Transgenderism in the Military

As a retired member of the military, I can attest to the fact the the sign describing denying transgenderism in the military as “bigotry” is flat out wrong.  It’s about safety of the individual and the unit, readiness, and successful accomplishment of the mission.
The military is not subject to many of the “right of employment” laws that exist in the U.S. Commanders have wide latitude, with few restrictions, on setting standards for acceptance into and continued service with the U.S. Armed Forces. Pretty much any aspect about a human being that a commander believes will cause a reduction in the unit’s readiness is subject to being addressed, and if the issue cannot be resolved, the individual is subject to being reassigned. If the problem is severe enough, the individual is, within the limits imposed by the UCMJ, subject to discharge.
 
The crux of this issue is NOT whether or not transgenders can perform the same functions as well as others. Of course they can.
 
The issue IS whether or not including transgenders, with their mildly expensive HRT and seriously expensive SRS medical issues, their psychological and emotional issues, and the degree to which the enemy may exploit it, along with issues of unit safety and readiness, along with overall mission accomplishment, is preferable to hiring someone of comparable qualifications who has no such baggage.
 
Yes, BAGGAGE.
Courts throughout our land, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, have routinely and consistently upheld the military’s right to reject anyone for any medical, psychological, or physical condition the military itself deems contrary to mission readiness. Most recently, the courts have upheld both basic and special physical fitness standards (SEALs, Rangers) which must be passed and maintained before someone, regardless of sex, is allow in. People with nearly any psychological or emotional issue are routinely denied entry into military service, not only because of what military service requires of them, but also because of what military service could DO TO them, as well as what the risk of substandard performance could risk to life, limb, and welfare of others in the military.
 
The list of disqualifying conditions is long, and for good reason:  Such conditions run counter to the safety and effectiveness of the individual, the unit, and the successful accomplishment of the mission as a whole.

The Last Ship and our Oath of Office

While watching The Last Ship: Scuttle, Captain Slattery of the Nathan James said the following: “We always have a choice.” The situation was the same as that faced by officers of all ranks and types throughout history: Should we follow orders when they conflict with law, instruction, regulation, and even what society at large would consider wrong?  I think he was directly referring to our oath of office.
 
Not only was I taught in several schools of military education that the answer is usually “No,” but that’s what our law says, as well.
 
An officer’s oath isn’t to obey the orders of those appointed above him.  Instead, it’s rooted quite firmly in the Constitution itself.  Indeed, a Presidential Commission expects precisely this behavior from all officers, regardless of rank, such that the entire collection of military, civilian, and law enforcement officers of our nation at all levels throughout our nation from a butter bar to the Commander in Chief him/herself are all bound by the same inescapable oath to our United States Constitution.
 
It’s high time Congress, half of the U.S. Supreme Court, and judges at all levels start taking it seriously, for they have ALL sworn by the same oath:
 
“I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
 
Judges take a second oath, further binding them to follow “the supreme Law of the Land” (U.S. Constitution, Article VI: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript).
 
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” – 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges
 
My question is clear: Why are so many judges, mayors, local and state legislators, and members of Congress NOT following our nation’s laws?  Furthermore, why do so many people in our nation keep electing these anti-Americans to office?
Following our oaths of office has nothing to do with keeping you out of trouble.  It has everything to do with your accomplishment of the duty you swore to uphold.  Similarly, electing politicians who will actually follow their oaths of office has nothing to do with assuaging your conscience.  It has everything to do with your duty as an American citizen to your fellow citizens in ensuring only the most trusted and reliable persons are ever placed in positions of our public trust.
 
https://www.hulu.com/watch/1073461

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (http://un-influenza.org/?q=content/un-response),ebola in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

UN World Control

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) whopage (http://www.who.int/csr/en/): “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf?ua=1).

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

un gun controlWhat’s next?  The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.

THAT CRAP HAS GOT TO STOP.

Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?

Sincerely…

The Huge Difference Between Law Enforcement and the Armed Forces

“The wise man takes the fight to the enemy. The foolish man allows the enemy to bring the fight to one’s doorstep.”

Our borders are porous and the enemy law enforcementis bringing the fight to us. All the MRAPs in the world won’t stop an enemy that has numbers on its side. Truly closing the borders, however, as Governor Rick Perry is attempting to do, will severely crimp their style.

Law enforcement agencies are getting a lot of equipment with little or no training on how to use it. As any military aviator can well attest, C-130 aviators spend about four months (17 weeks) learning the basics of how to fly the mighty Herk, but at least a year learning and integrating the various tactics, techniques and procedures it takes in order to become proficientlaw enforcement in combat — and that’s just the beginning. Continuing education never ends.  The reason they call it a profession of arms is because it’s not an occupation. It’s something you study throughout your entire career, for the cost of failure is exceptionally high. Law enforcement is also a profession, for much the same reason. The local police academy, for example, is one of the best, and candidates spend 24 weeks learning their profession, along with another year on the job as a rookie finishing their training. The actual overlap in tactics, techniques, and procedures between the two professions, however, is quite small.

Law enforcement academies may actually teach the 9 principles war: mass, objective, offensive, surprise, economy of force, maneuver, law enforcementunity of command, security, and simplicity. Expecting law enforcement to be able to skillfully apply these principles in the urban warfare environment, however, is a bit like asking your average member of the military to skillfully conduct day to day police patrol and investigative operations while remaining within the law. We just aren’t trained for it, just like they’re not trained for urban warfare.

There’s a reason each branch of the Armed Forces has its own military police force. They have police training. We don’t. Similarly, when it comes to urban warfare, which is what you’ll have if a thousand angry Muslims descend on Anytown, USA, local law enforcement just aren’t trained to handle it, no matter how many MRAPs they’ve been given. Individual encounters, small crowds, even mobs and riots, yes. Coordinated attacks conducted en masse, military style, by trained professionals, heck no, They’d put up a good fight, but they’d lose, even in MRAPs.

It all has to do with John Boyd’s OODA Loop.

“The phrase OODA loop refers to the decision cycle of observe, orient, decide, and act, developed by military strategist and USAF Colonel John Boyd. Boyd applied the concept to the combat operations process, often at the strategic level in military operations. It is now also often applied to understand commercial operations and learning processes.”

The underlying issue is that military and law enforcement differ in several key respects, not merely training.  Their “implicit guidance and control” comes from two seriously different schools of thought. law enforcement What and how they observe in any given environment will differ because they’re observing through two different filters:  training and experience.  That’s just the observation phase.  Three of the five components in the Orient phase will be different.  Their differing implicit guidance and control in the Decision phase will differ as well, and finally, their authorized actions in the Act phase will be different, too.

My point is that military equipment isn’t the answer. If anything, without the proper training, it’s likely to lead those who use it into a dangerous and false sense of security, if not a less civic mindset.  Training alone, however, doesn’t begin to address the serious differences between these two groups.  Guidance and control are different, as are heritage, cultures, experiences, decisions, and actions.

Cops are not military.  Military are not cops.  You can dress them up the same, but beneath the helmets, body armor, uniforms, and skin, they’re seriously different entities.

Besides, and on a closing note, why spend five times as much on training as the equipment when you can just call in the National Guard, who not only has the proper training, but many of whom have the requisite experience, as well?

Newt on Benghazi

While reading Newt on Benghazi, I realized there’s a lot more to this story.  It’s far worse than the fact four Americans died.

Newt on BenghaziIt’s the fact they didn’t have to die.  It’s the fact that the man sitting in the White House is masquerading as a U.S. President.  It’s the fact that he got there through massive fraud and deceit, including rampant voter fraud.  It’s the fact that he conspired with our enemies to kidnap a U.S. Ambassador.  It’s the fact that when things went sour, instead of scrapping the plan and rescuing those he’d put in harm’s way, he not only LET them die, he went out of his way to ensure they received no help whatsoever.  It’s the fact that in so doing, he was already covering up, even as they were dying.  It’s the fact that he fired four General Officers, each of whom had more integrity in their little finger than he’s ever known throughout the entire half-century of his life, as a warning to others.

It’s the fact this only BEGINS to crack the surface of his hundreds of high crimes and misdemeanors, each of which quality for impeachment and jail time, if not a death sentence for being a traitor.  It’s the fact that, taken together, they are so incredibly damning that the only reason he wasn’t sentenced long ago is because half of Congress is COMPLICIT due to their refusal to do their duty and impeach him.

It’s the fact that WE THE PEOPLE have had ENOUGH.

He does NOT represent us.  He does NOT represent America.  He was NOT born in America.

Obama is NOT an American.

The Senselessness Behind How We Treat Our Service Members

“The few of us who are brave enough to face the horrors of war while protecting our rights and freedoms should NEVER have to worry about their rights and freedoms being denied them when they return.” – Anon

The weight of the world - and hope crushed.
The weight of the world – and hope crushed.

Soldiers often feel the weight of the world on their shoulders as they fight our war.  Can you imagine how they must feel as they’re told, “we trusted you with these rights and freedoms before you left.  Now that you’ve proven you’re worthy, we’re going to take those rights and freedoms away from you when you return.”

This is the madness our soldiers face.  Not from the enemy.  Not from within themselves.  But from elitist politicians who’ve never been to war, never seen war, yet ask our young ones to go fight their battles for them, only to pull the rug out from underneath them when they return.

They fight for the rights of all American, only to come home and discover they now have to fight for their own rights, as well.  No one was watching their back.  While they were fighting on foreign fronts, under unimaginable conditions and against formidable enemies, we were under conditions of 68-72 deg F, with 30-45% relative humidity.  The only enemies we faced back here were decisions about whether or not we were going to watch a sitcom or a horror movie.  The thought of writing our Congressman in support of our service members or their rights never even crossed our minds.

The Oath of Office – Our Nation’s Cornerstone

What’s in a typical oath of office?  Is the same oath of office taken for different civilian and military positions of leadership?  Are there common elements between different oaths of office?

The oath of office is SO important to American ideals, rights, liberty, and freedom — to the very fabric of our society itself — that it is required of everyone who holds any civilian, military office, or law enforcement office, from townships on up to the highest levels of our government.  It’s even required of all immigrants who desire to become U.S. citizens.

We’ll begin by listing the various oaths of office.  We’ve highlighted the legal basis for these oaths, as well as some common elements of all oaths throughout the United States of America:

Presidential Oath of Office:  “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Civil Office Oath:  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” – U.S. Constitution, Article VI.  This catch-all requires all state governors, as well as both state and federal legislators and members of the judiciary to take an oath of office.  Traditionally, this has almost invariably been extended to the municipal level, if not informally, then by state Constitution or legislation.

From Article VI, federal legislation was passed to provide the specifics of the following oaths of office:

Congressional Oath of Office:  “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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]” – 5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of OfficeRequired at the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year.  Newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite this oath.

Federal Judiciary Oaths (2):  “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that 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. [So help me God.]” – 28 U.S.C. § 453, Oaths of justices and judges.  The second oath is the same as required of Congress:  “I, (name), 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]” – 5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of Office.

An oath of office is is also required of all immigrants desiring to become U.S. citizens:

The United States Oath of Allegiance (Immigration):  “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; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” – “Oath of Allegiance,” 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008).

Finally, we have the last oath of office class, that required of all members of the United States Armed Forces, whether they’re serving at the federal or state levels:

U.S. Military Oath of Enlistment:  “I, (NAME), 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.” – 10 U.S.C. § 502, Enlistment Oath

U.S. Military Officers Oath:  “I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” – 5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of Office.  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. – Marjorie Cohn; Kathleen Gilberd (2009), Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent, PoliPointPress, p. 16, ISBN 978-0-9815769-2-3;Stjepan G. Meštrovi? (2008), Rules of Engagement?: A Social Anatomy of an American War Crime Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq, Algora Publishing, p. 7, ISBN 978-0-87586-672-7.

I strongly suspect the same is required of any sworn officer, whether civilian, military, or law enforcement, and at all levels (local, county, state, and federal).

Officers of the National Guard of the various states (additional oath):  “I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.” – National Guard Bureau Form 337, Oath of Enlistment

So!  Why is an oath of office at all levels so critical to the successful operation of our country?  Let’s begin by showing what can happen when people fail to adhere to their oath of office.

Let’s say we had a President who decided he wanted to implement some ideas of his own.  To him, they might sound like good ideas, but when he starts floating them, he soon learns his ideas will never pass muster because portions of them violate the U.S. Constitution.  Not being an actual American, and with civics lessons having been learned in Indonesia under a dictator who did pretty much whatever he wanted to so, this President finds himself a bit flustered.  But he’s a determined, if not driven individual, one who is full of charm and charisma, so he switches tactics, and begins doing end runs around the Constitution, saying to himself, “Who needs that stuffy old document, anyway?  That was then, this is now!  These are modern times, so let’s change!  Let’s progress!  Let’s move ‘Forward’!”

What he fails to realize is that he’s repeating an historical course of action that has ALWAYS failed, because it fails to consider basic human nature with respect to independence, freedom, and a sense of fair play.  He also fails to realize large countries require a more solid foundation than smaller countries, which is why our Founding Fathers built in a number of safeguards to prevent change from occurring too rapidly.

They knew it’s not difficult to topple a country once it abandons its foundation, because when that happens, the various powers which have united to form that country are now pulled in all directions, and the country can literally tear itself apart.  When all factions were singing off the same sheet of music i.e. the Constitution, the entire nation operated in harmony.  When a controlling or even a large faction decides to belt out a different tune, it leads to discord, disharmony, and a dichotomy of factions vehemently opposed to one another.  It becomes a house divided amongst itself, and it will not stand.  Out of desperation, rights take a back seat to “the vision,” and even basic human rights are often trampled beneath the march of “progress.”  Throughout, many people suffer, and often die.

All nations who have ever experimented with this were doomed to failure.  Hundreds of millions of people died during the 20th Century alone.  I dare say that’s an “experiment” we don’t need to repeat for the umpteenth time, especially given the very high loss of life to which these experiments invariably lead.

Fortunately, our President does not operate our country in a vacuum.  In fact, he can rant and rave all he wants, signing all the Executive orders on the planet, but so long as the rest of the government at all levels throughout our nation remains true to their oaths of office, nothing will come of it, for one simple reason:  We’re faithful to our Constitution, not to the President.  What can one man do if we remain true to our nation, rather than any man?

Our Founding Fathers specifically designed our government with this in mind, knowing all too well how easy is it for a single powerful person in traditional governments to topple entire nations.  They wove checks and balances throughout the design of our government, but until now, you’ve probably only heard of three.  I’ll share those with you now, along with the other three most often left out of the history books:

Presidential Checks and Balances:  The President can veto any legislation sent to him by Congress.  The President nominates Supreme Court Justices.

Congressional Checks and Balances:  Congress proposes legislation for approval or veto by the President.  If the President vetos, Congress can pass the legislation anyway with a 2/3 vote.  If the issue is paramount, Congress can pass an Amendment with a 2/3 vote, rendering the legislation a part of the Constitution itself.  Congress can impeach the President, any member of Congress, and Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Checks and Balances:  Reviews cases challenging current law for Constitutionality, as well as disputes between various citizens and states, and issues involving ambassadors and admiralty law.

State Checks and Balances:  Each state wields all the power reserved to it by the Constitution and its Amendments.  Should the federal government overstep the bounds of its authority, the states have full Constitutional authority to tell the feds “NO.”  Should the feds insist, the states may challenge them in federal court, and appeal to the Supreme Court, if necessary.  Alternative, each state remains sovereign.  That is, a state governor can amass a militia as required to defend the state and its interests, against overtures by other states, or even by the federal government itself.

County/Municipality Checks and Balances:  A Sheriff is the original form of law enforcement in the United States.  They’re sworn law enforcement officers who’re duty-bound to the Constitution to enforce all state and federal laws.  Their jurisdiction is by county, but does not include incorporated municipalities who maintain their own police force, although in some locations they’ve combined forces with the municipality.  On many occasions, county sheriffs have refused to enforce state or federal laws which they deem un-Constitutional.  On noteworthy occasions, they’ve been threatened by either the states or the feds, to which they’ve responded with threats of their own, namely, to arrest anyone, regardless of stature, who attempts to undermine their authority to enforce the law in that county.  Police forces have the same jurisdiction over their municipalities as sheriffs do over their counties.

Citizen Checks and Balances:  Each and every inhabitant of the United States of America has the responsibility to follow all Constitutionally-lawful legislation.  Each citizen, however, has a duty to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.  In so doing, they have full Constitutional authority to resist, reject, ignore, or challenge any law which violates the Constitution and any other laws which remain Constitutional.

The last three set of checks and balances are crucial to keeping the feds in line.  The federal government does NOT have unlimited power to do whatever they deem necessary, whether it’s for “national security” or “in the interests of public health and safety.”  Their powers are specifically limited to those conferred on them by the Constitution.  All other powers are reserved to the States and the people, both of whom have full Constitutional authority to tell the feds “NO” whenever the feds overstep the bounds of their authority.

In this context, the Tenth Amendment deserves particular mention.  It specifically limits the power of the federal government, while solidifying the power of both the states and the people, by declaring, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Who decides which powers are delegated to the United States and which are reserved to the states or the people?  The Constitution decides.  Not the President.  Not Congress.  Not the Supreme Court.  Not the States.  And not the People.  The Constitution alone lists which powers are delegated to feds, which are prohibited to the States, and declares all other powers are not held by the feds, but by the States or the people.

Impeachment

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3

When all else fails, when the President or a member of his Cabinet, a member of Congress, a Supreme Court Justice, or any other civil officer of the United States commits a felony or misdemeanor, particularly as related to his or her conduct in office, charges can be brought against them.  If they’re found guilty, they’re to be removed from office, after which the civilian authorities can charge them under their jurisdiction.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how WE THE PEOPLE keep our government in line.

Recap:

First, all oaths of office in these United States have one thing in common:  Loyalty is sworn not to any man, woman, or office, but to the Constitution of the United States, the “law of the land” from which all other laws in the U.S. are derived.

Second, provided at least some civil and military officers adhere to their oaths of office, our nation will continue to remain on track.

Third, even if the entire federal government derails itself and our country because they fail to adhere to our Constitution, the people can restore our country simply by voting them all out of office, replacing them with leaders who actually have a clue.

The final check and balance involves removing an official from office.  The President, members of Congress, and Supreme Court Justices are all subject to impeachment:

In closing, I’d like to propose a new oath, not one of some office, but a Citizenship Oath, one taken periodically by everyone in the United States, the same as we might pledge allegiance to our flag, perhaps beginning at age 12, the age most cultures recognize as early adulthood:

United States of America – Oath of Citizenship:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure any and all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whether or not I may 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, following the precepts, principles, and procedures given therein, especially should I ever hold a civilian or military office requiring an oath of office; that I will obey all Constitutionally lawful legislation, executive orders, and court decisions of the United States of America and its member States; that I will oppose any and all unlawful legislation, executive orders, and court decisions contrary to the Constitution and its Amendments, expediently reporting any such violation(s) to the lowest level required to effect a swift remedy; and that I will exercise my inalienable rights and freedoms to the maximum extent possible, especially those recognized as important enough to have been enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”