Officer Clinton Grimes, US Navy:

DATE:  2/26/09
Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT whether Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia and possibly still citizen of Kenya, aka  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS  QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S or TO BE  COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall) and I could conceivably be given unlawful orders  by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, and by following such orders I can be subject to court martial.  
TYPED NAME or Signature:  
FULL NAME:  Clinton Alan Grimes
1 OCTOBER 1984 – Present
OCCUPATION:  N-5 Mentor, NCAGS DELTA, Silverdale, WA   
Civilian Occupation: Sergeant, Long Beach Police Department
ACHIEVEMENTS:  Navy Commendation Medal (2), Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Medal(2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, , Global War on Terror Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, Navy/Marine Overseas Service Ribbon, Armed Forces Reserve Medal w/”M” device and Bronze Hourglass, Rifleman Expert Medal, Pistol Expert Medal, Surface Warfare Breast Insignia.
Police Awards:  Police Awards:  Employee of the Year 1999, Meritorious Class A

Two more follow…

Continue reading “More Military Personnel Consent as Plaintiffs to Dr. Taitz’ Upcoming Suit”

South Carolina House Adopts State Sovereignty Resolution

It’s official:


     Date      Body   Action Description with journal page number
   2/12/2009  House   Introduced HJ-6
   2/12/2009  House   Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial
                        Resolutions HJ-6
   2/18/2009  House   Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Haley
   2/19/2009  House   Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Clemmons
   2/24/2009  House   Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Horne, Wylie,
                        Huggins, Allison, Parker, A.D.Young, Millwood,
                        Simrill, Willis, Herbkersman
   2/24/2009  House   Committee report: Favorable Invitations and Memorial
                        Resolutions HJ-8
   2/25/2009  House   Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Cato
   2/25/2009          Scrivener's error corrected
   2/26/2009  House   Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Littlejohn,
                        J.R.Smith, Hiott, Erickson
   2/26/2009  House   Adopted, sent to Senate [emphasis added]

South Carolina now joins Oklahoma as having officially passed a 10th Amendment-based resolution through their respective House chambers.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.


Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Discharges Order to Show Cause

From the judge:

Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss [#13] was illegible on most of the Court’s computers, as was plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause [#15], because plaintiff filed documents scanned with resolutions so fine that they overwhelmed the Court’s CM/ECF system. On the Court’s website, go to ECF Filing Pointers and then to Attorney’s Checklist, for instructions. The Court’s order to show cause [#14] is discharged.

Basically, the judge is telling the Plaintiff that they no longer have to show cause (hence, discharged).

The Response is 4 pages long and addresses the apparent mishaps from the original order to show cause as well as the Court’s call for pro hac vice on the part of Mr. Berg.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.


Tea Parties Forming Across the Nation; Many Occurring Tomorrow

What started out as a rant by Rick Santelli of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has turned into quite the craze, following the adage, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!”.

Here’s a current listing of tea parties from across the USA:

I’ll be posting this in my State Initiatives page, so feel free to comment or email about other parties of which you know.

Update: Please send pictures and/or updates from your respective Tea Party to [phil at therightsideoflife dot com]. If I get a bunch of responses, I’ll create a posting for the events.

Update: WorldNetDaily has a more complete listing below…


Continue reading “Tea Parties Forming Across the Nation; Many Occurring Tomorrow”