Shocking! What the swamp doesn’t want you to know is just by placing a hand on a Bible and uttering a few words does not qualify for taking an oath of office! The secret is out!
FACT: As per legal requirements, elected officials must have a signed and notarized copy of their oath of office within 30 days of taking public office or their public statement becomes null and void!
Vice President and the President’s Cabinet Has NOT taken the oath of office because it has never been memorialized! Videos clearly show people saying words and placing hands on Bibles but these symbolic gestures are not the oath of office!
Nevertheless, an extensive investigation led by US Attorney Todd Callender and his team at Project Proper Oath has revealed a concerning truth: none of the current federal cabinet members possess a valid oath of office! ….and it doesn’t stop there!
Throughout American history, the oath of office has been regarded as a sacred commitment, a solemn promise made by elected officials to uphold the principles of the Constitution and prioritize the needs of the people.
However, a surprising revelation has come to light, raising questions about the trustworthiness of our federal government. Within the corridors of power, it seems that the oath of office, a fundamental cornerstone of our Republic, has been disregarded, rejected, or even invalidated.
The implications of this revelation are significant and have wide-ranging consequences. It raises significant concerns about the legitimacy of those in power and undermines the core principles of constitutional governance. How can we have faith in elected officials to fulfill their duties and responsibilities when they have consistently neglected their most basic obligations?
Some of the highest-ranking officials in the federal government have been implicated in this crisis, which has caused significant concern.
- Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury: Raises concerns about the validity of her oath of office.
- Lloyd Austin, the US Secretary of Defense, has been accused of not fulfilling certain obligations, such as taking a valid oath of office and registering as a foreign agent. These allegations stem from his involvement in international business dealings.
- Merrick Garland, the US Attorney General, seems to lack a valid oath of office.
- Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, does not have a valid oath of office on record.
- Alejandro Mayorkas, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, also appears to lack a valid oath of office.
- Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation: In the absence of a valid oath of office.
- Xavier Becerra, the US Secretary of Health, and Human Services, has made significant decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite concerns about the validity of his oath of office.
- Kamala Harris, Vice President of the United States: Surprisingly, the Vice President lacks a valid oath of office.
However, Joe Biden does have a valid notarized oath of office on file!
This crisis goes far beyond simple oversight or bureaucratic negligence. This goes against the very core of the constitutional principles our nation was built upon.
The oath of office is a solemn commitment that elected officials make to the American people, vowing to protect the Constitution from any and all dangers, whether they come from abroad or within our own borders. The lack or invalidity of this principle among those in positions of authority undermines the fundamental essence of our democracy.
In addition, the discovery of false oaths, which include inconsistencies like the incorrect capitalization of "SO HELP ME GOD," brings up doubts about the genuineness and trustworthiness of these records. These irregularities not only go against legal protocols but also demonstrate a lack of respect for the oath-taking process.
The timing of this crisis is especially significant, as it aligns with wider geopolitical changes and threats to democratic norms. The Declaration of North America, signed by the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada, indicates a step towards regional integration. However, it also raises concerns about the potential impact on national sovereignty and democratic accountability.
Moreover, this crisis is marked by echoes from the past. There is a concerning similarity between the disregard for the oath of office today and the submission of communist goals in 1963 to abolish loyalty oaths. This highlights an ongoing concern for democratic institutions and emphasizes the importance of remaining vigilant in protecting the principles of liberty and self-governance.
Ultimately, the discovery that not a single elected official in the federal government possesses a valid oath of office presents a significant challenge to the legitimacy and effectiveness of our governance.
Final Word: Why has the formalization of the oath of Office been set aside? If a hand on the Bible and uttering a few words is sufficient then shall we all swear ourselves in as Presidential cabinet members? Can you purchase a home without a receipt? Does your car not have a title or Pink Slip? Do children need a note signed by their parents? Does a marriage or a civil union have a license or ratified document? Then why doesn’t an alleged holders of a government office have a memorization of their oath?
Why indeed??????
………………….Your comments below!
Replies
NO SURPRISE FOR TRAITORS AND SWAMP SLIME!!!
Why weren't we informed of this earlier?
These people should sign the oath, or resign!
Who is going to expose this? The media?
THE AMERICAN PRAVDA----NYET
Well Eric they're loyal Communi$t$ To their Wallet$ and $elf performing their traitorou$ duty to OUR USA.
This should not surprise anyone. They hate to take the oath, and many of them do not use the Bible when taking it. Those elected from Michigan and Minnesota, the hotbed of Muslims in the country thanks to Bill Clinton, take the oath with their hand on the Koran. They are in America, elected to office in America, but their allegiance is to a foreign God and Country. Why??????
If the media actually did their job, this would have been widespread knowledge and a moral and righteous people would have taken action to remove them and arrest them for treason.
Taking an OATH OF OFFICE Is not optional for elected, appointed, commissioned, or members of the civil service... It is a matter of Constitutional and Statutory law:
Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution requires an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution be taken.
"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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Quote US Constitution
US Statutory Law requires an Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution be taken BEFORE an individual assumes the duties of heir office... See: 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Lega…ons
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
I am surprised to find many key members of the government and lawyers... DO NOT KNOW THE laws or the Constitution they operate under. Many of our elected, appointed, and commissioned officers fail to understand the law they are to administer. The Congress, DOJ, and many of the principal officers of the government fail to follow the Constitution or the Statutory law governing their offices. It is past time to remove these individuals.
The GOP could file a WRIT QUO WARRANTO challenging the right of those who failed to take the oath of office to remain in office. Those who have not taken the oath of office are not legally qualified to perform the duties of that office... they do not have the constitutional authority to administer that office.
The Vice President is an officer in the Executive Branch... as such the VP is required by law and the constitution to take the oath or affirmation of office
Plus they do not read the bills. Not enough time. Too long, thousands of pages, which is utter irresponsibility at best and a planned scheme as the worse case scenario.
0care as but one example, was 20,000 pages, with traitor Roberts altering its submission to make sure it was heard before the court. He alone converted it from an insurance into a tax.
No impeachment, and the issue of whether it was a tax or an insurance barely surfaced for air. Roberts made sure it was heard, I can't say that loudly enough. [Plus altering Civil Rights legislation, that is on him completely).
And these clowns in black did nothing to "help" tor "help hear" the Brunson Brothers case filed about the fraudulent 2020 election, which sought to bring suit against the entire US congress and to subsequently, remove biten. Scotus stated in their refusal, that Brunson "lacked constitutional standing because his claimed reasons were not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen. I can't wrap my head around that scotus refusal to hear/accept. Maybe he forgot the words, "On behalf of.." IDK.
https://casetext.com/case/brunson-v-adams-4
So they refused to hear the case for removing biten from his usurped office. And no one cared.
Our CO photographer is still in the fiery furnace, his 3rd time around petitioning the 'high court' and there is no help coming yet for Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop in CO). And that is with ADF as his attorneys.
So, it looks like scotus takes cases that subordinate Americans and refuse cases that save this nation. Interesting, right....?
Does this not mean that we do not have to abide by their crazy laws?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next