We Finally Did It!

#TrueOathKeepers - Part II

The men that founded our great nation, that declared independence from a tyrannic government, that wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the men we know in history as heroes, were merely just people like you and me. They weren't noble men, or of high status. Most of them were merchants, small farmers, shop owners, middle class workers, like Blount, Broom and Robert Morris. Some had wealth, owned plantations and large farms with slaves like Johnson, Butler and Jefferson. A few were highly educated, scientists, physicians and inventors such as Franklin, Williamson and McHenry. They were all fed up with a tyrannic government that ruled a police state, that enforced policies that were not in the best interest of its subjects, that took more and more of their hard working earnings (sounds familiar). The Founding Fathers weren't perfect, none of us are. They all had sins they would answer to their higher power. They all made mistakes, they all hurt someone in their life time. For all of their faults they made the greatest choice that would lay the foundation for generations to not make their same mistakes. They wrote the Constitution. They wrote in huge letters "We the People".

This document decrees that the United States Federal Government is ruled by American citizens, by you and I. Going back to the oaths we make, if any one man or woman orders a soldier, sailor, airman, law enforcement officer, public servant to violate any of the articles of the Constitution, it is your obligated duty by your oath to disobey. That man or woman that makes an unconstitutional order is an enemy of the People.

If you have made an oath to defend, support and uphold the Constitution and you violate any article of the Constitution of the United States, you are not an oath keeper, you are an enemy of the People.

If you made swore the an oath and you choose to only uphold Constitutional rights to just a group of people and violate the Constitutional rights of the rest then you are an enemy of the People.

If you discriminate Constitutional rights of people base off of the color of their skin, culture, gender, sexual preference, spiritual belief, religion, social status, educated level, health conditions and/or disabilities, then you are an enemy of the People.

If you defend, support and uphold the Constitution for every single American citizen from all enemies foreign or domestic, then you are a True Oath Keeper.

#TrueOathKeepers - Part I

You probably noticed I hashtag most of my posts on G+ and Twitter #TrueOathkKeepers. If you are a fan of my blog you also know I wrote a couple of posts on my experiences with some so called Oath Keepers. If you get the vibe that I have an issue with these guys and other posers that claim to support, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, then you are right.

I will tell you hands down what it means to be a true oath keeper. First, lets read the Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment, Armed Forces Officer's Oath, Law Enforcement Oath and some oaths of public office.

Oath of Enlistment 

"I, (state name of enlistee), 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."

Oath of Office (For Officers in the Armed Forces) 

"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"

Oath of Honor (For law enforcement agents/officers, may vary state to state to also cover state constitution)

"On my honor, I will never betray

my badge, my integrity, my

character or the public trust. I

will always have the courage to

hold myself and others

accountable for our actions. I will

always uphold the Constitution,

my community, and the agency I

serve."

Oath of Office for Congress

“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.”

In every one of the oaths mentioned, it is pretty cut and dry, we swear to defend, protect, support and/or uphold the Constitution of the United States. The one that get's the trickiest is the oath of enlistment. Many will say, well you swore an oath to obey the President. To those people I will normally respond, "you must of stopped reading at that point." In a previous post I wrote titled "Your Oath" I explained the difference between "obey the orders of the President according to regulations and the UCMJ" and "obey the President without regards to regulations and the UCMJ"

Something that I have noticed is that most Americans in the past 10 years really don't know what is in the Constitution. Most people just think of the Bill of Rights. They don't understand that it was a document written for the people by the people. The very first paragraph in the Constitution known as the preamble states:

"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."

We the People is every single American citizen. Not just the upper class, not just the lower class, not white people or black people. It is literally the people, every single one of us regardless of background.

In Eric's Honor

I recently wrote a two part post on racism and in my own way charging our tyrannic world government with inciting a form of discrimination to create violence and chaos. So that is where I stand on racism in America.

I decided give my two cents on the matter of Eric Garner's tragic death. Mainly on the grand jury's decision to not indict the police officer accused of killing Gardner by putting him in a chokehold.

I wanted to read some articles from several sources on the issue to make sure I know what the hell I am talking about. I noticed something on a CNN article that cought my eye. You can see on screen shot to the right where I highlighted CNN instigating the racial issue. This doesn't mean I have discounted the accusation of there being a racial issue, I am just stating that CNN really wanted to make sure you knew it was a black man and a white officer incident. Normally when you hear any other incident between a black officer and white man or any race between any different race, it is never mentioned in the article the races involve. Example below.

This story doesn't get nearly as much air time as Michael Brown incident or Eric Garner incident. This was an incident between an Asian police officer and a Black man. Not as big of news. Because why would a minority racially profile another?

Now what happened to Eric Gardner was tragic, and you have all seen the video of what happened and you can come to your own conclusion if it was murder or not. A point I would like to raise is, it is not like the justice system is broken. The tyrannic master is trying to make you think it is. Convincing you to turn over your Constitutional Rights over for his "fixed justice system". What I am talking about is, the Jury of our piers have decided that the Police Officer in question did not commit a crime. It was people like you and me, free Americans that made that decision, the rest of us may think it was unfair, but unfortunately we weren't there to make that decision. That doesn't mean that the justice system is broken and that we need to change it. If we ask our government to change the Bill of Rights, and that is exactly what they want you to do, then they will have their authority to throw away all of your Constitutional Rights.

All I am saying is be careful for what you ask for. Ask for your Constitutional Rights to be upheld by those that swore an oath to do so. Talk to your local law enforcement agencies, talk to your district attorneys, tell them that we want them to defend our Constitutional Rights. 

Lets demand for our Constitutional Rights in his memory.

Rest in peace Eric

Racism - Part II - Follow the money

I am going to start off this post with apologizing for an error I have made on my last post. I have mentioned that racism (as in the discrimination of races as we know it today) didn't exist until the 19th century. Looking back at my notes I found that it is actually dates back to the 18th century.

However, why and how did we develop the new form of discrimination based off of color of skin? Or, an even better question, who developed racism as we know it today?

So I began to research commonalities between the sudden increase in discrimination for humans that weren't white and other historical events during the 17th and 19th century. Through the 17th and 19th century the merchants of the Atlantic slave trade relied heavily on credit from the several banks in England and Spain. During the American Revolution the banks were aware of the the new nation's intentions of becoming a country of free men. The banks needed a way to insure the trade of slaves in the Americas. Using Americans that also had interests in the cheap labor to maximize the profit margin of cotton and other valuable trades began to devide people by race as justification to discriminate against Africans. CLR James writes in his Modern Politics:

“the conception of dividing people by race begins with its slave trade. Thus this [the slave trade] was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religious and philosophers had . . .the only justifications by which humanity could face it was to divide people into races and decide that Africans were an inferior race"

Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent his son Nathan Mayer Rothschild to Manchester to establish a bank in Great Britain. Nathan further exploited the slave trade by lending gold to a slave merchant then holding his slaves as collateral until repayment with credit. 

Before the Civil War, James Rothschild and the British Monarchy was so fearful of losing the slave trade which was their largest amount of income, they created and funded Knights of the Golden Circle to organize a coup before Abraham Lincoln could be inaugurated. When the KGC could no carry out the plans they became the main instigators for the southern states to vote for secession from the Union and thus leading into Civil War. In an issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a publication by Lyndon H. LaRouche. Jr. himself worte:

"The political evolution of the Knights of the Ku Klux 

Klan was a direct outcome of policies initiated during 

the first half of the 19th century by the British 

aristocracy and their "court Jews, the Rothschilds.

The starting point for unraveling this vast 

conspiratorial apparatus is the Knights of the Golden 

Circle."

"The next phase of the KGC's activity was to organize 

a military coup in the U. S. before Lincoln could be 

inaugurated. The KGC was used primarily as the 

main terror force to ensure that the key Southern 

states voted for secession. Its stated organizational 

purpose indicates the extent of its intentions at the 

time of the 1860 election of Lincoln"

Today the same type of tyrants, the bankers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the big Wall Street bankers are using racism today to enslave all of us. To justify continuous violations of our Constitutional Rights, to create chaos, blind us of what is really happening, to convince you of the lie that we need something better than the Constitution, their replacement, their government, not the government of the people.

Racism - Part I - Understanding

When originally doing research on the topic of racism my focus was going to be in this great nation of ours. The more digging I did the more I realized that this isn't just an American problem, it is an international problem. In a perfect world and in a mathematical world their is a solution to every problem as long as you know and understand the problem. To solve the problem of racism in our country we have to first understand the problem.

Now I was going to flood the rest of this blog with research and sources. You know what I will share my own experience instead.

Growing up in Spain as a half American and half Spanish I was bullied quite a bit, now I don't hold it against the country as a whole, I had some decent friends growing up. The truth is discrimination in general just might be a natural feeling just as anger, happiness or annoyance. Just like those natural feelings it has to develop to be channeled appropriately. In a functional family the parents normally would raise the children and teach them how to channel their emotions in a functional manner. Discrimination seems to be the one that we forget about.

Racism is actually a relatively recent form of discrimination. Race as we know it today wasn't even a label for humans until the 19th century. Scientifically we are all the same race no matter the color of your skin. Before the 19th century discrimination didn't really have anything to do with race as we know it today. Discrimination had more to do with where you were from and if you were from a society that has been conquered or not. For example when the Roman Empire conquered Gaul (now known as Northern Europe) the inhabitants were discriminated against and enslaved to Roman citizens. Even within the Rome discrimination was also applicable to class, and if you were the lowest of the classes you would be treated like crap and possibly also enslaved regardless of the color of your skin. So what happened at the turn of the 19th century that discrimination took a new form of racism?

We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant

This is something I've been wanting to share for quite some while. I would like to thank John Williamson for sharing this on Google+

The Big Statistic: Divorce

Tonight I will write about something different than what I usually write about. I believe it may be because I am part of this statistic. Maybe it is something that has effected me greatly and I wish this on no one. A friend once told me it is the strategy of the faceless tyrant to break up our families to weaken us. What I do know is that it has weighed heavenly in my mind the past couple of weeks. So I decided to do research on the issue and find out some facts.

The biggest player in doing the studies on divorce rates in the military complex is RAND Corporation, a think tank formed to offer research and analysis for the United States Armed Forces. RAND has done studies dating back since the Vietnam war. Some of the more common trends contributing to divorce seems to be stress in the work place. There were two different studies thought that really caught my eye.

A study by Michael Pollard from RAND made an interesting observation of the population that are attracted to the military and those that tend to marry to that same population. "military selects vulnerable people, who would be at elevated risk for divorce if they were civilians." (Comparing Rates of Marriage and Divorce in Civilian, Military, and Veteran Populations, by Michael Pollard.) To be fair, this study was done in 2007 and compared to today most people joining the military came from broken homes. Now a days who isn't from a broken home. Another note from this study was that active duty women were more likely to want to divorce their spouse and civilian women were more likely to want to divorce their active duty spouse. This leaves the study a bit inconsistent and further studies would have to be made due to this variable. Something I noticed though in my decade of active duty service is that most active duty women tend to marry active duty men, not sure if this was considered by Michael Pollard.

The second study done by Brighita Negrusa and Sebastian Negrusa suggests that active duty members returning from a deployment with PTSD or other mental health issues such as depression are more likely to end in divorce with their spouse. They have a good argument when it was noted that officers are less likely to return with PTSD but the ones that did were more likely to divorce. This was consistent with the studies done with the enlisted.

In the end, for me it doesn't really matter. I was heart broken that my ex-wife wanted a divorce and not totally necesarily for me. In any marriage that ends in divorce where my heart goes out to are the children. The tyrant wants to target them with promoting the big D word. He knows that without family unity the likelihood of children growing up to be functional and productive members of society is low. The tyrant is weakening the families, the children and society. The ones that suffer are my little ones. I miss them every day, not a day goes by that I don't think about them and what their future may end up being without a strong unified family unit. All I can do is hope for the best.

My Little Ones

Coming Soon

Hey loyal readers. Sorry for the lack of writing. Stay tune, I will have something for you today.

Oath Keepers Org Are Liars

After the attack by the idiots on twitter who claimed to be oath keepers after I had defended Islam practicing Americans, I decided to report them to the Organization. To my surprise I got a response pretty immediate but it was to ask more questions of the incident. I answered all the questions and told them that I would like a formal apology and training to those members. Two weeks later haven't gotten any feedback.

So far my encounter with the Oath Keepers hasn't been a good one. I went to branch meeting here in San Diego that wasn't really impressive, it felt like a GOP rally and very not tasteful conversations, talking about Michelle Obama being a transvestite and so on. Then the twitter thing, and what I have seen on YouTube, it really doesn't seem like they aren't what they say they are. They are full of members that have hate for anyone that is not a Protestant Christian, hate for Hispanic-Americans or Latino-Americans. They hate everyone that is not a Republican, and they believe that the Constitutional Bill of Rights only belongs to a select number of Americans. Does this sound like someone that can uphold their oath.

Being an oath keeper to me means being faithful to the oath you made to support, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was meant for the ALL citizens of the United States of America. No matter color of your skin, religion you practice, who you sleep with in your bedroom (as long as it is consensual) or your your preferred political party.  Anyone that doesn't want to protect the Constitutional Rights for ALL AMERICANS is not an oath keeper in my book.

This is why I feel that Inception of Defending Freedom is the only one true Organization that can and will defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic. That includes anyone from the so called Oath Keepers Organization.

What I would like from the Oath Keepers Org is very simple, a formal apology, and show me that they are training all members that the Constitution applies to all Americans and that they will defend, support and uphold it for all Americans.