Over at Oleg Volk’s site
Is an extremely interesting discussion over the potential response to this election, which should probably have happened 75-100 years ago.
We do have one, hopefully, positive point in our favor:
“All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code. It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer’s service is continuous this is not actually required. One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office)
My theory on this is over at Oleg’s, read the post, read the responses.
What price freedom?