Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

A Birther can be an American. A Marxist cannot. Is it racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or xenophobic to say either? Well that depends. It depends on whose birth is questioned, whose American pedigree is questioned and who asks the questions. If President Obama is black, then the questioner is racist. If Obama is a woman, the questioner is sexist. If Obama is gay, the offender is homophobic. But! But! If the questioner is a Democrat, no foul. Media is alerted. Emails are scrubbed. Videos edited. Everyone knows Democrats have immunity; as for everyone else, “Off the island.” If Republicans protest the stonewalling, Democrats reply, “Kindly tone down the rhetoric while we slow walk your requests for evidence and violate court orders long enough to claim it’s time to move on. Of course the Left is aware if they discuss any issue long enough, facts will come to light. To take the spotlight off the facts of the birther issue they agree it’s imperative they quickly level some new charge against Donald Trump, Let’s see. Which one will it be?

Is it racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or xenophobic to point out Marxists and Shariaistas share very little if anything in common with Americans? The answer is, “All of the above, whatever works;” because conveniently for Democrats they have registered and unregistered voter interest victim groups searching far and wide for something, anything new so they can individually scream in unison, “I’m outraged! Where’s my voting itinerary?”

Before Donald Trump as President deals with what to do about the eleven million plus illegal aliens living among us, his more urgent consideration should be how to deport all the Marxists “occupying” this country. They are not Americans. They are Marxists. Yes, they are in the census count of some 323 million citizens of the United States, that doesn’t make them Americans. Millions of the eleven million illegal immigrants in this country are Americans by their every intention, but not a single Marxist shares that intention of being an American, anywhere in our country. Not in government. Not in academia. Not in the media. Not a one. Neither are there any Shariaista Americans. Marxist American and Shariaista American as couplets are impossible combinations, oxymorons.

Some couplets don’t turn on themselves, don’t resort to self-immolation. One such couplet is: approval and help. Another is: forgiveness and healing. The first couplet, approval and help, is a short but succinct definition of the word blessing. The second is an example of the two fold nature of a blessing: forgiveness a sign of approval, healing the help. Forgiveness and healing are conjoined, rarely seen apart in the Gospels, together a really, really Yuge blessing for any willing to receive it.

The Constitution of the United States of America includes in its preamble the phrase, “and [to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The phrase including the word Blessings did not show up out of nowhere. It follows upon, includes much from what was written years before in the closing paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. In fact the various points worded differently, summarized in some instances in the closing of the Declaration, are similar if not identical in substance and meaning to the Preamble. The blessings of liberty phrase of the Preamble of the Constitution compares in its shorter rendition to the Declaration’s more detailed closing: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Providence based life, fortune, and honor hoped for in the Declaration is the Blessings of Liberty secured by the Constitution.

For those who claim God is not in the Constitution, an understanding of the blessings of liberty shows the claim is false. Its inclusion reveals the Constitution is peculiarly the word of the Declaration made flesh. Nature’s God, the Creator, Supreme Judge, and Providence of the Declaration come to earth in the Constitution in the blessings of liberty. (Please, the metaphor of the Word made flesh by no means ascribes divinity to either document, nor to the nation. The metaphor is simply a metaphor.)

Some groupings of America’s citizens reject the idea all the founders believed in Nature’s God, the Creator, Supreme Judge, and Providence. They further contend such beliefs are superfluous to our republic. However, their opinion of the matter does not negate evidence to the contrary. The Declaration was agreed to unanimously. Every signer entrusted himself and the nation to Providence while laboring to form a more perfect union. Unanimous, the actual word unanimous is in the document, above the fold, in headline bold. After July 4, 1776, is the title: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” (See below- Speculation why the u of unanimous and united are both in lower case.)

Here is a portion of what the signers of the Declaration unanimously declared as their objective: “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The first congress possessed a right to form a nation, “a more perfect union.” The States, the people were entitled to establish a new country of equal station to all the other countries of the world, this all based upon their understanding of and their desire to adhere to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Their entitlement was not a Christian thing, a Judaic thing, Muslim, Buddhist, or Zen thing. Their entitlement was an all mankind thing; that which all people everywhere on the planet know is theirs; before teachings and practices, ideologies, and movements cloud the rational ground they stand upon.

Further, the founders knew without natural law individuals are ill equipped to grasp or acknowledge God as revealed in Jesus. They had a vested interest in promoting natural law, a vested interest in forming a nation that revealed Nature’s God such that He could be seen as easily in the components and workings of our government as He can be seen in nature, whether while observing the intricacies of the smallest of Earth’s creatures or when struggling to come to grips with the multitude and complexity of galaxies spread across a possibly unending universe.

Natural law: interesting. The sun to rule by day, the moon to rule by night was the first inkling of government and its approaching oppressiveness. They divvied out their expectations: work and transparency by day, rest and conspiracy by night. Thinking of one’s entire life in the span of a day it was expected one would finish, accomplish his work before night fell and he could do no more. The next impositions of government upon man: live as male and female, plus an inference one is expected to acknowledge his maleness or her femaleness is a blessing from God. Next: be fruitful. “Be the music.” Labor for the purpose of eating, relishing what effort produces. Then: multiply. Clearly a call for males and females to bear children so they can fulfill the next demand of their government: to fill the earth and subdue it. After which: rule over all living things that move upon the earth.

Next: let God decide the separation of good and evil. Stay away from that one tree. Don’t take it upon yourself to call evil what God says is good. Don’t call good evil. Cultivate the earth. Keep it. Don’t let others force you to share what is yours. Additionally, exercise your dominion: name the animals (especially the terrorists who creep under and upon the earth.) Eve is created to be man’s helper. A man leaves his father and mother to “cleave” to his wife. They became one unit. Marriage and family were instituted. All the above describes the government of man from the beginning.

That returns us to our government today, appearing less and less in conformity with the basics of government as related in Genesis, a government Americans want to resurrect, a government closer to the people, less intrusive, that rewards industry, that ensures “liberty for all.” Marxists and Shariaistas oppose all of that. They abhor liberty. Does the issue of where Obama was born really matter? Not really. What matters is their allegiance to natural law and our republic as set forth in the Constitution, as eagerly anticipated in the written and signed for aspirations of the Declaration of Independence.

Note: Could it be the signed Declaration was headered with a lower case unanimous and united because however important agreement was, however important it was to be unanimous, democratic, or united; the republic and states were much more important? The states formed the union. They reserved the powers to dissolve the union. Individuals formed the states. They reserved the right to dissolve the states. The “united” had no such powers given them. The union could not dissolve a state, nor dissolve the individual. After all, liberty has no meaning in the hands of anything else but the individual. Try Googling the Declaration in its early handwritten forms. The unanimous Declaration and States of America is headline bold. of the thirteen united requires spectacles.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?