The absurdity of Obama's anti-tea-party propaganda

WASHINGTON (March 30, 2010) – President Barack Obama said in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes the tea party is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist, but beyond that, Mr. Obama told NBC he recognizes the movement involves "folks who have legitimate concerns" about the national debt and whether the government is taking on too many difficult issues simultaneously.

In the interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, Mr. Obama said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy," but he said he didn't want to paint tea-party activists "in broad brushes" and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns."

We are in the midst of an Obama faction propaganda offensive against the tea-party movement. One part of it was an effort to defame the people who gathered on March 20 near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., to voice their outrage against the legislation that implemented the government takeover of the health sector. Obama's comments in this NBC interview are another. Obama ascribes two beliefs to the people he calls the "core group" of the tea-party movement. He dismissively implies that the concerns of both groups are not "mainstream, legitimate concerns."

Obama's appointments and policies confirm that he is a socialist. Even the description of his background, education and upbringing he claims to have authored suggest that he is a doctrinaire, hardline proponent of a Saul Alinsky-style subversion of the United States. He is now moving at breakneck speed to consolidate the socialist transformation of America.

Help us reach half a million signers -- add your name to petition demanding Obama cough up his long-form birth certificate

In the aftermath of the 20th century's Great World War, the United States government adopted a policy of staunch opposition to international socialism. This policy led the U.S. to take the leadership role in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, each time on the initiative of a Democrat administration in Washington. Under the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan, this policy brought to bear the strains and pressures against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that eventually led to its collapse, during the administration of another Republican president, George H.W. Bush. Until then, the USSR had been considered the most prominent and powerful proponent of international socialism.

U.S. opposition to international socialism has therefore been a consistent, bipartisan assumption of American policy and action for over 60 years. It not only produced U.S. military actions, it is reflected in U.S. laws, including provisions of U.S. immigration law still in effect (meant to impede travel and immigration to the U.S. by known socialist subversives). Many billions of dollars and the precious lives and blood and suffering of tens of thousands of Americans were sacrificed to oppose socialism. Time and again American presidents and other leaders made clear that what occasioned these sacrifices involved more than a difference of opinion about the administration of economic life. They involved the basic moral premise, the core political principles of the United States, including above all the foundational premise that legitimate government must be based on the consent of the governed. They establish it in order to secure the unalienable rights with which all people "are endowed by their Creator. …"

Given the long decades of nonpartisan commitment; given the great sacrifice of blood and treasure by Americans of all kinds; given its deep roots in the premises and principles that define justice and the lawfulness of all government; what could be more "mainstream and legitimate" than a concern that the person charged with implementing the laws and national defense of the entire country is an avowed, committed, proponent of the very evil Americans fought against for decades, and thought we had decisively defeated?

The initial opposition to the Obama faction's grab for control of the health sector has intensified as more and more Americans looked beyond the purposefully obscured and deceitfully presented details of the legislation being used to achieve it. They are coming to see the larger purpose it serves, which is to equip an arrogant, power-obsessed elite with pervasive, life-and-death decision-making power. They will then make use of this power to de-energize and overthrow the constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

Obama's assertion that this concern for the survival of constitutional government is not "mainstream and legitimate" is absurd. Coming from someone who has sworn to uphold, protect and defend constitutional government, it is the telltale confirmation that he took the oath in vain. Far from disparaging the participants shaping the tea-party movement, Obama's intended slur offers new evidence to prove they are more than justified if they passionately reject him and all his cronies and all their works.

Obama pairs those concerned that he is a socialist with others, who he says (speaking with purposely deceitful inaccuracy) "question whether he is a citizen." Yet when accurately stated and understood, the real issue is not whether he is a citizen, but whether, in accordance with the terms of the U.S. Constitution, he is or ever could be president of the United States.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was framed to respect the requirements of natural justice. It represents the sovereign will of the people as they authorize the U.S. government to exercise the just powers it can only derive from their consent. Conformity with the U.S. Constitution is all that confers legitimacy on those exercising the powers of the different branches of government it ordains and establishes. Barack Obama legitimately exercises the duties of president of the United States only if his claim to do so conforms to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. If it does not, then his tenure of office is not legitimate. He is not now and never has been president of the United States. If that possibility is not cause for concern, then as a people we have truly forgotten the grievous lessons we should have learned from the tragic history made the last time the American people faced the grim and tragic prospect of a not-so-civil dispute over the requirement that we respect the premises of our form of government.

(In an article currently featured on my blog, Loyal to Liberty, I deal more extensively with Obama's untruthful dig at the issue respecting his constitutional eligibility to be president.)