We have talked often in this blog about demagoguery and disingenuousness, but the media and national politicians have stooped to new lows recently.\u00a0 The talk shows last weekend made my point when they branded “birthers” extreme, ignorant right wing “radicals” over the issue of whether Obama has the Constitutional right to serve a President.<\/p>\n
First, the Progressive socialists of the Democratic Party and their obeisant sycophants, the mainstream media, have either out of intentional maleficence, or as is more likely, abject political ignorance tried to equate the American political right with the fascists that were responsible for WWII.\u00a0 Any honest student of politics would know that the American Right espouses the tenants of human freedom exemplified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America and that the American Left has, for over a century now, been an ardent promoter, after the failures of the pseudo-peaceful socialism of the 19th century, of the command socialism that caused WWII from the socialist right, the fascists exemplified by Hitler and Mussolini, to the socialist left, the communists exemplified by Stalin, Mao and minor monsters like Pol Pot.\u00a0 The American Right is 180 degrees apart from these socialists or as they are now called in our politically correct world … Progressives.\u00a0 How dare the unread, poorly informed talking heads of the main stream media denigrate American Conservatives and Libertarians by calling them the names that they do … especially when their words and actions tend to promote the very catastrophe that they profess to oppose.\u00a0 When the American Left does not understand or cannot logically refute an argument from the right, they resort to their most effective tactic, ridicule.\u00a0 The tactic is to ridicule a proposition and then quit the conversation.\u00a0 This tactic is particularly effective when they have control of the camera … make the assertion and then fade to black.\u00a0 Or another favorite tactic … misconstrue the question.\u00a0 That is what the media has done in the case of the “birther” controversy.<\/p>\n
My co-blogger, Paul, has made exhaustive and eloquent exposition on the subject of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be President.\u00a0 Our forefathers, fearing the ascension to the Presidency of someone whose upbringing had been compromised by foreign education or un-American parentage provided that a person who did not have two American citizens for parents could not be President.\u00a0 It is clear that if you are born in America you are a citizen.\u00a0 If one of your parents is an American citizen, you automatically become an American citizen when you are born.\u00a0 But, according to the Constitution, you cannot be President of the United States of America unless both of your parents are American citizens at the time of your birth.\u00a0 Paul has shown us that the Supreme Court has ruled that the term “natural born citizen” means that both of your parents had to be American citizens.\u00a0 The reason for this clause in the Constitution is clear … at the time of the American Revolution, many people who lived in America did not believe in the Revolution, many supported the British monarchy and, in fact, many people left the country, going abroad to avoid the Revolution, marrying foreign nationals and raising their children under other forms of government and then eventually returning to America.\u00a0 Our forefathers, rightly I think, prohibited these people and their children who were raised under foreign influences from eligibility for the Presidency.\u00a0 That prohibition remains, unchanged in the Constitution.\u00a0 If you reflect upon that case of Barack Obama you can see that fears of the forefathers were well founded.\u00a0 Obama’s father was a foreign national imbued with an ideology at least as inimical to American values as the British Monarchy … international Communism.\u00a0 Additionally, Obama was raised for an appreciable part of his life in Communist countries and was tutored by communist teachers abroad.\u00a0 The prohibition in the Constitution of bestowing the Presidency upon someone raised under foreign influences by foreign nationals is just as valid today as it was in 1787.<\/p>\n
Was Obama’s mother an American? Probably.\u00a0 Was Obama’s father an American? No way.\u00a0 Is Obama an American? Yes, by birthright from his mother.\u00a0 Was Obama born in America?\u00a0 Maybe, maybe not.\u00a0 Does it make a difference?\u00a0 Obama’s citizenship rests with his mother.\u00a0 Is Obama a natural born American citizen? No way.\u00a0 Does Obama meet the Constitutional requirements to be President? No way.\u00a0 Under the Constitution, not having met the qualifications to be President, Obama’s Presidency is bogus.<\/p>\n
Why does this issue need to be settled?\u00a0 Because the front runner for the Vice Presidential nomination of the Republican Party, Marco Rubio, does not meet the qualifications necessary to be President either … neither of his parents were American citizens when he was born, although he\u00a0 himself became a citizen when he was born.<\/p>\n
Either the commentators from the media are ignorant of Constitutional law, are too arrogant and smug to learn, too lazy to study the problem, too bigoted against the intelligence of the \u201cred necked birthers\u201d or just outright apologists for the socialist left to bring the problem of Obama\u2019s qualifications to the public\u2019s attention.\u00a0 I vote for the disingenuousness of the American media.<\/p>\n
Any moderately intelligent person, given the facts and the reason for the Constitutional prohibition can only come to the two fold conclusion, (1) it does not make any difference whether Obama was born in the US or not, because of his mother, he is an American citizen and (2) just as surely, he is not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, because of his father.\u00a0 Barack Obama is not qualified to be President of the USA \u2026 and neither is Marco Rubio.<\/p>\n
If the Republicans, now forewarned, are so disingenuous as to nominate Rubio, they will not only be knowingly be in violation of the Constitution, but will have also, by doing so, enshrined and legitimized the actions of a foreign usurper of the Presidency for all time.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
We have talked often in this blog about demagoguery and disingenuousness, but the media and national politicians have stooped to new lows recently.\u00a0 The talk shows last weekend made my point when they branded “birthers” extreme, ignorant right wing “radicals” … Continue reading