Posts Tagged ‘True Faith’

ForgeryGate: An Open Letter To My Uncooperative Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ)

by T.M. Ballantyne on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

This is article 66 of 81 in the topic Presidential Eligiblity

Dear Jeff,

Jeff Flake SC ForgeryGate:An Open Letter to My Uncooperative Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ)You may recall our most recent meeting at the Red Mountain Tea Party,on April 2nd…but then again,you may not.  So let me take just a moment to go over what took place.

You possibly recall my asking “What does your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic,mean to you?”

I must say that I found your response to be quite revealing,to wit:  “It means that I will support…policies…that give effect to that oath which I’ve taken;that I won’t do anything that…would…put me in a position where I’m violating that oath.  That’s what it means to me.”

In order to be fair,Jeff,perhaps we could review together exactly what that oath contains.  Here it is:

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.

Oops!  Looks like I misspoke,Jeff.  I said “defend and protect,” when it actually reads “support and defend”!  How clumsy of me…but the meaning,of course,is identical!  There’s obviously more to it – “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” for example,and I presume that that is what you were referencing in your eloquent answer.

My question,however,clearly went to the first stipulation of that sacred oath (which you have now had administered to you by various Speakers five times over the past ten years.)  So I didn’t ask if you yourself would “support…policies…that give effect to that oath,” Jeff,but rather,“What…your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic, means to you….”

I don’t know if you were “reading ahead,” anticipating where I was going with that question,and thus avoided answering directly…or whether you had simply not considered that critical component of your oath…”So help [you] God.”   I’m sure you know the history of the oath you took,Jeff,starting with the oath taken by the very first Congress in 1779,but we’ll review it just the same.

The stipulation for such an oath was,of course (and still is,of course) contained in Article VI of the Constitution itself.  Here it is:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,and the Members of the several State Legislatures,and all executive and judicial Officers,both of the United States and of the several States,shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,to support this Constitution….

Being very particular to follow the recently ratified Constitution,the first Congress which had sufficient Representatives present by April 1,1789,to form a quorum,appointed a committee on April 6 to draft a bill on how the oath of office was to be administered.  It was entitled An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths,and was signed into law on June 1,1789,becoming “Statute I,” the first official law in the “Laws of the United States.”  Here is the original language contained in the oath:

I,A. B. [a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof,] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Apparently,the position held by the various parties taking the oath was added at some point for clarification.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Cult of Warm

by Daniel Greenfield on Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

This is article 158 of 332 in the topic Global Warming

At the end of last year the media widely trumpeted the “recantation” by Richard Muller, a physics professor at Berkeley. Muller’s confession of faith was met with the unreserved glee of fanatics who believe that conversion equals validation of the True Faith. Now Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German chemistry professor and Green activist announced that he is coming out with a book breaking with the Warmist view. Naturally this recantation wouldn’t receive nearly the same prominence, except when the inevitable stories kick in about Vahrenholt being a tool of the oil companies.

But set aside the partisan bickering and one professor accepting a view he had formerly rejected, while another rejects a view he had formerly accepted is all part of the normal scientific debate. The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one and it doesn’t end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads show crying polar bears. Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides. That’s science.

Unfortunately the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

In an ordinary scientific debate, a professor leaving one side and enjoying another might occasion some recriminations and namecalling, but it wouldn’t make him anathema. But like being gay or Muslim, hopping on board the Warm Train makes you a permanent member and there is no room for changing your mind. Once a Warmist, always a Warmist. That’s not a rational position, but then the Cult of Warm is not a rational faith.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for human philosophy, but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The Warmists have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers, it’s a battle of much larger ideas.

If you believe that freedom is at the core of what it means to be human, then the Warmists and what they stand for are instinctively repulsive to you. On the other hand if you believe that human society must be organized into a moral collective for the betterment of all, then the Warmist idea provides a wake up call compelling us to form into ranks and goosestep in recycled rubber boots into the Green future.

It’s an exaggeration, but that’s what debates over the proper role of man tend to become.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Obama’s ineligibility: All members of Congress have violated their oath of office

by Lawrence Sellin on Saturday, September 24th, 2011

This is article 44 of 81 in the topic Presidential Eligiblity

Every member of Congress is required to take the following oath of office:

“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.”

And each member of Congress is now in breach of that oath for violating the Constitution and conspiring to cover-up their malfeasance, a crime which continues to this day.

At the behest of the Democrat and Republican leadership, all Senators and Representatives pretend that they don’t know the definition of natural born citizenship and insist that Obama’s forged Certificate of Live Birth is legitimate.

Members of Congress continue to feign ignorance when presented with evidence that Obama is using a stolen Social Security number and has forged his Selective Service registration.

It is like trying to have an intellectual conversation with someone who believes the Earth is flat.

It is not, however, stupidity, but a criminal conspiracy at the very heart of the US government and every member of Congress is now liable.

The politicians are playing us for fools, hiding the Big Lie while engaging in the Big Stall, hoping that the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people will be overtaken by events and Obama’s crimes and their own criminal complicity will be gradually forgotten.

We know that they are lying; they know that we know that they are lying and we will hold them accountable and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Every member of Congress is aware that all US Presidents, except Chester A. Arthur and Barack Hussein Obama, met the eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution. That is, they were all natural born citizens; a US citizen born of two US citizen parents at the time of birth.

Like Obama, Chester A. Arthur was not a natural born citizen. He falsified his background and burned all his early family records to cover up his lies.

Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President in 1880 by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  His father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, fourteen years after he was born. Arthur was, therefore, a British subject by descent and a dual citizen at birth with dual allegiance, just like Obama.

Like Obama, questions of Arthur’s eligibility surfaced during the 1880 campaign.  His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as British subject would make one ineligible to be on the Presidential ticket. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of his Constitutional ineligibility.

Arthur became President after the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881.

It was only after Arthur’s death that the true facts about his ineligibility became known.

Unlike Arthur, we already know that Obama has never been eligible for the Presidency. We know that he has lied about his history, hides his records and forges documents to cover-up his ineligibility.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s ineligibility: All members of Congress have violated their oath of office”
Go straight to Post

Day One, 112th Congress: 10 Simple Rules for the GOP

by Michelle Malkin on Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

1. Manage expectations.

2. Serve the people, not the press.

3. Neutralize the grievance-mongers: Confront the race card early and often.

4. Neutralize Alinsky’s avenging angels: Counter the human shield strategy early and often.

5. Don’t fall prey to Chicken Little Syndrome again. Don’t.

6. Never forget: Government does not “create jobs.” Politicians don’t create jobs. You are there to stop government from killing jobs in the name of “reform,” the “children,” “emergencies,” global warming, hope, change, etc., etc., etc.

7. Obstruction is not a dirty word.

8. Don’t be afraid to say it: Take Your Olive Branch and Shove It, Democrats.

9. Show, don’t tell: Transparency. Accountability. Integrity. When you fail, you’ll be called out. The “R” after your name doesn’t give you immunity. Ever.

10. This is your oath of office. Live it: “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.”

Feel free to add your own.

***

GOP House Speaker John Boehner is now @SpeakerBoehner on Twitter here.

The GOP will livestream the opening session on Facebook here.

The New Constitutional Authority Requirement for Legislation is here.

Chad Pergram at Fox News offers up a handy “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Opening of the 112th Congress.”

Reuters spotlights some of the opening-day festivities later this morning:

* Republicans will be in charge of the House, having ousted Democrats from the majority in Nov. 2 congressional elections. The new Republican majority will be 242-193.

* One of the first orders of House business will be the virtually certain election of Republican John Boehner as the chamber’s new speaker, replacing Democrat Nancy Pelosi. She will become the chamber’s new minority leader.

* Once Boehner is selected by the full House, Pelosi is to hand Boehner the speaker’s gavel as the chamber’s presiding officer.

A moment to savor. And then to work: Getting things undone, lifting regulatory burdens, demolishing roadblocks to prosperity, and promoting a pro-freedom, pro-opportunity agenda to counter Barack Obama’s Nanny/Crony State.

Giddyup!

Go straight to Post

Obama and Holder: “YOU have NO standing to ask any Questions!”

by JB Williams on Sunday, June 20th, 2010

No matter the political agenda of any American citizen, one reality should send shivers down every American’s spine. The Obama administration has made it known that according to their form of “justice,” NO soldier or citizen has “legal standing” to question anything about Obama, his many corrupt friends, his anti-American policies or his full court press to destroy all things American.

Barack Hussein Obama remains a complete mystery. His birth, college, travel, passport and entire personal history remains under lock and key unlike any president before him. His policies have proven destructive to the US economy, US sovereignty and security as well as both states and individual rights.

The Obama administration is operating like a pure dictatorship at odds with the vast majority of American citizens and no matter what peaceful course of redress the people attempt, they have repeatedly been informed that they have “NO STANDING” to ask any questions.

Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin

LTC Lakin is not a private fresh out of boot camp that lost his nerve for the field of battle and refused to comply with deployment orders. He is a senior officer who stands charged with upholding his oath.

“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.”

As reported by Family Security Matters, LTC Lakin’s numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal. He has served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, Korea, and Afghanistan.

Until very recently, his senior command described him as “an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician with significant field and consultant experience…”

Like all military officers, Lakin is obligated under his oath to question his command when he suspects that the orders being given are in any way “unlawful.” Unlawful orders would most certainly include orders given by an “unlawful” command.

Yet LTC Lakin stands courts martial for attempting to uphold his officer’s oath, and he is indeed guilty of attempting to uphold his oath. He is prepared to present what he believes to be clear and convincing evidence that Barak Hussein Obama is NOT a “lawful” Commander-in-Chief. An increasing number of soldiers and citizens agree… but it is LTC Lakin who faces charges, not the illegal Command.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin