The Oath

Posted Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 7:39 AM

"I....(Joe Blow)......do solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."

So reads the main body of an oath taken by everyone from a freshly enlisting buck private to the President of the United States.

We all hear it on CNN every 4 years, but do we actually understand what is pledged? I doubt it. There are 2 major things here, that our founding fathers fought for:

1. The Constitution. Our founders had a clearer picture than the old Bazookaman here, or Ex-Intern, could ever HOPE to have. They had just THROWN OFF an oppressive government. They had just secured the freedom that we still enjoy today.

They knew what had been required to get it, but more than that....they knew what would be required to KEEP it. There's no better education than your own blood spilled on a battleground. This is why our Constitution and Bill of Rights was written...........so that it wouldn't happen again..............(ha-ha-ha-...welcome to the 21st century)

You'll notice also, that as the words are recited, be it at an inaugeration or at an induction center, you do NOT swear any oath to protect the United States..........you SPECIFICALLY swear to protect the CONSTITUTION of the United States.

2. "Against all enemies, both foreign and......what?......

Ah..........DOMESTIC!

Now, why do you suppose they thought to put something like THAT in the oath? Think about that a few minutes. My goodness.......how could we have any "domestic" enemies? (We vote a bunch of them IN every few years).

ANY POLITICIAN at ANY LEVEL who seeks or approves measures to change of even weaken ANY article or amendment, is in direct violation of his own oath of office.

Clinton and Bush BOTH are prime examples. Obama himself will commit perjury on January 20th, but few will notice. The majority (if the electorate numbers weren't tampered with), will be watching the debacle, teary-eyed, knowing history is being made...............(it sure is).

Yes...."I do solemnly swear"

I remember it in Oakland, California as I was enlisting in the Marine Corps back in 1966. Fought a war and came home to "cheering crowds" in '68. Joined the Air Force in 71 and spent the rest of my time keeping F-111's in the air until my retirement in 1988.

And every 4 years........"I do solemnly swear."

Today I've been fighting Agent Orange for 6 years now, and wonder what it was all for. I think BEYOND our wall of 58,000+. I think about the sacrifices made during Korea, World War II, World War I, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War itself........I look at things today and wonder what these past 230 years was all for.

I see an America today that I never thought I'd see. NEVER. As a kid who grew up with Roy Rogers, Nehi Orange and '57 Chevys, no one would EVER have convinced me that someday it would all turn into a three ring circus.

When I enlisted in the Marines, NO ONE would have ever convinced me that 40 years later, it wouldn't matter, that our nation would be sold out from under us, piece by piece, that we'd be "pressing one for English", convicts would have more rights than honest people, and that "constitution" was just something you "took" in the morning.

Next to the corruption we have today, the Mafia is just a bunch of little leaguers.

And why is the "Bazookaman" so bitter, angry, and P.O.'d all the time? Certainly not for ME!

I've got a lot more days behind me than I have in front of me, and have long been prepped for the only "just cause" I'll ever have fought for, and I intend to go out with the barrel still hot.

In the meantime though, I have kids............like you have.

I have grandkids........ like many of you have.

There will never again be an America like WE grew up in, for them..............but we owe it to our children and grandchildren (who didn't ASK to be brought into this world), to at LEAST allow them to grow up in a free country, one that has not been bargained or bartered away.

I think about our troops TODAY too. They've been programmed to think this is all for "mom's apple pie", just like WE were told in Vietnam. But 40 years later, we're still fighting for someone else's freedoms, yet ours continue to erode away while we're overtaxed to help pay for our own extinction.

And this past Tuesday night, I just mumbled to myself..................."And THIS is what it's come to."

Well, as I said earlier.....THIS time it'll be for a just cause...........and when I get to the fairgrounds this morning, I'm quite sure I won't be alone!

All over this country, the "rednecked radicals who cling to our guns and religion" are awake, up, and dressed, just having our coffee before we head out the door.

Enough is enough..........and once more, "I do solemnly swear."

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

And Obama's Aunt is "being deported." In this country for years as an illegal. Yet another sign of things to come? Bet she never goes...

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sat, Nov 8, 2008, at 9:48 AM

I normally agree with the general concepts you make in your posts. I too am retired from the Air Force and took the oath every 4 years of my service. I took this oath seriously and lived it every day. I still take the meaning of the oath with me each day. Just for the sake of arguement I have added the Presidential oath of office so you can see the differances.

I did not vote for Obama but the oath I took requires that I follow the orders of the President of the United States. That said, I agree that Our President elect will perjur himself the moment he utters these words.

The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

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.

Opinion Missy, I agree his Aunt will be granted imunity and never leave.

-- Posted by jtrotter on Sat, Nov 8, 2008, at 11:20 AM

I saw a lot of gunpowder yesterday go out the door at the Fairgrounds. Got there around 8:30, and when the doors opened at 9:00, the line had run clear out past the fence and into the parking lot. In very little time, the place looked like a shopping mall the day after Thanksgiving.

When I got what I went up there for and left 2 hours later, there was STILL a line nearly two thirds of the way to the fence.

I make ALL the Boise gun shows, and have NEVER seen one this packed. Nobody was up there just browsing, or updating their hobby. I saw a whole lotta folks on a MISSION!

Talked to my son in Texas last night, and he said pretty much the same thing is happening there. My gunsmith buddy has been swamped for orders since Tuesday night, and many of his suppliers have already exhausted their inventories, and backorders are the norm right now.

Fortunately for myself and a lot of others, we've seen this coming since the Clinton years and quietly began gearing up back then. But procrastination will bite you everytime.

In 2 months we're gonna have the most liberal, antigun team we've ever had in the White House, with an anti-freedom congressional majority behind them. A lot of Pro-gunners STILL believed there was no way an Obama/Biden team would ever slick the public, and get elected.

Well......I could see a definite sense of urgency up there yesterday, and many gun dealers, who know NOW what is most likely coming, have raised prices, trying to make what they can before the doors get closed, and the buyer will HAVE to pay the extra, if he wants it.

I saw an old Turkish Mauser rifle on a table yesterday, that looked like it had been dragged down a gravel road, but still had a $350.00 price tag on it. The cheapest AK-47 I saw was around 485...............just this past summer, you could buy them all day long for 375.

I saw some Smith & Wesson revolvers, normally in the 550 to 600 range, sporting price tags of around 750 to 900.

As I walked around amonst the fervor, I quietly said to myself..."Whew......I'm sure glad I got all my stuff back when I did." I spent around $100 yesterday, and picked up just a few "like to have" accessories, then drove out, grabbed a burger and came home.

Word to the wise.........if you need something, you'd better get up there today.

A very high left wing priority is to outlaw gunshows altogether and eliminate this "loophole" that I myself have yet to find. This is probably where it'll start.

For the record, there is ONE more gunshow scheduled at the Fairgrounds before Obama takes over. It'll be January 10th and 11th. But I predict that the closer we get to Inaugeration Day, the more it's going to cost to buy a gun.

I don't think there'll be much is the way of private sales through the classifieds, because I would THINK that folks are going to be holding on to them now. Private sales are still the best, though, when you can find something you want. Remember that money doesn't have your name on it.

Black powder guns are also free from government intrusion. No paperwork there, either. Because of the time it takes to reload one, and they are usually large, cumbersome weapons, the Feds aren't overly concerned that gangs are going to use them. But pre-loaded, they are excellent for home defense, particularly the 44's. They all have rifled barrels, they are accurate and powerful. And as of this writing, you can still walk into Cabela's, Sportman's warehouse, etc, and buy one over the counter without having to fill out any forms.

While less expensive than modern style guns, I've noticed that even the black powder gun prices are climbing a bit. (Cleaning a black powder gun takes longer, too and is more involved--------another reason gangs don't use them, and the Feds aren't concerned----at THIS point, anyway).

If you want or need ANYTHING.........I'd be getting it real soon!

And if you think this is just some kind of "Bazookaman/the sky is falling/scare tactic", just check out for YOURSELVES what is going on in this country right now. Firearms warehouses are being depleted, and the ATF can't keep up with clearance requests. Obama & Biden are on the way, and every patriot in America knows it.

Every gun owner knows or SHOULD know their record, and that of the Democratic Party as a whole. As of January 0th, they will NEVER be in a better position.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Sun, Nov 9, 2008, at 9:46 AM

By Renee Schoof, Space & Earth science / Environment

In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.

The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration.

The regulations already have had periods of public comment, and no further comments are being taken. The administration has proposed the rules and final approval is considered likely.

It's common for administrations to issue a spate of regulations just before leaving office. The Bush administration's changes are in keeping with President Bush's overall support of deregulation.

Here's a look at some changes that are likely to go into effect before the inauguration.

GRAND CANYON

Higher prices for uranium, driven by expanded interest in nuclear power, have resulted in thousands of mining claims being filed on land within three miles of the Grand Canyon.

The House of Representatives and Senate natural resources committees have the authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to order emergency withdrawals of federal land from future mining claims for three years, while Congress decides whether a permanent ban is needed. The House committee issued such a withdrawal order in June for about 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, including the land the claims were filed on.

Now the Department of Interior has proposed scrapping its own rule that puts such orders from the congressional committees into practice.

The Interior Department could decide to use its own power to halt new claims, but it doesn't see any emergency that would prompt such action, department spokesman Chris Paolino said. The department would require environmental impact studies before it approved any mining on the claims, he added.

One of the main hazards from uranium mining is seepage from tailings piles that poisons water. A report for the Arizona Department of Game and Fish said people would be at risk if they ingested radium-226, arsenic and other hazardous substances from water and tainted fish.

Environmental groups say the government must consider the possible danger of uranium leaching into the Colorado River, a source of drinking water for Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano in March urged Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to halt new claims and order a study of uranium mining near the canyon.

MOUNTAINTOP-REMOVAL COAL MINING

Another proposed rule change from the Department of Interior would change rules on dumping the earth removed for mining into nearby streams.

The current rule, dating from the Reagan administration, says that no surface mining may occur within 100 feet of a stream unless there'd be no harm to water quality or quantity. The rule change essentially would eliminate the buffer by allowing the government to grant waivers so that mining companies can dump the rubble from mountaintops into valleys, burying streams.

The new rule would let companies explain why they can't avoid dumping into streams and how they intend to minimize harm. A September report on the proposal by the department's Office of Surface Mining said that environmental concerns would be taken into account "to the extent possible, using the best technology currently available."

The government and mining companies have been ignoring the buffer since the 1990s, said Joan Mulhern, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm for environmental protection.

Before the rule can be changed, however, the Department of Interior must get written approval from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.

"In order to concur, the EPA would have to find that the activities authorized by the rule would not violate water-quality standards, and all the evidence is to the contrary," Mulher

AIR POLLUTION

Two rule changes would apply to electric power plants and other stationary sources of air pollution.

The first mainly concerns older power plants. Under the Clean Air Act, plants that are updated must install pollution-control technology if they'll produce more emissions. The rule change would allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than their total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require additional pollution controls.

The other change would make it easier for companies to build polluting facilities near national parks and wilderness areas. It also would change the way that companies must measure the impact of their pollution.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act prohibits any federal actions that would jeopardize the existence of a listed species or "adversely modify" critical habitats. The 1973 law has helped save species such as the bald eagle from extinction.

Bush administration officials have argued that the act can't be used to protect animals and habitats from climate change by regulating specific sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

A proposed rule change would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether timber sales, new dams or other projects harm wildlife protected under the act. In many cases, they'd no longer have to consult the agencies that are charged with administering the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

OTHERS

Among the rule changes and plans that might become final are commercial oil-shale leasing, a new rule that would allow loaded, concealed weapons in some national parks, and oil and gas leasing on wild public lands in West Virginia and Utah.

-- Posted by Jacknife on Sun, Nov 9, 2008, at 8:07 PM

Fall of the Western Empire

Theodosius I (379-395) was the last ruler of the united Roman Empire. At his death in 395, he left the eastern portion of the empire to his 18-year-old son, Arcadius, and the western portion to his 10-year-old son, Honorius. Despite the nominal unity of this territory, the legacy of Theodosius was, in fact, the final division of the empire. A succession of child emperors weakened the throne, and no emperor ever again successfully controlled both east and west.

Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire remained strong, while the Western Roman Empire began a steady decline in the face of economic disintegration, weak emperors, and invading Germanic tribes. The breakdown of communications, commerce, and public order exposed the people of Gaul, Spain, and other provinces to famine and robbery.

While the central government provided few services and little protection, it demanded more taxes and goods. Panic and alienation drove both peasants and city dwellers from their homes. They sought protection from powerful landlords, who controlled their own self-sufficient villas. In these heavily fortified villas, the lower classes hoped for relief from the twin predators of late antiquity: barbarians and tax collectors.

The Eastern Empire was stable and prospered. The eastern emperors were able to defend the Dardanelles, a strategic strait in northwestern Turkey (known in antiquity as the Hellespont) and to push migrating barbarian peoples to the Western Empire. The emperors of the west were often pampered and isolated, and they allowed generals and ministers to rule in their name. Declining manpower also led western emperors to recruit Germanic people for the army or even to engage entire tribes to fight on Rome's behalf. In 410 the Goths sacked Rome. It was the first time Rome had suffered such an invasion since the Gauls had sacked the city in 390 BC - eight centuries earlier.

In AD 476 Germanic troops in Italy mutinied and elected a Gothic commander, Odoacer, as king. Odoacer, who was the first Germanic ruler of the empire, deposed the young emperor, Romulus Augustulus, gave him a generous pension, and sent his imperial regalia to Constantinople. But if the Western Empire had "fallen," the commentators of the time barely took notice. It was not until four decades later that a Byzantine historian wrote that the imperial order initially established by Augustus had come to an end in 476. The date marked the demise of a political structure - the Western Roman Empire - but coinage, taxes, and administrators all remained in place. The exile of Romulus barely affected ordinary people.

Several factors explain why the Roman state collapsed in the west and survived in Constantinople for another 1,000 years. The most obvious is geography, since the Western Empire had to defend a long border along the Rhine and Danube rivers. The east was far more populous - Egypt had 8 million inhabitants while Gaul had 2.5 million - and thus could provide men and supplies for a larger army. The east also had a longer tradition of urbanization, and wealthy cities in the Eastern Empire provided continuing support while cities in the Western Empire were newer and weaker. When these cities came under pressure, much of the population fled to the countryside.

The east also had a stronger economic base. The rich lands of Egypt provided wealth, and much of the east's other territory was in the hands of productive peasant proprietors. The Eastern Empire also received a financial boost from the tradition of manufacture in eastern cities and the control of the lucrative trade with Arabia, China, and India. Ancient agricultural economies produced very little surplus, and Rome itself had long depended on the profit of conquest, which included tribute, taxes from the wealthy east, and shipments of grain from North Africa and Egypt.

When the east was lost and barbarians took Africa, the desperate Western Empire raised taxes and imposed restrictive regulations. As Germanic tribes seized more taxable land and revenues fell, the west could barely support its own unproductive soldiers, civil servants, and clergy. It certainly did not have sufficient revenue for the bribes and subsidies needed to pacify the Germanic invaders.

There is no simple explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but several interconnected elements provide some answers. The demands of the military and the growing bureaucracy forced the government to seek more income. When the elite avoided taxes, the burden fell on the peasantry, who had barely enough to feed themselves and no surplus to pay taxes. When farmers fled the land, incomes declined still further and manpower shortages forced the military to hire German mercenaries. This cycle led to a weak, impoverished central government that quietly collapsed in 476.

And like Rome, America will fall under it's own bloated weight.

-- Posted by Jacknife on Mon, Nov 10, 2008, at 2:07 PM

I guess I missed something here. What does any of that have to do with the "OATH"?

Jacknife, you ought to start your own blog. You certainly write enough to warrant it.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Tue, Nov 11, 2008, at 3:07 PM

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

-- Posted by desert1der on Wed, Nov 12, 2008, at 8:42 PM

It actually IS. Most just refuse to see what "could never happen here."

-- Posted by bazookaman on Sun, Nov 16, 2008, at 8:11 AM