The Constitution, Congressional Oath of Office

by

Congressman elect Keith Ellison, a black attorney, has been elected to the House of Representatives in Minnesota’s Fifth House District. When Mr. Ellison takes the Oath of Office as a Democratic Representative he will become the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress.

Mr. Ellison has stated publicly that he intends to take his Oath of Office with his hand on the Koran. This was upsetting until I realized this is a free country and Mr. Ellison has every right to do as he pleases, especially as the Koran, like the Bible, holds no lawful or binding significance as far as the Congressional Oath of Office is concerned.

To me, Mr. Ellison’s intended gesture is meaningless for the following reasons:

Constitution

The Constitution makes no mention of a Supreme or Divine Being much less does its content agree with or support what is written in the Koran. The Constitution only mentions religion, not a Supreme Deity, briefly in its First Amendment. Remember, the Constitution is a legal not Judeo/Christian document nor, more profoundly, is it based upon the tutelage of Allah as found in the Koran. Neither in the Constitution nor its’ 1^st Amendment is there mention of "Separation of Church and State." The first time this is mentioned is in a personal letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, while President.

It is my contention the term "separation of church and state" therefore has no lawful standing as concerns the intent of the First Amendment which only addresses government not being allowed to create a state religion and prohibits others from interfering with where, when, and how others practice their chosen religious belief. A point of Information concerning Jefferson: he was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence, nor was he a signer of The Constitution in 1887, nor was he present when the 1^st Amendment was debated in Congress in 1789. Make your own determination as to how a short statement made by a President in a private letter to a group of Baptists plays such an important role tody whenever the ACLU represents a Secular Progressive in Court who demands the majority bend to His/Her will and stop honoring God publicly be it in prayer or public display or His Son’s birth.

Fact: the Constitution contains only an oath of office for the President.

The Constitution stipulates for all other government officials, including members of Congress, only that they shall be "bound by Oath or Affirmation" to support the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the United States of America neither of which requires the placing of a hand on either a Bible or a Koran, especially the Koran as its content is at odds with the principles of the Constitution.

The Presidential Oath of Office in the Constitution reads as follows:

"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. (The Oaths Clause of the Constitution is Article VI, Clause 3.)

Saying "So help me God" is a personal option as is having ones hand on a Bible. Oaths’ and Affirmations’ are valid secular binding declarations which may be administered individually or in groups without reference to a Supreme Deity. Why? Because even when our forefathers wrote the Constitution they realized not all citizens believed in a Supreme Deity and so, after much heated discussion, they included the word "affirm" primarily because Quakers did not like to take Oaths. So, neither "solemnly swearing or affirming" to support and defend the Constitution has anything at all to do with ones chosen religious belief or non-belief.

Choosing to take the oath or affirmation of office with hand on a Bible is acceptable because Judeo/Christian principles are in harmony with the prime law of the land: The Constitution of the United States of America while in my opinion the teachings of the Koran are not. Islam was not founded until the 7^th Century, Islam has declared war on not only infidels but the United States of America as well.  Does it make any sense at all to have a self-declared enemy of this great nation sitting in our governing body?  An enemy who has expressed his loyalty to our enemy comes first over all else?  

.Following is the Oath of Office taken by the entire House of Representatives and a third of the members of the Senate during January of every odd numbered year since 1884. It differs from the oath the President is administered.

"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." (33 U.S.C. § 3331.)

As can readily be seen the oath is secular in nature and one holding his hand on a Bible and/or adding the words "So help me God" at the end is nothing more than a symbolic personal choice with significance only to the oath taker. No matter the case, the oath is lawful and binding with or without symbolic appeal to the Judeo/Christian Supreme Deity our founding fathers appealed too when Declaring the United States Independence from England.

Congressional Candidate elect, Keith Ellison

Mr. Ellison claims he did not run for the House of Representatives as a Muslim candidate for Congress, but stated only as  "An American, trying to help our country be better. But I do hope that if we(?) win inshallah (God willing), in November, that it should signal to Muslims that we should engage in the American political system. It will signal to people who are not Muslims that Muslims have a lot to offer to the United States and the improvement of our country."

Authors comment: Mr. Ellison has the same right to run for office every American Citizen has regardless of race, creed, or color. Mr. Ellison also has prior governmental experience: he has served on the Minneapolis City Council and is a two-term legislator in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

Now let me address briefly what I see as contradictions in the above quote of what Mr. Ellison is on record as having said:

A. In his opening sentence he uses the words "our country" which on its surface appears to be all inclusive of all citizens of the U. S. And if I take Mr. Ellison at his word  means he is referencing lawful citizens, not illegal immigrants.

B. In his second sentence he chooses to use the word "we" after which I placed a question mark in parentheses. Why the use of the wording "we win"? Is Mr. Ellison referring to He and the Democratic Party? I do not think so, my interpretation is he is referencing his political support base which is Minneapolis’ black, Jewish, gay and lesbian comminutes plus the ever expanding community of Somali immigrants and others of Arab/Islamic believers from various other African nations.

1. If Democratic Congressman elect Ellison is a follower of Islam’s Wahhabism then he is a believer Arabs and Islam’s problems are caused by "infidels." Guess who the infidels are?

He also believes we are infidels because we have abandoned the true faith Islam’s god presented us through his prophet, Allah (in the 7th Century) and his holy book the Koran. and the solution to this problem is to return us lost souls (Infidels) to Islam. This brings up the question is Mr. Ellison an Islamic Jihad warrior whose purpose is to introduce Islam into our government by falsely evading the purpose of his oath of office by insisting he be allowed to make the Koran, whose principles are at odds with the Constitution, a recognized part of the oath ceremony, or is Mr. Ellison truly willing to acknowledge the oath of office he takes has priority over his commitment to Islam.

This is important if the Secular Progressive members of the Democratic Party such as the Democrat Party Leader nut from New England; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker elect from San Francisco; and Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader elect of questionable land dealing fame from Las Vegas; have so often railed about and the ACLU has gone to court over against Judeo/Christians these many past decades: "separation of church and state." Does they\ Democratic Leadership have the moral fiber to insist upon separation of Islam and state during the House of Representatives swearing in ceremony during January of 2007.  Remember, the oath of office has nothing at all to do with religion.  After all the purpose of the swearing in ceremony for members of Congress is to ensnare traitors and determine Congressional members loyalty.  Time to put up or shut up Pelosi! The question here is where does Mr. Ellison’s loyalty lay? Is it found in his sworn or affirmed oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America or is it with his Islamic belief that members of Islam can swear no fealty to any nation or anyone but Islam’s god? Time for Ms. Pelosi to put up or shut up about her bipartisian leadership ability.  Time to show us if her ovaries are watermelons or shrivled raisens. 

Okay, Democratic Leader of the House elect, Ms. Pelosi, what is your position. Do you have the aforementioned thingies to ask Mr. Ellison with whom does his prime loyalty rests: is it to be found in his oath of office? Or does his oath of office come second to that of Islam as required in Islam’s holy book, the Koran. Put up or shut up and resign from office, madam. You do have an exit strategy I presume, you have one for everything and everybody else it seems.

C. In using the word inshallah (God willing) I offer Mr. Ellison is appealing to the Islamic god, Allah, for support and not the Judeo/Christian God of our founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence. Which is his right as a citizen of a free nation but, in my opinion, not as a member of that free nation’s government.  Remember, Islam has declared war on not only infidels but the United States of America as well and we do not need any Democratic Muslim Quisling in the House of Representatives or the Senate for that matter.

D. The remaining wording of the second sentence reads as follows: "in November, that it should signal to Muslims that we should engage in the American political system." Note the significance of the "we" in this phrase. It does not imply partnership with either the Democratic, Independent, or Republican political parties only those of Islamic faith. There can be no mistake, Democratic Congressional Candidate elect Keith Ellison is appealing to Muslims, world wide, not just those living in the United States to entangle themselves in our political system. I believe, therefore, our Congress has every right to not seat any member, regardless of religious belief or non-belief, who is not willing to declare his loyalty to the United States of America, publicly, as being his principal concern.

If it were in my power I would ask Mr. Ellison to revise his statement to read "this should signal Muslims who are American Citizens to engage in the American political system."

Look how much political power Muslims garnered unto themselves when they became 20% of Lebanon’s governing body. That government no longer had control over the use of its military forces.  That 20% actually controlled the Lebanese Government thus kept that government from committing its armed forces to its southern boarder with Israel where Islamic Terrorists had set themselves up as a quasi governing body holeint no sworn loyalty to the legitimate government of Lebanon, only Islam. Can you picture in your own mind what would happen to our government if 20% of the House and Senate seats were filled with 20% Democratic Muslims whose prime loyalty was not to the United States of America but to Islam with whom we are at war. What say you Ms. Pelosi; Harry Reid; Nut from New England?

Are you aware that Democratic Congressional Candidate elect, Keith Ellison, is a Muslim by choice, not birth, and his chosen religion forbids him to swear allegiance to any country or institution, or government other than Islam? I hope by now you are fully cognizant Muslims, by Islamic law, are only allowed to swear allegiance to Islam and no other. Australia dealt with this recently by telling all Muslims living there that if they can’t abide being loyal to Australia and its laws first that they are no longer welcome in the land down under and will be sent packing if they don’t leave willingly first.

True, Muslims believe in equality but not in the same sense as we Americans do or as expressed in our supreme law, the Constitution. To Muslims, and this includes Mr. Democratic Congressional Candidate elect, Keith Ellison, who embraced the teachings of Allah by choice thus placing him in direct opposition to what is said in our Declaration of Independence and the principles of our Constitution. What Mr. Ellison believes and supports is contrary to what we Americans believe," that all men (generic term) are created equal." Instead, Mr. Ellison has wilfully cast this principle aside and chose to embrace the Muslim philosophy "Only all true believers are equal."

So, for the first time in the history of our country we have an elected member of the House of Representatives whose religion, which has declared war upon us, forbids him to swear loyalty to this Government and the principles he has been elected to "support and defend."

The 80% of this great land of ours who profess to believe in a Judeo/Christian Supreme Being, it appears, are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to Mr. Ellison representing us in a fair and balanced and un-bias religious manner when it comes to our Constitutional rights and protections. Why? In my opinion it is because House Representative elect, Keith Ellison, does not look upon us or even the Democratic Secular Progressives of this great land as being his or any Muslims equal.

Why again? Simple, because Muslims look upon us as being "inferior infidels." We fall into one of three categories as far as Mr. Ellison and the followers of Islam are concerned: "inferior non-believers; slaves; and women." Mr. Ellison, who is also a proponent of not believing Liberty is a metaphor for good government,  as a true follower of Islam his belief is Liberty means something entirely different than that of the infidels.  e.g., To those of the Islamic faith one only has liberty as long as one is not an infidel, slave, or a woman.

I offer the true ruling class of the Muslim world and Islamic faith are the Mullahs, who have their own religious police and militias to not only keep order among the "faithful" but to challenge and intimidate Arab and Islamic Governments to accept their council if they wish to successfully govern their nations without blood in the streets. 

The choice is yours: do you want to let Islamic citizen Muslims whose religion has declared war upon the United States of America infiltrate our government at its highest level without knowing where their true loyalty rests? Or are you willing to stand up on your hind legs and defend the true meaning and intent of our supreme law, the Constitution, by demanding each member of Congress make it publicly known as a matter of record where he/she stands as concerns his/her’s intent to support and defend our Constitution?

Remember, those of the Islamic faith proudly preach dealing with the "pampered effeminate Americans will be easy." Remember they have run from Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after the other and they are now that the Democrats are in power preparing to run from Iraq and the mid-east. Now is the time to hit them again and again, they are all talk and bleating hearts. Prepare, we are now entering the final Jihad and soon the final victory will be ours." (Some editorializing in the last sentence).

Are we now under Democratic Queen Pelosi’s reign to become like the French who know no enemy they can’t run from, pay tribute or Kow Tow to in a prostrate manner without shame?

.