Advertisement - story continues below
You may recall our most recent meeting at the Red Mountain Tea Party, on April 2nd…but then again, you may not. So let me take just a moment to go over what took place.
Advertisement – story continues below
You possibly recall my asking “What does your oath, to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, mean to you?”
I must say that I found your response to be quite revealing, to wit: “It means that I will support…policies…that give effect to that oath which I’ve taken; that I won’t do anything that…would…put me in a position where I’m violating that oath. That’s what it means to me.”
In order to be fair, Jeff, perhaps we could review together exactly what that oath contains. Here it is:
Advertisement – story continues below
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.
Oops! Looks like I misspoke, Jeff. I said “defend and protect,” when it actually reads “support and defend”! How clumsy of me…but the meaning, of course, is identical! There’s obviously more to it – “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” for example, and I presume that that is what you were referencing in your eloquent answer.
My question, however, clearly went to the first stipulation of that sacred oath (which you have now had administered to you by various Speakers five times over the past ten years.) So I didn’t ask if you yourself would “support…policies…that give effect to that oath,” Jeff, but rather, “What…your oath, to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, means to you….”
I don’t know if you were “reading ahead,” anticipating where I was going with that question, and thus avoided answering directly…or whether you had simply not considered that critical component of your oath…”So help [you] God.” I’m sure you know the history of the oath you took, Jeff, starting with the oath taken by the very first Congress in 1779, but we’ll review it just the same.
Advertisement – story continues below
The stipulation for such an oath was, of course (and still is, of course) contained in Article VI of the Constitution itself. Here it is:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….
Being very particular to follow the recently ratified Constitution, the first Congress which had sufficient Representatives present by April 1, 1789, to form a quorum, appointed a committee on April 6 to draft a bill on how the oath of office was to be administered. It was entitled An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths, and was signed into law on June 1, 1789, becoming “Statute I,” the first official law in the “Laws of the United States.” Here is the original language contained in the oath:
I, A. B. [a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof,] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently, the position held by the various parties taking the oath was added at some point for clarification. This oath remained intact until the time of the Civil War. From the Senate website (referenced and quoted earlier) we find:
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
The first qualification added was that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” While I wasn’t actually there, Jeff, that part seems to stick in my mind of late…. I wonder why?
Now that we have thoroughly refreshed our memories as to the origin and evolution of the oath that you swear before both God and man, let’s look at your “conclusions” regarding the Arpaio Investigation, or that of Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse. Let’s dispense with the nicities at this point and state the obvious, shall we?
Neither you, nor Jon Kyl, nor John McCain have even troubled yourselves to watch either of the fully-recorded press conferences on March 1 and March 31, 2012. If by some bizarre stretch of the imagination that you have, then of necessity, you are alleging that Sheriff Arpaio and his posse are guilty of prevarication (a fancy word for “lying”) on this most serious issue of historic national import.
This, of course, raises an issue which pretty well sums up the truth of the whole matter, Jeff, and it is this: Given the seriousness of the charges, if there were substantive points raised by the posse’s investigation, which could be contested, we would have seen that as the immediate response from the White House and its army of attorneys and media cohorts, would we not? But what did we hear instead? Alinsky 101:
5) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972: 130).
Having watched both press conferences (and attended the second of the two as well), I am keenly aware – as should you and your own AZ contingency of “representatives” of the People (I’m referring to the Republicans) – of the stark contrast between the questions asked by “ordinary” people, citizens, and the vapid attack dogs apparently in the full-time employment of the state. Curiously, Jeff, your response mirrored that of the latter in substance…or, that is, in the glaring lack thereof.
Your first response was potent, even menacing:
I’m the number one opponent in the House or the Senate of the president’s agenda, so I do not think much of the president’s agenda. I think that he’s going in the wrong direction on the economy and a number of issues…
You came out swinging, Jeff, but in the end, you sounded like a junkyard poodle, lacking both bark and bite…not to mention either facts or reason:
but I think that he is our president; I think he was duly elected , and I believe he is a citizen; and I do believe it is a distraction…and my job…my job…my job is to make sure that we beat him in November. If we do that….
I’ll stop you here again, Jeff, just as I did when we last met…on tape. I assume you are, at least, of average intelligence, although admittedly I have no basis for that assumption,other than, perhaps, wishful thinking. In any case, I would expect that – at a minimum – someone of your rank, distinction, or class would base his opinions or beliefs on something…anything, Jeff.
So what is it that has convinced you that “he’s a citizen”? If you had bothered to watch even the preliminary results of the posse’s six-month investigation presented at either of the Arpaio Press Conferences, you would have seen clearly that the man whom you pretend to oppose (but so strenuously “support and defend” ) lacks the most fundamental of all identifying documents– a real, certified (hard copy) birth certificate…not a digitally-created virtual image thereof.
Like both the brilliant and tenacious judges, Michael Malihi of Georgia and Jeff Masin of New Jersey, who without any supporting evidence whatsoever (or witnesses – including the court-defying defendant, Barack Hussein Obama, in the Georgia case), unilaterally proclaimed the most enigmatic president in all of American history “born in Hawaii.” (In an unprecedented as well as uncharacteristic show of judicial restraint, however, the two prescient jurists stopped short of affirming his virgin birth…which would have been problematic in any case.)
Having heard enough of your woefully unsubstantiated defense of the most undocumented occupant of the People’s House (when not off at a five-star resort in some exotic vacation spot or golf course) in the two hundred and twenty-three year history of the country, I did what you may never have done, Jeff, and asked the People:
“How many of you would like to see Congress investigate the president? Please stand up if you can!”…at which point the vast majority of those present stood up, amidst cries of “impeach him,” etc. A mutual friend of ours, Jeff, upon watching our encounter via the Internet (along with tens of thousands of other voter/constituents) said to me: “You kind of put Jeff between a rock and a hard spot”…to which I replied, “No, Jeff did that to himself!”
To which I will only add, Jeff, that next time – if there is a next time, or a next term – I suggest that you and every other public “servant” named herein take a second look at your sacred oaths of office and recall vividly what it entails…especially the preeminent first and final points:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. So help me God.
Perhaps we’ll meet again soon, Jeff. Until then….
Tom Ballantyne – A Constituent (one of those you are also sworn to represent)
P.S. While I am, in fact, indignant over your failure to stand up for the obvious and irrefutable truth here, Jeff – apparently for fear of retribution from the Ruling Class, in both the establishment media and the “leadership” of your own party – I am sincere in my hope that my standing for the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that may be to some, will cause you to reflect seriously on your one and only authorized, and therefore legitimate role…that of upholding, as well as defending, our sacred and God-inspired Constitution.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.