A Call to Arms

Introduction

What I'm about to propose is truly dangerous and could be hazardous to my health and to that of any soldier who dares to follow me. This is truly dangerous to the establishment because it has a very good chance of succeeding and would not require any money or many participants. Sounds like an activist's dream come true, doesn't it?

This idea is the soul of simplicity and would strike terror into the hearts of those who absolutely insist on a military that has no soul, no conscience, and never asks questions. Once the few and the proud open minds in uniform start to follow my plan, they will cause our hawks to go berserk and lash out in any way they can. And those hawks include Hillary Clinton, should she become President. For in spite of her talk of promoting “smart power,” she is now and always will be an unrepentant hawk. Make absolutely no mistake about this woman.

A word of caution: If you are inclined to follow my strategy, don't breathe a word of your thinking to your fellow soldiers until you are ready to commit. Instead, contact outside groups who have staff familiar with military law. Many of these groups count among their members those who are lawyers. They can advise you on pitfalls and consequences should you decide to proceed. Believe me, command will do everything in its power to belittle and demonize you – but I'm sure you already know this. I want you to be fully advised well in advance on what they might do.

I also want to emphasize: I see no reason why you shouldn't get an honorable discharge as the result of your taking a principled and honorable stand.

My Basic Strategy

This is a call to arms directed to all members of the USA's armed forces. It is written that the pen is mightier than the sword, and it is the pen that I have in mind. The pen is the weapon I am referring to in my call to arms. That's important to keep in mind, lest anyone accuse me or you of advocating violence.

There are variations I will detail in the next section, but this is my basic strategy: I am calling upon you to renounce your oath of enlistment and replace it with another (detailed below) by means of a written and notarized statement submitted via certified mail to your immediate commanding officer, your base's legal officer, and your Congressman. You should also add your name to any online roster of others who end up making a similar decision.

Unless your replacement oath is immediately accepted, which it won't be, you must no longer be considered a member of our armed forces. Therefore, you should inform your chain of command this is why you will no longer be following their orders.

We can exploit a fatally-flawed oath

This is the oath of enlistment as it has been statutorily in existence since 1950:

“I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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.”

This is the oath that you could offer instead, as you renounce your original oath:

“I, XXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend to the death if necessary, the people, the homeland, and the vital national interests of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I further swear that I will not support and defend the Constitution of the United States, swearing instead to work* toward its replacment**.” [If the last sentence in the preceding bothers you, later on in this essay I will provide you with some alternatives.]

Take a moment to compare these two oaths. As for the oath you had already sworn: What kind of military oath ignores the people and the homeland, speaking only of a Constitution? Nowhere in your sworn oath did you commit yourself to the defense of the people or the territorial integrity of the United States. Doesn't that bother you or at least seem strange?

Something else should bother you: How can you “support and defend” a Constitution that contains no procedure for its replacement? Yes, it can be amended. No, it can't be totally replaced – or at least it contains no mention of any means by which it can be replaced. Any constitution that's confident of itself, based on its own merits, should contain language similar to this:

“Every 25 years, a nationwide, popular vote of confidence shall take place. If more than half of the votes cast oppose the current Constitution, then a Constitutional convention*** shall automatically be scheduled.”

As soon as you swear that you will not “support and defend the Constitution,” you can no longer be considered a member of the US armed forces. You might not be in support of any other Constitution – that exists in reality or only as a theoretical possibility. If not, your reasoning might be along these lines: “The Oath of Enlistment is not the place for the eternal promotion of a particular piece of legislation, which is (in effect) exactly what the Constitution is as the law of the land. This oath blantantly seeks to establish, now and forever, a particular political stand.”

Of course, it could be argued that my replacement oath (or the first version of it, mentioned above) also seeks to inject politics into the oath. I'm referring to the line that says, “I further swear that I will not support and defend the Constitution of the United States, swearing instead to work* toward its replacment**.” Just remember: When Congress passed this Oath, they themselves opened the door to you to also politicize this Oath by means of your alternative Oath.

Alternative Oaths

To recap, here's the first replacement Oath I proposed:

“I, XXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend, to the death if necessary, the people, the homeland, and the vital national interests of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I further swear that I will not support and defend the Constitution of the United States, swearing instead to work* toward its replacment**.”

In my second version, simply omit the sentence that begins with “I further.” That means you make no commitment concerning the current Constitution – to neither support nor oppose it. You would be taking a position most proper for a military man – avoiding the making of a political statement of any kind in your oath.

A third version:

“I, XXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend, to the death if necessary, the people, the homeland, and the vital national interests of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Since one of our vital national interests has been and remains violated by the Senate and the President, I must consider them to be domestic enemies to which the first sentence of this oath refers. As such, I hereby cease to recognize the authority of POTUS and his chain of command, asserting instead that I am no longer a member of the US armed forces. Specifically, the Senate and the President continue to support the unconstitutional filibuster rule****, so I hereby regard them as enemies of the Constitution whom I would arrest had I the means.”

A fourth version:

“I, XXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend, to the death if necessary, the people, the homeland, and the vital national interests of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Since we have a Constitution which is so easily violated (for example, in the cases of the unconstitutional filibuster rule**** and, separately, the states of Maine and West Viriginia*****), we might as well not even have a Constitution. For that reason, I can't swear to support and defend it.”

Special Considerations for Troops who are Naturalized Citizens

The naturalization oath of allegience contains these words: “...I will support and defend the Constitution...of the United States of America.” If you were to renounce your military oath by refusing to support and defend the Constitution, you might be stripped of your citizenship since that “support” was part of an oath you'd made in order to become a USA citizen.

You might want to proceed by swearing to the third version of the oath quoted above. It's ironic, though, that you were coerced into swearing to support and defend the Constitution in order to have become a naturalized citizen, whereas those who were natural born are citizens by default without having made any kind of oath whatsoever. Maybe something could be made of that in a court of law – to challenge the idea that there are two separate and unequal types of citizens in this country: Those bound, as a condition of their citizenship, to support and defend the Constitution and those who are not.

I now quote from the Oath of Naturalization as cited on this link: http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

QUOTE:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

:UNQUOTE.

There might be lawyers who will try to claim that you can't renounce your Oath of Enlistment – that once made, such an oath is irrevocable. However, the item just quoted above makes clear that any Oath you'd made to “any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty...” can be “absolutely and entirely renounce[d]” by means of you making the Oath of Naturalization. So it's obvious – oaths made in the present can invalidate oaths made in the past.

Some final considerations

I don't know how much longer I'll be with you. My Stage IV liver cancer might claim my life, though at present my condition is stable and I'm highly functioning. Or the Establishment, perhaps seeing a very real threat in what I'm promoting here, might decide it's time for me to have an “accident.” If so, it's entirely possible they might make all of my blog posts over the last six years disappear. For that reason, I urge you to make copies of at least some of my 400+ essays you think worthwhile. My hope is that at least some of these could be compiled into an old-fashioned paper-and-ink book. That might have a better chance of survival than anything on the internet.

I want you to consider promoting today's essay since, as I said, it has the potential for really shaking things up. I also want you to support any soldiers who decide to follow my strategy and publicize the hell out of their stories as they unfold.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

* work - Don't use the word “fight” instead of “work.” Defense Department lawyers will crawl all over your ass and try to claim that you are seeking to violently overthow the Constitution. Don't give these yahoos anything they can use against you.

** replacement - I have a specific replacement in mind, which I invite you to

consider. I hope you'll mention it by name in your replacement oath – Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR). For more information, please follow the link below to an essay I've written that provide detailed information. For the moment, consider this basic opening statement:

“The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body, members of which will serve six-year terms.”

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/saving-world-chicago-style.html

*** Constitutional Convention - I intentionally omit for now my opinions of the possible ways in which delegates to this Convention could be selected and how the products of such a meeting (one or a series of amendments or a completely new Constitution) could be presented to and ratified by the USA's voters.

**** unconstitutional filibuster rule – 

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-filibuster-rule-revisited-part-1.html

***** the states of Maine and West Virginia - Maine was once part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was once part of Virginia. However, we have a violation of the Plain English of the Constitution which says in Article IV, Section 3: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." The 15 words I boldfaced above mean, in plain English, that no new state may be created from any state already in existence.