Sometimes, I'm less forgiving.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
If the unit accepted you as legitimate then I see no reason why the men wouldn’t obey your orders. The top Generals in the Pentagon have accepted Zero as being legitimate, so to them his orders are legitimate.
The current choice for legislative candidates is lawyers who cannot earn a comfortable living working in the Courts and we see the corruption that has resulted from them. Perhaps there is something about needing more combat veterans in our government positions.
The criminals in this situation are the senior members of both parties in the Congress and Senate. They have accepted as their goal, establishing a NWO and having the United Nations as the center of authority.
I cannot comprehend how someone with free personal liberty would voluntarily become a slave. This bureaucratic collectivist one-world government has been the dream of many since the inception of the League of Nations and world peace. When the League of Nations collapsed the United Nations was proposed in 1945 as the replacement. The Charter of the United Nations in no way, shape or form grants individuals the liberty they have under the US Constitution.
“If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.” — President George Bush (January 1991)
“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions.” — Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference,
Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994
“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” -article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal (April 1992)
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
“All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a NEW WORLD ORDER.”—Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney-General, 1967.
“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.” —Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoagland, speaking on radio in 1983.
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans...” “And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer in their communities”—President Bill Clinton 3-22-94, MTV’s “Enough is Enough”
Does TSA come to your mind when you read this?
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..”—
Bill Clinton USA Today—3-11-93, page 2a
“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)
I’m sure some will call me a nutcase or worse for posting this but all of it is verifiable.
>If the unit accepted you as legitimate then I see no reason why the men wouldn’t obey your orders.
>The top Generals in the Pentagon have accepted Zero as being legitimate, so to them his orders are legitimate.
The question is not that of obedience but that of *lawfulness*.
Consider this State Statute: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/9c0/f2c0/f478/f4a0?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 [NMSA 30-7-2.4 Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.]
If people obey it makes no impact on its lawfulness, but the State Constitution does; the State Constitution says this:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear
arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and
recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
So then, if I were to open-carry my .45 Glock around the University Campus would I be a lawbreaker?
If I would be, then why? [The constitution prohibits laws abridging my use of arm “for security and defense.”]
Sometimes, I'm less forgiving.
When Nebraska played Texas last year I thought the clock running out meant we had won the game. I accepted that the win was legitimate. But the amount of time on the clock was being contested. Until that issue was resolved it didn’t matter whether the clock said zero, didn’t matter if I had accepted our win.
As long as there are unresolved cases regarding whether Obama was ever even lawfully declared to be the electoral winner, it doesn’t matter what is accepted in the minds of people. What matters is that the legal issue is still unresolved.