Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Town Hall’

It seems it would be easier to find a needle in a hay stack than for Obama himself, to produce an authentic copy of his birth certificate.

Main Stream Media has all but dismissed coverage of any lingering questions regarding is eligibility to hold office under The U.S. Constitution-  Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and Article VI, Clause 2. of which should need no explanation.  Instead, suddenly Google has 729 news articles in it’s query and most dismiss the entire topic as being implausible. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/09/birth_certificate/  has a review of all the “half baked legal theories,” and points to some on the fringe while ignoring the underlying facts that President Elect Obama has still refused to authenticate himself.

David Horowitz at Town Hall wrote, “It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.”  http://townhall.com/Columnists/DavidHorowitz/2008/12/08/obama_derangement_syndrome_conservatives_need_to_shut_up_about_the_birth_certificate

I fail to define seeking the truth for the highest office in the land, radical.  How is it radical to want to see our laws upheld?   Like most folks I live within the law.  Except for my last speeding ticket some ten years ago, I have a clean record.  I vote, work, pay taxes, have a family, and have a mundane life.  I attend church regularly where my clergy does not claim to “God Damn America.”  I am not a radical.  

When it comes to my individual right to have standing  in the court of law, I fail to see how the media does not strongly object.  Specifically Justice Surrick in Berg v Obama, et al said that Berg has no standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship- again we must ask, if he has no standing then who does?  Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. writes…  “And, particularly in this situation, judges will desperately desire to escape having to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences—let alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media—that will flow from the courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the Office of President. Which responsibility and vilification wily judges can craftily evade by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and various other would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility. For then the judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they have no authority to declare Obama ineligible because no litigant has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other hand, by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have not declared him eligible, either http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

In the National Press Room after some long winded comments which can be reviewed with a degree of fairness at http://www.americasright.com/2008/12/challenging-obamas-eligibility-just.html Berg said,  “My case in district court was dismissed for one reason – standing,” Berg said. “According to the court, I don’t have standing, Bob doesn’t have standing, no one in this room has standing. We’re asking for one qualification out of three. We know he’s at least 35 years old. We’ll give him the 14 years in the country. We just want to know that he is natural born. It’s not that difficult.”  Apparently it is.

Horowitz’ article,  Obama Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives Need to Shut Up About the Birth Certificate asks “what difference does it make if Obama was born on U.S. Soil and that advocates will argue “Constitutional Principle”.  He is correct, I and others will argue rationally for my country and my Constitution every day, with every last breath, and not shut up.  There is no civil unrest, no riots, no nothing but freedom of speech.

Donofrio, Berg, Cort, and even Andy Martin have done much to uphold the laws of this land as the original signers of the Constitution intended.    It is not about disenfranchising or challenging the 65 million votes Obama garnered in the election that are being challenged, it’s the fact that Obama should provide proof that he was legally eligible in the first place.  We respect the outcome of elections as proof in Bush v Gore and even in those ballots still being counted for of all people, Al Franken.  From The NY Times “The missing votes favored Mr. Franken, who would fall 46 more votes behind Mr. Coleman if the recount numbers are used.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/09minnesota.html?_r=1&ref=politics   I fail to see how more votes would not assist Mr. Franken and that goes to show the quality of MSM election reporting.

The bailout has gone from billions to trillions in just days.  Were Obama’s eligibility falter, the outcome would be tragic.  It would be a bigger tragedy to have allowed a subversion of  America’s core document, The Constitution.

The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, to George Washington in 1787 in a letter wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

Perhaps the Supremes have read, ““Let it be remembered that civil liberty consists, not in a right to every man to do just what he pleases, but it consists in an equal right to all citizens to have, enjoy, and do, in peace, security and without molestation, whatever the equal and constitutional laws of the country admit to be consistent with the public good.”

 Time will tell if denial and disenfranchisement of Obama’s citizenship is consistent with the public good.

God Bless America

Advertisements

Read Full Post »