Constitution
Birthers, Wimps, Obots and Constitutional Criminals
In a world where success is demonized and government entitlements are celebrated, it shouldn’t be any surprise that citizens wanting to uphold the Constitution are ridiculed. These are the “birthers” of current political lore. But the worst offenders against them are not whom you think.
Birthers
The “birthers” hold Obama’s feet to the fire regarding the Constitution’s eligibility requirement for presidents. They shouldn’t be demeaned; they should be honored. These people aren’t kooks promoting some absurd conspiracy theory. They are patriots who value the rule of law. On top of which, they have proved they have the backbone to stand against the ridicule and pursue what is right.
Wimps
Obama’s long-form birth certificate, as released by the White House. This is not evidence. Obama’s own lawyers admitted that it is not evidence. Screen capture by CNAV from White House image.
Of course there are others who hold similar beliefs. But they cower in the face of ridicule and let the Obot bullies silence their concerns. I’ll call them wimps, but they are worse. They are cowards and yellowbellies. They lack the backbone the birthers have. These wimps know the birthers are right but they run into a corner and cower instead of standing up for what they know are valid arguments.
Obots
Then we have the Obots. The Obots are those who accuse everyone who criticizes the man now occupying the White House as racists. The fact of the matter may be that they are the biggest racists of all – there I said it! They refuse to see – or even consider the truth – based on Obama’s skin color. They have made him a hero and nothing anyone says or does, no amount of proof, no argument – no matter how well-founded or logical – will open their minds. He’s their hero and their hero worship is reminiscent of those yelling “Heil Hitler”. And like the German people who were mesmerized by this madman, they also march lockstep while the stench of BO permeates everything noble this country embraces. In Germany, Hitler could do no wrong. In America, neither can Obama. The frightening thing is that most of the media march lockstep with the Obots.
Constitutional criminals
Lastly we have the Constitutional Criminals. They are our judges who have bowed down at the altar of the Obots. Who knows why! Perhaps they are Obots themselves, or perhaps they’re nothing more than wimps. The fact of the matter is that they have refused to honestly consider the challenges to Obama’s eligibility regardless of what category they fall into. Before anyone comments that this is nothing more than “sour grapes” due to failed court challenges, let me say that in New Jersey the Constitutional Criminals agreed with the argument that even Mickey Mouse could be on the ballot. Although our Constitution clearly sets standards for eligibility, these Constitutional Criminals in black robes refused to see the evidence that would have kept Obama off the ballot. Yes, they may be wimps or they may be Obots, no matter, they are Constitutional Criminals of the worse kind. Those who have sworn and oath to preserve, protect and uphold our Constitution are the very ones who have disregarded it and made it inconsequential. “Constitutional Criminals” may be too civilized a label for these tyrants in black robes – “Traitor” may be a more apt term.
Birther, Wimp, Obot or Constitutional Criminal (a/k/a Traitor), what are you?
RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.
-
Clergy4 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization2 days agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization3 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Constitution1 day agoBiden as Feeble Joe – now they tell us
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization2 days agoA Sometimes-Squabbling Conservative Constellation Gathers at Charlie Kirk Invitation
-
Civilization2 days agoLeveraging the Defense Production Act to Stockpile Minerals
-
Civilization3 days agoRepublicans Should Use Article 5 To Protect Our Institutions
Roseann –
Nice how you categorize the various groups, vis-a-vis Obama’s unconstitutional presidency.
It has now been confirmed that the Executive Branch of our US government is occupied by a man who engineered a fraudulent birth certificate to assist himself in legitimizing his qualifications for the office. Yet, no one but birthers, are offended that this egregious crime against our Constitutional Republic isn’t highlighted far and wide by the news media and is widely accepted by the elected political leaders who are sworn to protect the very Constitution which is being violated……….
So, to summarise, anyone who doesn’t agree with your fringe views is dishonest or stupid or both. And you, as a Birther, apparently respect the rule of law, where they don’t.
Of course another view might be that you are the one who has little or no respect for the rule of law. Your lack of respect for the determinations of properly constituted courts speaks volumes on that account.
But instead of accepting those (multiple) decisions you call the judges traitors. Do you see any contradiction in your position?
No, I do not.
Both the author of the original piece, and I, read the Constitution, and read it plainly.
We reject, absolutely, categorically, and utterly, the proposition that a Constitution means whatever a court says it means, any time said court says it.
We find that the plain reading of the Constitution says that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
We have further evidence that the so-called birth certificate is a forgery, and a very crude forgery at that.
We find that getting a birth certificate in the State of Hawaii is simple enough even for someone born out-of-State, or out-of-country, to manage. So if that birth certificate were genuine, which we do not for one moment concede, it would prove absolutely nothing.
So any judge who accepts that document as probative is impeachably derelict in his duty.
We are in a Constitutional crisis. It’s all very well for you to say, “Meh! I don’t care. I have the result I want.” But be careful what you wish for, or cheer. It means that justice in this country has become, not an issue of law, but an issue of men. Today, the judges are your friends. A decade hence, the judges might be nobody’s friends. Not even yours.
Oh dear, oh dear. It’s not me cheering for a particular result. It’s you.
All I am cheering for is the rule of law.
You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the rulings of properly constituted courts because you didn’t get the result you wanted.
I don’t actually care which way the courts rule. In fact I would find it quite interesting if they ruled your President ineligible. It would make for an interesting legal position.
But you don’t care a jot for the rule of law. You just want your own way. If the courts interpret the constitution in a particular way then that is what the constitution actually means. That is the job of the courts – to tell us what the constitution actually means. Your views are no doubt interesting but, where they disagree with the courts, your views are wrong as a matter of law.
The fact that you make an appeal to the rule of law is an irony that you clearly fail to understand.
Do not cite the rule of law to me. Not when your favorite putative President, Barack Obama, runs roughshod over the Constitution in many other ways, in addition to his not even being eligible to the office, but holding it anyway.
And by that comment you reinforce the point:
“You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the rulings of properly constituted courts because you didn’t get the result you wanted.”
Name one freedom you don’t have today, that you had the day before Obama was sworn in.
Give when example where the Constitutional court has struck down something the President has done.
Give one example where the legal system has declared Obama ineligible.
You can’t. And yet you blather on. That is why you come across as a bitter, old, crazy man.
With no soul, because it’s more important for you to bitch about the black man in the White House, than to feel remorse for the victims of a shooting.
I no longer have the right to choose my personal physician, or work out with him how I shall pay him. Right now, the putative President allows that. In two years, he will disallow that. Any time a President may allow or disallow a thing, I no longer have the right to do it. Permission and right are not the same. Part of having the right to do a thing is never having to ask permission.
Now as it happens, courts have struck down the deliberate impediments to the licensure of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, that does not stop the putative President. His attitude is a curious and chilling blend of Jacksonism and Nixonism when it comes to what courts dictate.
Color and race do not matter. Ideas matter. And the ideas of Barack Hussein Obama come out of a white man’s books (Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, etc). Those ideas are no less horrible for all that.
Obama’s policies would never be accepted as serious policy positions within any self-respecting Communist party, and certainly don’t appear in the works of Marx and Engels – so we can cut the hysteria that Obama is some kind of red hiding under your bed.
Whilst his policies are regarded by many ideological Communists as “better than the Republicans”, it is seen as the old Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich dilemma, i.e. choosing between two options which are equally repulsive.
Ideological Communists regard ensuring grater access to healthcare to the poor by extending medicaid as a tentative step in the right direction, but absolutely oppose the involvement of the private sector in healthcare, and especially any legislation which generates customers for them by not including a public option that is available to anyone.
Furthermore, the granting of stimulus money to finance capital at the expense of manufacturing and infrastructure is likewise seen as reprehensible, and is in fact seen as the exact opposite of the ideological objective of the communist movement.
All true as far as it goes. But do you imagine for one moment that I have never heard of incrementalism? Put something in place that gets people used to the Basic Communist Idea. And then move a little further, and a little further, and a little further.
Obama has ratcheted up the plan several notches. He has employed, or deployed, the Cloward-Piven tactic: overwhelm the welfare system and other government systems with clients so that they collapse totally, and then offer to “rebuild”—with Communism.
Frances Fox Piven is, of course, still alive, and still advising Obama, even if from the outside. (Richard Cloward, her husband, died several years ago.)
You are obviously going to vote for Romney (unless he’s indicted for tax evasion).
How do you equate that vote with the fact that he’s just as big as Marxist as Obama, for introducing Romneycare… and before you start, it’s also socialised medicine.
For that matter, how you feel about voting for a tax dodger? And somebody who shipped US jobs offshore?
Or will you deny those happened?
Considering the source (the Obama source, that is), I don’t have to lend credence to a single charge that you have repeated from that source.
And aren’t you a Marxist yourself?