Posts Tagged ‘oath’

Oath KeepersFrom the Oath Keepers’ “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey“:

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

If the warrantless door-to-door searches which took place in Boston had taken place in a city with a notable number of Oath Keepers, it would’ve put the organization and the individual Oath Keepers to the test.

It will be interesting to hear if any Oath Keepers participated in, or refused to participate in, these unconstitutional and unlawful searches in Boston.

Should any significant number of Oath Keepers be put to the test and fail, the organization will prove to mostly serve an educational purpose that also gives the enemies of liberty a list of possible resisters to neutralize.

For more on the Boston Marathon bombings, see my article, How you were misled in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Read Full Post »

Lindsey WilliamsAre Lindsey Williams’ bogus predictions unintentional, or deliberate?

According to the late Bill Cooper, Lindsey Williams was a Freemason, and he likely still is, given the consequences of the Freemasonic death oath (see Obligation section).

For more on the late Bill Cooper, see my article, The late Bill Cooper’s rousing speech on the common bond of all Americans: “It’s about freedom”

Read Full Post »


Here is U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder announcing a plan on September 14, 2011, to have U.S. law enforcement officials operate in Canada, and Canadian law enforcement officials to operate in the U.S. by next year.

Watch how he justifies it in the name of so-called “21st-century threats,” and claims to be protecting your liberties (commentary added).

This is an exciting step forward [for whom?] – and precisely the type of bold, collaborative approach that’s necessary to address 21st-century threats [like the average citizenry upset with your policies?]. In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative [yes, an initiative, and not a treaty, since you couldn’t get the required two-thirds support in the U.S. senate], such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing [without your consent] abilities – while still vigorously protecting [infringing upon] civil liberties and privacy rights [for the elites only] under the laws [statutes purporting to be lawful] of both the United States and Canada.

Note, however, he said civil liberties, and not liberties. He’s referring to government granted privileges, and not unalienable rights. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically requires a warrant for searching persons, places and effects, but not so with the Canadian Constitution. Which Constitution will American and Canadian officials abide by when they are operating across their border?

Since 9/11, warrantless wiretapping became the norm, so they’ve already stopped adhering to it when they deem it necessary for “security.”

This plan is against both the U.S. Constitution and Canadian law, since U.S. government officials are prohibited from holding any office from a foreign power, without the consent of Congress, and Canadian government officials are required to swear an oath to the Queen in order to faithfully execute her laws.

For more information on North American unionization, see my article, De-facto North American Unionization: How the U.S. no-fly list became the Canadian no-fly list.

Read Full Post »

The Cornell Law School Library

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Secretary and Father of Reaganomics, makes a point of highlighting the silence of law schools and bar associations in the face of repeated bi-partisan unconstitutional assaults on the liberties of Americans since 9/11.

Cornell University Law School, one of the most prestigious U.S. law schools, states in the Fourth Amendment section of their Law Dictionary:

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the intelligence gathering community’s ability to combat domestic terrorism.

That reads to me like a joint White House and Congressional press release.

They go on to mention sneak-and-peek warrants:

A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about the warrant’s issuance. In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peak warrants as unconstitutionally violative of the Fourth Amendment. See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).

Note how they don’t take a position on the constitutionality of sneak-and-peek warrants, and simply refer to the judicial decision of one judge, as if it’s a gray issue and their graduates and professors who have served or are serving in government haven’t taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Being a law school they should be well familiar with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed they are, as they start their section by quoting it in full.

Nowhere in their section do they mention roving wiretaps, which are clearly unconstitutional, since the Fourth Amendment requires the warrant to particularly describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” while roving wiretaps follow, for example, someone who repeatedly uses new cellphones to evade detection.

To me, silence in the face of these violations is acceptance, especially by those institutions which claim to promote a deeper study and understanding of law.

The Constitution lays out a lawful and legal path for any changes, and that’s through Article V, as has been used 27 times to date.

Read Full Post »

Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Board of Governo...

On February 6, 2006, Ben Bernanke took an oath to the Constitution at his swearing-in ceremony as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

From C-SPAN’s video and transcript:


The significance of this is that as a federal officer, despite being the front man for a privately owned cartel, he can be prosecuted for any violations of the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Read Full Post »

Constitutional Convention, 1787

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states:

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.

Note the use of “Constitution for the United States of America” and not “Constitution of the United States.

From the Fourteenth Amendment’s mention of “Constitution of the United States,” it is argued that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was subverted in referring to a Constitution of the United States as a single entity, as opposed to a Constitution for the United States of America as a union of sovereign independent states.

However, if you look at the context, it’s specifically referring to the oath of office taken by all officers and legislative members of the States, and all officers and Congressional members of the United States, which includes the President of the United States.

From the original Constitution, the presidential oath or affirmation of office is:

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.

Therefore, it is clear from the Constitution that the Founding Fathers who signed it interchangeably referred to both a “Constitution for the United States of America” and a “Constitution of the United States,” without drawing any particular distinction between them.

Read Full Post »