Why does our President feel as though he’s above the law..?

Please, would someone “in the know” help us understand why as though this president feels as though he’s above the law?

In all of our years experience with scandal, corruption, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, and the slew of never ending bull squat that comes from that office – why does Barack Obama feel as though he is so BIG he doesn’t have to do what everyone else in this country has to do?

Get this one committed to memory: It took almost three years for Barack “Thin-Skinned” Obama to finally produce this makeshift birth certificate from Hawaii, which is kind of funny to a few of us here…inasmuch as our tenure in Hawaii has seen only spectacular results for requests of birth certificates, for some marriage licenses, and transcripts from various educational institutions. It is not Hawaii, people.

Have you heard of the young man who is lobbying for Obama’s transcripts? We extend our help in anyway possible.

There’s a subpoena from a Georgia administrative court with Barack Obama’s name on it for him to be in Atlanta on Thursday, along with the documentation about his birth, to answer to challenges from residents of the state objecting to the presence of his name on the 2012 ballot.

They believe he’s simply not eligible under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” They say the Founders thought of that status as the offspring of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was Kenyan. Or they say he wasn’t born in the U.S. They are legitimately allowed to raise those challenges under a state law.

But several observers say no one really should expect Obama to arrive; and at this point we know he has not.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.” In Michelle Malkin’s words he is from “The Culture of Corruption”