Posted by
G Dennis Key on Friday, November 06, 2009 12:00:00 AM
This updated article was originally published on March 20, 2009 at: http://denniskey.blogspot.com
Subtitle: And Do We Still Not Dare Call It Treason?
The first time I was in Italy on business, I noticed that people in the major cities frequently did not stop at an intersection when the light was red. I don't mean that they tried to get through before it turned red, like we sometime see (or do) in the US, I mean that coming up to a light that was completely red, they frequently did not stop, especially taxicab drivers. My German colleague, with whom I was traveling, said that the practice had become so pervasive that at especially busy times in the day, some cab drivers would stop when the light was green, for fear that other cab drivers might not stop at the red. I found the same non-stopping practice in Taiwan, and my Taiwanese colleague explained that in his country, the color of the traffic signal was viewed only as an advisory, not as an imperative.
In an interestin parallel, distinguishing in the behavior and quotes, both written and oral, of Barack Hussein Obama, is his disregard (even contempt), for the US constitution, the content of which he seems to view, "only as an advisory, not as an imperative".
Let's review the following excerpts from the Constitution:.........
Article I, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States. . . . . . . .
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;. . . . . . . .
...........and consider these points:
***His African grandmother has said that she was in the room in Kenya when Barack was born. (Her
input is being completely ignored by the courts and by main stream media).
***He claims to have been born in Hawaii, but cannot, or will not, produce legal verification. (So far the
courts have refused to hear, and main stream media has ignored or ridiculed the evidence against him).
***He has spent mega $$$ (reputed to be over two and a half million dollars to-date), to deny anyone access to his birth records, (or
any of his school records) anywhere in the world, (which blatantly suggests that he has premeditated to hide the facts of his national origin, how his ivy league education was funded and how he fared in any educational endeavor, from the elementary grades through law school ).
***His mother was maybe only seventeen when he was born; meaning, she was under the legal age to pass on US citizenship to her son if she gave birth to him while out of the country. (The courts and main stream media have completely ignored or ridiculed this suggestion as well).
The outright refusal by Barack Hussein Obama to produce legal birth records, and the preponderance of evidence against his natural citizenship, suggest collusion by Obama, some federal judges, and perhaps even Supreme Court justices, to defraud the nation, by violation of Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution during his candidacy, and ultimate election to the Senate, and violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, during his candidacy, and ultimate election to the Presidency. Why would so much detail have been applied to the Constitution by our nation's framers if we were to be allowed to ignore the requirements, or simply take the "word" of the candidate, no questions asked?
Article II, Section 1: 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."
Although he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, Obama's written and oral statements before, and after his election, testify to his real intentions regarding that hallowed document. From his book, The Audacity of Hope, pages 89-92, we read the following excerpt:
“When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction.
Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.”
I don't know about you, but this ridiculous distortion of the intent of the founders and ratifiers, in particular Madison, sounds very much like, ". . . . . . the color of the traffic signal (or the US Constitution) is viewed only as an advisory, not as an imperative".
Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Once again, his written and oral statements before, and after his election, testify to his real intentions regarding his respect (or lack thereof) for the words of our Constitution.
In his book entitled, The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Hussein Obama, published October, 2006, we find written:
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
The Obama camp has dismissed reports claiming that he said in the book, "If the political winds shift in and ugly direction, I will stand with the Muslims." From the direct statement quoted above, it would seem that people have rightly concluded that in summary, Obama was actually saying, yeah you guessed it, “should the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will stand with the Arabs and Pakistanis (Muslims)".
Sooo we find another Democrat president arguing semantics with the American people:
January 21, 1998-Bill Clinton's telephone interview with Roll Call
Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out – what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what is. But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just –
Q: Was it in any way sexual?
A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.
And now let us consider some more troubling facts:
During his initial week in office, after having been sworn in as President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, deliberately addressed his first official telephone call to Mahmoud Abbas, a Muslim, and leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory of Gaza. Later that same day he ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Muslim terrorist holding facility, the cessation of all military trials of the Muslim detainees at that facility, including those implicated in the 9/11 bombings, withdrew all charges against the Muslim masterminds behind the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and 9/11 and ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
Then, in the same deliberate manner, he then granted his first official, one-on-one interview, as President of the United States, to Al Arabia television.
We subsequently learned that the Obama administration had earmarked $20M of additional aid to Palestinians in the Gaza region, bringing the total US commitment to $60M, (some have said that as much as $800M has been committed to the Palestinians), after the Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House. This in spite of the well publicized fact that Gaza militants rained thousands of missiles upon Israel until the only reasonable response by Israel was an offensive, then the Palestinians asked the international community for aid, and they responded favorably, and now in spite of the fact that Hamas continues to hijack the aid trucks, keeping them from reaching their intended targets, the civilian 'victims'. Furthermore, a generous part of this new commitment of US aid is specifically intended to assist in the migration to America of thousands of Palestinian Muslim 'refugees'.
His association with terrorists, Muslim terrorists, terrorist organizations, communists, socialists, and others that wish to do America harm are well documented, and he has indeed given aid to the enemy, by word and deed, during a time of war. What more does one need to do in order to be in violation of the clause which states: Treason against the United States, shall consist . . . . . . in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (see also Introspection: Show Me The Company You Keep, And I'll Tell You Who You Are 11/4/2009)
Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,. . . . . .
The Constitution guarantees to every state in the Union a Republican Form of Government, yet the Obama administration, by principle, by statement and by actions, advocates a system of socialism; Such things as providing universal health care, taking aggressive action to take away from those who have earned the most while producing the most and redistributing to those who have produced the least (or nothing), a plethora of entitlement programs, systematic nationalization of corporations such as banks and other industries such as auto makers, increasing social welfare, attempting to force industry in America into unionizing all labor (Where employed, the irrefutable, and greatest contributor to the downfall of American competitiveness in many world markets is US trade unions.), etc.
republicanism (guaranteed by the Constitution):A system that is based upon a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote , and is exercised by representatives elected directly or indirectly by them and responsible to them.
socialism (in Communist doctrine): The stage of society coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated, as in the Soviet Union , and the production of goods is sufficient to permit realization of the slogan, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.
Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . . . ..
When Obama was sworn in as president, as all presidents before him had done, he said "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." Article VI clearly states that he is bound by that oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. By his conduct and comments it would seem to be his view that this oath is perhaps irrelevant to the 21st Century as well.
Excerpts from the Bill of Rights:
Article III: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The continual, and unprecedented, public attacks by Obama upon private citizens like Joe the plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and public companies like Fox News and Conservative talk radio in general, is a indicative of his disdain for the principles that were the foundation of Article III.
Article IV: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Obama is intent upon restricting and/or denying citizens the right of the people to keep and bear arms, by registration, by taxation , by confiscation, or by the redefining of the intent of Article IV to mean "guns for hunting", all this in direct violation of the expressed intent and verbiage of Article IV, which was to insure the defense of the nation, with such defense capability growing from the smallest unit, the family domicile.
Article XII: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Obama is intent upon creating and/or expanding central government power beyond anything ever before conceived in American history.
And so in summary we must conclude the following:
****Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore, his election to Congress and to the Presidency violated Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
****Obama, promotes a socialist form of government , in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees a republican form.
****He promotes the expansion of central government control, in violation of states rights, as defined in Article XII of the Bill of Rights.
****He has attacked the free speech of American citizens and threatens to deprive them of the right to dissent, (with actions such as those found in the so called "Fairness Doctrine"), in violation of Article III of the Bill of Rights.
****He is determined to disarm America’s law abiding citizens, in violation of Article IV of the Bill of
Rights.
****He has given (and continues to give) aid and comfort to our enemies, even now when we are at war, in
violation of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines his actions as Treason!
As we review all of the many ways that Barack Hussein Obama, his liberal administration, the majority liberal Congress and the liberally dominated Supreme Court ignore or disrespect the purposes and directions of the Constitution, it is easy for the lay person to conclude that this noble document is no longer being enforced or revered by those who have sworn to uphold it's integrity.
"I might love, but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates (do not) didn’t speak to my own. It (is) was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that (I've) I’d packed all the attributes I (seek) sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm , DuBois and Mandela. (Barack Hussein Obama, Dreams From My Father, A Story Of Race And Inheritance! )
And so I wonder, what shall America do with one who would continually, and pervasively, spit upon our freedom, our faith, our national heritage and our history? He does so because, as you see in his own words, he does not regard these things to be his freedom, his faith, his national heritage or his history.
Obama has frequently declared that Abraham Lincoln is the president that he most wants to emulate, but Lincoln’s intellectual hero was, Thomas Jefferson! From the biography, Thomas Jefferson, published by Mr. R.B. Bernstein, we find the following view of Alexander Hamilton: "Jefferson feared that Hamilton had plans radically at odds with the Constitution. As [Jefferson] saw it, Hamilton wanted to warp the federal government out of constitutional shape, converting it into a copy of the British government, built on debt, corruption, and influence. Hamilton's goal, Jefferson charged, was to ally the rich and well-born with the government, at the people's expense, creating a corrupt aristocracy leagued with the government against the people and destroying the virtue that was the basis of republican government."
This view of Alexander Hamilton, just attributed to Jefferson, clearly describes the objectives of Barack Hussein Obama (but not Lincoln or Jefferson). It is also the view of advisors, colleagues and appointees that he has brought into close association within his administration, including his own Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geitner. Jefferson wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution, to give more power to the states, while Hamilton favored a broad interpretation to strengthen the central government. Jefferson wanted to give the common people more opportunities to participate in government, while Hamilton believed that ‘commoners’ were too ignorant, and therefore incapable of self-government.
In 1776 A.D., Patrick Henry, a great patriot of the American Revolution, uttered this passionate and immortalized statement, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. He was captured. . . . . and hanged. . . . . during the Revolution, one of many who fought and died for my freedom . . . .and yours. I will not willingly give up my freedom, which those who came before us protected with their very lives. From American history books, we can read of the great sacrivices that were made so that we could live as we have lived, in Freedom. True, and profound, is the well known statement, "All gave some; and Some gave all"
Nor will I give up my faith in the God of Creation whom I serve, or side with those who stand for everything that is contrary to Him.
In (~) 1452 B.C., Joshua, a great patriarch of the Bible, said, "If serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, . . . But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord".
And so, I must pray that Barack Hussein Obama's evil plan to destroy all that we hold dear, will fail. I will surely pray that he will, "let us live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness". And though I may pray that God will change Obama's heart, and that he will turn to Him for guidance, I cannot and I will not pray for the success of one who heads such an onerous agenda, which is wrong in every way!
Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.