Thursday, April 1, 2010

Obama gives reason to question his legitimacy

Speaking with purposefully deceitful inaccuracy, Barack Obama takes aim in this NBC interview at the participants in the Tea Party gatherings around the country. Their actions highlight the deep opposition to his socialist agenda that his lickspittle propagandists in the so-called "mainstream" media would otherwise just belittle or ignore altogether. Nothing better indicates the decisive impact the Tea Party efforts are having than the fact that the Obama faction is desperate to find a way to slow their momentum. With the help of Congressional leaders as fanatical as themselves, they have hijacked the Democrat Party. They are forcing the rest of its increasingly reluctant passengers and crew to move toward socialism along a vector that is generating a massive headwind of opposition. At present, the craft looks very likely to be blown out of the political skies in the November midterm elections, even despite whatever arsenal of dirty tricks the Party's leadership deploys to decoy angry voters. They are fearful enough to trot out the Decoy-in-Chief to divert and dissipate the Tea Party's damaging political barrage.

There is something pathetic about Obama's apparent belief that his faction has succeeded in its vicious effort to discredit those whom its media lickspittles contemptuously dismiss as "birthers." Does he actually accept the laughably superficial notion that the issue is all about his birth certificate? If so, that raises doubts about the truthfulness of his claim to be an expert on constitutional law. If Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate tomorrow, that would just be the beginning of the process needed to heal the damage that has been done to the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Every word of the U.S. Constitution must be taken seriously. The words concerning eligibility for the Presidency involve the branch of government especially charged with defending both the law and the physical existence of the United States. Prudence dictates they be taken very seriously. In the actual circumstances of his case, this means collecting and weighing all the evidence that has a bearing on the question, "Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States." We can have no right arbitrarily to ignore the word "natural". Therefore, this is not the same as the question "Is Barack Obama a citizen of the United States." Naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States, but they have obtained their citizenship by satisfying requirements and following procedures established by positive acts of human legislation. The term natural refers citizenship to a source in nature itself, without reference to any positive act of human legislation (positive human law.) Its meaning depends upon what the founders referred to in the American Declaration of Independence as "the law of nature and of nature's God." In this respect the claim to be a natural born citizen is no more dependent upon a positive act of human legislation than the claim to be endowed with unalienable rights.

In order, therefore, to arrive at a reasonable understanding of what it means to be a "natural born citizen" we have to consider what it means to be born with any natural quality or trait whatsoever. It is commonplace to refer to people as "natural blonds" or "natural redheads." We easily understand the difference between someone whose eyes look naturally blue, and someone using tinted contact lenses to mimic that appearance. The provisions of inheritance law in vastly different parts of the world have been based on the difference between a parent's "natural children" and adopted children, in whom the kinship with their parents is recognized to be the result of a choice ratified by the provisions of positive human law. With no disparagement intended, the naturalized citizen is like a "bleached blond", for whom the appearance of blond hair required intervention by a human agent (a barber or hairdresser, for example.) Only where citizenship is the result of a fact true at birth, without reference to the intervention of any human agency (the legislature, for example, or the courts), can it in like manner be ascribed to nature.

Once the facts are established and documented, it is for the duly established branches of the U.S. government to reach a conclusion about the citizen status of Barack Obama at the time of his birth. It requires a bare minimum of common sense to realize that this conclusion must in some way be a function of his naturally existing (i.e. biological) relationship to one or both of his parents. There can be no doubt that the Constitution requires an informed, authoritative decision. All public officials in the United States are required by the U.S. constitution to swear their support for it. Failure to take positive steps to arrive at such a decision, on the part of any official at any level of government in the United States, is a clear and palpable dereliction of duty. In this case, the main burden of that duty falls on Barack Obama himself, who has several times sworn that oath in one form or another. Instead of doing everything in his power to make sure an accurate and informed decision can be and is arrived at, he has spent large sums on lawyers who are working to make such a decision impossible. He has even used employees of the U.S. government in this effort to thwart the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. More than anyone else, Barack Obama himself is responsible for the doubts more and more Americans have about the legitimacy of his claim to the Presidency. He is also responsible for the impossibly difficult burden of conscience his failure to resolve this issue places on all those sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly those in our armed services. According to just breaking news reports, a high level active duty army officer has been moved by his strict sense of duty to risk court martial in order to seek the answer Obama so strenuously seeks to obfuscate. I and others seeking resolution of the constitutional crisis predicted that actions of this kind would occur. I believe that more will follow.

All Constitutionally sworn public officials in the United States who have failed to speak out on this question must shoulder their responsibility for the consequences of continued failure to address it. I accuse them of gross dereliction. I accuse every Republican, Democrat and other Senator and Congressman who has failed to insist that it be authoritatively address. I accuse every judge who has failed to act so that the facts may be ascertained. I accuse every state official who approved and without protest used ballots that presented a candidacy whose lawfulness they had never diligently verified. By their actions they degrade the authority of the U.S. Constitution. They contribute to the distrust and demoralization of the people. They undo the work of every previous generation of Americans who gave talent, resources, livelihood and life itself so that government of, by and for the people would be strong and never falter in these United States.

It is fitting that conscientious people who wear or have ever worn the uniform of our armed services, are giving the example of courage and devotion to duty that these other officials lack. But in different ways we all are sworn to the same courage and the same devotion, if only upon the graves of so many generations come before us, who did for us what we are failing to do for our posterity. The fundamental challenge of our time, emerging on every front and with respect to every issue, is the deadly assault now underway against the constitutional government of the American people. The first salvo of that assault was the almost casual contempt too many of our leaders displayed toward the words of the Constitution's eligibility provision. What better first step toward defeating the assault than to act on the inspiring example of our nation's sworn defenders? We cannot all go to court, but we can all speak out, write, twitter and text and call expressing to our elected officials and to one another our united support for the demand that the simple facts be established and the duty to act on them be fulfilled. We are not yet called, as previous generations were, to risk life, and fortune and honor and all. But if we are faithful in this lesser way, we will grow in the confidence that should the need arise, we will act. We will prove equal to their example; and no one of us will stand alone.


Dawg_em said...

It's interesting how "those people" stick together. By "those people" I mean, of course, usurpers. On Sunday evening, the first speaker from the Tea Party Express III mentioned how unreal it was for there to be no mechanism by which issues of eligibility can be established. Coming from Illinois, of all places, she claimed to have investigated the laws and statutes pertaining to elections and found absolutely no way, at all levels of government, to verify whether a person is qualified.

This pronouncement came out of nowhere and was not in response to any question. What struck me was how the usurpers of the Tea Party phenomenon are trying to get out in front of this issue and put it to rest. Apparently, we are supposed to accept Obama at face value. The ability of some folks to talk out of both sides of their mouth is amazing. On the one hand we are to believe they are for the Constitution and its strictures on federal overreach while simultaneously ignoring a fundamental requirement of that same document.

My guess is they are hoping BO is a one-term president and his policies will remain in effect. What astounds me is not only the shear number of traitors to the Republic but their claims to a faux patriotism. Is it cowardice? Moral bankrupcy? Systemic ideology? Perhaps all of the above.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to