by: Jon McKay
Taking an oath is a part of a functioning civilized society.
Witnesses take an oath to provide truthful testimony; members of the military take an oath to follow lawful orders and defend the Constitution. Naturalized citizens take an oath swearing their allegiance to the nation. Police officers and prosecutors take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The list goes on; these are public promises to assume a duty or to follow some future course of action.
The Governor of Virginia, the Attorney General of Virginia and every member of the Virginia General Assembly takes an oath that includes, in part, a solemn promise to support the Constitution of the United States of America and to support the Constitution of Virginia. The general form of that oath can be found in § 49-1 of the Code of Virginia:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as __________according to the best of my ability, ….”
Apparently, Governor Spanberger, Attorney General Jones and every democrat member of the General Assembly see their oath as merely perfunctory words that only need to be uttered and can then be ignored.
The democrats intentionally and blatantly violated the Virginia Constitution when they attempted to enact a grossly illegal redistricting plan. These are not simple disagreements concerning interpretations of the Virginia Constitution. The Democrats’ own campaign rhetoric leading up to the referendum proves their intent to violate the state constitution and proves their prior knowledge that their actions were unconstitutional. Rhetoric such as “We must redistrict because other states are redistricting” or “Trump started it.” Words similar to those of a school child that when caught misbehaving blurts out, “But they started it!” Notice that is not a denial of wrongdoing but rather an admission of wrongdoing coupled with a pathetic attempt to justify the malfeasance. They knew what they were doing was a violation of the Virginia Constitution and they intentionally violated the Virginia Constitution, anyway; claiming it was somehow necessary and excusable.
The Virginia democrats didn’t stop there. The democrats enacted civilian disarmament laws in direct violation of the Virginia Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Again, blatantly violating their oath of office. The democrats falsely claim they are only attempting to improve public safety but once again, their own actions show their words to be lies. The democrats in the General Assembly have tirelessly worked to remove as much accountability for criminals as they possibly can; not exactly the actions of people concerned about public safety. And if the democrat legislators fall short in their efforts to coddle criminals, they can always count on the “Progressive Prosecutors for Justice” (democrats, every last one of them) to be the last line of attack for their extreme liberal, soft-on-crime agenda. Those “Progressive Prosecutors” proudly ran on a platform of NOT enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. The democrats are not remotely concerned about public safety, and their own record proves it.
The founders of our nation knew that the greatest threat to the republic was from the government itself. They created the U.S. Constitution to form a limited government, to divide that power amongst three branches of government and to severely limit the power of government. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; the people possess the power outright and the 10th Amendment makes that painfully clear. The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government. And part of those limitations include the government’s ability to disarm its citizens. Only a wicked totalitarian government fears an armed population. And the first thing every totalitarian government does is disarm its subjects. The founders of our nation recognized this threat and defended against that potential tyranny. Apparently, the democrats don’t think the Constitutions they swore to support, apply to them.
We currently see some democrats frantically attempting to distance themselves from other democrats.
Claiming to be a democrat but not like those other “bad” democrats is analogous to claiming to be a follower of the late Charles Manson but not one of those crazy members of the Manson family. Or claiming to be a member of the Nazi party but somehow still inexplicably claiming to being a good Nazi.
The question is not, “are there still some people of good character associated with the democrat party?” The question is, “why would any person of good character ever allow themselves to be associated with the democrat party?”
