From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Obama's True Inheritance: The Privilege To Serve

by Penbrook Johannson

Compounding the stress of America’s difficult economic challenges, it remains a mission of liberals to evoke hatred for Obama’s predecessor in response to what Democrats view as the unfavorable circumstances Obama “inherited” as president.

Disregarding the historical fact that our president's terms in office rarely begin or end coincidentally with the resolution of America's common problems, the liberal establishment is differentiating Obama's first 50 days, from other president's, as abnormally deprived.

Much of this vitriol is enhanced by the subjectivity of the pro-Obama liberal media complex consisting of broadcast networks CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as major publications, most notably, the New York Times, and hundreds of leftwing internet sites.

However, the nature of executive responsibility obligates the president to the will of the people who hire him. And, as America's political history reveals, a president's performance is evaluated benignly, in the long run, without comparison to the performance of previous office holders. History will not blame George Bush for Obama's failures. Nor will it blame Obama for the next president's conduct. In some cases, the new president must take on challenges which, as determined by the people, are within his capacity to resolve.

Rather than engaging the discussion like infantile, blame mongers, perhaps it is overdue to acknowledge the decisions made by the successor which have made the problems much worse than they would have been if he had done nothing at all.

And, let's make sure we account blame accurately among all the suspects. Let us not forget the members of Obama's own party, including Barney Frank, John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Chuck Rangel, serving in high ranking committee positions with influential ties to our banking and mortgage industries, who played illicit roles in undermining our economic situation during the previous administration.

Many of these congressional Democrats used their political leverage to pressure lending institutions into issuing mortgage loans to customers they knew could not afford them. The lending industry acted in accordance with the desolate intentions of liberals to redistribute opportunities in the housing market, by their inferior standards, to the less affluent, high risk demographics of our society.

The disasterous result of this utter stupidity was the fastest increase in foreclosures in American history, leading to the collapse of the housing market and the mortgage lending industry. Since then, more than 700 Billion dollars in tax payer money has been used to rescue the mortgage and banking industry, to date. And, it appears this still will not be enough to solve the problem. We will borrow more of our grandchildren's worth because Barney Frank thought it "fair" for recent, jobless immigrants, some of them residing here illegally, to live in ponzi-mortgaged houses.

The executive branch of our government has no appreciable culpability, comparatively, for this realm of the economic down turn. So, finger pointing by a president sends a message to the American people that his appointment was the wrong choice and that his abilities to resolve the issues for which he was hired were overestimated. When a president tells America that his job was made harder by his predecessor, America concludes that he was the wrong person for the position. They want somebody who knows he is bigger than any problem he faces, no matter the reasons for it. And, we need a man willing to acknowledge the benefits of his successive place in the legacy of American presidents.

The following are the favorable conditions into which Obama has been deposited.


After being received by America, Obama was afforded the opportunity for an education, and the means to pay for it, by a generous society. He was afforded professional opportunities available nowhere else on earth and he was blessed to be a part of a family structure reinforced by advanced social and economic resources. Just by the fact that he existed in America, even if he did nothing with his life, he inherited a greater socioeconomic advantage than 90% of the world's population.

American institutions, and the financial system that supports them, were established by far worthier pedagogues and social engineers than Obama. His American predecessors pioneered innovation and built our society, developing a scholastic standard, establishing industry and creating our quality of life, long before Obama arrived to benefit from them.

Of course, Obama’s academic accomplishments are recognized, and his command of language is appreciable, but millions of Americans have completed higher levels of academic achievement worthy of far more veneration. And, without the availability of American scholarships, institutions, and industry, Obama may have been relegated to just another third world existence.
In his willingness to acknowledge the challenges he inherited from the previous administration, Obama might promote himself better to a larger number of Americans if he would also recognize the benefits of inheriting his social opportunities from those who came before him.


By the time Obama was ensconced as president in 2009, America’s history had progressed for 250 years......without him.

America had survived two major economic depressions and several smaller, but no less significant, ones. We had elected 43 other men before him who presided over far more challenging eras of our history than Obama ever will, and we fought and survived eight major genocidal wars in which millions of Americans sacrificed their lives and safety to secure the rights and liberties Obama now enjoys.

Though we are all better off for having emerged from the Civil War, certainly, we would wish that we didn’t have to engage in such a terrible conflict. But, we did.

So, with this historical fact securely in place, let it not be ignored that Obama is a particularly special beneficiary of the results of that conflict, by way of his heritage. Sadly, however, Obama seems to lack a genealogical appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors to bring him, and all black Americans, equality in a free society.

There is a sense that Obama secretly believes that, because of his one sided view of the history of our struggle for civil rights, he is somehow entitled to a privileged position in leadership. And, this does not sit well with the citizens of America that actually have the ability, and power, to change it.

Of course, slavery is a part of an unfortunate chapter in our history as a species, and as Americans. But, equally, so is the fight we've engaged for freedom from it.....for all humanity. Throughout the history of humanity, the suffering incurred to abolish slavery, and to emancipate its victims, is equally tragic. Emerging from the horrors and loss of our civil war, America was brought to a better place in time, where Obama is rightly embraced, without regard for his race.

However, in a political irony, one teeth-gnashing reality which liberals hate to acknowledge is that the end of slavery in America was the result of legislation passed under a white, republican president. And, the Emancipation Proclamation which followed led to the amendment of our constitution after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of white abolishionists on both sides of the Civil War.

But, the radical left in our country, hell bent on redefining the significance of history for the purposes of promoting a Reparative agenda, deny the sacrifices made by millions of Americans to bring an end to slavery. America remains the only developed nation in human history to fight a nation-wide civil war over the issue of slavery.

Perhaps this, in itself, is seen as irrelevant by some. Our society has become too depraved to appreciate the association of its venerated extravagances with the blood shed by heroes to provide it.

And, as Obama continues to rob future generations of their worth to pay for his liberal dreams, we are beginning to realize that slavery has not been abolished, after all.

Ironically, it appears Obama is remanifesting slavery, in a new form. He is acting as a fiscal agent serving the interests of radical left Reparative ideology. By his assumption of power, Obama is enabling a systematic economic slavery, much to the joyful redemption of ashamed whites who voted for him, for the purpose of avenging the victim mentality rooted in plantation slavery.

But, Obama might command more respect if he expressed an appreciation for some of the positive things he, and all Americans, have inherited from the legacy of those warrior's commitment to freedom through sacrifice.


It remains a valid point of debate that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather the result of being rejected by it. In this case, rather than relegating Obama’s upbringing to the proverbial single parent stigma, it appears the absence of his black father actually enhanced Obama’s chances for success, while being raised by his white mother, in predominantly white society, linked him with the necessary facets of our heritage to propel his success.

Obama’s father was obviously not a man prepared for fatherhood, let alone raising a mysogenated son in an interracial marriage, in 1960’s American society. But, obviously, neither was his mother prepared to abort her pregnancy. But, who could blame either of them?

The presence of Obama’s father, during his impressionable years, would have probably been a detriment in many ways to Obama’s personal success in the long run.
Thankfully, for Obama, his mother was blessed to be a part of a generous, supportive extended family, willing to provide for their grandson.

If he is thankful for this amazing salvation, it does not show in his demeanor as a president.


Despite being the socially illegitimate reproductive consequence of a dead-beat African descendent and an indiscretionary pubescent mother, Obama has made the most of his inherited opportunities as an American. But, there still remain a slew of ominous, unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding his early life.

But, why is this important? Regarding the matter of birthright, (that’s birthright........NOT birthplace), does Barack Obama have an inherent right, as a direct consequence of a birthright, to serve as president?

Most would agree that the opportunity to be President is not a right, or an entitlement. It is a privilege. And, throughout our history, that privilege has fallen on men who, regardless of wealth or social standing, meet specific social, political, legal and genealogical criteria which demonstrate a general alignment with America's founding values and the prescriptions set forth by our Constitution. These values typically, though not always, are a legacy perpetuated through generations of family-inspired leadership and honorability.

In light of this truth, Obama is the first man put into the oval office whose parents were not U.S. citizens, as defined by the laws in effect, at the time of his birth. Obama’s mother, though born in the U.S., had not physically resided in the United States long enough after the age of 14, as prescribed by immigration laws in effect in the 1960’s, to be a U.S. citizen.

After returning to America from Africa, Ann Dunham had to have resided in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday, in order to be given the rights of full citizenship at the time Obama was born in 1961. She was only 17 when Obama was born. His father was a Kenyan national, perhaps with British citizenship, though this is not confirmed. Regardless, he was not an American citizen.

All legalities and conspiracies aside, this is historic in the case of Barack Obama because it represents the first instance in our history in which we’ve failed to accurately define the plurality of our elected leader’s national identification, even if it were not for the purposes of recusal.


These questions are not premised to suggest that Obama is traitorous, nor do they suggest he has broken constitutional law.

However, it speaks to the antecedence of presidential validation and how failure to establish a candidate’s sovereign identity from birth sets precedence for future social tolerance of leaders who possibly possess plurality in their national loyalties and interests.

If we, as a nation, misinterpret the eligibility standards required for our leaders to serve and protect us, we make it easier for foreign influence to take advantage of our national resources and our people. Without the constitutional prescriptions for sovereignty in the identity of our leaders, America is potentially made vulnerable to foreign authority and, worse, the harmful intentions of our enemies, through the exploitation of our leader’s insecurity.

Barack Obama has been allowed to serve in our government despite possessing an ambiguously plural national identity. Whereas, any other nation on earth, in defense of its leadership’s sovereignty, would require verifiable acceptance of personal data metrics, or an accepted native citizenry by legal exception, Barack Obama’s presidency is the result of inheriting the position, in part, as a result of progressively relaxing standards in leadership sovereignty and a failing method used to establish singular national identity.

This is something never before seen in modern times. He has been allowed the privilege of serving as president amid unanswered questions and unsatisfactorily disclosed information about his basic genealogic, demographic, education and immigration history. Despite a complete lack of disclosure supporting Obama’s compliance with the people’s Constitutional prescriptions, he has been allowed the privilege to serve in the American government.

Tragically, ignoring legitimate requests for assistance, our derelict Supreme Court justices have divorced themselves from any role in helping America interpret the laws in this matter. And, sadly, since the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and the Annenburg Foundation vouch for Obama, the Constitution is no longer consulted in such matters.

Barack Obama was brought to this moment in our history for a reason. Whether it serves the political interests of any party or individual, is unknown. But, what is known is that America is facing challenges, and, to some degree, these challenges have been ongoing for years, irrespective of the president serving at the time. But, also, the President’s experience has been given a wonderful legacy inherited by each of its successive office holders.

Barack Obama might benefit more from telling America more about this positive inheritance than the one he has used to denigrate and criticize his opposition. Blaming others may be justified for the American public, but for the President to do it only compromises the respect of the office while disqualifying his image as a refined, confident, secure statesmen. And, it only causes further division between American’s with competing ideologies.

The Civil War should have taught this lesson to all of us. Especially, Barack Obama.

No comments:

Post a Comment