Gifford’s Misstep

Yeah, Mark, you stepped into this one as well (sigh).  Goes with the territory, I suppose.

Headlines:  “Giffords steps into gun debate on anniversary.”  No, I’m not the NRA or some “gun nut.”  I’m just an American, but one who knows both American and World history.

As I’ve said several times before, on various forums including FB and personal e-mails to you both:  I AM SO SORRY THIS HAPPENED TO YOU.  I’ve shot at myself, in combat.  It’s not fun!

However, gun control is NOT the answer to this problem.  You and I need to sit down and talk, Mark, as you’re not getting it, and neither is Gabby.  If you refuse, would you please stop talking out your ass in violation of the facts (FBI Crime Statistics) which clearly indicate you’re way off target i.e. talking out of your ass?

By the way, an armed civilian was buying food at a store near the shooting.  He was, if I’m not mistaken, the fourth person to sit firm on the perp.  By all accounts, had he been present at the shooting, he would have fired upon the perpetrator and would have saved lives.  As he was carrying his firearm openly, as is my custom and the right of citizens in 44 of our states, his presence may very well have deterred the perpetrator’s act altogether.

And if you think armed civilians pose a threat to innocent bystanders, you are again making a judgement without the facts:

– Armed citizens number around 9,000,000 people.  According to the Bureau of Justice, there are approximately 800,000 armed law enforcement officers in the U.S.

– Armed citizens stop crimes in progress approximately 31% more often than armed law enforcement officers.

– Despite the fact armed citizens outnumber local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers by a factor of 10, we are EIGHT TIMES less likely to injure or kill innocent bystanders.

In light of the FACTS, I have to ask you:  Really?  You’re a highly trained and experienced astronaut!  Please put your inductive and deductive reasoning skills to use, in light of the FACTS, and come up with a far more rational answer than “more gun control.”

Thank you.

While you’re wearing your thinking caps, please do something about the Kenya-born userper masquerading as a U.S. President:

https://ryoc.us/i-am-not-an-american-barack-hussain-obama/

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/350585/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obamas-achilles-heel/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/rescue-our-white-house/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/373301/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/319337/

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.”

RYOC’s Official Anti-American Boycott List

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:boycott

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 Fundamental to America – It’s an Inalienable Right

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.”inalienable right

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.

My Grandfather’s .410 Shotgun – In Elementary School – Armed Teachers, Anyone?

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?

“Times change?”

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.

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

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.

 

sotomayor
Honest, God-fearing Christians!

It’s all in the eyes of our Constitution…

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.

So…

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.