Obama Citizenship

A Primer for the Political Fight Ahead

By Phil

Here are two examples from two excellent writers providing an observational analysis concerning our current President as well as how the forces of law and anarchy clash from both a personal viewpoint (as embodied in the President) and a macro viewpoint (in terms of a clash of ideologies).

The first is an excellent piece by Joan Swirsky, a prolific columnist and former psychotherapist (and friend of this blog), from RedCounty.com, entitled, “Obama’s Revenge.” Here are a few excepts from the piece; I encourage visiting the link, as it’s well worth a read…

This leads me to only one conclusion, which I wrote about in a former article: “Obama: The Trojan Horse.” My theory is that President Obama’s narcissistic charm, even temperament, skill with words (teleprompter included), hunger to please, radical agenda, and subterranean rage at the “unfair” American system have been brilliantly exploited by powerful leftist radicals and Marxists in the United States, who for decades have plotted America’s path to socialism. He is their pawn, totally dispensable but handy while the “aura” lasts.

These “handlers” saw in Obama the ideal blank slate on which to actualize their agenda, and they made sure the slate remained blank by concealing (or destroying) any evidence of his past, including his birth certificate, Selective Service record, visa(s), school transcripts, and other vital documents. All of which is costing his moneyed backers - including America-loathing billionaire George Soros - multimillions in lawyers’ fees to fight the proliferating lawsuits that seek the truth about this stealth president.

In fact, former ambassador Alan Keyes, one of the many plaintiffs seeking proof of Obama’s American citizenship, has reported that Obama’s lawyers have now filed a motion “to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents…[which] confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won’t act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide.”

It is clear that Obama and his fellow radicals are restive. In the less-than four weeks of his presidency, the new president has taken volumes from the Marxian handbook, which dictates that the stupid masses be blitzed with an overload of information, hollow press conferences, appointments, dismantling of formerly effective national-security programs, et al., in order to set the stage for a massive, Soviet-style takeover of our government, including a civilian national security force that Obama has said should be “just as powerful, strong and well-funded as the U.S. military.” Echoes of Nazi Germany in 1938, anyone?

The next piece is from a posting over at Constitution.org, a site that posts thoughtful and sometimes provocative analysis of what some think it really means to be a constitutionalist:

The essence of the issue was well stated by Ali A. Mohamed, Al Qaeda spy now in U.S. custody (from an interview on National Geographic Channel documentary):
“Islam without political dominance cannot survive.”

Intolerance is indicative of those who have been taught to identify with a religion, but who don’t really believe it, and don’t have confidence it can survive or prevail in a competitive marketplace of ideas. It is not the true believers, but the nonbelievers pretending or deceiving themselves that they are believers. That is a problem of social pathology more than of religion proper.

We need to adopt proper labels for the sides in the clash. It is not the various traditional sects, or secularism vs. religious fanaticism. On the one side isconstitutionalism, a belief in a rule of law, and particularly in a superior law from which all ordinary laws are derived, which embraces and protects any body of belief that teaches love, tolerance, and civic virtue. Constitutionalism is also a kind of religion, a civic religion as the political philosopher Montesquieu recommended, but a metareligion — a religion about religions.

It is opposed by what? We have given many names to the opposition to constitutionalism: tyranny, fascism, totalitarianism, hate, intolerance, vice, barbarism, evil. But there is a danger in this, and a weakness that constitutionalists bring into the debate: We must avoid adopting the ways of the opposition, or we become them and they win. We also have the weakness that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Constitutionalism is about creation. But a single madman can destroy it all with the tools of modern technology.

We must gain control over the upbringing of all of our children. If we do not civilize them we will have barbarians in our midst, and civilization will fall.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on February 15, 2009 (boomark / email).