By: Nathanael

Even a landslide in West Virginia cannot alter the consequences of the Democratic primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina. Barack Hussein Obama has a clear inside track for getting that party’s Presidential nomination. Witness the comments between MSNBC’s Tim Russert and Keith Olbermann in this youtube clip - 'We Now Know Who the Nominee Will Be'  

Apparently, the only conventional means for Hillary to secure the nomination involves a combination of seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, persuading enough superdelegates to overturn Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and then choosing her as the more electable nominee, (Click here for “Clinton desperate for super turnaround”). Political civil war in the Democratic Party would be the likely outcome, if she was able to pull off that coup.  

Different than the race card (see “Clinton Touts White Support”), there is an unconventional and for her experientially foreign option, a “truth card” that Senator Clinton is legally obligated to play. Both she and Obama had joined with other Presidential candidates in renewing their oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution (see “Presidential Candidates and the American Freedom Pledge”). Since both are licensed attorneys and Obama is a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, they are fully informed and obligated to follow the letter of the republic’s founding documents. It is not a democracy. 

On Nov. 23, 1993, during the first year of President William Jefferson Clinton, the following law was passed “UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150, 103d Congress Joint Resolution 19”. The whole document is worth serious reading and reflection. Some relevant excerpts are: 

To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 

Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;  

Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the “United States Minister”, the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii; 

“I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. 

“That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government. 

“Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”. 

Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of Hawaii to officially abdicate her throne; 

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum; 

Senators Clinton and Obama are both aware that any agreement or contract that is executed under force, coercion, duress or threat is null, void and of no force and effect. Both Senators know that Hawaii was occupied in a manner directly parallel to the lawless occupation of the Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, by Communist Russia. Both Senators realize that Obama is disqualified to be president because his birth in occupied Hawaii does not by any stretch meet the Constitutional requirement. He is a naturalized citizen through his parents but not a natural born citizen. 

Then Senator Gorton from Washington fully understood the political ramifications of the truth found within US Public Law 103-150. Read his words when he argued against the passage of the law. "...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence." - Senator Slade Gorton, US Senate Congressional Record Wednesday, October 27, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st Sess.  

The entrance of Hawaii as the 50th State was without any basis in law. Its presumed “statehood” is a fraud originating from the criminal conspiracy of the US Ambassador to Hawaii, executed by elements of the US military and instigated by business interests wanting to steal valuable land for growing sugar. Truth, Justice and the American Way, right? 

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!