Oath Takers

by L. Douglas Hogan

  “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.” The aforementioned proposed amendment can be petitioned to Washington at http://www.petition2congress.com/3093/proposed-28th-amendment-to-united-states-constitution/

  Perhaps there’s no clause excluding Congress from Obamacare, but there’s still a need for such an amendment. I leave that decision to you, but I get nervous at the thought of the Constitution being touched by unruly representatives. Our government has become so corrupt that it conceals its own shortcomings by silence and a lack of transparency to the people. Anytime a congress wants to amend a constitution, there’s usually an agenda behind it that doesn’t fare favorably for the people. Without a doubt, government has become too large and is destructive to the ends of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore the right of the people to abolish such a government and to institute a new government.

  “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…” —Thomas Jefferson

  “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”

  — Thomas Jefferson

  OF MORAL CLARITY

  One assumes that a person in uniform is of professional character, undying devotion, compassionate, loyal, has a high aptitude, and is of clear moral character. At least, that is the instructed tradition—there may be a variety of exceptions, depending on the leadership. There are some that pervert our honor system; there are some who slip through the cracks, so to speak; and some outright seek their own ends. I wish I could say that all those in uniform are cut from the same cloth, but I would be deceiving you.

  There are some who will agree with me in every topic matter contained in this book, and there are those that will outright disagree with me, maybe even hate me for it. My opinions and views have become more aligned with the old ways than those of the new. I find this happening the more I study our forefathers and take a hard serious look at what we have become as a nation. The moral code was clear when this nation was birthed by the blood of our ancestors. They had very clear moral and ethical Christian values. I find parallels between the work of Christ and the history of the United States. When I place my hand over my heart to speak aloud the Pledge of Allegiance, I do so because in its words are “One Nation under God.” I know that I will find moral clarity serving in a nation that is given to “Providence,” as the forefathers called it. My mind rehearses the meaning of the flag and what our pledge is about. I must never forget that white stands for moral purity, while the stars (representations of the states) are symbols of heaven, and they remind us of our ultimate goal.

  Christ died for humanity that all men might repent and come to the Father through his blood. This act of submission to God and obedience to the gospel brings about spiritual liberty. It is through the shed blood of Christ that all can have liberty. The gospels teach how Christ didn’t want to die, but knew there was no other way for man to be brought into the LIBERTY He wanted them to have. No wonder the forefathers held this LIBERTY so close to their heart. Their nation was one to be built of faith and, though they didn’t want to die, it was a sacrifice most worthy. It came by the blood of patriots; and, though they didn’t want war, and they didn’t want to sacrifice themselves, they saw in their sacrifice a cause worth dying for. This is why it’s so important that we, as a nation, cannot forget the sacrifices they made. We cannot become a nation of tyrants, brigands, and thugs! Their sacrifice was to prevent such atrocities.

  The code we live by is one of valor, humility, courage, purity of intentions, and selflessness. If we must die, let it be in the name of preserving LIBERTY. No oath taker need die in vain; if these traits define you, then you are a patriot. If you have no honor, are haughty, self-oriented, and selfish, you wear the uniform in vain and are a tyrant. You have power that should be used in defense of the Constitution and the people of the United States. When you use those powers for selfish gain or in obedience to a tyrant, you are the tool of tyranny. Alone, a tyrant is powerless, but with arms, legs, and mouthpieces, he controls the masses, because they carry out his will by the use of force. This is why we were given the 2nd Amendment, and why we cannot be free without it.

  To you officers of the law, and to you men and women in uniform, under the wing of an executive power, I say this: you must do some serious soul-searching right now. You cannot wait for a moment of clarity when the winds are blowing in a nasty direction; you must have chosen your path before that day comes. Rather, it should have been chosen before you swore the oath. Regardless, a day will come when our nation’s patriots are put to the test. A day to follow the order of tyrants, or a day of sacrifice. Nobody wants that day to come, but it has come to every nation of liberty, and we must be fully prepared to make the stand to reinstate the Constitution and to reset the nation of LIBERTY or to stand with tyrants. Both come with sacrifice, but the difference is that of bloodshed by patriots or by tyrants.

  FIRST FREEDOM

  Our nation’s freedom of religious expression has been under direct assault for years. It has been taken to court, shut out of the schools, silenced in institutions, removed from the workplace, and regulated.

  Let’s discuss these attacks; before we do, let’s review the First Amendment:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  It’s pretty clear in its simplicity. The government’s not allowed to discriminate or show disparity between religions. Several types of Christian denominations were present at the time of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Each signer understood the history of having a respect for one religion over another. However, I would like to clear up a misconception that ruled popular opinion for too long. The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. The separation assumed is that Congress shall not respect a certain establishment of religion. In fact, according to the First Amendment, you are allowed to talk about religion anywhere you want. The Amendment clearly says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” I can reconcile the phrase “separation of church and state” if the context is that there cannot be a “church-state.” A church-state would have essentially re-established a holy empire, similar to that of the tyrannical homeland, from which they had just won their freedom from. No, the First Amendment does not abolish religion from the government or from any workplace. It endorses the free speech of religious topics, encourages the exercise of religion, and shuns the idea of having a church-state; yet the courts continue to hear cases where Americans are offended by the use of religious freedoms and take the exerciser to law.

  I think the stupidity started in 1980, in the case Stone vs. Graham, where the Ten Commandments were being purchased with private money and posted as plaques in the school rooms. So long as the students are not required to believe in them or recite them, I fail to see where the violation is. The Commandments weren’t purchased with public money, and the students weren’t forced to believe in Christian history. Since the plaques were purchased with private money, the freedom of religious exercise was being practiced. However, the courts ruled that the Ten Commandments had no place in the schools.

  For years, “evolution” has been taught in our public schools as a matter of fact. Doesn’t that show disparity between evolution and creationism? Why is it okay to discriminate against Christians but it’s not okay to discriminate against atheism? If atheists don’t believe in God, then
where is the hurt of having public prayers for those who want to exercise that right? Thomas Jefferson said it best: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Christians are passive, for the most part. That’s why you don’t see widespread riots when they want to make their point known. Instead, they seclude to a place of prayer. If you don’t believe in God, that’s your prerogative. But if you don’t, leave those people who do alone. The Constitution gives them a clear right to exercise their religious preferences.

  All the same, the Supreme Court decided a case in 1981 (Widmar vs. Vincent) where the defendant’s religious exercises were being excluded by the university. They were not allowing the students to have a religious group. The argument of the State of Missouri and the university was that there should be a separation of church and state. The separation they spoke of was the exclusion clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that they were violating the students’ freedom to exercise religious rights. The case set a precedence on First Amendment cases. It clearly defined the meaning of the First Amendment as a freedom to practice religious liberties anywhere. It’s not an Amendment that says you can’t practice Christianity in the workplace. It is not the “separation of church and state”; it’s the “separation of church from state.” There is a difference.

  EXECUTIVE ORDERS & THE CONSTITUTION

  One cannot deny the historical facts that “executive orders” have been a rising trend in the U.S. The usurpation of power and control over every machine designed to bring about the balance of power and control has been the norm and not the exception. Hearing the President mention the use of Executive control if Congress cannot come to agreement, is egregious. Here is the destabilization of power: an extremely left-wing Executive, working with an extremely left-wing Senate, to block bills from the right-wing House, so that an executive order can be passed to promote the socialist agenda. Senator Daniel Webster gave a speech to Congress in 1834, citing that “the contest, for ages, has been to rescue LIBERTY from the grasp of Executive power.”

  Executive orders have been customary since George Washington. Notwithstanding, they are completely unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution states “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of representatives” (Article 1 Section 1). Before the Executive takes office, he must swear to faithfully execute those laws—not legislate them.

  Executive orders were not originally called “executive orders”; that came later. When Abraham Lincoln was executive, he had every executive order numbered, so that the orders could be tracked. Because executive orders undermine the legislative process, they are nothing short of tyrannical. Most of the early orders were given at times when Congress could not be in session. This is not the case in the current and recent administrations. Congress is very much engaged in the process, and the Executive thinks he can trump them with a “pen” and “telephone” (his words).

  The late Justice Robert H. Jackson was quoted as saying, “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.” I’ll go a step further and add that a President purposefully cutting out the legislative branch and supplanting it with his own legislation is already a tyrant. We are seeing it as it unfolds before our very eyes. Utter disregard for the Constitution is on the rise, and it has to come to a head. That is the tough question; when is that?

  “When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which in its consequences must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious view of it will be evident.”

  Executive orders expedite the will of the President to advance his personal agenda; and that is tyranny, that is unconstitutional, and a betrayal of the American way of life. It is a betrayal of the Constitution and THE OATH.

  RACISM & LIBERTY

  Two enigmatic words, racism and liberty, harmonious and problematic at best. While liberty provides for the free expression of one’s personal views, it does not provide for unequal treatment of persons of race. Liberty does not discriminate, for it is blind; it does not recognize ethnicity, culture, gender, etc. What liberty does not provide for is the dominion of one person’s views over another.

  Racism is limited only by a person’s ignorance. Plain and simple, racism is hate. It can be taught and it can be learned; it is never natural. Babies, by nature, do not care what color another person may be. It is instilled in them, either through ignorance or brainwash. In the previous baby example, we can learn from the wonders of nature. It can teach us quite a bit. Animals, as another example, do not respond to different colors of the same species (mating rituals being an exception).

  Our culture (the human culture) has become very divisive in word and deed. Sometimes an attempt to correct racism ends in a racist action. Words hurt people and many times scars them far beyond their ability to heal, psychologically. This, in turn, breeds animosity, which is reciprocating. It can also be inherent. While I would support intolerance of a tyrannical government, I would not do so where race is concerned. So how can you tell when to be tolerant and when not to be tolerant? The answer is simple. Nature! Nature teaches us that homosexuality is unnatural (a freedom nonetheless). It does not teach us that skin color is unnatural. Nature teaches us that liberty and certain inalienable rights are bestowed to us by our Creator. Therein lies the answer.

  What we’ve been seeing more and more, at an unprecedented level, is the use of race as an excuse to bend the will of the people to that of the race baiter. A race baiter has been defined as “an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests.” This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term “race” in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group’s perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of “race baiting.” Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

  The term “race baiting” is often a critique of antiracist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation. This chapter could be misconstrued as a simple form of racism just because I’m addressing the issue of racism. There are, however, much more complex forms of racism, such as discrimination and institutional racism, which I will go into.

  The term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. —UN International Conventions

  Racial discrimination contradicts the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, issued during the French Revolution, and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed after World War II, which all postulate equality between all human beings.

  Racial discrimination is tre
ating people differently through a process of social divisions related to race. Socially acceptable racism seems to include Black Caucuses, Black Commerce, Black Entertainment Television, Black Colleges, Black Scholarships, Black History Months, and Black Marches; probably due to a tragic history of black slavery. It should be noted that the only remnants of this tragic past is the inability to let it be history. It remains in the forward parts of the mind for many people. Even though there are no living slaves in the United States, and no living slave owners, anger and hatred is continually passed along through the generations. Likewise, perceived racial divisions lead to frustrations and violent outbursts that perpetuate the problems of the past. It is these “problems of the past” that lead governments to condone and adopt institutional racism as a matter of law.

  The term “institutional racism” (also known as “structural racism,” “state racism” or “systemic racism”) is racial discrimination by governments, corporations, educational institutions or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals. Stokely Carmichael is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism in the late 1960s. He defined the term as “the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their color, culture or ethnic origin.” Obvious guilty parties are noted below.