© 2010 jbjd
“I, (name), 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.” 5 USC §3331
Watch and listen carefully while John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House administers this legally mandated Oath of Office on January 6, 2009, the opening day of the 1st session of the 111th Congress; to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, just re-elected by her peers to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, marking the second year in a row she was 3rd in line of Presidential succession. (The only votes she got came from fellow Democrats.)
“…without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”
Following, Speaker Pelosi administers the Oath to the other 433* members of the House.
*The seat of Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), set to become the Chief of Staff of the incoming President, Barack Obama, was vacant. Id.
Now, watch the Oath in action on November 6, 2007, when Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), taking to heart the words which make up that oath, rose up on the floor of the House during the 110th Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, charging Mr. Cheney had violated this same Oath of Office by deceptively promoting the weapons capabilities of Iraq so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation. (Note: As President of the Senate, Mr. Cheney had sworn that same Oath “to bear full faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.)
On June 10, 2008 during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Mr. Kucinich stood up once again to introduce Articles of Impeachment, this time against President George W. Bush, charging he had deliberately lied to Congress by overstating the nuclear capability of Iran so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.
Little of the subterfuge which Mr. Kucinich charged both the President and Vice-President had perpetrated on the American people (through their representatives in Congress) was new. And neither Resolution of Impeachment resulted in a Senate trial. But significantly, his act gave life to the principle of governmental checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, that document he had sworn an oath to “support and defend” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Tragically, by Certifying votes of the Electors on January 8, 2009, two days after taking the Oath of Office; and by failing to exercise their Constitutional authority as to Impeachment since the January 20 Inauguration, Mr. Kucinich and other incumbent Representatives, along with their freshmen colleagues in the House have failed both individually and as a deliberative body to honor that Oath. And that failure derives not just on the basis they did not take affirmative steps to address the charges raised in the petitions submitted to them by their constituents that President (elect) Barack Obama appeared to be Constitutionally unqualified for the job; but also from the reasons they expressed to justify why taking such steps was not required.
Evidence is posted throughout the internet of the millions of correspondence and telephone calls sent to Congressional offices beginning before the November 2008 general election and continuing long after the President was sworn into office, pleading for help getting to the heart of the eligibility matter. But whether originating with organized groups or individuals, the content was essentially the same: Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, the requisite birth status for President under Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And the responses from federal elected officials, which is also easily accessible, were essentially the same: yes, he is; he posted a scanned copy of his COLB on his campaign website in June 2008 proving he was born in Hawaii. (The only claim relative to Barack Obama’s citizenship which has been posted on that site since June 2008, was that this electronic image establishes he is a native but never that he is natural born, as required under the Constitution.) (Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, maintaining it was his idea as the Obama Campaign Communications Director to post this COLB on “Fight the Smears” in the first place; only claims it establishes his client was born in Hawaii. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS) (Letters to constituents generated by both the House and Senate, with accreditation, can be seen at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS is “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO)
None of these legislators has cited as a reason to guarantee to constituents s/he knew Mr. Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office; the fact that Speaker Pelosi, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention had signed the Corporations’ Official Certification of his Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job. Why not? Members of the Democratic Party had submitted this same Certification to state election officials to get them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on the general election ballot even in those several states with laws that only allow the names on the ballot of those candidates who are qualified for the job. (See, for example, Citizens of South Carolina Complaint of Election Fraud to AG McMaster, in sidebar.)
(Members of the House are not alone in eschewing the use of the Speaker’s Certification of Mr. Obama’s Nomination as proof he is Constitutionally qualified for the office. Even when provided with an opportunity to obtain judicial notice his client was ‘for real’ White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to Mr. Obama’s Campaign (and the DNC Services Corporation), only asked the federal court to find Mr. Obama had ‘publicly released his “birth certificate,”‘ and not that Speaker Pelosi had sworn to state election officials he was legitimate or that her Certification alone was proof enough for those officials to print his name on the ballot. COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT)
Did Representatives of the 1st session of the 111th Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, believe those words they swore when taking the Oath of Office back in January 2009, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion? Did they believe at that time an electronic image of a redacted document posted on the campaign website of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President at the behest of the Communications Director of the candidate’s campaign, which image is only accessible with the aid of a computer screen; is tantamount to evidence that the nominee wannabe is Constitutionally qualified for the job? Or did they knowingly offer ‘bones’ just to fob off their desperate constituents, thus violating both the spirit and the letter of the laws that put them in office?
We might generously assume the 62 freshman legislators were so green when they took office that they didn’t know the difference between a paid political advertisement and a proffer of proof, notwithstanding 15 of them are lawyers. But can they have reached the second half of the 2nd session of the 111th Congress and still think these two are the same? Have they ignored ongoing correspondence from constituents documenting that members of the Democratic Party, including their Speaker, who signed these Certifications of Nomination in August 2008, have refused to identify any documents that were the basis for their determination Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen? Even in those several states in which the nominee for President of the major political party has to be qualified for that office before election officials are legally authorized to print his name on the ballot?
Our Representatives told us in January 2009 according to ‘evidence’ they relied on, they believed Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office. Notwithstanding we have since torn that evidence apart, they have not exercised their authority to seek more. In other words, they still believe the record establishes, he is a natural born citizen. Assuming, that is, they still believe in their Oath of Office. Because they still haven’t introduced Articles of Impeachment.
WERE THEY LYING THEN OR ARE THEY LYING NOW?
I want you to understand the solemnity this particular question holds.
The first time I heard that question, I was the state’s complaining witness in a criminal trial. That is, I was the victim of the crime. I managed to escape my attacker; he fled moments before police arrived. The next day, he called to threaten me into silence. I hung up the phone and called police. Two officers arrived immediately. They said not to worry, clumsily trying to reassure me, he would be caught any minute. ‘We’re not the only jurisdiction looking for him.’ Even drowning in trauma, I ‘got’ what that meant. ‘Why are police in another jurisdiction looking for him?’ The men, unable to conceal they had let the proverbial cat out of the bag, only stared sheepishly at each other. ‘TELL ME WHAT HE DID!’
He had killed someone before he attacked me. And that wasn’t all. At the time, he was on parole from a multiple year sentence stemming from convictions on several counts of armed robbery.
Police in my jurisdiction caught him 3 1/2 months after my attack. Having violated the terms of his parole, he would have to serve out the 6 or 7 years remaining on those prior convictions. But apparently anxious to avoid prosecution for the attack against me, he voluntarily gave sworn statements to both police and prosecutors, concocting a whole narrative which could exonerate him in this crime.
Prosecutors in the other jurisdiction, charging 1st degree murder, were given first dibs. They figured, if they got a conviction on that charge, he would be sentenced to life without parole; and my case would never have to go to court. Only, he got a hung jury. In just a few years from now, he would be back out on the streets. I agreed to testify but, always mindful of his threats, hoped for a plea.
We went to trial 1 1/2 years after the attack.
I was sequestered until closing arguments, meaning I wasn’t allowed inside the courtroom during the trial except during my testimony. The District Attorney provided me with status reports during intermittent breaks in the proceedings. Then, it was my turn to testify.
I had told the Victim/Witness Advocate, I hoped more women were seated on the jury, explaining I thought they would be more sympathetic. She said more men would be better because women tend to make themselves feel safe by rationalizing, ‘She must have done something to place herself in harm, which I would never do.’ Men would know this man was capable of doing harm. The jury was mixed.
I took the stand to recount the attack only yards away from this man who had threatened my life if I talked. He cleaned up quite well. Indeed, given the fact his prior convictions and even his present place of residence were unknown to the jury, he made a good first impression.
My testimony proceeded for some time without interruption. Several jurors – men and women – were crying. Finally, I was reliving the moment I managed to separate myself from my attacker. This was surreal; I stopped talking. Now, the DA took over. Q: “What happened next?” jbjd: “I screamed (deep breath) and I screamed (breath) and I screamed.” Silence. Then, like a soap opera, the Judge leaned forward, declaring in hushed tones, ‘And now, the Court will recess for lunch.’
I completed my testimony after lunch, and the Defense Attorney briefly cross-examined. As I was about to leave the courtroom I learned, the Defendant would exercise his option to take the stand.
The DA came out after finishing his cross-examination. The Defendant, trying to manipulate my testimony, had played it all wrong. The DA smiled. ‘While he was lying under oath, I realized, he must have forgotten about his earlier statements, which were in one those boxes I brought into court. So, as I began my cross-examination, I put a box up on the table. I took the testimony he gave today which contradicted his earlier statements, and restated his words in the form of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Then, after each answer, I turned around, reached into the box, and whipped out one of the earlier statements. ‘But I have here a sworn affidavit signed by you which contradicts what you just testified here under oath.’ “Were you lying then or are you lying now?” That’s when I began to feel safe again, knowing no matter how charming and handsome, he had lost all credibility with the jury. They were certain to convict and, no doubt, the judge would impose a multiple year sentence, to be served ‘on and after’ the terms of his present incarceration.
In other words, for me, this question, ‘were you lying then or are you lying now,’ has somber connotations. Accordingly, I did not choose it casually for the title of this article; nor do I ask it lightly. But it is the only question that can be asked of and remains unanswered by all 435 members of Congress petitioned by their constituents to inquire formally into whether Barack Obama satisfies the Constitutional qualifications of the office of President. Including Madam Speaker, who refuses to respond to voters’ questions as to what was the documentary basis for swearing in that signed Certification of his Nomination that he is a natural born citizen. (See Citizens of Virginia Complaint of Election Fraud to AG Cuccinelli, in sidebar.) Because even though for 2 (two) years now, these federal legislators have been telling their constituents, they believe, he has satisfied a showing he is Constitutionally qualified for office; in fact, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence constituents have assembled even without their help; he has not.
On November 2, 2010, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election. Based on the failure of all our Representatives, now incumbents, to demonstrate they appreciate the solemn public trust inherent in their positions, as evidenced by their ongoing decision to ignore constituent petitions for an inquiry into the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office; why would we want any one of them back on the job?
Each member of the House of Representatives will constructively forfeit the privilege of reelection by failing to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment before the November 2010 election. That is the only mechanism through which we can examine Mr. Obama’s role in the criminal conspiracy of fraud that got state election officials to print on the ballot the name of the candidate who overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. And, assuming the focused investigation and trial by the Senate validates our findings then, under the Constitution, Impeachment is the only way to remove him from office.