Oath Keepers.org

On Friday, June 22nd of 2012 St. Louis, MO residents were warned that the military would be on the streets as part of a 'training mission.' Why in the world would they not do this 'practice' on their own base, in their own residential areas? Military bases DO have residential areas. 

I don't want to be desensitized to seeing military vehicles on the street. I want to be afraid. Why? Because that fear will tell me that something is truly wrong! But if we're desensitized to seeing our military on the street then we will become more accustomed to martial law. And if they were rounding up and making arrests of members of a subversive cabal like some people have said then NAME THEM! Don't fly them to Guantanamo in the dark; let us see these people and understand what good our military is doing- if it is doing good, because heaven knows that we could use some good news right about now. If it is rounding up ordinary citizens for protesting then we need to shed light on that, too.

When it becomes a crime for people to protest and/or carry arms then it is obviously time for us to stand up and renew our commitment to protect our freedoms. We cannot inch along slowly toward the demolition of our Constitution. We have to wake up.

Visit OathKeepers.org to read about the outstanding citizens (In the Testimonials section)who do indeed see the forest for the trees in this sweltering and dismal political climate. Read their Ten Orders We Will NOT Obey. I encourage you to get involved with this organization and spread the word about it.

There is hope! Per their website: 

Oath Keepers: What We Are

Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders."

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means. 

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.

Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.

What We Are Not

We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person.
We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.


We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office.
We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to "support and defend the Constitution" as it is written or to leave of their own volition.

We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced.
We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.

We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.

We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.

We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.

The past two weeks it seems like literalist Christians have been getting slammed by the media for their harebrained actions. Not that I mind assisting in spreading the word of such lunacy but this is getting ridiculous.

Bold red text is my emphasis. Ya know... the LEGAL stuff. Interesting read. Blog author's comments at the bottom.

*************************************************

Teacher fired for premarital sex

Jarretta Hamilton taught fourth grade at private Christian school

By Mike Celizic

TODAYshow.com contributor

updated 2 hours, 42 minutes ago

The couple sat close together with her right hand clasped in his left hand and her left arm cradling the 8-month-old daughter whose conception cost the woman her job.

The couple’s sin, according to her former employer, Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla., is fornication — having sex before they got married.

Jarretta Hamilton and her husband of 16 months, Samuel Treftz, told TODAY’s Ann Curry Monday that the termination violated federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition, they allege in a pending lawsuit, the school’s principal, Jon Ennis, invaded Hamilton’s privacy by telling other teachers and the parents of her students the exact reason she was fired.

“When they let me go, they told the entire staff in a staff meeting that I had been fired and the reason why they let me go. And then they called all of my parents to my fourth-grade students and told them as well,” Hamilton said.

Ennis declined to appear on TODAY, citing a lawsuit filed by Hamilton against the school. But in a prerecorded report filed by NBC News’ Mike Taibbi, Ennis was asked if he stood by the firing. “Yes, absolutely,” he replied.

‘Didn’t know it would cost me my job’

Hamilton said her problems are all the result of her being honest. A widow with five children from her first marriage, she had gotten work as a teacher at Southland Christian School in January 2008. Meanwhile, she also met Treftz, and they planned a Feb. 20, 2009, wedding.

Three weeks before the wedding, she conceived her daughter, Sarah.

In April 2009, Hamilton and Treftz went together to Ennis and told him she would be taking maternity leave in the fall. She says Ennis first complained that it was difficult for the school to cover women on maternity leave.

“I was only requesting a standard six weeks maternity leave, and as the conversation progressed, he said, ‘I’m just trying to do the math here. When did you get married?’ ” Hamilton told Curry.

“I said Feb. 20,” she continued. “He said, ‘Well, did you conceive prior to marriage?’ I answered and I told him, ‘Yes.’ ”

Hamilton said she answered partly because she was so surprised by the very personal question.

“I was absolutely shocked. It came out of nowhere. I was honest about it. I didn’t know it would cost me my job,” she said.

Fired for ‘fornication’

A week later, she was notified that she was terminated. In a letter sent to her attorney, Edward Gay, last July, the school’s administrator, Julie Ennis, wrote:

“Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage. The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school.”

That’s a long way from saying teachers are prohibited from having premarital sex, the couple argue.

“If there was a contract in place that had a specific morality clause, I think that would make a difference,” Treftz said.

Hamilton agreed, adding, “At least people would know what they’re getting into. I didn’t know that they were going to judge so harshly; that this was the way they felt about premarital sex. I wasn’t clear what their stance was on certain issues.”

Gay, who joined the couple for the TODAY interview, said that pastors and clergy have the right to make moral decisions regarding church personnel, but this case is different because Hamilton was a teacher.

“The courts have consistently ruled that a private school is just like any other employer. As long as there’s more than 50 employees, they are governed by the law regarding discrimination,” Gay said. “The teachers are serving a secular purpose, and therefore they are governed by federal laws of discrimination.”

In the letter explaining the termination to Gay, Julie Ennis ended by asking Hamilton to give up the lawsuit.

“We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord,” the letter concludes.

*************************************************

"Consider the testimony of the Lord" ?!!! Ok. Premarital sex is bad. We get it. They're a parochial bunch of literalist Genesis lovers. But to illegally fire the woman is only brushing your school with tar and dumping on a few truckloads of fluffy white feathers for the world to see.

Jarretta was engaged. Not just dating. Engaged. Does that make it ok? .... erm... sorta? Ok, so I'm not all too keen on the whole chastity thing myself! I'm not the chaste kinda person. I prefer to see my life and the world as a game of "you take responsibility for what you do and everybody else can bite my ass." It's nobody else's business what goes on in my bedroom. Or my floor. Or the kitchen counter, for that matter! That's between me and the All.

If my employer openly disclosed IN A FULL STAFF MEETING why I was fired and then called all of the parents of the children I taught, damn skippy I'd be blowing a gasket! If she retracts that lawsuit she is not doing herself or any other consenting adult in this country a favor. The law is on her side and the rest is up to her concerning what exactly she 'should' feel sorry about. Somehow I don't think the whole guilt-trip-firing worked out so well for the school.

Also, I'm sure a great many of us can empathize with the whole 'so shocked so I answered truthfully' feeling she said she experienced. I've been in similar situations. Afterward I think to myself just how wrong it was for the person to have asked what they did but I think at heart people want to be honest so... our mouths kinda tattle on us when it shouldn't. Or rather, it's nobody's damn business but ours.

One Nation Under God?

Nope. No way. No how.

This country was not founded on Abraham principals, commandments, or even "I wish we could have's." Sorry all you literalist indoctrinated Bible Belters. It just ain't so.

And before my loyal Readers have a conniption- no, I haven't suddenly become atheist. Yes, this is still a gnostic blog. But I like to think that even gnostics have enough braincells to rub together to realize fact from fiction. Reality and logic is a gnostic's university.

The Founding Fathers abhorred organized religion as they saw the tyranny it eventually led to. Want proof?

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli. Passed by Congress 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This was a document which was passed around and signed by the heads of state of two countries. The reason? The United States did not have a Navy at the time and could not protect its fleet of commercial goods traders traveling around Tripoli and piracy was killing trade. So the government did the only thing which seemed plausible: they bribed the government of Tripoli with gold and jewels.

The Treaty of Tripoli was bought and paid for to keep Tripoli and nearby pirates from looting our American ships. Buying off pirates for safe passage is one thing. But the fact that there was such a large amount of continual trade going on meant that the government and people of Tripoli feared the Americans would do what the British do with any other country they find lucrative for business- stake their imperial claim.

There is still argument to this day concerning Article XI and how exactly it was interpreted between the Arabic translation and the English. Legal scholars can disagree and spit back and forth at each other all they want but the fact remains: the document was read before the Senate on June 7th, 1797 and every Senator present agreed upon the terms unanimously.

The Treaty of Tripoli and portions of the Federalist Papers have since been interpreted as meaning the United States does not have an official religion and will not sanction or protect one over another. A smart move to make since the United States is a nation founded on immigrants from over a hundred countries. Why would someone come to "the land of the free" only to be told they have to abide by Abrahamic convention and thought? It is understood worldwide that the United States will open it's doors to any nationality or creed. And what is a creed?

Main Entry:	creed
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	belief, principles
Synonyms:	articles of faith, canon, catechism, church, confession, conviction, cult, doctrine, dogma, faith, ideology, persuasion, profession, religion, tenet, weltanschauung

Main Entry:	belief
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	something regarded as true
Synonyms:	assumption, concept, credence, credo, creed, doctrine, dogma, faith, fundamental, gospel, gospel truth, hypothesis, idea, ideology, law, opinion, postulate, precept, principle, say-so, tenet, theorem, theory

My final question is this: why is it that parents still teach their young and impressionable children differently? Why would they tell their children something which legally just isn't true? They may want it to be true but any of our courts will throw out a religious argument of "but I thought that it was" faster than our government can hand out stimulus checks. Wanting doesn't make it so. So why perpetuate the lie at home? Why don't our public schools(I'm not even going to entertain the religious private school angle) teach our children about factual law anymore?

The Pledge of Alligence was altered in 1954 by Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. The words 'under God,' were added. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Thank you Eisenhower for that religious insertion and attempt to make atheists seem unpatriotic to the rest of their countrymen. Not seeing a reason to believe in God does not make you unable to believe in the need for security and freedom for your nation.

ReligousTolerence.org states:

On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. The ruling stating that "the text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court of Appeals reading. They did not rule on the basis of the Pledge violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they ruled that the plaintiff Michael Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter and thus did not have standing to take the case to the federal court system.

It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll mourn right along with the Texans. It's not every day that our Constitution is trampled upon so deeply and soundly that the American public willingly pulls the wool over their own eyes to go right back to sleep.