Tag Archives: Oath of Office

Creating An Unnecessary Constitutional Crisis

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the crisis at the southern border. There has been a crisis at our southern border since day one of the Biden administration when President Biden undid some of the procedures President Trump had put in place to deal with illegal immigrants. I am not sure why this is finally being addressed after three years, but I am glad that someone is taking action. It is very possible that it is finally being addressed because of the impact moving the illegal aliens around the country has had on Democrat-controlled cities. I am always suspicious of the timing of crises–in recent years they have become political tools.

John Hinderaker reports:

The Biden Administration has dealt a devastating blow to America by opening up the southern border to all comers. The influx of illegals threatens our national security and our economy, and it has placed an intolerable burden on the border states. How intolerable, is demonstrated by the panic that seizes blue cities when they are faced with a tiny fraction of the burden suffered by communities near the open border.

Joe Biden’s border policy is unconstitutional. Under Article II, his most fundamental duty as president is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Biden has not faithfully executed our immigration laws; rather, he has deliberately sabotaged and negated them. This is an impeachable offense, but what to do in the meantime?

In Texas, a constitutional crisis may be brewing. Governor Greg Abbott, having had enough of the scofflaw Biden Administration, had fencing erected along the border to discourage illegal migration. Biden, determined to illegally undermine our country, directed that the fencing be torn down so that more illegals can pour in. The case reached the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn a Court of Appeals decision that enjoined federal border agents from cutting the wire. So for now, the Court has the feds back in control.

The article includes a memo written by Texas Governor Greg Abbott stating that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce the border. It also includes screenshots of tweets by other governors supporting Governor Abbott.

The article concludes>

Sarah Hoyt says that Oklahoma, Montana, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Idaho have also lined up behind Texas. And, she reports, the entire Republican Governors Association has signed a letter supporting Abbott. So far, no Democrats. Fine: let’s let sovereignty be the issue on which the 2024 election turns.

I haven’t studied the constitutional issues raised by this crisis in any detail. For the moment, I would simply say, with Justice Robert Jackson, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. No sane interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions could conclude that a scofflaw president, by violating federal law and betraying his oath of office, can disable the states, who came together to form the federal government in the first place, from defending themselves against foreign invasion.

A nation without borders is no longer a nation. The battle has been joined. Let’s fight it out.

What Are They Thinking? 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The recent expulsion of U.S. Representative (R) George Santos was only the sixth time a person was ever expelled from the House of Representatives. The question is why? Is he the only person in the House that has ever been suspected of questionable integrity? Obviously not! He is also the only one of the six who was expelled without being convicted of a crime. What is particularly troubling, is that over one hundred of his fellow Republicans voted for his expulsion. Would the Democrats ever vote to expel a fellow Democrat? Not only no, but hell no! Proof? Democrat Senator Menendez of New Jersey is accused of far worse, such as taking bribes from foreign countries, and has not been expelled–nor will he be.

So what did George Santos do that was so terrible? We do not know yet, since he has only been charged and not convicted by a court of law. He is accused of misspending campaign funds and lying about his background.   Does not sound that terrible to me. Look how many politicians have become multi-millionaires on a government salary that makes that impossible. Can you say:  Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid? to just name a few.   Another disturbing fact is that the House Ethics Committee that examined his actions did NOT recommend expulsion. Further, the Republican leadership, including Speaker Mike Johnson, all voted not to expel.

This is a perfect example of why voters get angry at Republicans who want to play by some “holier than thou” rules rather than focusing on what needs to be done to save this country from a Leftist takeover. The GOP razor thin majority just got thinner. There will be a special election to replace Santos but his district usually votes Democrat.

Not only is this one of the dumbest things Republicans have done, but it sets a dangerous precedent for the future by lowering the bar for expulsion.    What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? The fact that Santos is being charged by Democrat investigators and corrupt DOJ does not seem to bother them.  At the same time, the Republicans voted not to impeach Alexandro Myorkas who is clearly violating his oath of office and threatening the security of our country with his unwillingness to enforce the immigration laws

This is very disappointing to say the least.  I am also disappointed that our Congressman Dr. Greg Murphy voted to expel Santos!

 

Protocol Matters

Posted on by

I guess I am just old-fashioned, but I believe that there are certain protocols found in the history of America that should be maintained. Somehow, it seems to me that ignoring these protocols or changing them is not appropriate. One of these protocols is the Oath of Office taken by a newly-elected official on the Bible (or even on the Quran).

On Wednesday, Yahoo News reported that Representative-elect Robert Garcia of California will be taking his Oath of Office with three items beneath the U.S. Constitution he is swearing on. Those items are a photo of his mom and step-father, who both died of COVID-19; a copy of his United States Citizenship certificate; and a first-edition Superman comic, courtesy of the Library of Congress. While I appreciate the sentiment of the first two, I question the appropriateness of the third. Note that there is not a Bible involved.

The article reports:

The Superman comic, which was published in 1939, is a collector’s item (similar versions of which have sold for upwards of $5 million) — but more than that, it’s personal for Garcia, who was born in Peru.

“I came to America at the age of 5 as a Spanish-speaker,” the lawmaker tells PEOPLE. “As a kid, I would pick up comics at old thrift shops and pharmacies and that’s how I learned to read and write in English.”

That’s very nice, and I am glad that he obviously appreciates being an American citizen. However, I am not sure that this is the place for a superman comic. On the other hand, based on some of the antics of Congress, a comic book may be more appropriate than not.

A Disturbing Statement

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported a troubling quote from President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden said Thursday that his gun violence prevention strategy is necessary to combat rising violent crime in cities across the country and that preventing the sale of certain firearms “doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights.”

“Making sure that people who are not allowed to have a gun, don’t get the gun in the first place,” the president said of his push to institute stricter background checks for firearm sales. “This doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right. There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right to talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

“There’s no amendment that’s absolute.” What? Didn’t this man take an oath stating, “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”?

The article reports:

Biden, speaking alongside Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, additionally outlined new measures the Justice Department was taking on Thursday to clamp down on the illegal sale of “ghost guns” and other “assault” weapons. Those actions include:

    • Directing every U.S. Attorney’s office nationwide to increase resources dedicated to district-specific violent crime strategies.
    • Cracking down on the “Iron Pipeline,” an illegal flow of guns sold in the South, transported up the East Coast, and found at crime scenes in cities from Baltimore to New York City.
    • Launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, “which will train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes.”
    • Pursuing “unlawful gun sellers that put firearms in the wrong hands by taking steps such as prioritizing federal prosecutions of those who criminally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, including unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals without the required background checks.”

The president also called on Congress to approve $500 million in new funding “for proven strategies we know will reduce gun crime,” including $300 million to expand the COPS Hiring Program and $200 million for evidence-based community violence interventions.

Why is the President focusing on the guns rather than focusing on arresting criminals with guns and keeping them in jail? How many gun crimes in America are committed by repeat offenders? What does the President consider an assault weapon? These are questions that need to be answered.

Remember That Oath?

Posted on by

When President Biden was sworn in as President, he took the following oath of office:

“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.”

Note the part that says preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Yesterday Hot Air reported the following  regarding President Biden’s eviction moratorium:

This is the aspect of his moratorium chicanery that I find most breathtaking, the frank admission that he’s trying to exploit the legal process to extend a dubious executive order. Most everyone else has focused on the substance of what the White House did, replacing a certainly illegal moratorium order with a new one which they have every reason to know is almost certainly illegal.

And that’s appalling. But the problem could be solved if the courts reacted quickly by scheduling an expedited hearing on the numerous challenges to the new order. When the president is as candid as Biden is here in admitting that he’s gaming the judicial system to keep an illegal measure in place for as long as he can, they have a duty to stop him by putting all other business on hold to consider the merits of that measure. If they don’t, they’re letting him get away with it.

Look at it this way. If this court fight drags out for six months and SCOTUS finally rules that the new moratorium is also illegal, as everyone expects, what’s to stop the White House from drafting yet another moratorium that’s a tiny bit different from the previous one and litigating the lawfulness of the new order for six months after that? Biden is engaged in litigation that’s dilatory by design, which he admits. It’s essentially frivolous. The courts have to show him that that won’t work.

The article concludes:

“Specifically, and in blatant violation of his solemn duty to execute the laws faithfully, Biden has usurped Congress’s legislative authority and declared the power to legislate,” writes Andy McCarthy. “He is running roughshod over the separation of powers, which is the foundation of our constitutional framework, limiting power and preserving liberty.” His old boss Barack Obama did the same thing when he seized Congress’s immigration power to legalize DREAMers under DACA. But Obama didn’t face a recent Supreme Court ruling directly on point that should have steered him away from attempting such a thing. And his DACA order didn’t come pre-packaged with a dilatory legal strategy designed to keep the program up and running while meritless litigation played out in court. Even if, ah, it’s sort of worked out that way in practice.

He will not be impeached–the Democrats control the House of Representatives (and the powers that be are not fond of Kamala Harris)-but he should be.

Senator Blumenthal Needs To Read The First Amendment

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about some recent comments by Senator Blumenthal.

The article reports:

On Tuesday Senator Dick Blumenthal questioned Mark Zuckerberg on why Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit and Steve Bannon still have accounts on his platform.

Obviously, Blumenthal and today’s Democrats show NO REGARD for the US Constitution.

Conservative publishers have been censored and put out of business by Facebook since the 2016 election.

But this is NOT ENOUGH for these fascists.

The article includes a video clip of Senator Blumenthal calling for the removal of Breitbart, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and The Gateway Pundit from Facebook. There are also other videos requesting that other people be removed from Facebook.

Senator Blumenthal swore in an Oath of Office to support the Constitution.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Asking Facebook to kick people off their platform does not encourage free speech. A law prohibiting free speech will not be far behind if the Democrats manage to take control of the government.

 

Is The Constitution The Basis For Our Government?

Posted on by

According the the website oaths.us members of Congress take the following 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.”

The U.S. Constitution states:

Article VI 

    • Clause 3

    • 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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

       

CNS News is reporting the following today:

Asked whether the U.S. Constitution bans the Senate from scrutinizing the religious beliefs of Supreme Court nominees, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she wouldn’t “get into anybody’s interpretation” of the Constitution.

On Thursday – two days before President Donald Trump is expected to announce a Catholic judge as his nominee to replace deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Pelosi, who supports abortion yet purports to be Catholic, was asked by a reporter whether the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for office extends to Supreme Court nominees:

First of all, the confirmation process takes place in the Senate–not the House of Representatives. She has no say. However, her statement says, in essence, that despite what the U.S. Constitution clearly says, she claims that the ban on considering a candidate’s religion is an ‘interpretation.’ Has she read the document that she has sworn to uphold?

If You Embrace Diversity, Understand What That Diversity Entails

Posted on by

If you embrace diversity, does that mean that you are willing to sit down to dinner with cannibals? Does embracing diversity mean that you are willing to encourage people who want to replace our system of government with a repressive system of government? These are questions that those who champion diversity need to answer.

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about a recent decision made by the City Council of Patterson, New Jersey.

The article reports:

The next Democratic debate isn’t in Paterson, New Jersey, but it should be: that unlikely city is blazing new trails in multiculturalism and diversity. On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously (with two members not voting) to grant preliminary approval to the Islamic call to prayer being broadcast over loudspeakers in the city. This followed the swearing-in earlier this month, on the Qur’an, of course, of Paterson’s new police chief, Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, the first Muslim police chief in an American city.

Celebrate diversity, right? Sure. The problem is that it is by no means certain that this diversity will celebrate us. The Paterson noise ordinance says: “The city shall permit ‘Adhan’, call to prayer’, ‘church bells’ and other reasonable means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for duration not to exceed five minutes.”

The article continues:

So the Islamic call to prayer is just like church bells. Sure, and informed, devout Muslims are just Methodists with hats and beards. Reality, however, is not so rosy. The Islamic call to prayer, now to be sounded three times a day in Paterson, New Jersey (there are five daily prayers, but two of them fall outside the 6AM-10PM parameters of the ordinance), declares:

Allah is greater (Allahu akbar, four times)

I testify that there is no God but Allah (Ashhadu anna la ila ill Allah) (twice)

I testify that Mohammed is Allah’s Prophet (Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah) (twice)

Come to prayer (Hayya alas salah, twice)

Come to success (Hayya alal falah, twice)

Allah is greater (Allahu akbar) (twice)

There is no God but Allah (La ilah ill Allah) (once)

Besides being screamed out by Islamic jihad terrorists all over the world (9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta said it “strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”), “Allahu akbar” is a clear demonstration of supremacism. It is often mistranslated in the Western media as “God is great,” but its actual meaning is “Allah is greater,” meaning Allah Is Greater Than Your God or Government. It is an aggressive declaration that Allah and Islam are dominant over every other form of government, religion, law, or ethic, which is why Islamic jihadists in the midst of killing infidels so often shout it.

You may consider allowing the Muslim call to prayer a salute to diversity, but as you read the contents of that call to prayer, you realize that there is not a reciprocal desire for diversity. A Muslim who takes his oath of office on the Qur’an is making a statement that he values the principles in the Qur’an. Those principles regard the laws in the Qur’an as overruling the U.S. Constitution. There is no freedom of religion in the Qur’an. Non-Muslims, or infidels as they are called, do not have equal rights and in many cases are murdered for their faith.

Electing a Muslim as a police chief is a risk. This city needs to be watched to make sure the celebration of diversity is reciprocal.

When The Rules Don’t Work For You, You Simply Change Them

Posted on by

This article is based on two recent posts from The Conservative Treehouse, one posted today and one posted yesterday.

Today’s post has to do with a House of Representatives rule change the Democrats made when they took over.

The article reports:

Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.  The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it.  Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive.  This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House.  That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection.  Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.

Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an “official impeachment inquiry.”  The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process.

From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles.  Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle.

How many articles of impeachment are finally assembled is unknown, but it is possible to see the background construct as described above.  Unlike historic examples of committee impeachment assembly, and in combination with the lack of an initiation vote, Pelosi’s earlier House Rule changes now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article assembly process.  The minority will have no voice.  This is quite a design.

This is simply ugly. It should be unconstitutional, but the House is allowed to set its own rules.

The second article reports another significant rule change in the rules regarding whistleblowers.

The article reports:

Folks, this “Ukraine Whistleblower” event was a pre-planned event.  As we begin to understand the general outline of how the Schiff Dossier was assembled, we are now starting to get into the specifics.  First discovered by researcher Stephen McIntyre, there is now evidence surfacing showing the ICIG recently created an entirely new ‘whistleblower complaint form’ that specifically allowed for the filing of complaints “heard from others“.

Keep in mind that the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky took place on July 25, 2019.

If this does not make you furious, you are not paying attention. When President Trump was elected (if not before), the Democrats began planning his impeachment. It didn’t matter what he did, he was going to be impeached. Impeachment, contrary to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, was going to be a political weapon used to remove a political opponent from office.

There are two purposes to this move–the first is the hope that it will prevent President Trump from being re-elected. Barring a serious financial decline, President Trump will be re-elected. The Democrats know this and are trying to prevent it. The second purpose is even worse. If President Trump is re-elected and there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the cry of the Democrats will be, “A President under the shadow of impeachment should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.”

We could debate whether or not the actions of the Democrat party in this matter are technically legal. However, they are not in line with their Oath of Office which says they will defend the Constitution. This is a total undermining of the Constitution. I hope voters are awake enough to see what is going on. If not, we will lose our Republic.

When Following The Law Is Controversial

Posted on by

Issues and Insights posted an article today about President Trump’s plan to deport about one million illegal aliens. These are aliens that have already had their court hearings and been ordered deported by judges. The article notes that Acting United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ken Cuccinelli is simply the first federal official, besides President Trump, brave enough to follow and implement the law.

The article notes:

That is what President Trump pledged to do when he took the oath of office. Take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That is why the President is called the Chief Executive. Democrats, and their party-controlled media, find that shocking because they have been in an insurrection since Trump took that oath of office.

Cuccinelli said in a CBS interview on Sunday,

“[ICE agents are] ready to just perform their mission which is to go and find and detain and then deport the approximately one million people who have final removal orders. They’ve been all the way through the due process and have final removal orders.”

If we are not going to deport illegal aliens who have had their cases adjudicated with final deportation orders fully in accord with due process, then Democrats would have effectively opened the borders to Central America, and the entire third world, to just walk in, and sign up for welfare paid for by U.S. citizens. That would amount to a coup against American democracy, as that policy has never been adopted into law by representatives democratically elected by those same U.S. citizens.

Breitbart News reported on July 7, “The latest Harvard/Harris Poll finds that a majority of Americans support Trump’s plan to mass deport illegal aliens following inaction from Congress. This includes support from more than 8-in-10 Republican voters and more than 5-in-10 swing voters. Breitbart News further reports that there are about 1.7 million illegal aliens from Central America and Mexico, alone, living in the U.S. despite already being ordered deported or having pending deportation orders. The latest federal data concludes that there are more than 925,000 illegal aliens, in total, with final deportation orders who have continued living freely in the U.S. About 20% of these illegal aliens have at least one criminal conviction…. Roughly 60% of these illegal aliens come from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The article makes a very good point:

Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Barr just need to enforce the Rule of Law, whatever it takes, to stop this modern Resistance and Insurrection, and restore Due Process and the Rule of Law.

The Democrats (and the media) have been acting like spoiled children since the 2016 presidential election. It’s time they grew up and realized that America is supposed to be a country of laws that apply equally to all. I guess they just can’t get used to the idea of having a President who actually enforces the law as it is written.

Forgetting Your Oath

Posted on by

On Tuesday The Washington Examiner reported the following:

Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock members of Congress online should face prosecution.

“Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable [sic],” Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Florida.

“We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted,” she continued. “You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.”

Wow.

This is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The underline is mine.

This is the oath Representative Wilson took when she became a U.S. Representative:

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.

Enough said.

There Is A Reason The House Of Representatives Has Had To Do All Of The Work On The Illegal Surveillance Of The Trump Campaign And Transition Team

Posted on by

Have you wondered why all the information and investigation of the illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team has come out of the House of Representatives rather than out of the Senate? Well, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has the reputation for being one of the leakiest, most politicized, and most corrupt committees in Washington. The current chairman of the committee is Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina; the current vice-chairman is Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. Both are seriously entrenched creatures of the Washington swamp. That fact explains the following report.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted the following:

Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) said on Tuesday there were “sound reasons” why the judges issued FISA warrants on Carter Page.

The newly released Carter Page FISA docs, although heavily redacted, reveal the FBI and DOJ relied on Hillary’s phony dossier and liberal media reports as ‘evidence’ presented to the court in order to wiretap Page.

The FBI omitted the fact that the dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC.

This is not only criminal, but unconstitutional, says investigative reporter, Paul Sperry.

So spying on an American citizen based on information bought and paid for by a political opponent is now justified? Under what constitution? Has this man read the Fourth Amendment? Donald Trump’s constitutional rights were violated. If this is allowed to stand, we can expect it to happen again to anyone who disagrees with the party in power. That is not a good thing.

The article continues:

Even the argument the FBI thought Carter Page was an agent of the Russians doesn’t hold water. Carter Page was never charged or arrested for being a Russian spy, furthermore, not too long ago Page was actually helping the FBI take down Russians.

So now the FBI expects us to believe Carter Page flipped and became an agent for the Russians…yet they never arrested him?

Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and Sally Yates all signed the FISA applications even though Hillary’s fraudulent Russia dossier was used as a pretext to obtain the warrants.

According to Senator Burr, these are “sound reasons.”

“I don’t think I ever expressed that I thought the FISA application came up short. There (were) sound reasons as to why judges issued the FISA,” Burr said to CNN.

Hopefully my fellow voters in North Carolina will remove this man from office during the next election. I don’t care if a Democrat replaces him–he has not lived up to his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution.

UPDATE: It should be noted that a copy of the unredacted FISA application was delivered to the committee on March 17, 2017. This was then leaked to the media by a staffer on the committee. That is one of many questionable actions by the committee regarding the illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign.

 

I Suspect There Are Some People In The FBI And DOJ Who Wish Mueller Had Shut Down His Investigation Before This Information Came Out

Posted on by

Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about some of the information discovered regarding the government spy inside the Trump presidential campaign. It is a long article, but worth reading. Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

To me, this is the highlight of the article:

The article details some of the contradictions in the story the media and the FBI and DOJ are currently trying to sell us.

For instance:

Remember, in May 2016 Mr. Page was the key witness working on behalf of the FBI in a case against Russians. [ Evgeny Buryakov Case] Now in September 2016, the same FBI is fixing to put Carter Page under a Title-1 surveillance warrant and label him an agent of a hostile foreign government….

… funny, that.

The two last exchanged emails in September 2017, about a month before a secret warrant to surveil Mr. Page expired after being repeatedly renewed by a federal judge.

This whole thing stinks. I can totally understand the opposition party infiltrating a political campaign–that has been going on for years. But when the government not only takes sides during an election, but puts a spy in one political campaign, we have entered into a new realm of dishonesty. This makes Watergate look like a job done by amateurs (which it actually was). The people involved in this need to go to jail–regardless of their status in our government–they used the government’s power against the people. They violated the Fourth Amendment. They violated the Oath of Office they took to defend the U.S. Constitution. They not only didn’t defend the Constitution–they walked all over it and would have killed it had they won the election. If Hillary Clinton had won, the corruption would have gone unchecked and probably gotten worse. It is long past time to hold the people involved in this scheme accountable.

The Congressional Oath Of Office

Posted on by

According to about.com the current Congressional Oath of Office reads as follows:

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.

On Friday, The Blaze reported that several Democrats in Congress have created a pamphlet that encourages illegal aliens to carry a ‘do not deport me card.’

This is the card:

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 2.04.14 PM

I don’t care what card they carry, they are illegal. I am the first to admit that this needs to be sorted out–illegal aliens need to be given a way to stay in America if they have been here forever or have children born here. HOWEVER, if an illegal alien is given the right to stay, he or she should be denied any federal or state benefits (social security, welfare, etc.) and should permanently be denied the right to vote. Frankly, I think if a law was passed that anyone who came here illegally would be permanently denied the right to vote, our southern border would soon be secured.

With all due respect, I believe that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and the other Democrats who created this pamphlet have violated their Oath of Office.

On Friday, CNS News reported the following:

Unaccompanied children crossing the southern border into the United States still number in the thousands, probably the tens of thousands, even though the percentages are lower, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress on Thursday.

This is not a good situation for anyone. These children are easy prey to human traffickers or other law breakers. There is no guarantee that these children will make here safely when they leave their home countries, and often there is no one to take care of them when they arrive in America. America cannot successfully take good care of these children. Also, what happens to these children when they grow up? Do they live in the shadows or become hard working citizens? Why is Mexico letting these children into their country and through their northern border when coming into Mexico as an illegal alien usually has serious negative consequences?

My bottom line is simple. Congressmen who do not secure our borders are not fulfilling their Oath of Office. They need to find another line of work.

 

One Consequence Of Our Open Border

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that MS-13 gang members are said to be crossing into America from Mexico along with the minor children that are coming in unaccompanied.

The article reports:

“They’re now using the Nogales processing center as a recruitment hub for new members to come in. They’re trying to recruit other teenage boys that are sharing cells with them and they’re using the phones that the Red Cross has set up. They’re supposed to be using those to call back home or to call family members in the United States. They’re also using those as a way to communicate with gang members already in U.S. cities,” she said.

Pavlich said the Border Patrol‘s hands are tied because they cannot separate the gang members from other children. She said according to her sources, these MS-13 members are scheduled for placement somewhere in the United States, adding that I.C.E policy has been to release illegal immigrants with a notice to appear at a hearing at a later date.

Our current government seems to have some difficulty understanding what the U.S. Constitution requires of them:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems to me that protecting the border would be part of providing for the common defense.

The President’s Oath of Office states:

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.

The M-13 gangs are a threat to the security of the United States. Is anyone in Washington paying attention?

What In The World Is This About?

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that The American Political Action Committee, or AMPAC, is planning a “Million Muslim March” in Washington, D.C., on September 11.

The article reports:

The American Political Action Committee, or AMPAC, is demanding “that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people,” the event posting states on their website.

AMPAC’s Chief of Operations Isa Hodge writes that Muslims and non-Muslims alike were traumatized by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, “but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”

I don’t know how to break this gently to AMPAC, but Muslim terrorists were the villains on 911.

The article quotes one of the leaders of the group:

“These lies told to the American population has made it impossible for us to do true Dawa,” Ms. Hodge continues, referring to the practice of proselytizing or preaching Islam.

“It is time for us as Muslims in America to stop being defensive and start being proactive by using our right to vote and our freedom of assemble and let our voices be heard by our country and the world. Stand with us help us fight the injustices being committed against us.”

According to AMPAC’s website, part of the group’s mission statement seeks “to encourage and seek Muslim American candidates for public office and explain positions of other political candidates to Muslim American voters.”

I think I am a rather typical American, and I don’t have any objection at all to Muslims sharing their faith. I do, however, object to them bringing some of their customs to America–discrimination against women, female genital mutilation, honor killing, Sharia Law–just to name a few. If Muslims want to run for office, that is fine, as long as they understand that the Oath of Office they take in that office requires them to uphold the American Constitution.

There are a few things we need to remember when we hear Muslim groups complain that they are being targeted. First of all, they are not being targeted. The fact remains that the 911 hijackers were all Muslim terrorists–that was the religion they practiced and their religion was their motivation for the attack. Second, there is a concept in Islam called “taqiyya.” Taqiyya is loosely described as lying for the sake of Islam. Make no mistake. The goal of Islam is a world-wide caliphate. Putting Islamists in office (their religion allows them to lie when taking the Oath of Office) is risky at best. I am sure there are Muslims who love America and embrace America’s freedoms, but there are many who refuse to assimilate. I don’t expect to see a lot of America-loving Muslims in the march on 911. (Actually, there may not be a lot of people there to begin with–Facebook shows five people attending as of yesterday.)

We may not be at war with Islam, but we need to understand that a very large part of Islam is at war with us–their goal is the destruction of western civilization. We can defend our civilization or we can lose it–the choice is ours.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta