The Law Does Not Apply to Øbama, Apparently...

From American Thinker (h/t Monty Pelerin's World)

The 2012 race is gearing up, so it seems fitting that the perennial "Birther" issue would raise its head again.  Only this time, it seems to threaten Øbama's eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot.

As far as "Birtherism" goes, the only thing that bothers me is the lack of transparency from what was supposed to be the "most transparent administration in history."  Something was released, and arguments have gone back and forth over its authenticity...but why were over a million dollars spent to conceal it?  And what of his academic records?

Some of these questions have been deemed serious enough to warrant a hearing in Georgia, requiring Chairman Zero to appear and provide some explanation for the evidence brought against him.

He has simply waved it off as frivolous. Well, technically, Øbama's attorney called it, "baseless, costly and unproductive," and "improvidently issued."

And to underscore his sentiments, Obama failed to show up at the 26. Jan hearings that were supposed to address this issue.

I seem to recall another set of "frivolous" lawsuits aimed at my former Governor, Sarah Palin.  She had to answer them.  And it got to the point that she chose to step down rather than use State money to address them.

Is the President given immunity from such?  Especially when it's not a bunch of random individuals or organizations, but a State-level department demanding your presence?

Alan P. Halbert has some thoughts about the whole deal:

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal!   The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand!  It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's.  We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years.  After this hearing we may eventually know why.

Autocratic Hypocrisy

Those of us who lived through the Cold War well remember the rather paradoxical names of the Communist countries.  The "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic), The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "People's Republic of China," "People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia," "Democratic Republic of Vietnam," and so on.

And, we well remember that none of the above were Democratic Republics.

Well, here's another misleading name:  "Constitutional Scholar," as applied to Øbama.  Remember back in 2007 when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

 

My, how times have changed.  Too bad there isn't any published works attached to his name, his academic transcripts are still not available to the public, and I don't think there have been any interviews with any former students of his.

And how's this for another whopper, as found over at Cato (Will Congress Stop King Barack the First?): 

"But the worst hypocrisy here is Obama's. 'I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher,' he piously intoned in 2009: 'I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience's sake.'"

*snort*  *guffaw*

Well, we've already had a good look at how enduring these principles are in the eyes of Obama when his agenda must be expedited.