OBAMA'S 'MADE IN THE USA' CAMPAIGN
WorldNetDaily
For a guy who spent two and a half years dodging questions about his constitutional eligibility and ignoring demands to provide the first piece of evidence necessary to determine it, Obama hopes to put the question behind him heading into the presidential election year.
But Obama will have to do better than that – especially with a book, "Where's the Birth Certificate", making the case of ineligibility riding high atop the best-sellers lists.
In fact, the literal meaning of Obama's campaign theme is as ambiguous as his credentials for the highest office in the land.
What does it actually mean?
Think about it.
What is the dictionary definition of "made"?
The first definition is the "simple past tense and past participle of make."
So let's take a look at "make."
-
"to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art."
-
"to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war."
- "to cause to be or become; render: to make someone happy."
And that is exactly what Obama did, according to "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President."
He phonied up that document. He combined parts. He produced. But has he made you happy?
Now let's examine the other definitions of "made."
-
"produced by making, preparing, etc., in a particular way."
-
"artificially produced."
- "invented or made-up: to tell made stories about oneself."
Intentionally or unintentionally, the Obama campaign is tipping its hand as to how he justifies himself as a "natural born citizen."
He did it his way – through artificial, not natural, means. He invented and made it up. He told stories about himself. He produced what was necessary to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Obama may be in the United States of America, but he is not of it.
And that's really the problem.
Whether or not he was born in the USA, a fact not yet in evidence with a "birth certificate" that has all the appearances of being manufactured by a committee, is not really the point.
That's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted and ratified the Constitution and set the minimal criteria for eligibility.
What they had in mind were men who had loyalties and sympathies for no other nation.
If ever there were a person who clearly did not fulfill that criteria at birth or thereafter it is Barack Hussein Obama.
According to his own story and the documents he uses to support it, his father was a visiting student from Kenya – a man who had no intention of becoming an American citizen and never did. He came for what America had to offer in terms of educational opportunities – an already married man who quickly returned to Africa and his existing family and loyalties.
No one can fault little Barack for that. But clearly it's not what the founders and their inspiration for the term "natural born citizen," Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, had in mind. In his "The Law of Nations," the term was defined as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
By that standard, it doesn't matter where Obama was born.
But, in Obama's remarkable case, it gets even worse.
By age 5, he was adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, who returned to his native country with his son, where he was registered for school as an Indonesian citizen. That adoption should have rendered the birth certificate released by the White House legally moot – null and void. The fact that Hawaii shows no knowledge of the adoption demonstrates the state's ineptitude or negligence as a credible record-keeping authority.
Made in the USA?
To paraphrase one of Obama's unworthy predecessors in the White House, it all depends on the definition of "made."
Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer
WND.com
<<...>>
Click here to learn more about the new book,
alerts@alerts.worldnetdaily.com
May 27, 2011