Man made Climate Change or Solar/Galactic made Climate Change? #SolarCycles , #Carbon -14 , #Oxygen -18 , #Glaciers , #BrayCycle , #HallstattCycle , #SolarProductionOfCO2 , #ClimateChange https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/

Every 4th of July the country celebrates the Declaration of Independence. We reflect on our Liberty and the Fortunes of Providence that the Citizens of the United States have inherited. Consider the words and thinking that inspired this experiment in a Constitutional Republic. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Are we and our elected officials living up to this vision? This promise? Every year someone posts this sentence highlighting the courage and integrity of those who risked everything for a principle and an idea. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." The question every citizen should reflect on and ask. Is this the quality of representation that the citizens are receiving? Is this the character being displayed in government, the legislatures, the judicial system, the executive? Some thoughts for consideration. Happy 4th of July. #4thofJuly, #IndependenceDay, #FoundingFathers, #SacredHonor

SCOTUS Unanimously (9-0) Rules Against Illegal Aliens Seeking to Permanently Stay in U.S. Of Note from the Ruling: "Section 1255 provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a temporary basis". Meaning. A person who "legally" enters the United States is not an "immigrant" until they apply to become "Naturalized". With the approval of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) one becomes an "immigrant". Entering the United States illegally makes the "illegal alien" ineligible for citizenship or permanent residency. #SCOTUS , #IllegalAlien , #PathWayToCitizenship , #SanchezVsMayorkas https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/07/scotus-unanimously-rules-against-illegal-aliens-seeking-permanently-stay-u-s/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf

They are not Immigrating. They are invading. The act of immigrating requires the applicant to legally file a request to become a citizen of the United States. The approval of this request grants that person "immigrant" status which starts the "Naturalization" process. It should be noted that the Constitution does NOT provide the authority to grant citizenship to anyone who has not gone through the naturalization process. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" The United States has an obligation to protect the borders from invasion which it is failing to provide. Article IV, Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. #Invasion, #Immigration, #Immigrant, #Naturalization, #DHS, #TheConstitution https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2021/05/28/joe-biden-dhs-is-for-migration-not-homeland-security/

First. The article says "Illegal Immigrant". There is no such thing as an "Illegal Immigrant". The status of "Immigrant" in the United States requires a submitted request to immigrate with a corresponding approval. The proper term is "Illegal Alien" which is a legal term enshrined in statute. Second. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens makes anyone who knowingly allowed this illegal alien to reside in the United States equally criminally liable for this death. Read the statute. If law enforcement held him and released him knowing he was in the United States illegally then they should be held to account. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens (a)CRIMINAL PENALTIES (1) (A)Any person who— (i) See Statute (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law; (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). (B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both. #IllegalAlien, #CriminalLiability, #ICEDetainer, #8USC1324, #IllegalImmigrant, #MollieTibbetts https://www.westernjournal.com/illegal-immigrant-cristhian-bahena-rivera-found-guilty-murdering-mollie-tibbetts/?

Blatantly Unconstitutional. The idea itself unmasks the depravity of those holding public office. The only reason these folks think they can get away with this and other violations of the Constitution is because most folks do not know what the Constitution says. How many got outraged by this article never think to look at the Constitution or are even aware that it is addressed in the document? Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." ex post facto ĕks″ pōst făk′tō adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. From a subsequent state of facts; from a later point of view; with reference to a former state of facts; retrospectively: as, the transaction was made void by matter ex post facto; a lease made by a life tenant to run beyond his own life may be confirmed ex post facto by the rever-sioner. From or by an after act, or thing done afterward; in consequence of a subsequent act; retrospective. #Unconstitutional, #ArticleISection9Clause3, #RetroActiveLaws https://www.westernjournal.com/report-bidens-6-trillion-budget-calls-controversial-retroactive-tax-increase/

Supreme Court Rulings: What is Written And Forgotten, and What the Public is Told The public is often told by "Journalists" what a SCOTUS decision is and means. There are many nuances and gems hidden in those decisions that never make it into public awareness. This landmark ruling is an example. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) - The Pledge of Allegiance Case Excerpts from the Opinion by Justice Robert H. Jackson "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." "It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority." "But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." #SupremeCourtOpinion, #1stAmendment, #1A https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624%26gt%3B

The Crisis in Accountability: Chapter 2 - The Devolution of the Oath - The Great Hole Around the Constitution The Framers viewed the establishment of a federal government as a necessary evil. They so distrusted the idea of a centralized authority that the Bill of Rights was required to ratify the Constitution. In order to insure adherence to the Constitution they also required the Oath of Office (Article VI, Clause 3) to place accountability around those holding government power. However, what they did not envision was the devolution of personal honor and societies eventual lack of the demand for it. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-3/ Every civilization that has ever existed has placed a high value on personal honor. It has been the basis for Commerce and Law throughout history. Legal remedies have been enshrined into law to insure the ethics of society are upheld. Congress and state legislatures have in this instance upheld the letter of the Constitution but not the spirit of it. Where they require an oath to hold a position in government they have not legislated conditions of violation or punishment for not upholding that oath. Thus we have laws that require an oath but hold no accountability to that oath. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartB-chap33-subchapII-sec3331.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title2/html/USCODE-2011-title2-chap2-sec25.htm The oath is threaded throughout the fabric of the republic. Even those who go through the Naturalization process are required to swear allegiance to the Constitution. However, the only place where one can suffer a legal punishment is perjury under oath to tell the truth. Who has more opportunity and authority to damage the republic, the person testifying under oath or the elected/appointed officer of government? Thus the Oath of Office effectively means nothing more than a pro forma ceremony that confers authority without responsibility or accountability. #TheCrisisInAccountability, #DevolutionOfTheOath, #TheOathOfOffice https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/10/the-oath-of-office-and-what-it-means/ https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

The Second Amendment: What is in the word Arms? Second Amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed." Etymology of the word Arm arm (n.2) "weapon," c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "branch of military service" is from 1798, hence "branch of any organization" (by 1952). Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c., from Old French; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. To be up in arms figuratively is from 1704; to bear arms "do military service" is by 1640s. arm (v.) "to furnish with weapons," c. 1200, from Old French armer "provide weapons to; take up arms," or directly from Latin armare "furnish with arms," from arma "weapons," literally "tools, implements" of war (see arm (n.2)). Intransitive sense "provide oneself with weapons" in English is from c. 1400. Related: Armed; arming. #2a, #2ndAmendment, #TheMeaningOfTheWordArms https://www.etymonline.com/word/arm

What Categorizes a Firearm as an Assault Rifle? The main infantry rifle of the United States in WWII was the M1 Garand, It was a semi-automatic rifle firing a .30-06 caliber round. It is not considered an assault rifle. In 1944 on the Russian Front and the Battle of the Bulge German infantry started carrying the StG-44 (Sturmgewehr-44). The weapon was characterized by its light weight, shorter barrel, magazine loading system (similar to the American BAR and Thompson Submachine gun). However, what really separated the StG-44 from the other rifles was the ability to switch between semi-automatic fire and full automatic fire. These design combinations have influenced military infantry weapons ever since. The AR-15 is cosmetically similar to the weapons carried by the U.S. Military. What the AR-15 lacks is the ability to switch into different modes of fire like the StG-44 (Sturmgewehr-44). The AR-15 is categorized as "Sporting Rifle" not a Assault Rifle (weapon). This is true of all sporting rifles cosmetically looking like the military version. #AssaultRifle, #History, #TheWarOnLanguage, #AssaultWeaponsBan, #2ndAmendment, #2A https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-sturmgewehr-44-stg44-2361247