Honesty: the Backbone of Society, Government, and Science

In the great experiment that is the governance of the American people, as much has gone wrong as has gone right.  That is a very unfortunate fact since almost all that has gone wrong was not wrong in the minds of those who pulled the strings to make things happen, -things that were huge unrecognized mistakes.

The list of such mistakes that bore national consequences in widespread suffering and vast numbers of deaths and injuries in unnecessary wars is frightfully numerous; mistake after mistake after mistake and all resulting in painful outcomes, all because of human ignorance and an arrogance which prevented those in power from recognizing and comprehending the magnitude of their ignorance and misplaced ambition until it was too late and a bitter harvest had been reaped, although it was often reaped by those whose lives we turned upside down.

In their minds they were simply doing “the right thing for the right reasons” and it didn’t matter that they had to break or ignore the rules in order to achieve their ideological goals because the ends justify the means.  “To make an omelet you have to break some eggs.”  [The entire Vietnam War and the Great Socialist Society were omelets made of eggs that should never have been broken.]

Such an attitude is always perfectly fine with plutocrats and autocrats because that is their basic approach to what is acceptably legitimate as a means to cause the change that they believe is preferable to the traditional and original status quo in America’s social, legal, and political worlds. [along with the side benefit of enriching their bank accounts with contributions from war-mongers who profit from it.]

“Change!” they want and change they will get,… by hook or by crook.  That is their approach to governance because they are innately sons of power.  Those who wield power wish to do so under one important condition: -that of having greater power than their brethren. Having only equal power in effect neutralizes power so their goal is always to achieve greater power so that they can wield it over others.

The main two co-elements of the exercise of power are: restraint, and compulsion. Either the government needs to be restrained by the compulsion of the public’s desire to throw people out of office and change the political balance of power, or the People need to be restrained by the compulsion of all that passes as “law” and is backed by the martial power of the State.

The dance between the citizenry and the government determines who is the male and who is the female, -or who commands the  lead and who accepts the role of being the follower.  Both dancers cannot be the lead so an equilibrium must be established with one having power over the other.

 “The real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people.  Instead they have two related goals. -to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of the common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives. ”  Thomas Sowell

 “We’re seeing more people than ever reaching their hands up in hopelessness and helplessness, begging the nanny state to regulate their every need. Devoid of thought or reason, our society is destined to be dominated by mental cripples, forever dependent on government.”  Kara Barnett Chippi ?

Consent & Certitude of Truthfulness

from: Truth in a post-Christian West;  Jerry Newcombe wonders how lying can be condemned anymore.
[Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/truth-in-a-post-christian-west/ ]

“George Washington imparted a masterfully written speech in his Farewell Address in 1796.  In it he famously noted:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, [those of] religion and morality are indispensable supports”, adding that we can’t expect morality to continue if we undermine religion.

He also said, “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, -for reputation, -for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

“The founders understood that belief in a God who sees all things and who will one day hold us accountable made a huge difference. That’s why in our day truth is breaking down – even among some professing Christians. But let God be true and every man a liar. This isn’t just an American problem. It is a problem in the post-Christian West.”

[Get Jerry Newcombe’s fascinating account of Christianity’s influence on our  founding: “The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation”]

~In a culture of dishonesty, cheating on school tests, on entrance exams and finals, on essays of original thought (plagiarism), on speed limits, on marriage vows, on gambling laws and drug laws, on drinking & driving laws, and on taxes, Honor no longer exists among the masses, if it ever existed.
Some nations are so corrupted that bribery is endemic in almost all levels of government and society.  It is the norm, and in that norm little honor and individual dignity can exist. Consider how many state governors have been sent to prison in the last decade.

There is a notable lack of respect for honesty and truth, and, without the influence of conscience, there is no fear of speaking or writing or swearing to lies and half-truths. The people routinely lie to the government and government officials routinely lie to the people.  Most of the  National Security Administration operation is one gigantic Black Program lie against the privacy of the American people and the rule of constitutional law as engraved in the 4th Amendment.

It was written to ban the very sort of invasive privacy violations that are the meat & potatoes of the NSA.  The author of the Patriot Act was stunned to learn of how enormously it had been used to expand unconstitutional surveillance not allowed by the act.  To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “the arc of history shows the tendency of government power to expand and liberty to shrink.”

That lawless expansion is made possible because a social conscience does not exist in a great number of people.  Conscience cannot exist without the influence of a sense of morality.  Morality does not exist without spiritual awareness.  Spiritual awareness comes only through the human spirit, and it is generally only activated or awakened by religion.
The religions in America that highly value honesty and truth are Judaism and Christianity.  They call Satan “the father of lies”.  One of the 10 Commandments is that one shall not bear false witness (before a court or judge) against others, which is the moral basis of honest, functioning, fair government, as George Washington stated in his address.  If everyone feels free to lie before a court of law, within the solemnity of a judge’s presence, then civilization cannot function because lawless conduct will lead to unjust verdicts against the innocent, and then all respect for the law evaporates.
But to the amoral mind, lying is not wrong because there is no standard of “right” & “wrong” to condemn it.  There is only “the law” and what one can get away with.  So, as with all of the tyrants before them, the amoral Left resorts quickly to lies, distortion, rationalization, and minimalization to present false “facts” to win the prize they are seeking (foolish, naive Utopian dreams of economic equality and “social justice”).
  In their corrupt view, the “ends” certainly justify the means, regardless of how dishonest, underhanded, and deceitful those means might be.  They do not care because they do not have to answer to any cosmic authority for their whoppers, nor for the power they rob from We, the People.

Only the God of Judeo-Christian scripture requires the virtues of honesty and truthfulness from his “children”, having made the human race (patterned after his own nature) as an autonomous creation having Free Will and the right to exercise it, and thus being responsible for how it is exercised.

How responsible are men for their actions? When the founding fathers asked themselves that philosophical religious question they were confronted by the authority of the scripture:

“He who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”  Revelation 21:7-8

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men…  …for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine…” It is a book that shuts out from heaven all wicked and unrighteous persons, particularly those who love and make lies….  Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:10

Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it [heavenly Jerusalem], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the “dogs”,… and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

GOD’S WORD® Translation Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters, and all who lie in what they say and what they do. (16. “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”…) 

George Weigel, an insightful Catholic writer, said in the L.A. Times in 2006:

“If the West’s high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism – in which there is ‘your truth’ and ‘my truth’ but nothing such as ‘the truth’ – the West will be unable to defend itself. Why?
Because the West won’t be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending.”

He added,

“A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of Civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.”

If there is no known absolute “Truth”, then all moral truth is relative to one’s own personal convictions (or lack thereof), making Hitler’s moral truth just as valid as that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr.
Moral truth and moral relativity can be illustrated most accurately via a spectrum of Light.  At one end is the blinding, purifying, absolute purity of Holiness.  Moses is recounted as having experienced a lot of that on Mt. Sinai while in the presence of God, and was afterward described as glowing so brightly that he was asked to cover himself since the radiance of his countenance was harming people’s eyes.
At the other end of that spectrum is the most stark evil that is possible, the stuff that night terrors are made off, and lots of horror movies.  At one end of the spectrum you have moral behavior influenced by an appreciation of divine holiness, while at the other it is influenced, driven, by the most cruel of all evils, resulting in savagery, barbarism, cannibalism, child torture and sacrifice, etc.

Moral truth and moral relativity can also be framed in an analogy of the structure of the earth.  The super-hot molten core of the earth, comprised of pure metal, is like the most universally accept and embraced moral values.  They have the most weight of all values.

Farther out from that core is material that is lesser and lesser metallic and more earthen, -less pure and weighty.  That represents moral values that are more relative, while the atmosphere above the surface is the most ethereal of all values and the least “solid”.  Even religion does not have a position on such issues of the ether so they are a purely  individual human / social matter and not a matter of established nor universal moral values.  The question is; “is honesty such an issue?”

The truth is that even with dreadful sociopolitical attitudes about moral truth, no civilized government can exist for long nor maintain the respect of its subjects without the particular moral virtue that is honesty.
Even Hitler and Stalin relied totally on the honesty of those beneath them.  A government full of liars would not last very long because no central cohesion could exist. Instead, everyone would be looking out for themselves.  So honesty and truthfulness are essential.
In society and government, there is no reliable honesty without reverence for truth because selfishness always relies on lies to defend itself when it acts in dishonest and unlawful ways, therefore reverence for the truth is paramount to a moral functioning society.
The founders had another example of detestable dishonesty, the one seen in the Acts of The Apostles; Chapter 5. It was following the death and resurrection of Jesus and his exit from the world as the new faith was strongly spreading.  Some people sold their property and gave the proceeds to the apostles for the furtherance of the gospel and the Kingdom of God, which they believed was to come about within their lifetime:

Ananias and Sapphira

Acts 5.  Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold! -the feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.  ~~~ 

Besides fear of telling lies, there is its companion: shame.  Reverence for the truth cannot exist without a sense of Honor because without honor there is no sense of dishonor for violating one’s obligation to speak, write, or swear to the truth.
Without a sense of dishonor and shame, lying becomes a very important and useful tool to achieve the “admirable good intentions” that the fascist, socialist, communist, secular humanist or Islamist seeks. “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.”

Neither honor nor shame can exist in the absence of a conscience that is acutely sensitive to pleasing and respecting the deity whose very description is “Truth” itself. “God is Light, and in him there is no darkness at all, -nor shadow of turning.”
Jesus said of his divine-human nature as the deity incarnate; “I am the way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”
Belief in the truthfulness of such a view of him was an attractive force that drew disciples to him, but it was not the only influence in the future, -especially after the Book of Revelations was written.  It contained not only that which inspired devotion by attraction, but also inspired fear and awe:
“I heard a great voice of much people in Heaven, saying “Hallelujah! Salvation and Glory and Honor and Power unto the Lord our God: for True & Righteous are His judgements…” Rev. 19:1-2
And this quote:
“And I saw the heavens opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful & True, and in righteousness he doeth judge and make war.  His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns.
And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called “The Word of God”.  And He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written: KING of KINGS, and LORD of LORDS.  Rev. 19:11-13,16
Plus: Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work shall be.  I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, -the Beginning and the End, -the First and the Last.  Rev. 22:12-13
 Such writings could not and did not fail to have a deep impact on the consciousness of the foundering fathers, many of whom were ministers. If not viewed as the imaginings of a madman, then they were to be respected as the prophetic word of God.  And what did the revealed God expect of mankind?  Moral responsibility and accountability, which included the subject of truthfulness as a fundamental moral imperative.
That being true of their view of honesty, with their fellow Christian Americans embracing the same moral outlook, there was a basis to accept a Christian man’s word as being truthful, especially when given under an oath before God and Government.
But if “the fear of God” is not a element of a person’s psychological constitution then there is no basis whatsoever to rely on anything he or she says because there is no belief in an eternal watchdog, recorder, and punisher of dishonesty.
In fact, the very basis of honest and moral civilization is impossible if parents do not inculcate into their children the importance of being honest, -of not lying and deceiving.
Without a conscience that is as clear as possible before one’s future Judge in the next life, without an inner testimony that one has obeyed and followed the moral law that puts one in good standing before God by being “faithful and true” as his servant, no inner moral and spiritual voice or influence is present to limit and influence one’s moral behavior and produce any sense of shame or fear for knowingly violating God’s moral requirement of honesty in one’s relationships with others.
Without a conscience concerned about displeasing one’s creator and redeemer and eventual judge, shame does not exist in an environment in which no religious values are allowed nor inculcated, i.e., the secular environment of American law, American business, American media, American entertainment, and American academia.
In such environments, no consciousness of divine requirements of behavior (and responsibility for violation) is present nor even allowed.  They are essentially amoral environments.  Everyone’s moral compass is thus demagnetized and points in no direction whatsoever.
The only conscience that might be present is that which was inculcated, (or not) by one’s parents or one’s religious schooling. Brian Williams, Lance Armstrong, Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods, Jonathan Gruber, Louise Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Madoff, Jerry Sandusky, and Barack “You can keep your doctor” Hussein Obama apparently never developed such a conscience nor learned to value honesty.
Few parents inculcate moral values that are not derived from faith in religion, so with such faith ostracized from both the public square and public schools in America, there is no other basis on which moral values and natural rights would exist, -nor any origin from which they could spring.  Thus there is no basis for truthfulness nor unalienable rights in a secular, atheist, amoral, Darwinian society in which Truth and individual Liberty are not highly honored, and lies are not greatly despised as reprehensible, dishonorable, and morally bankrupt.
Where Truth is on a plane barely higher than falsehood, falsehood will always be employed for self-advantage, along with political, ideological advantage.  In fact falsehood will not only not be shunned, but will be quite acceptable and fully embraced as a legitimate means of obtaining the shining ends of one’s “good intentions” (or self-benefiting desires).
That fact is now descriptive of the lying democrat party and its corrupted minions, along with the power-wielders in the Republicrat party, but the moral corruption does not end with them, nor do they have a total monopoly on it.
With no value attached to honesty, and no fear of lying to God and Government since God does not exist, and government doesn’t know what’s true or not anyway, why tell the facts as they are when telling the facts as they are not is far more advantageous?

Plus, you cannot be compelled to expose your own dishonesty because the 5th amendment forbids forcing one to testify against oneself. So one can just ignore the rules ’cause they’re not your friend, or simply proffer the lie “I can’t recall”,  and no voice of conscience is going to condemn one when it doesn’t even exist.

When it comes to the most elemental gear of functioning government (truthful sworn testimony and honest compliance with the laws of the land) a deep flaw exists when moral conscience is not present in those asked to fell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Can a Satanist swear an honest oath to God or Man when honesty is not a moral virtue that a Satanist must revere and adhered to?  Of course not, they actually oppose God and his virtues.  But can a Communist swear an honest oath to a God that he believes does not exist and whose requirement of honesty is unknown and irrelevant?  Also, of course not.

  How about an atheist secular humanist?  An atheist socialist? An atheist Democrat?  The answer remains “no”.  Nothing that they say or swear to can be trusted because there is no basis on which to trust them since there is no influence which makes truthfulness an important priority inside them.

Truth, just like lies, is no more than a tool to be used to further their agenda.  They are just as motivated to lie as they are to be truthful since there is no moral or spiritual conflict nor Judgement Day accounting in their view, and the means are justified by the ends.
Every court system in the world that relies on the testimony of atheists is a sad joke because they may be totally devoid of honor, shame, truthfulness, and a conscience toward a creator who will hold them accountable for performing a lying oath before the chief representative of divine rule that exists among men.
But the legal systems are solidly established, and built on a presumption of an honesty that is quite likely to be non-existent.
Yet, because there is no other means of functioning, nor any test of one’s truthful (a polygraph hooked-up during testimony?) they all carry on with the big fat elephant in the room that everyone ignores, namely; why require a religious morality-based oath when no one possesses that morality?
The fraudulence of the presumption of truthfulness in court must be a horribly cynical joke in areas like Europe which has turned its back on Christianity and its moral values, having become a secular socialist plutocracy.

Imagine a scenario in which an atheism-embracing communist government finds itself having to adjudicate a charge by one of its high-ranking members that another even higher member raped her and beat her.  They would have to have an inquiry for the sake of maintaining a sense of lawfulness. Without a sense that justice is a fundamental element of human and social rights, no society would view its government as legitimate.

So the questions that arises are:

“Do they put the parties under oath when they question them?”
“If they require them to swear to tell the truth, to whom are they swearing?”
“In their godless universe, what is their motivation to never lie to authorities “under oath”?

“Lies are a fundamental tool of communism so how could reverence for the truth even exist?”
“With that being true in a criminal trial, why would it be any different in a civil trial?”
“How could any court testimony be assumed to be truthful when there is no moral sense that lying is reprehensible and morally condemnable?”

“So why even go through the pretense of swearing since no one would have a Holy Scripture authored by a Holy God from which to acquire any sense of fear or shame or dishonor for telling lies?”

The obvious answer is that the entire basis and presumption under-girding any justice system is a moral sensibility ingrained in the populous and adhered to when they testify before God and Government.  Lacking such a religion-based sensibility no one can have any assurance that any testimony given in court, or anywhere else, is honest and truthful.  That is horrible for seeking justice against one who has wronged you, regardless of one’s own morality.  Lies are the most extreme enemy of justice because it is totally dependent on honestly by witnesses and forensic professionals when they testify.

But where is there any evidence in America today that lying under oath is treated as the extreme social sin that it is?  No where.  The liars who testified against the police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, who were found to be liars, but whose testimony has resulted in millions of dollars of damage to private businesses, and lives, and murders of police officers, have been charged with nothing!

They were responsible for all of that harm and yet their deliberate criminal lies go unpunished.  What does that say about the attitude of law enforcement regarding its own rules and laws regarding truthfulness under oath?
What does that say about the credibility of testimony under oath?  What does that say about the credibility of sworn testimony?  What does say about respect for honestly? What does that say about the respectability of our criminal justice system when the very basis of its proper and just function is not defended?

It says that in today’s corrupt age the system and society have moved far off of the reservation on which the Justice system was built.  Society has not been acculturated to revere honestly to any broad extent so honestly as a moral value, and truthfulness that springs from moral values cannot be assumed to be present and active in society nor at trial.

But the legal profession has its own rules of professional conduct, all of which were once religiously founded, and they apply to theists and atheist alike, but atheists feel no compulsion to abide by them, and hence they commit fraud against their clients, their opponents, and sometimes even against the court.
Politicians are usually lawyers or former lawyers, but there is no such thing as a politician’s rules of professional behavior, so, being atheist liberals, they lie with every breath because that is to their advantage.
That was the case with the election of Barack Obama in regard to the Certificate of Nomination.  It is an affidavit in which the leadership of the party swears to the legitimacy of the party’s selection of its candidate. That was always a routine thing until Obama was put forward as a presidential candidate, -one with enough backing and charisma to secure the nomination.
But he had one big problem, and that was that he was constitutionally forbidden from serving as President since he was not a “natural born citizen” as required. Fortunately for the atheists running the Democrat party, it was simply a matter of removing the language that certified him as constitutionally eligible and leaving just the statement that he was duly selected as the party candidate.
Voila!  Problem solved.  Fifty copies were notarized and signed by Pelosi and others and sent to the state election officials, plus one more that certified him as constitutionally eligible, -sent to Hawaii which either demanded it or required it by law.
The lawyer for the Democrat Party in Hawaii knew that Obama had no American birth certificate because he had handled his mother’s divorce from her second husband.
The page (page 11) that probably should have held a copy of his birth certificate is missing.  That would be because of what it contained or what it failed to contain.  That lawyer knew that either Obama had no birth certificate or only had one from a foreign country, (-along with the fact that he was ineligible due to a foreign father).
But every level and venue of government closed their eyes and minds to any thought about what is constitutionally required of a President (other than being 35 years of age) because everyone suffers from the delusion that native-birth makes one eligible, rather than natural citizenship, and no one dared open their mouth against the first serious black candidate who seemed destined to be elected.
Native birth only requires a birth certificate to prove, so one was needed, and one was provided, by someone, -but not by the Hawaii Dept of Health.  They could not and did not certify the short form birth certificate which the Obama campaign came to assert was genuine even though it was an easily created fake which has been extensively exposed as bogus.
But a most curious situation resulted anyway, almost like a Catch-22 situation. It was based on the fact of the Constitution’s requirement that every state respect the official documents of its fellow states per the “full faith and credit” clause.
But what is it based on?  It’s based on the premise that the documents are genuine even though another state is “foreign” and its laws are different. Regardless, the officially authorized papers of each state must be accepted with equal legitimacy as those generated intra-state.
The problem is…what if the papers are not genuine,… but are bogus instead?  There is no authority to evaluate such a  questionable document when it is related to presidential eligibility; and the age-old custom is to accept as genuine the papers of other states, unquestioningly.  So there was no desk at which the buck was meant to stop regarding charges that Obama’s supposed Certification of Live Birth was easily shown to be a fake.
The situation became ever more dicey with the release of the long-form certificate which was attested to, (but not under oath or penalty of perjury) by Loretta Fuddy, director of the Hawaii Dept of Health. She attested in an official letter that she observed the copying of his original birth certificate, but that is something that has not been done for an entire generation.
All documents are printed by dept. laser printers from digital files stored on the dept. data-base server, -not from paper originals which are stashed away in an archive room.
But her incredible claim cannot be challenged since she died a totally unexplained death due to a secret hidden cause following an uneventful water landing after her plane’s engine mysteriously quit working after a loud bang was heard.
Being as she was subject to subpoena to testify in court regarding the birth certificate and her acquisition of about $75,000 for mortgage payment with no explainable source, her “public” autopsy (that was only released after the compulsion of a freedom of information lawsuit, and then when finally received everything was blacked out), one cannot simply assume that everything about her claim was on the up & up regarding Obama and his birth certificate.
The sons of lawlessness resist all facts and logic regarding the nature of Obama’s background and birth certificates and they demand that everyone else do so also because he is protected by the full-faith-&-credit clause of the Constitution, -meaning that everyone must simply accept as genuine any thing that looks like a genuine birth certificate from an official state dept. of health.  [note that traffic in counterfeit Puerto Rican birth certificates was so rife that they had to nullify all of them and issue new, higher-security versions.]  But let’s put that position under a spot light by means of a hypothetical.
Imagine that Obama issued an executive order or his State Dept forbid the sale of certain electronic components to Iran which might use them in building an atomic bomb. Suppose that an American living in Germany sold some to Iran anyway, and Obama’s DOJ sought to have him extradited to face charges.
Obama vs the Court of International Opinion
Suppose that he resisted in an appeal to a European court by claiming that such an order by the executive branch is only valid if the President is legitimately the President, and not an unconstitutional usurper. Suppose that he argued that not only is Obama not a natural born citizen but is not even a citizen at all because he was not born in the United States.  Therefore his executive order or State Dept order is entirely invalid because he himself is invalid.
Suppose that the court ordered that the extradition request be withdrawn unless and until an independent forensic document examiner has been allowed to examine his original vital record. What would such a decision be based on?  What about the “full-faith & credit” clause and reciprocity in  America?  Irrelevant (!) -since Europe is not America.  Actual rules of evidence would have to be followed, and all presumption banished. Put up or shut up.

The Luciferian-Gruberian pretense of honest belief and confidence in government officials’ veracity would then meet its Waterloo.  The pretense that we must all simply accept as valid anything said by anyone in government is an utterly false and empty pretense. And the context is contrived being as it is limited to the little playground of US politics only. The Obama acolytes adopt the pretend attitude of faith in the honor system when they themselves have no honor and do not even believe their own falsehoods.

They obligate others to accept “on faith” the veracity of people who have a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST. How so?  If a man, or a President, is accused of murder, what certitude do sane people ascribe to the alibi offered by his girlfriend, or wife, or mother, or twin sister?  They are not impartial parties and so their witness statements cannot be accepted as unbiased because they are biased.

Obama, in collusion with the head of the Hawaiian Dept of Health, Loretta Fuddy, conspired to fabricate a birth certificate to smooth over the suspicions of those aware that:

-he was too good to be true,
-he was not a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution,
-his short-form Certification of Live Birth which was an easily-countered “abstract” [not a True Copy], supplied no certitude whatsoever, -displayed no certifying human signature nor Health Dept official embossed seal, and was not verified as legitimate by any Hawaiian official speaking openly and on the record (much less under oath) and …
-the suspicion that Obama was probably a fraud regarding honor and honesty.

The conflict of interest shared by the Obama supporters in the highly liberal Democrat Hawaiian government renders anything they claimed untrustworthy, and like judges and justices of the Supreme Court, they are morally obligated to recuse themselves from pontificating on an issue of such immeasurable importance as the legitimacy of the citizenship of their own home-grown socialist hero; the President of the United States and leader of their amoral, statist, Gruberian party.

All of them are (were) highly conflicted and thus not a dependable source for crucial facts regarding the birth and citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, who remains an unconstitutional President as a statutory, former “provisional” citizen, and not “a natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires.  ~~~~~~~~

by Adrien R. Nash August 2015  obama–nation.com