Michael Gaynor
President Obama: "Existential threat" to the Founders' America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
December 2, 2010

WARNING: Unless President Obama is shown to have lied to the American people, there is no assurance that he won't be re-elected.

Team Obama was skillful as well as lucky. It won the 2008 presidential election with (1) the words "hope" and "change," (2) a catchy slogan, "Yes We Can," (3) the substitution of "the fierce urgency of now" for experience, (4) the complicity (instead of scrutiny) of the liberal media establishment, (5) a well polished candidate who seemed non-threatening (and for whom race was a help instead of a hindrance), (6) a septuagenarian Republican presidential candidate who foolishly described his opponent as an admirable young man (and undercut his huge experience advantage by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate without explaining to America that SHE had more executive experience that Obama, Biden and himself combined and preparing her for an onslaught by a rabidly partisan liberal media establishment determined to disparage the attractive young pro-life female from outside the Beltway, (7) the benefit of growing national war-weariness and (8) a financial crisis attributable to bad loans made as a result of lowered lending standards and the protection of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from United States Treasury Department supervision primarily due to Democrats breaking after the nominations skillfully spun as essentially the fault of Wall Street and Republicans instead of the likes of ACORN and SEIU and their mostly Democrat allies.

Promptly after the inauguration, Team Obama quickly alienated most Americans by trying to "fundamentally transform" America against the will of the people.

America remained a center-right country, and doesn't want to be "fundamentally transform[ed]" into a socialist state, even at once or in stages.

Much about President Obama's life remains a mystery and/or a subject of speculation, including the circumstances of his birth, and, ironically, what has worked for President Obama as a distraction.

America's Constitution specifies: "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."

Monte Kuligowski, in "Obama's presidential eligibility: A misguided focus" (www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/101130):

"The Constitution's natural born clause was not written as some inane technicality; but rather as a way to prevent someone from assuming the presidency while holding conflicting loyalties and interests. It can be argued that the spirit and letter of the clause exists to prevent someone like Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., from holding the high office regardless of his place of birth.

"Mr. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore, regardless of birthplace, the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility should have been a serious consideration prior to his certification as the Democrat's presidential candidate for the 2008 election. The country had never witnessed a son born to a foreign national — having lived five boyhood years in a third world Islamic country — become a contender for the office of president of the United States.

"Hearings should have been held on all the legal issues. Evidence should have been presented. Legal arguments should have been made. And the United States Supreme Court should have announced a decision. A federal court ruling on the question would have produced confidence one way or the other and the law on natural born eligibility status would have been solidified.

"Well, it didn't quite work out that way and most of the focus shifted to the location of Obama's birth.

"Maybe Obama's refusal to release basic information all along ensured such a focus. Maybe the calculations of Obama's Chicago team guided the debate from the ill-advised conception of Barry's presidential candidacy.

"Until we get more information, we will never know."

We do know what the applicable law was determined to be, long before President Obama was born, and that applicable law puts the focus on place of birth.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

In support of its conclusion, the Court stated, inter alia:

"Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that, if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm, and saying that such a child 'was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.'"

If President Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, then he's a natural-born citizen.

President Obama has produced a certificate of live birth instead of his original birth certificate, naturally generating suspicion.

Regardless of where President Obama was born, he has a Kenyan connection, and that connection needs to be understood.

Inside flap of Dinesh D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage" (www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255):

"He's been called many things: a socialist, a radical fellow traveler, a Chicago machine politician, a prince of the civil rights movement, a virtual second coming of Christ, or even a covert Muslim.

"But as New York Times bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza points out in this shockingly revealing book, these labels merely slap our own preconceived notions on Barack Obama.

"The real Obama is a man shaped by experiences far different from those of most Americans; he is a much stranger, more determined, and exponentially more dangerous man than you'd ever imagined. He is not motivated by the civil rights struggles of African Americans in the 1960s — those battles leave him wholly untouched. He is not motivated by the socialist or Marxist propaganda that hypnotized a whole generation of wooly — minded academics and condescending liberals — those concepts also leave him cold.

"What really motivates Barack Obama is an inherited rage — an often masked, but profound rage that comes from his African father; an anticolonialist rage against Western dominance, and most especially against the wealth and power of the very nation Barack Obama now leads. It is this rage that explains the previously inexplicable, and that gives us a startling look at what might lie ahead.

"In The Roots of Obama's Rage you'll learn: Why Obama's economic policies are actually designed to make America poorer compared to the rest of the world Why Obama will welcome a nuclear Iran Why Obama sees America as a rogue nation — worse than North Korea The real reason Obama banished a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and ordered NASA to praise the scientific contributions of Muslims Why Obama would like to make America's superpower status a thing of the past.

"Stunning, provocative, original, and telling — no one has better diagnosed who Obama is, what he intends to do, and why he poses an existential threat to America than Dinesh D'Souza in The Roots of Obama's Rage."

D'Souza is right...that President Obama poses "an existential threat to America."

That's because President Obama is a stealth socialist instrument who has not been effectively exposed as a liar.

He's lied about his relationship with ACORN, including during the last of the 2008 presidential debates, and ACORN filed for bankruptcy on Election Day 2010, surely in the hope that the Republicans in the House of Representatives will not investigate when they take control in January, because ACORN's candidate is living in the White House, exercising presidential power, and ACORN wants him to continue to do so, even if ACORN must transform.

Whether or not he lied about WHERE he was born, he lied about WHY, claiming that his parents were inspired by the Selma Marchs. (He was born on August 4, 1961. The Selma Marchs took place in 1965.

See www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992602/posts:

"A year ago, Barack Obama addressed a group in Selma, AL commemorating the 1965 voting rights march. He credited the event with giving his parents the idea that they could have a child. The result was him — Barack Obama, Child of Destiny. The only problem is he was born in 1961.

"'What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation...This young man named Barack Obama...came over to this country. He met this woman...(who) had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided...it might...be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

"'I'm here because somebody marched.' http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/04/selma_voting_rights_march_comm.php"

Republicans enthusiastically celebrating winning control of the House of Representatives and 23 of the 37 Senate races last month need to remember that after the Watergate break-in Richard Nixon won 49 of 50 states against Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern. Nixon's political base collapsed only after the bulk of the American people decided that he had lied to them when he said he was "not a crook."

WARNING: Unless President Obama is shown to have lied to the American people, there is no assurance that he won't be re-elected.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

December 7, 2017
President Trump should privately consult Ed Rollins and appoint a new attorney general to supervise Special Counsel Mueller's investigation


December 6, 2017
Bad jury verdicts like the one that found Kate Steinle's death to be a tragic accident are shameless politicking


October 22, 2017
Sharon Waxman and Bill O'Reilly are both right. New York Times spikes legitimate exposes when they don't fit its business and/or political agendas


September 13, 2017
George Soros anointing Patrick Gaspard is bad news


August 17, 2017
Is the liberal media deliberately shilling for the far left or blinded by Trumpphobia to its misdeeds?


August 8, 2017
President Trump won't kowtow to or pay off North Korea


August 2, 2017
Tragically, aging and ailing Senator McCain teamed with "resist" Democrats and pro-Planned Parenthood nominal Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to prolong Obamacare and postpone Trumpcare


June 12, 2017
Senator Gillibrand is the reckless liar, not President Trump!


May 31, 2017
Does the price of the Murdochs owning Sky entirely include Sean Hannity leaving Fox News?


May 30, 2017
Will President Trump invoke the Bush Doctrine to eliminate the North Korean nuclear threat?


More articles