Barry Sotero


Exclusive to STR

I can see four things wrong with the following provision of the US Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (Article Two.)

First fault: I don't want to be presided over, and have never met anyone else either who says "Rule me, please." There and elsewhere, the Constitution establishes a government. Very, very, very bad idea.

Second, if we somehow allow that a government shall exist and have a president, this clause says he must be at least 35 years of age. Why? If the voters think him or her qualified, why shouldn't he take office even though only, say, 12--for Jesus was said to be teaching in the Temple that young? Aren't we supposed to be free of age discrimination? Who gave these dead white founders the right to overrule a choice people make two and a quarter centuries later?

Third, it says he is qualified only if he's born an American. Again, why? If voters want to elect a French man or a Chinese lady, why not? How dare they impose their will down the ages?

Fourth, it specifies "natural born American" but fails to define that term, just like Amendment 16 uses "income" but fails to define it. The latter has led, and the former is now leading, to all manner of confusion.

I write this on December 5th, and today Supreme Court members meet (in camera!) to decide whether Barry Sotero is qualified to be US President. That's the name by which Obama was known when a boy at school in Indonesia . They have to discover what the founders meant by the phrase. Perhaps they will roll out their Ouija board--perhaps that's why they are in camera. Imagine, the spirits of old George and Thomas and John et al moving letters around the green felt, to convey their impressions of modern America and to furnish their advice. If they do, I'd say the nine black-robed siblings are in for a bit of a shock--the language may get hot and lurid. At day's end, I'd not be surprised if some ghostly voice whispered the command "Pick Paul."

Four lawsuits are current, to raise the question. Quite a diverse set of litigants have filed them; a Democrat Friend of Bill (Phil Berg) and a very conservative, black, distinguished Republican (Alan Keyes) are among them. They want to know the circumstances of Barack's birth, so as to confirm he conforms. Odd thing is, he's not done much to help. That suggests he can't. If he can't prove he's not a "natural born American," whatever that does mean, then he isn't qualified for the job, and then our many troubles will be compounded because this inadequate Clause doesn't say what happens next, either. Does Biden get the job? McCain? Why, and who decides?

The US media have kept very, very quiet about these four lawsuits. Curiously, the only major newspaper to run an article on this is the English edition of Pravda, which is one of the two that prevailed in the Soviet Union; it was said that Pravda (truth) put out truth but no news, while Isvestia (news) published news but no truth. Now--and not for the first time--we have to read outside the US , to discover what's going on inside the US . It is certainly news, and since Pravda reports it, it must also be truth.

The trouble is that Barry's father was Kenyan, his mother was a young American who had not resided in America for five years after her 16th birthday, and his paternal grandmother said (indistinctly and in Swahili) that she witnessed the birth in Mombasa, not Hawaii--whose government has failed to produce an original birth certificate. These circumstances of his birth ought not to matter at all--but Article Two says they do. So if the pretense of being subject to Constitutional Rule is to be maintained in D.C., it does matter. It may come down to ditching Obama, or ditching every last trace of that pretense. What a lousy way to run a railroad, and what a fascinating choice to watch.

Your rating: None
Jim Davies's picture
Columns on STR: 243

Jim Davies is a retired businessman in New Hampshire who led the development of an on-line school of liberty in 2006, and who wrote A Vision of Liberty" , "Transition to Liberty" and, in 2010, "Denial of Liberty" and "To FREEDOM from Fascism, America!" He started The Zero Government Blog in the same year.
In 2012 Jim launched , to help lead government workers to an honest life.
In 2013 he wrote his fifth book, a concise and rational introduction to the Christian religion called "Which Church (if any)?" and in 2016, an unraveling of the great paradox of "income tax law" with "How Government Silenced Irwin Schiff."