Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The Duty of Our Oath - I’ve discovered over the years that there seems to be some confusion regarding the duty of those who take the oath of office for our military.

The Duty of Our Oath

http://commonsensetome.com/2013/09/12/the-duty-of-our-oath/

I’ve discovered over the years that there seems to be some confusion regarding the duty of those who take the oath of office for our military. Since the very survival of our Republic hinges on our men and women in the military faithfully performing their duty, I believe it is necessary to review that oath and seek to understand its meaning and implications.
The current oath of office for enlisted personnel…
“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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Notice that the first requirement in this oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; setting the stage for the rest of them. The support and defense of the Constitution is the primary duty of those taking this oath and is first in priority. The next item is “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;” again the focus of our true faith and allegiance is to the Constitution; not the flag, our superior officers, or anyone else under the Constitution, which covers all officers occupying offices created by the Constitution.
I believe the rest of the oath is just a little misunderstood by most people taking it; they tend to put the end at the beginning in priority, making it very easy for enemies of the Constitution in the chain of command to garner support and obedience from those that would otherwise be opposing them.
All officers of the Federal Government that qualify for their office according to the Constitution, have entered into that office through the means defined by the Constitution, and perform their duties within the powers and limitations defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, deserve and require respect and obedience by their subordinates in the furtherance of their constitutional duties and responsibilities.
A person who enters into an office failing to meet the qualifications for it is a usurper; a person exercising power unlawfully… such a person by their actions are attempting to overthrow the Constitution. It is the duty of every officer of whatever rank to oppose such usurpers by arresting them or removing them by force if necessary from the office they’re usurping; defending the Constitution. Any persons aiding or abetting such usurpation are also enemies of the Constitution at best, if the usurper is an enemy agent, then those aiding the usurpation become traitors by aiding an enemy of the Republic, giving them aid and comfort. US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
As for the person currently occupying the Office of President, he has failed to present credible evidence of his eligibility and paid millions of dollars to keep his relevant history secret from the American people. The last evidence of his citizenship shows it to be Indonesian, not American… making him a foreign usurper. Every Federal officer since the electoral votes were counted in December 2008, has been enabling a foreign usurper by NOT seeking his removal by any means necessary… making them traitors in my opinion.
Impeachment in this case is not called for since that procedure only applies to officers that are lawfully seated and must be removed. Since Obama has never held his office lawfully according to the qualifications required by the Constitution, his actions while committing his usurpations are not binding on the people of this Republic and there is no legitimate immunity for his actions in office. His signature is invalid on any document he signed and his nominations and appointments are equally so. Everything he’s touched officially since entering office has no validity of law… he must be removed as the criminal he is.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” — Constitution, Article II, paragraph 5.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/98546/
http://commonsensetome.com/2013/09/01/impeachment-of-obama-or-arrest/
As you can see… it is the primary duty of all sworn officers of any rank to oppose Obama and those he’s inserted into the offices of our Republic. It isn’t rocket science, just requires actually reading the Constitution and understanding what the term “Supreme Law of the Land” means in context of our oath.
Additionally, enforcement of the oath of office is codified into law…
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress to sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of the oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which includes: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

No comments:

Post a Comment