February 22nd, 2013

Forget About ‘Political Survival’ In Gun Debate, Biden Says


Joe Biden 2

This article was sent to us by a concerned citizen. He states in his email:

(Quote)This is incredibly good news! I am very serious. The jugular is exposed. They are worried, very worried. To publicly state that the politicians need to forget their “political survival” is the line in the sand. Reverse this and think about the fact that he is being TOLD what to say. Their political survival absolutely depends upon the success of this fight. If they lose they fully understand that We the People will be emboldened and empowered to stop them and reverse the whole mess. Bottom line, they are scared! Yes you can send this far and wide. Yell this from the mountain tops. Let all know that they are ready to retreat. We can actually win.(End quote)

I agree with him. They are running scared. They know “We the People” are waking up to their game plan. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

(CNN) – Political risk shouldn’t matter one bit when it comes to combating gun violence, Vice President Joe Biden argued Thursday at a conference in Danbury, Connecticut–a city just west of Newtown, where a gunman massacred 20 children and seven adults, including his mother, in December.

As the National Rifle Association continues to beef up its campaign and rhetoric against the Obama administration’s gun proposals, Biden warned his colleagues on Capitol Hill not to succumb to the group’s power and money.

“If you’re concerned about your political survival, you should be concerned about the survival of our children,” Biden said, arguing that those who “refuse to act” are the ones who should pay politically. “Because America has changed on this issue. You should all know the American people are with us.”

He continued: “There is a moral price to be paid for inaction.”

More HERE.




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

10 Responses to “Forget About ‘Political Survival’ In Gun Debate, Biden Says”

  1. 1
    Darin Bowers Says:

    They have ALOT to be worried about now. Political survival not being on the top on the list, imo. They need to worry about staying out of prison now and how their families names will go down in history with the traitors of the Globalist Manifesto to End The United States. There are prices to be paid for willful ignorance and treason against the people they took an Oath to protect. May Truth and Justice be brought upon them swiftly. -Darin Bowers

  2. 2
    csaaphill Says:

    No they aint worried at all. What they are saying is they will do what they think is the right thing. We can’t even think to out them later on, what with Liberals being in ctrl of most the country. Dems in blues states literally have it made because places like Seattle run the whole state.
    Speaking on alert alert Oregons’ next http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf
    In house inspections registration. etc.. pass this on and resist to the end.

  3. 3
    Cal Says:

    Exactly Darrin. Oath breaking is not just a political offense as many have been taught. It is also both a criminal and civil offense.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    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 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 for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (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.

    Executive Order 10450 provision 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; according to Executive Order 10450 plus 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 then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    There are the criminal laws that apply.

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “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.”’

    The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

    “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.”

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    .
    Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

    Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

    The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
    Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

    There are the civil laws that apply. The Oath is their accountablity to us, “We the people”. Did you know that used to be on the FBI website back when it was a Constitutional agency istead of treasonous one it is today?
    They even had the definition of “Domestic enemy” so that regular people would know when their representatives stepped out of the legal bounds.

    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights.”

  4. 4
    Darin Bowers Says:

    Thats good stuff Cal, keep it coming.

  5. 5
    Joe Berry Says:

    [Biden] you go to hell for lying same as you do for stealing. We are not with you. You obviously missed the rallies

  6. 6
    Mike in Virginia Says:

    Email ALL of the Democraps (LOL) in your state and let them know that come the next election they’re out the friking door if they support Obama’s propsed gun control and magazine limits.
    Make sure they understand it! Barrage them with letters and emails telling them
    Their future position is in serious Jepordy. I have sent over 500 emails in Virginia alone.
    I’ve sent petitions from hundreds of members of our voting community. We need to push this NOW.
    Hammer them and don’t let up the pressure. Stay on their liberal asses day and night.
    The future of our future gun rights for us and future generations as well. Let us not be the onesss
    who future history says “they put up a good fight, but lost”!
    Look at England, Australia, and other countries in Europe. Right now Mexico is calling for the names and addresses of all gun owners residing in states that border their corrupt country.
    I don’t know if the link below is true or not but if it is, We know now why they want the information. (Lat time I checked Google Earth that area was totally blacked out for some reason)
    To give to the Chinese troops to go directly to these gun owners homes, take their guns, and then kill them. the other link is to a InfoWars.com item on LET targets new citizen targets that everyone should see if you have not yet. It’s getting to be time to lock and load.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html

    http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor-apologizes-for-selling-shooting-targets-of-children/

  7. 7
    Darin Bowers Says:

    @ Mike, the story in that link was from April 2012…..

    Lets chill a bit here till we find out whats up with that. I think we’re ok for the moment. Def late in the game tho.

  8. 8
    Laura Villarreal Says:

    Have you seen this…is there any one left in washington to do the right thing! The obamanation is an illegal alien, his entire administration is complicite in this…Are they actively seeking Civil War? The man (and I use that word loosely) has no rights in our country, at all; let alone the right to strip our Constitution and Bill of Rights! http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/07/19/breaking-obamas-kenyan-birth-records-discovered-in-british-national-archives-where-lies-go-to-die/

  9. 9
    Lee Says:

    Women Take Biden’s Shotgun Advice

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0IVSGctQIg

  10. 10
    jack Says:

    IF SHOTGUNS ARE SO GOOD WHY DID HE GIVE RIFFLES TO DRUG DEALERS IN MEXICO? OH, IT WASN’T FOR BIRD HUNTING.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148