- An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
- Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
- Convention or custom arising from long practice
Precedent for future usurpers of our Nation is being set right now, every day that Obama occupies the White House and every day that we the people allow it. This is precedent for usurpation, for treason, for sedition, and for illegal acts under the color of authority.
We all have been told many times to ‘forget the usurper issue’ because ‘it is done’…and that our best hope now is to find someone new and replace Obama in 2012. These were the comments from those who walked by in Washington who said, ‘get over it’, and this includes many otherwise patriotic bloggers who have ‘moved on’. This comes from many who believe or wish that the popular vote is the decider, and who have not yet seen how this vote has been hijacked by the political parties.
In this atmosphere, it is critically important to bring the issue of the usurpation to a level that people can understand or grasp. Papoose was able to deftly identify a line of discussion that instantly cut through the legalese on Obama’s usurpation that we all have become familiar with. The two themes that seemed to work most effectively are (a) loyalty, and (b) precedent.
- On the need for loyalty to our country: ‘our President should be a ‘full blooded American’, from full-blooded American parents…loyalty and allegiance only to the United States.’ Most people have a visceral understanding of this and are in agreement.
- On the setting of precedent: Because of Mr. Obama, it is now possible for any foreign father, never an American citizen, to come to the United States, have a baby with an American woman, and the child be raised somewhere else, but become president based on the saying ‘my mother is an American’.
When the second scenario is understood, there is no room for the first scenario: a full-blooded American and loyalty only to the United States.
We have in the State Department a ‘credible’ source for Mr. Obama’s dual citizenship, in addition to Mr. Obama’s own admission and the peculiarities of the British Nationality Act of 1948, which set in stone Obama’s citizenship: he is first British, then Kenyan, maybe American, and Indonesian. With no record of naturalization.
What Will We Allow by Fiat?
Anytime we tolerate unconstitutional behavior it becomes a pattern of behavior that others follow, saying ‘everyone does it’. And this becomes precedent, and a sort of ‘standard operating procedure’. So we have allowed continuous violations of the Constitution, sometimes thinking others will take care of it, sometimes thinking the next election will take care of it, and sometimes just not caring.
We have even allowed the opposition to control the debate, or perhaps allowed the agent provocateurs to tell us what the debate is. A serious, fundamental constitutional question was relegated to the ‘birth certificate’, losing all credibility as case after case went down under a corrupt judiciary. While most of us knew of the intentional deception, the anti-constitutionalists were so successful in turning people off to the birth certificate that no one had a chance to grasp that they were being deceived and that we do in fact have an illegal occupant of the White House.
A disbelief factor sets in: no one wanted to believe that Obama could practice such deception and lie to their faces. And now that it is out in the open, many are too embarassed to act and hope like heck the elections bring changes. But just like possession is 9/10ths of the law, so is the occupation of the white house by a usurper: precedent, ladies and gentlemen.
Will we allow the constitution to be amended by fiat, or will we stand for the rule of law?