This is RYOC’s official boycott page. The companies and organizations described below exhibit the worst anti-Constitutional behavior. They use undue influence over government officials elected by the people to force those officials to make decisions in ways contrary to the will of We the People.
In his Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln eulogized several thousand men. “The casualties [killed, wounded, and missing] for both sides during the entire campaign were 57,225” (Source). Lincoln closed with these words:
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Delivered by Lincoln during the American Civil War, on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, four and a half months after the Union armies defeated those of the Confederacy at the Battle of Gettysburg.
The companies listed below have forgotten that we are a nation whose freedoms have been paid for by the blood of our patriots. I simply ask that you read the text below, review the resources, and conduct your own research. Following that, i you agree that the behavior of these companies warrants your refusing to do business with them, then please take the next step and boycott them.
March 31, 2016: Corporations at war with the Church
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!” – First Amendment to the United States Constitution
If elected representatives in a state propose laws commensurate with the United States Constitution, the State Constitution, and reflecting the general will of the people they represent, then those companies are the ones at fault, violating the Constitutional rights and freedoms of We the People.
“Walt Disney Studios, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Coca Cola, IBM, the NBA (to name a few) are and terraforming North Carolina and Georgia. They are absorbing Christianity. These corporations are pounding, pulverizing and eradicating an existing culture in favor of a new culture.” – Source
January 18, 2013: Corporate Gun Control
This one is simple: When a company doing business in America engages in decidedly anti-American behavior, they, by virtue of their own behavior, land themselves on the boycott list:
Dick’s Sporting Goods: “Dick’s announced a week before Christmas that it was suspending sales of “modern sporting rifles” in all stores, “out of respect for the victims of the Connecticut massacre,” CBS News 11 notes.” While I respect their sentiments, it’s grossly misplaced. Firearms are used by American citizens to routinely defend against attacks such as the one in Connecticut. As proven by the fact that 75% of shooting sprees occur in “gun free zones,” further disarming American citizens is not the way to honor the memory of those who died as the direct result of the mindless, idiotic “gun free zone” fallacy which has resulted in the deaths of so many innocent Americans. Decision: BOYCOTT Dick’s Sporting Goods.
You’ll find a comprehensive list of people and corporations pushing for gun control, here.
Our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. It was first recognized as such in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We have an inalienable right to life! But our Declaration of Independence doesn’t stop there:
“…–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
Thus, our government’s purpose is to SECURE our rights, not take them away.
“…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
All power in our Federal Government government comes not by virtue of any inherent power in and of itself, bu strictly and only by the consent of the governed. That’s us, people! WE THE PEOPLE are in power and authority over our government, not the other way around. That’s why they’re called “public servants,” not “rulers.” They serve us. Many of those in Washington, however, have forgotten this, but that’s a topic for another post…
“–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…”
If our government attempts to restrict or abolish our rights, thay have become destructive to these ends i.e. the ends of SECURING our rights, instead of trying to take them away.
“it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
When our government fails, as it clearly has, it is our right to alter or abolish it in order to effect our Safety and our Happiness. FBI crime stats undeniably prove that an armed general populace is a safe populace. I and 150 million other American gun owners are neither safe nor happy without our firearms.
This message doesn’t stop at the Declaration of Independence, though. It continues in our Constitution, beginning with its preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Of what benefit is an armed general populace, where honest, law-abiding citizens are armed? First, we form the basis for our common defense. Secondly, it is we, being “necessary to the security of a free state,” who “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Even today, with a thoroughly modern police force, more than 50% of crime is stopped by citizens, and two-thirds of that by an armed citizen. That’s WHY our Constitution was established – to secure the safety of the American People. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness form the cornerstone of the Constitution, just as the Constitution is the cornerstone of all laws and our system of justice in these United States of America.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t stop there. They were concerned that perhaps they hadn’t made themselves clear enough, so they cleared their collective throats a third and final time, and produced the Bill of Rights. It’s not a Bill of “privileges.” Ours is a Bill of RIGHTS, second of which states: “…the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Both the Founding Fathers themselves as well as the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (U.S. Gov’t. Printing Office document 88-618 0) firmly state this is an individual right, and not limited to “carrying inside one’s own home” as the Supreme Court so ridiculously weaseled on during both Heller and McDonald. Nevertheless, in both those decisions, even they reaffirmed our right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
In light of the above, the message is clear: We were designed to be an armed nation, and we are an armed nation. It is our in alienable right, as firmly established by the many writings of our Founding Fathers, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, Congressional Reports, and U.S. Supreme Court Decisions. I’ve thoroughly covered whether or not that’s a good thing in previous posts, but in summary, yes, it’s a very good thing. Unless, of course, you enjoy living in a high crime/”gun free zones” like Chicago, Detroit, or Washington D.C. Frankly, I do not. I prefer to keep crime as low as possible, and our armed general populace excels at this task.
Years ago my Grandfather told me about his typical day in school, where he’d walk to school in the snow, barefoot, uphill, both ways… No, wait… That was Cosby. Ok.
Seriously, he lived in Iowa, and he really would walk to school barefoot, his shoes around his neck, because shoes were required for school yet were NOT cheap. He was allowed to wear his shoes, with socks, if it was snowing or below freezing. He’d walk in them on the grass on the side of the road (dirt road) because the grass wouldn’t wear down the leather nearly as much. Unless it was wet, of course, as that would wet, then rot the leather, so when the grass was wet, he’d walk on the road.
REGARDLESS, he carried his .410 shotgun to school every day because that’s what he used to hunt rabbits, quail, and other game, which for him was just about anything, as he and his family was both dirt-rich and dirt-poor, meaning they had good farming land, but nothing in terms of money to buy things like shoes and socks for school.
Thing of it is, he and his classmates ALL carried rifles or shotguns to school, beginning around the third, fourth, or fifth grade, depending on when their parents though they were mature enough to handle a firearm. Even his teachers were armed! Armed teachers – what a concept. Interestingly enough, the accidental death rate due to firearm back then was about 1/10th what it is today. So! Is it an age issue? No. If it were, it would have occurred far more often back then. Is it a firearms issue? Of course not. ALL statistics, worldwide, have clearly demonstrated a rock-solid INCREASE in crime when a county implements gun control.
So, Is it a training issue? Yes, largely, but when it comes to crime, no, it’s not a training issue, but it’s certainly a training issue with respect to those who’re formulating public policy. Botttom line, if they voting anti-gun, they’re without a clue, just whipping off legislation left and right with little if any benefit from reality. They need to pay far more attention to websites such as NationMaster, which allows us to definitively compare the U.S. with any other country around the world. Therein, we can obtain a far more true and accurate picture than what the mainstream media is presenting at this time.
I hope they’re listening. I hope they know that I don’t enjoy poking holes in their massive illogic. I hope they know the only reason I do so is because America can no longer afford to put up with any of their illogic, that the liberals’ lack of any ability to think things through to their logical conclusion is what’s landed us in this hard spot in the first place.
Back to my grandfather. He told me they used to stack their weapons in the corner. Years later, I watched a John Wayne film about a grade-school bunch of kids roped into riding herd on some cattle. In the movie, they did the same dang thing, which made me realize perhaps Gramps hadn’t been stretching the truth… I made some calls to a handful of historians and discovered that the practice of bring hunting rifles and shotguns to school was very common 100 years ago, usually beginning at the start of middle school (6th grade), but often starting as early as the third grade, with the permission of the parents, and that yes, it was common practice to have both armed teachers, and for the students to stack their firearms in the corner.
As my grandfather was the youngest of nine kids, he’d had a lot of sibling tutelage at a very young age. Given all of the above, if he said he was one of the kids who carried his shotgun to school when he was in the third grade, I’d believe him. At that age I was flying u-control airplanes, building and flying model rockets, and had been slaloming on one ski for two years. I shot my first firearm the summer after third grade, and taught my son to do the same when he was nine years old, same as myself.
So, liberals. What the HECK is your freakin’ eyesore? You’re brain-dead. Go away. Stop bothering me and my kin.
Given all of the above, and the rampant lack of school massacres back then, I’m wondering why we’re violently opposed to firearms in schools, provided they’re in the hands of those who pass multiple background checks, when our grandparents carried every single day?
Yeah, right… Read any Louis L’Amour novel and tell me I’m wrong. Most of his stuff was dead on with respect to law and order in the old West.
The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority. She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it. Her oath of office states in part: “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states. Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.
With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?
I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:” It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.
Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.
Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity. She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid: Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.
Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.
In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people: We must obey God rather than men!
UPDATE: Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:
In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.
Note: RFRA: “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”
I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago. If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations. You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.
African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.
The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.
The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.
Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.
Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.
In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.
George Wallace was a Democrat.
Bull Connor was a Democrat.
In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.
In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.
Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.
Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.
Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).
Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.
Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.
By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.
In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.
In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.
Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.
The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.
In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.
Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.
One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner. In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.
In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.
It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred Scott decision. In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished. Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.
African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today. Consider: although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans. In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies. Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.
Given the countless atrocities against blacks at the hands of the Democratic Party, please explain to me again why ANY African American today is a member?
One of the many things I learned from aviation is that we see the best clarity and color directly in front of us, but our eyes our wired to detect motion in the periphery.
If you’d like to read more about the technical aspects, start here, with Transduction and the following sections, as well as another entry on Motion Perception.
So why am I writing about this? Our brains developed in lock-step with our eyes. We only see, and understand, what’s going on in the periphery if there’s enough motion in the periphery to cross a certain threshold.
Years ago, I was taught to look to the right of the road when driving at night in order to prevent the bright lights of the oncoming traffic from both killing my night vision as well as distracting me from peripheral vision cues.
The parallels for what’s going on today are astounding.
Charismatic behavior usually instils a sense of “over-focus” in those who hang on their every word. The term “deer in the headlights” come to mind, where the deer focus on nothing but the the light, to the exclusion of everything else going on in the periphery i.e. the sidelines. The visual cortex contains by far the most dense path of neuron activity to the brain, and bright lights in that channel of information tend to overload others. Unless a deer is trained to recognized bright lights as potential threats, it simply stares at them until BAM!
Meanwhile, our visual periphery, as well as the areas of our brain most closely associated with it, are very well attuned to detect changes in the visual environment i.e. motion, but not much else.
So, recap: Visual cortex (brain focus) sees colors, details, and patterns, while the visual periphery (brain sidelines) sees changes.
Knowing this, knowing how both the brain and the visual system are inextricably intertwined, how might someone who wanted change a society, go about doing so?
First, they’d have to over-illuminate the visual cortex, or at least the portion of the brain which responds to such cues. Second, they’d have to minimize movement on the sidelines, as that might distract folks from their attempts to blind them, then run them over.
Oh, come on, don’t you get it? Obama’s headlights, those who can’t differentiate thereof are the victims, and one of two facts remain: Either they are ignorant, or they’re duped.
The question becomes: Who do we want representing our country – those who are duped, or those who adhere to the United States of America. I think, at this time, that is all. That is enough, that we all adhere to the United States of America.
There’s a book I’d like to recommend: “Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of our Founding Fathers,” by John Eidsmoe, 1987, Baker Book House Company, ISBN 0-8010-5231-9.
I’d like to share with you an excerpt from the Dedication:
“This book is dedicated, in the words of the Mayflower Compact of 1620, to “the glorie of God and advancemente ye Christian faith.” That Americans may better understand, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” which are the only sure foundation for the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; so that with a “firm dependence on the protection of Divine Providence,” we may, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
When read in context, it is impossible for any rational human being to deny that the United States of America is a Christian nation, founded solidly on Christian principles. Even its tricameral structure of government is pattered after the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The emphasis of the Constitution was to fully respect the rights of the states and of the people, just as God only knocks at the door – he never barges in.
People like this Brit and Obama himself, along with all others who want to eradicate Christianity from our Christian nation do not understand the basic concept of respect. Thus, they’re barging in. Atheists, like Muslims, will not stop until they’ve accomplished their goals, what have nothing to do with respect, but with domination and eradication of all who refuse to buy into their rhetoric.