How can it be that the Soviet Russia can peaceably relinquish its unlawfully conquered territory and not the US, that beacon of liberty and freedom? How can it be that the Czech Republic and Slovakia can amicably separate but reversion of occupied Hawaii back to its rightful sovereign independence is not possible? Is the right to self-determination no longer a cherished principle of the America?  

Is Obama’s disqualification the reason he instantly supported and co-sponsored the goofy bill from Senator (D-Mo.) Claire McCaskill? (See “Obama Backs Law Helping McCain”). How can it be that the esteemed Constitutional Law Professor Obama could support this bill, knowing full well that an Article V Amendment to the Constitution would be required to modify the Presidential qualifications found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4?   

Back in March of 2007 Obama rightly castigated the constitutionally inoculated GWBush over his disastrous US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. See the following excerpts from “Obama: Bush Not Respecting Constitution”. 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday accused President Bush of failing to respect the Constitution amid the uproar over the firing of eight federal prosecutors. 

The Illinois senator also took a swipe at embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Obama has joined several other Democrats in calling for Gonzales to resign. 

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. "I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer." 

GWBush’s disregard for the Constitution is infamous. Obama’s disrespect and hypocrisy toward the Constitution is somewhat camouflaged but no less real and no less dangerous. So Professor Obama, exactly where in the Constitution does it allow you to follow only portions of the Constitution and not all of it?   

The uproar over Obama’s ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright has been the greatest threat to his candidacy and is likely not over. The full name of that church in Chicago is Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright believes in and has taught a strain of bigoted Marxism called black liberation theology, which Obama embraces. The originator of this un-Biblical, racism was James Cone. Even some of the conventional media have attempted to expose this radical communism. Some relevant excerpts from the McClatchy Washington Bureau March 20, 2008 article “Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines” provide insight. 

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power." 

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation. 

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition. 

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there. 

But Trinity has a history. Its affiliation with the United Church of Christ makes it part of a liberal, mostly white denomination that was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers. 

Trinity goes further, embracing black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. 

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology. Trinity officials also didn't respond to requests. 

"Together, black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society." (Quote from James Cone in the March 20, 2008 McClatchy article) 

 If you are asking, “What does this have to do with Hawaii and Obama?” Here is another excerpt from “UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150, 103d Congress Joint Resolution 19” that connects the historical dots. 

Whereas, the Eighteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in recognition of the denomination’s historical complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 directed the Office of the President of the United Church of Christ to offer a public apology to the Native Hawaiian people and to initiate the process of reconciliation between the United Church of Christ and the Native Hawaiians; and 

Yep, Obama’s church denomination was complicit in the overthrow and land piracy of the peaceful, legitimate and sovereign islands of Hawaii in 1893. It was the same United Church of Christ that sent missionaries to Hawaii bringing the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to that people group in 1820. The United Church of Christ issued a formal apology in 1993 (click here) for its participation in that coup d’état and later considered $4.5 million dollars in reparations (click here).  

Does Obama believe in and respect the Constitution or is it just so much word-taffy to be twisted for his personal benefit? 

Does Obama believe in the rule of law and applying it uniformly for all or does the Harvard elitist place himself above the law, not unlike the current tyrant in the White House?  

Does Obama believe in freedom and liberty for oppressed people of all colors or just blacks?

(See the April 30, 2008 reports from AP “Hawaiian sovereignty seekers take over palace in Honolulu” and CNN “Native Hawaiians blockade historic palace”) 

Is Obama man enough to own the reality of being constitutionally disqualified and withdraw from the Democratic nomination or is he just another amoral attorney lusting after personal power and aggrandizement?   

Does Obama really want change and honesty that can be believed or is he just another fraudulent politician filled with unctuous lies?  

The question then falls to the least liberal of the remaining Three Stooges, Hillary Clinton. Will she uphold her oath and declare the reality of Obama being disqualified and utterly shatter the Democratic Party?  

Will Hillary slither quietly to the back of the political stage having squandered her pre-destiny to rule America with her strain of socialist tyranny?  

The irony of Hillary’s dilemma is just too rich.  

Galatians 4:16 (NASB) 

“So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?”

 "Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Nathanael is a self-employed engineer and lives in metropolitan area of Dallas, Texas. He had only ever been a life long registered Republican but changed to the Constitution Party in May of 2004. During the fall of 2007, he registered Republican for the sole reason of voting for Ron Paul in the Texas primary. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Nathanael can be reached at nathanael4551@yahoo.com

Published in the May 14, 2008 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2008 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!