I Do Solemnly Swear To Support And Defend Lying Presidents

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
November 12, 2013
Congressional Approval Sinks to Record Low
Current approval at 9%; 2013 average now 14%
by Frank Newport

Congressional Approval Sinks to Record Low

3i2fahnvdk6tzlt1c0go9g.png

Contempt for Congress is at an all-time high is another way of saying it. Besides, the word high is positive while the word low is negative. Did you ever hear a grasshopper say “Let’s get low.”

Every poll should be taken with a large dose of salt. I believe that Gallup’s 9% is misleading because Americans have two basic views of Congress.

1. Americans who want to restrict government to the responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution.

2. The parasite class wants Congress to do more.

Limited government Americans have a lot of justification for their contempt, while the welfare state tells me that the parasite class has no squawk coming.

Members of Congress take the oath of office every time they are reelected. That means long serving members knowingly lie over and over again:


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 congressional oath of office and reality tells me that liars in Congress support and defend lying presidents much more than they support and defend the Constitution. Presidents like Clinton and Barack Taqiyya lie so much because Congress allows it. Taqiyya lies every time he opens his mouth, and Clinton lied under oath, yet the Senate refused to remove him from office.

I did not realize it the time but the Senate itself is a nest of traitors; so there was no chance they would find Clinton guilty. I know the argument his supporters cited to keep him in office “It’s a frivolous attempt to smear a beloved president.” The fact is that he lied under oath.

Incidentally, the president’s oath of office is the only oath specified in the Constitution:


US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.

Clinton was loyal to the United Nations long before he became president. The global government crowd and the media backed him for that very reason; so he knew he was lying when he swore his oath of office. Lying under oath was child’s play. Still, he never expected to be impeached for it, nor did he expect to be convicted by the Senate. He was right about the latter. No UN-loving president will ever be convicted by the US Senate no matter the crime.

Trivial or not, had senators removed Clinton for lying about sex at least they would have sent a message to the global government crowd “In the future choose your stooges with more care.”

I see little hope of America withdrawing from the United Nations in my lifetime; so I content myself with trying to expose the UN’s growing influence. If you doubt my analysis in this thread ask yourself if the United Nations would have so much influence over America’s affairs, domestic & foreign, if the certainty of removal “encouraged” presidents to support and defend the Constitution?

Now, let’s look at the latest betrayal originating in the United Nations garbage dump:


. . . (UNESCO) is considering designating the Alamo a World Heritage Site.

XXXXX

. . . such a designation establishes a "buffer zone" of some 4,500 acres around the site, which could affect thousands of Texan property owners in the area.

XXXXX

The principle of property rights is an alien concept to the world government bureaucrats of the United Nations. The collectivist nature of these true believers is that the less enlightened inhabitants of other countries need to sacrifice their rights for the good of the world collective. So now Texans are faced with violation of their property rights due to regulations handed down by an international body over which they have no course of redress.

XXXXX

The final insult was delivered by local officials who said that such a designation would bring "an immense honor" to the Alamo. So the ultimate price paid by the some 180 defenders of the Alamo was not enough to deliver "immense honor," but a U.N. designation would finally make the site worthy of note.

November 13, 2013
What Business of the U.N. Is the Operation of the Alamo?
Victor Keith

Blog: What Business of the U.N. Is the Operation of the Alamo?

God forbid that the president and Congress support and defend property Rights guarantied in the Constitution.

Bottom line: Congress refuses to rein in the presidency, and both refuse to rein in bureaucrats. In the unlikely event a president and the bureaucrats he works with to betray this country are ever convicted of treason the death penalty should apply:


US Constitution Article II, Section 4

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.

I began this message with a poll. I’ll close with a suggestion for a poll.

Gallup might ask Americans what they think of federal government bureaucracies like the IRS, Homeland Security, the Department of Education and so on. I would include the EPA but that one is a UN bureaucracy. Or simply ask Americans what they think of federal bureaucracies in general.

Here’s a heads-up about the Department of the Interior, one bureaucracy that most Americans never see as their enemy:


Interior Secretary Sally Jewell says she will recommend that President Obama act alone if necessary to create new national monuments and sidestep a gridlocked Congress that has failed to address dozens of public lands bills.

XXXXX

The Antiquities Act gives presidents authority to name new monuments — a power generally residing with Congress. Presidents going back to Theodore Roosevelt have used the act to set aside natural wonders, including the Grand Canyon in 1908, which was later named a national park against the wishes of local officials.

But use of the act in recent years has sparked strong protest. Most notabley was President Clinton's decision to designate the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996, putting one of the nation's largest coal reserves off limits to mining.

Interior secretary says Obama may bypass Congress on monuments
By Julie Cart
November 11, 2013, 8:23 p.m.

Interior secretary says Obama may bypass Congress on monuments - latimes.com

The abolition of private property has always been Communism’s primary goal. Lately I get the feeling the freakazoids are also trying to force Americans into crowded living conditions. Instead of reducing land use the freaks should reduce illegal immigration. They preach population controls anyway, but never, never illegal alien population controls.

How do you think the Department of the Interior would poll if a majority of Americans knew more about Sally Jewell? This excerpt is from #91 permalink in the linked thread:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5i9ZjGSYOI&feature=player_embedded]Interior Secretary Sally Jewell: I hope there are no climate change deniers here - YouTube[/ame]​

Is there no end to the female freaks in Barack Taqiyya’s administration. Here’s another one:

Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department
By SEAN HIGGINS | AUGUST 11, 2013 AT 4:30 PM

Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department | WashingtonExaminer.com

Did you notice that the Jewell did not offer any conclusive proof that nature’s activities are manmade. If asked, I’m sure she would trot out the “consensus” crapola.

I must say Jewell has the name to go with her stupidity. She’s a real gem.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/307024-nauseating-liberal-women.html
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top