I don’t wish to get into the whole notion of so-called “birther” conspiracy theories about the legal eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States. It’s no longer relevant, one way or the other, inasmuch as he is now in office, and will remain in office through the end of his term, or even a second one if re-elected. I don’t have documentation in my hands to show anything other than that which he claims, but I really don’t care about that argument. Instead, I contend that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because his philosophy, his ideals, and his policy directives have demonstrated with clarity his enmity to America. That he is a natural born citizen may very well be true, but the reasoning behind the framers’ inclusion of this simple phrase still apply. If ever there was an instance in which a person might be operating within the letter of the law, while well outside its “spirit,” it must be the presidency of Barack Obama.
Constitutional requirements for a President are simply these, set forth in Article II, section 1:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The reason for the inclusion of the citizenship requirement was simple enough to understand: It was intended to prevent the election of a President who would respect the laws, loyalties, sympathies, and traditions of a foreign polity that would lending that office to subversion or outright usurpation. That was the basic motive for the inclusion of this specific qualification. I am now here to state with unflinching resolve that whether Obama is eligible within the specific legal requirements makes no factual difference because within the spirit of these requirements, and the motives the founders expressed in setting them forth, Barack Obama has demonstrated a clear contempt for the laws and traditions of the United States and her people, and has further demonstrated loyalties to and sympathies with foreign ideas about law, and traditions outside the founding framework Americans have known and understood since these requirements were laid down. People like to become exercised about the “seriousness of the charges.” These are my allegations, and they couldn’t be more serious. Unlike the others we’ve seen of late, for these charges, there is substantial evidence.
Barack Obama is not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Another important section of the constitution sets forth the President’s oath of office, and it is legally binding upon him. The eighth clause of Article II, section 1 states:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Has President Obama been faithfully executing his office? Has he been preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? I do not believe it is possible to conclude he is carrying into force his mandated role, but instead using the authorities of his office to undermine that which he is sworn to protect, as he issues executive orders instructing the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to avoid charging and prosecuting some classes of persons who have entered the United States illegally. On its face, this demonstrates loyalties and sympathies to foreigners.
President Obama has instructed regulatory agents of the United States to ignore the rulings of federal judges, in contravention of all legal traditions. The President of the United States is neither a dictator, nor a law unto himself. When he ignores or instructs agents of his administration to ignore the rulings of duly appointed judges and courts, he imperils the rule of law upon which our system depends. What else can be the meaning of ignoring the ruling of a court to cease and desist in enforcement of a ban on offshore drilling?
When the President of the United States offers that he will use every perversion of law, and every available circumvention of the legal process to advance his agenda outside the bounds of the constitution, daring the American people to oppose him, he is challenging the very basic-most order he is sworn to maintain as the critical foundation of our civil society. In operating in this manner, he declares open warfare against the civil society we have maintained despite some rather unscrupulous characters over the long course of our history. Obama abhors the civil society, and his every action drips with the venom of his contempt.
Barack Obama conspires with other foreign influences to disrupt and dispirit the American people, their economy, and the liberties that make the success of either possible. George Soros is not an American, and his statements over time demonstrate his open enmity to the United States. In meeting with Soros, taking his funding, and coordinating policies with Soros’ own “Open Society Institute,” Barack Obama is inviting and even soliciting subversion, while acting himself as a foreign usurper.
Let us not shield our eyes from the truth any longer: Barack Obama is acting in contempt of his oath. His oath was not to the United Nations. It was not to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was not to George Soros or ACORN or any of the other myriad groups he openly serves. His oath was supposed to have been to uphold our constitution, but perhaps it was foreshadowing when Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t manage to get it right the first time around.
It is in consideration of the character of his execution of office that we discover that Obama is unfit, and by virtue of his aims, intentions, and policies, is morally ineligible to the office of President of the United States. You are free to go on about his legal status and legal eligibility if you like, because for the moment, this is still a free country, but I do not expect that to gain much purchase at the polling places around the country next November. The question isn’t whether he is eligible under law, but whether he had ever been eligible in spirit, or even within the spirit of the requirement as our founders had intended. Whatever his citizenship, Barack Obama is not American inside. It is his foreign polity and his alien sensibilities that make him ineligible to that office, but more, it is his practiced enmity to America that makes his continuance in office a moral absurdity. His loyalties to foreign concepts of governance make of him an heir to Nikita Khrushchev who promised “We will bury you.” His every policy is bent toward that purpose.
That the media conceals this from you, and the wider audience of Americans is no surprise, because many of them are openly treasonous even in times of war. That some among us permit themselves to be led astray about the intentions and designs of this man begins to speak to their moral character. The evidence is manifest. Barack Obama’s every action as president evinces a contempt for the US Constitution and the due processes of law, and civil society thereunder established. We can ill afford to permit him another term, and we should begin to ask, before it is too late, that he be removed from office by Congress with all due dispatch. We ought to demand it.
Not long after writing this, I ran into an audio clip from Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday. It’s from his opening monologue. In many ways, he expresses the same disgust with the current lawless administration: