Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page

Obama - Crossing the Threshold
into a Post-Constitutonal Abyss

John Haskins

[COMMENT:  John is a good friend, an excellent writer and thinker, and right on target below.     E. Fox]


This is a note I wrote to a friend who voted for Obama and is excited about him. He considers himself to be a Christian. His e-mail precedes my reply.
From: dan             Tues, Dec 09, 12:32 AM
Subject: Daniel Winters has shared a Huffington Post article with you

Daniel Winters has shared a Huffington Post article with you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html
They also included a personal note:
        Well, guess there's no stopping Obama now. The suit's filer would be considered a fringe crank for also claiming that John McCain is ineligible to be President. Lawyers for the McCain campaign, and a host of others, concluded long ago that McCain's birth on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone qualifies him as a natural born US citizen. The only presidential candidate for whom this might've been a real issue was Adlai Stevenson, who was born in Arizona or another Western state which was still a territory at the time of his birth. P.S. Hillary as Secretary of State - great platform to launch her next presidential bid in 2016, if Obama gets re-elected.  -- sent by Dan
We are crossing a threshold into a post-constitutional abyss.

I realize you are delighted by this man who I regard as an extremely dangerous anti-Christ figure who will make George Bush seem like a good deal.  I regard this moment as possibly equivalent to the election of Adolf Hitler (by coincidence, also not a natural born German citizen).  That popular choice worked out well for most Germans -- for about a decade.  I do not expect to be among those for whom a fundamentally illegal Obama dictatorship will be a good deal.  He will further criminalize Christianity and impose mandatory indoctrination of children into accepting homosexuality, with Stalinist "hate crimes" prosecution and lawsuits to incarcerate, bankrupt and otherwise intimidate Christians as is now happening in Canada and across Europe. 

He has promised to violate the Constitution by using federal power to wipe out all state restrictions on abortion and the killing of babies who survive abortion including such universally accepted things as notification of the parents of juveniles in the hands of Planned Parenthood and others that generate hundreds of millions of dollars performing often illegal abortions. This will expand to include so-called "euthanasia" of the elderly and infirm. This is on its face an act of dictatorship. It is an obvious restoration of Nazi doctrine and policy. The key distinction is that Obama is no nationalist, nor even a patriot.  He is in fact a member of the anti-American globalist movement.

McCain's situation is different from Obama' for several reasons. McCain, I believe, contrary to media reports, was not born on a military base but in a civilian hospital in Panama. His eligibility or lack thereof involves several other factors than Obama's.  Both McCain parents were Americans.  But even Obama's mother could not confer automatic citizenship on him because she had not lived in American for the required period of time preceding his birth.  Therefore, since Obama refuses to release a valid birth certificate, it seems obvious the powers of the Presidency will be held by an ineligible foreign-born person, who therefore will not be in law the President, but merely a usurper, a tyrant posing as lawfully elected president.  A dictator, kept in power only by the willful ignorance of tens of millions of citizens and the ruthless complicity of both major political parties, which have been erasing the Constitution one piece at a time for the last hundred years.

I voted for neither McCain nor Obama and have little or no respect for McCain and I regard Obama as a soulless creature who will put the finishing touches on the transformation of the United States into a post-constitutional dictatorship in which all the major decisions are made by oligarchs without regard to elections or the Constitution. We have reached the point at which anti-constitutional global governance thinly disguised as "international law" is likely to negate our democratic system and continue the eradication of our unalienable rights.  Obama is the perfect instrument for that process to be taken to a new level.
Donofrio's suit was very esoteric and doomed to be rejected because his logic (from my cursory examination) is debatable.  One major problem is that he conceded Obama's claim that he was born in Hawaii.  This is apparently a false claim.  No Hawaiian hospital will confirmed this claim.  Obama's relatives say he was born in Kenya.  His grandmother is on a recorded interview saying she was present at his birth in Kenya.  The purported "birth certificate" from Hawaii is nothing of the kind.  It is merely a certificate of live birth, a very different kind of document which at that time was available for babies brought into the country from abroad.  Moreover, several document experts have pronounced even that meaningless piece of paper a very obvious fake.
What is not debatable is the logic of one of the other suits pending, that of Dr. Alan Keyes, which does not accept Obama's claim of a birth on American soil as established.  Wisely, Keyes is not asserting that Obama was not born in Hawaii for two reasons:
    1. it is vital to keep the burden of proof where it must be legally: on the candidate. If a plaintiff in a suit claims that Obama was born overseas the media, politicians of both parties (which almost to the last man and woman treat the state and federal Constitutions as a big joke) and the corrupt courts will use that claim to reverse the burden of proof.  (Of course it is virtually impossible for anyone to prove conclusively that Obama was born outside the United States.  All records have been sealed in every country where he has resided.  It is a trait or Orwellian government and "news reporting" that the burden of proof is always shifted to the side that has been designated to lose.  In fact, the burden of proof is on Obama, not on those suing him.)
    2. There is a slim chance that Obama is refusing to document his birth merely to bring out a real birth certificate at the last minute in order to make fools of those who demanded that he present one before taking the oath of office. (I regard this as approaching zero probability.  It seems extremely likely that Obama was born in Kenya and is ineligible for the office of President of the United States.)
It is important to understand what this means:

...in an analysis in the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira, suggested there would be major problems should Obama not be eligible, and assume the office anyway.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."

The result would be any appointments made by an ineligible president, and all the appointees' decisions, would be invalid, he said. Vieira suggested Obama supporters should be the ones raising the questions, because of the discredit that would follow a revelation of ineligibility.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

He also suggested Obama's silence on the issue, itself, is a concern. ...it involves the man who could have his finger next to a nuclear button. He also said the question would remain whether any laws he signs would be valid. Even after Obama takes the oath of office, the questions will remain, he suggested.

Wes Pruden, editor emeritus of the Washington Times, said Obama's refusal to authorize release of his birth certificate has fueled the dispute.

"This has led to furious speculation on the Internet that Mr. Obama's parents returned to Hawaii with him shortly after his birth and simply registered his Kenyan birth certificate, certified by the doctor who delivered him and by the hospital where he was born, with the Hawaii Department of Health. Why, these skeptics ask, won't the president-elect authorize release of the original Hawaii certificate and squelch speculation once and for all?" he said.

Dan, Obama took large amounts of money for his campaign from overseas interests.  This was obviously illegal. Yet there will be no repercussions.  Obama owes huge favors to the dictatorship in Kenya (and probably Indonesia) The media are so drunk on Obama's status as Savior of Mankind that they hardly mentioned any of this.  His entire background is meant to be taken on faith.  This is unprecedented.  As horrible as the Clintons and Bushes were, we have crossed a threshold in American history.  We no longer have a constitution and we are under a dictatorship, but one that most Americans regard as an acceptably benevolent one.  All the sodomy-based "marriage" opinions from the various courts were legally void for obvious reasons: judges have no authority to make, suspend or rewrite law.  All judges can do is issue opinions to the law-making body (legislatures and Congress) and the executive branch. These opinions are then to be considered by the two elected branches as to whether they are faithful to the law or not.  If not they are to be treated as null and void.  Many governors and presidents have done so in the past.  But in order for democracy to be fully replaced by oligarchy the myth of judges' opinions being supreme over all else must be impressed upon American minds.
This is from an article I ghost wrote for Paul Weyrich (I'm sure you've heard of him he's considered one of the founders of the Reagan Revolution and the modern conservative movement): 
We have flouted the warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  ...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the strongest advocate of "judicial review" -- the right of judges to express their opinions on our laws and our Constitution.
But an opinion on the meaning of the Constitution is merely an advisory opinion to the legislative and executive branches of government. Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, intentionally have been given no means of enforcing their opinions, noting that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to obey false or dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:
...The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. ...
[T]he judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will....
Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land:
...If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
The article is at my website under Weyrich's name:
A founder of the Reagan revolution warns America:
'Conservatives are unwittingly aiding in the destruction of America.'
"I fear the conservative elites are putting the final nail in our coffin. ... They are foolishly handing absolute power to anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-family ideologues."
"This is where the trajectory of the post-constitutional 'pragmatism' undergirding the 'conservative revolution' has taken us. ...if we continue ...we may reach the point of tyranny and persecution...."     

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Obama-Politics;   Conservative Collapse;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  12/10/2008   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012