SLICING THE PIE FROM THE OTHER SIDE:

….the legal term “Birthright,” is in no law dictionary!

Odd as it may seem—that one legal term apparently has been left out of the lexicon of modern law. Many people may be chagrined and find it hard to understand why the legal profession has omitted what most citizens, consider a fundamental organic right. For simply defining it, a ‘birthright’ per se, is simply having and asserting the rights to which your forefathers had, and obtained by status and right. America citizens for instance, have many, many birthrights, amoung them, the right to be freeborn; the right to constitutional common law protections; the right to habeas corpus; the right to trial by jury; to confront your accuser; & etc., as well as the right of American citizenship. These are all fundamental rights that we all proudly inherit, and most citizens, without any prompting, at the drop of a hat could cite you a litany of further rights that we obtain as American Citizens…by mere birthright.

…More than this, you will find that most American’s are proud of these rights, and will proclaim them loudly at any time or place. So, perhaps the law dictionaries, through inadvertency or excusable neglect, were correct in omitting, something, which we all readily understand, as our birthrights.

A man born in this country is able to reach down and grab in his hands, the fruits of what that birthright is, to which many American’s died to defend. The solemn act of holding our own soil and homeland within our own hands, is again, a right of passage, of pride, which will stir the blood of any citizen. To hold in your hand, that which is yours by right, which attaches it to you, and you to it; is something which has led many American men to foreign lands in which to defend and make the ultimate sacrifice for that simple gift.

Our Founding Father’s somewhat understood this, when they sagely incorporated within our original Constitution under Article II, Section 1, clause 5—the solemn requirement, that the person who desired the office of the Presidency of the United States, had to be able to actualize that natural born birthright, of reaching down, and holding the land which was truly theirs. Not mere dirt, per se, but American soil. Their home. The land of their ancestors and the soil from whence they came. The Founder’s knew, that such men, molded not from multiculturalist mechanizations, but rather, a natural born American background and tutelage, would be the correct individuals to whom would evolve the reigns of government, to lead this nation. These men would not only lead, but also have the intrinsic mettle to defend it, and die for it if necessary. That natural born requirement, would be the ultimate resume and fail-safe of our government, in times of exigency and trouble, that would guide that office, to the correct legal, and more importantly: moral determination, which would become the blessings and protections of all American citizens.

You cannot teach this birthright, nor can you accredit it, or devolve it by Legislative passage. It has to be actualized, in other words, it had to have really occurred. In order to attain the Presidency of the United States, one must have been actually born here…and able to reach down, and hold within his hands his true inheritance.

Any Citizen thusly, through pride, through passage, upon any request or challenge, would have the predicate (and simple) requirement of producing that which must be his by identity. From what piece of earth do you emanate? What is your birthright?

There appears to be a substantive controversy as to where Mr. Obama really came from. Indeed, the fact that there is any question at all—is the endemic problem here. We don’t have to produce birth certificates; we don’t have to propound law suits—we merely must have production of mere identity. In other words, the simple truth.

Now many, on the Democratic side, are shrilly proffering the screed that any question leveled as to Mr. Obama’s citizenship, is both unfair and racist. Indeed it may be intentionally inflicted by some, for that stolid purpose. However, we are compelled to ask ourselves; is this question legal? Is it moral? And most importantly: is it the right question?? And that is where we currently are. The question is indeed legal. It is mandated. And it is necessary. It now has become one of exigency.

For if a man would lie about his birthright, and obtusely deny it; does it follow, that we then hand over to such a person, the reigns of the highest office on earth?

We must answer this question by not promoting what many adverse contemporaries say about this issue, but rather; what is not said, by Mr. Obama himself. Any American would have answered this question upon first blush a considerable time ago. They would have properly produced into the record, any and all certifications and declarations necessary to assert the birthright, of which; we must all defend if indeed, Mr. Obama is American.

Yet, there are a litany of questions and accusations, of which silence only muddles this question. The sources to which I refer to are:

1. The October Surprise—Suit to Remove Barack Obama From the Ballot, & etc. at: http://www.NationalWritersSyndicate.com

Proof Barack Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery; at:

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2008/08/proof-barack-obama-birth-certificate-is.html

3. Barack Obama Birth Certificate Image Tampering Analysis Redux; at:

http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis-redux

4. Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Stirs Controversy; at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/814409/barack_obamas_birth_certificate_stirs.html

5. Born in the U.S.A., The Truth About Obama’s Birth Certificate; at:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

6. Barack Obama Birthday Gate: Obama Birth Certificate Dispute; at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/929577/barack_obama_birthday_gate_obama_birth.html?cat=9

[There are many, many other citations on this subject.]

And thereby, we must ask ourselves, where are we on this issue?

Simply this: That this election is not about Mr. Obama…it’s about upholding the concise rule of law. And our law, for good, wholesome, and substantive cause under the American constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 5, is what is the real issue here. This issue is not about womanhood, nor is it about race (although some are desperate to bring that issue into this question), and it is not about affirmative action. This is about law, and about what is right and more importantly: what is legally required by operation of law. Mr. Obama should know this as well as his Democratic party, each of whom should be frank, open and concise upon this issue—and remit to the American people, full public disclosure on this situation—which means full and truthful public disclosure…something, unfortunately, which may be beyond them.

As this issue further fulminates, it is the detractors against Obama whom gain more credence…and to that end, we must take solemn note and listen, to the rising cacophony of accusations, that Mr. Obama is not what he seems. And in the final analysis, if he indeed, is not an American citizen, then why the obfuscation; why the denial; and why would Mr. Obama eschew his own Kenyan birthright?

That may be the biggest question we are to answer in this current debate, and one which the Kenyan, not American people should take cognizance of.

The Birthright of Barack Obama.

October 16, 2008 NWS, by Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply