Friday, February 22, 2013

The Gathering Storm


Gathering Storm
Georges Michel
And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6)
What is going on in this country? The Constitution is either the law of the land, or it is not. If it is not, then we are no longer living in the United States of America. If that be the case, then the current civilian leadership in Washington D.C. and the military leadership of the Armed Forces have decided to set aside their oaths of office and govern by fiat. Can the use of armed force to enforce the will of the current political regime be far behind?

A while back I was doing some research regarding the oaths sworn by both officers and enlisted upon entry into the Armed Forces of the United States. Well, I have been doing some further research on this topic and found something interesting, to wit:
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.
Before going any further, let's take a look at the oaths. Here is the officer 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.
And the enlisted 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; 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.
Note that in both instances, the "So help me God" portion of the oath may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath. Yes, I have a bit of heartburn with that bit but Article Six of the United States Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
The underlined bit being that which relates to the phrase "So help me God".

So those are the oaths sworn by the members of the Armed Forces of the United States. The President, Vice President, members of Congress and federal judges also swear oaths. All of which make reference to the Constitution.

The President:

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.
The others:
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.]
Now as regards the current President, he may actually not be in violation of his sworn oath. I say this because the oath does state "to the best of my Ability". It's quite possible that he is doing the best he can. It's possible that he's just not that capable and the office of the President is beyond his competence. If so, then the electorate is at fault for electing an incompetent to the office.

Now the oath as taken by members of Congress, the judiciary and the Vice President don't cut them any slack as regards "ability". Their oath states "
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office". My guess would be that if they are unable to do that, then they should step down.

Now all of that aside, there seems to be a hue and cry in this country for a "conversation" regarding firearms. Exactly which part of the 2nd Amendment don't these clowns understand? It's right up there in my header, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No "conversation" is necessary, we have the right to keep and bear arms. The government is specifically prohibited from infringing upon that right.

The 2nd Amendment does not specify the type of arms. Various legislative acts and court decisions down through the years which have prohibited citizens from bearing certain types of arms are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does make mistakes and has since the country was founded. I need only refer to the Dred Scott Decision.

From Wikipedia:

Dred Scott (1795 – September 17, 1858), was an African-American slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as "the Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil war Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision.
So the Supreme Court made a mistake, they are, after all, human. Any decision made by the Court which infringes at all upon our 2nd Amendment rights is unconstitutional, period, full stop. One does not need a law degree to figure out the Bill of Rights. One just needs to be able to read and comprehend English.

The way I see it, the President, the Vice President and a large number of congress-critters are in violation of their oath of office and should either correct that behavior or resign their office. Any officer in the US Armed Forces who supports the infringement of the 2nd Amendment needs to reconsider that stance or resign their commissions. They are morally and legally bound to do so.

Enlisted soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and coast guardsmen need to understand that any order or orders which may cause them to infringe upon the rights conveyed by the 2nd Amendment are illegal orders and should not be obeyed.

Why are Progressive Elements in this country so intent upon dismantling the Constitution, or at least the parts they don't agree with? Because they think they know what's best for the rest of us.

Beware America. Once your 2nd Amendment rights are taken away, the rest won't be far behind.

Say goodbye to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, freedom to peaceably assemble, in short, say goodbye to the United States. You might as well learn how to speak Chinese. You'll need it when the new rulers take over.

8 comments:

  1. Progressive Elements are constitutional revisionists. They don't understand the reasons why our founding fathers put the constitution together, why Jefferson Davis (and others) wrote it the way they did, what the words mean, and how their revisionist desires weaken what is nearly a perfect document. If they educated themselves on the history behind what has been written, and what the words truly mean, they might change their tune. It's an uphill battle though since the public doesn't have the knowledge, nor do we value freedom. Freedom is hard. For one thing, it requires critical thinking skills. For another, it requires effort. Tyranny is easy. Just do whatever someone tells you to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points all, Tuna. But I think your Southern is showing. Jefferson Davis? (I used to drive by his house every day when I was stationed in Biloxi.)

      Delete
  2. Very well said Sarge. It really does come down to that oath. Who will honor it and who will violate it? I took it 4 times, twice for the Army and twice again when I was sworn in as a deputy sheriff and police officer. The concept of honor seems to be an alien one to far too many these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Six. There's a lot of folks nowadays who can't even spell honor. Let alone have any.

      I took that oath multiple times, still believe in it, still adhere to it.

      Delete
  3. What I said at The Place For All of Us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for those comments, made me blush they did. (Why am I typing like Yoda talks? Sleep deprivation can be a wild ride...)

      Delete
  4. You stated very clearly in the beginning of this post that the constitution is either the law or it is not. Why is there a need for a 'conversation'? To put this into Biblical terms (which I am wont to do beacause that is the source of absolute truth)Jesus handled Satan in the same way we need to handle this call for 'conversation' re: 2nd Amendment. Jesus simply told Satan 'NO' because "It is written...". Once we get into discussion where does it end? Who decides what should be the 'new truth'? What a load! The only reason the term 'meaningful conversation' is being used is because to come right out and say 'gun control' would be political suicide and these double-talking BS artists in DC are smart enough to hedge their bets in order to keep the votes coming.
    By the way, I like your pics , especially with your cat monitoring your activity from the back of the chair! You look great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Greg. The Founders read the Bible, you can tell. Our current leaders? I doubt it.

      Yes, with the wife out in Cali visiting the youngest, the cats are supervising things!

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)