For people who don’t like and don’t care what the US Constitution says, it doesn’t matter whether or not Barack Obama meets eligibility requirements for the office he currently holds. Obots, who regard the Constitution as an outdated useless piece of paper that should be burned, and our republic as nothing more than a democracy of mob rule by iron fist, see Obama’s eligibility as a laughing matter.
New York Times blogger (and deconstructionist professor of law) Stanley Fish writes - Why Bother With the Constitution? In it, he quotes from a book titled The Living Constitution,” by David A. Strauss which states—“the Constitution does not play a central role in constitutional interpretation.”
A deeper understanding of the useful idiot’s interpretation of the Constitution is found in Strauss’ book;
“In the majority of instances, Strauss argues, “the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role.” Even “when a case involves the Constitution, the text routinely gets no attention,” for “on a day-to-day basis, American constitutional law is about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy.”
In other words, the Constitution has no specific meaning or purpose at all. Case law, precedent setting or bench legislation is now the supreme law of our land, according to those who hate freedom, liberty and self-governance.
But for American citizens who hold the US Constitution dear, as the supreme law of this land and the foundation upon which all else rests, a government that subverts Article II—Section I for the purpose of upholding an unconstitutional and anti-American resident of the White House, is not to be trusted with anything else.
So-called “birthers” remain in search of an official Certificate of Live Birth (aka birth certificate) that most likely does not exist. That search has been perpetuated by the Obama defense team, in an effort to keep public focus on a document that, in the end, doesn’t even matter. Birth place is a matter of “native-born” status only, and as even Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has pointed out, “in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“they do not go on jus soli, they go on parentage.”
As I have written in a recent series, the search for a birth certificate is a diversionary tactic which aims to distract attention away from the real issue at hand, Obama’s “dual citizenship” and “divided loyalties,” which are at the heart of his ineligibility for office. Obama is in fact the poster child for why the Founders put the “natural-born citizen” clause in place.
An Obama organizer and writer for Huffington Post wasted no time coining the term “dualers” to label folks who understand what the “natural-born citizen” clause actually means and the purpose of it, as nothing more than a spinoff of the “birther” movement, which has pretty successfully been demonized as just another “truther” group searching for UFOs in tin-foil hats.
In fact, these so-called “dualers” (of which I am one), are usually at odds with both “birthers” and “truthers.” “Dualers” have read the Constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, researched the history behind those requirements including Vattel’s writings on the matter based on the Law of Nations, and have come to understand that Obama is not qualified for office.
According to Barack Obama’s story, he was born the son of a U.S. mother and a Kenyan father who was at no time a citizen of the United States. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961, on U.S. soil.
If this story is true, Barack Obama is a “dual citizen” of the United States by his mother, and Kenya by his father. He would, as a result, have the very potential of “divided loyalties” that caused the Founding Fathers to place the “natural-born citizen” requirement in the Constitution for the offices of President and Vice President.
Nobody knows if Obama was born in Hawaii or not because he has refused to release his actual “Certificate of Live Birth”, which, as CNN 360 host Anderson Cooper recently pointed out in his on-air ambush of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, is the official proof of Obama’s “native-born” status. But Cooper lied to his viewers when he claimed that Obama had released that Certificate of Live Birth.
This is an actual Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth from 1962
This is the Certification of Live Birth from 2007, posted online by DailyKOS and FactCheck
As you can see, what Obama has allowed to be posted online as evidence of a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth is actually a Certification of Live Birth, allegedly issued to Obama in June of 2007, as he was preparing his 2008 run for the White House. Some have asserted that this document is actually a forgery taken from Obama’s half-sister’s COLB. She was born in Indonesia.
As inquiring minds already know, anyone with a Hawaii street address can purchase a Hawaiian COLB from the state and people who don’t have an actual birth certificate do it all the time in Hawaii.
But, as I point out, the search for a real Obama birth certificate is only a diversion from the real issue at hand, that issue being the fact that Obama is NOT a “natural-born citizen” free from any “divided loyalties” due to his self-proclaimed “dual-citizenship.”
¬†From CNN’s Anderson Cooper to so-called conservatives Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, useful idiots have lined up like good little sheep to proclaim that they have some special knowledge of the messiah’s birth that nobody else is allowed to see, and that on that basis, they have determined for all of mankind that Obama is eligible for office, even though none of them seem capable of comprehending the most fundamental facts of the case. It’s NOT about “birth place!”
As for Obama supporters, those who want real “change” from a free society funded by free-markets - to a socialized system based upon free stuff for those unwilling to earn, paid for by the productive members of society, it makes no difference what the Constitution says or that Obama is NOT eligible for office even under his own story.
No mountain of evidence will change their opinions because their opinions are driven by agenda, not facts.
But citizens who still care what our Constitution says, what our Founding Fathers designed and the unparalleled success of our unique American history, had better care about Article II—Section I or they need not bother worrying their pretty little heads about anything else our founding documents say.
Our rights are only “unalienable” so long as the Constitution remains in full force and effect. Without that document, everything we have ever known about our country goes right out the window with the destruction of that foundation.
Sooner or later, the truth about Obama and all who made it possible for this man to scam the entire world will come out. God help us if it isn’t until after there is no nation left to salvage.
Obama’s idiots don’t care, they never did and they never will.
But what about the rest of America and the free world as we once knew it?
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American’s greatest legal battles.
Williams receives mail at: [email protected]
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement