Jueves, 25 de marzo de 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010

'' Presidential Oath of Office ''

“I do solemnly swear 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.”

(per Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution)

Did you wonder, at Barack Obama’s Inauguration as President of the United States, how he could swear allegiance to our Constitution?

When you heard him declare that same Constitution “fundamentally flawed,” and heard him read from his autobiography of his associates, leftist friends and Marxist professors — whom he claims to have “sought out” — did you ask yourself how in the world this man could possibly pledge to uphold the Constitution?

Did you, having even a limited knowledge of Obama’s associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Black Liberation Theology preacher Reverend Wright, cringe slightly while he was taking the oath of office?

And have you wondered since then — in light of the policy changes he’s proposed and the processes, procedures and strong-arm tactics he’s used — how he could have made that solemn vow to our Constitution, hand upon the Bible, pledging to preserve, protect and defend that precious document?

That question — in its various forms — is brought up fairly regularly by conservative-leaning writers and pundits, often as a sort of rhetorical question.

It’s usually intended to flavor a discussion that highlights Obama’s steering of the U.S. toward a more Western European, socialism-flavored America, or his blatant breaches of protocol (apologizing for America, bowing to foreign leaders), or his over-stepping of long-established boundaries within the federal government (forcing citizens to purchase insurance, taking government ownership of private companies). You know — the stuff Obama calls change.

How could he dare do this to the Constitution, they’ll puzzle as they shake their heads; or, how could he possibly disregard our Constitution like this?

Last night, Newt Gingrich brought the subject up yet again on Sean Hannity’s TV show, with a slight variation, when he posed the highlighted question below:

Gingrich: This is a group prepared to fundamentally violate the Constitution. And by the way, the executive order on abortion is a fundamental violation. The idea that a President of the United States can personally reinterpret the law is just wrong.

Hannity: An executive order can never trump a statute anyway, so it wasn’t really worth the paper it was printed on…

Gingrich: But the President may think it does. You know, I’ve been very curious… I’d be fascinated to know, since he taught Constitutional law in Chicago… which Constitution was he teaching? Venezuelan constitutional law? I mean, I can’t imagine how he could have actually taught American Constitutional law and be this wrong, this often.

I think I might be able to answer that for the former House Speaker. I’ve been pondering this very question too, along with its numerous variations. Over time, it has shaped itself into one comprehensive and important question:

•If President Obama spends so much time and energy undermining the U.S. Constitution and — by his own admission — shamelessly working to fundamentally change it, how could he have sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend that same Constitution?
It’s not because Obama is ignorant of what the Constitution really says or means. He wasn’t referring to some other nation’s by-laws. It’s not because he isn’t a natural-born citizen or because he just isn’t up to the task. It’s not even about the Alinsky/Marxist philosophy that “the ends justify the means,” though that point has merit.

President Obama did, indeed, genuinely swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. But my conclusion is that he was pledging allegiance to the U.S. Constitution not as it exists now, but as he intends to make it. With this skewed rationalization, Obama was able to vow, in good faith and in good conscience, to “preserve, protect and defend” our most important founding document. He could at the same time proceed to condemn it. With this warped perspective, he can also justify any and all radical changes his social policies demand. And it has the added benefit of meshing perfectly with his agenda for hope and transformational change.

Every single thing Obama has proposed, accomplished and intends to accomplish fits neatly into this convenient framework he views as the “future” Constitution of the United States. It was to that Constitution — the one that will eventually exist after he rewrites it — that Barack Obama pledged his most sacred oath.

That, at least in my mind, fully explains this paradox. Hopefully, it cuts to the heart of the matter, and perhaps opens doors to even deeper truths.

Maybe it will explain it for you as well, and help guide your thinking about Obama’s motives and intentions from here on.

– RB Stratford

Make no mistake. We’re now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-blooded gang that despises American's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness.

America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others... live better than others.

And in that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.

And, like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen (in fact, servitude to the iron will of government will be required).

That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today.

That dangerous worldview also explains why he has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover you’re broke, don’t be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.

That dangerous worldview explains the sudden and shocking erosion of your freedom to make a living, to run your own business, whether a Mom-and-Pop grocery store or General Motors.

That dangerous worldview explains why his Attorney General, Eric Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment... why, if he had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless against gangs and hoods – and, more to the point, against Obama's own shock-troops from ACORN or SEIU. Remember, it was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.

And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor... your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments... who gets transplants... who gets dialysis... who gets costly medication... and who needs to die for the common good.

What can we do to stop this monomaniac... this American dictator? There’s only one answer.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

impeach Barack Hussein Obama!!

To borrow a phrase from the "anointed-one," ... "yes we can."

But before going on, we really need to address the often misunderstood subject of what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense, in order to illustrate that Barack Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant impeachment.

Former-President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.

Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:

“’High crimes and misdemeanors’ entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a ‘misdemeanor’ meant ‘mis-demeanor,’ or bad behavior."

In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetent... grossly negligent... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."

And make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting President be a political act.

As C-Span.org notes:

“The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is ‘whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.’"

The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.

Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.

Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.

It could be easily argued that we have a duty to impeach Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone. That's where you come in.

Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come to know that Impeachment is the will of the American people and they ignore the will of the people at their own political peril.

The question is not whether we should impeach Barack Hussein Obama.

Rather, the question is, can we

impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?

Tags: Presidential Oath

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:44
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar