Obama's Non-Citizenship: A Conflagration Waiting to Happen?

President-elect Barack Obama has still not proven that he is a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court plans to meet in conference on December 5th to determine whether it will hear the evidence against him. No matter how the High Court decides, the result will cause a political and social conflagration.

The large media outlets in America are ignoring the Barack Obama Citizenship issue, praying that it will go away. It won't. Barack Obama has conveniently sidestepped the issue of whether he is a citizen of the United States--a specific requirement for one to become its President. The State of Hawaii, where Obama claims to have been born, has officially stated that it has Obama's birth certificate on record, but it still has yet to say unequivocally whether that certificate certifies a United States--or a foreign--birth. Alleged reproductions of Obama's certificate float around the internet, but none are officially embossed. The Supreme Court will meet next week to determine whether to hear the case against our President-elect.
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
To Decide...What happens if the Supreme Court finds that Obama is NOT a citizen? Who will become president? Joe Biden? No. It would seem that if Obama is not a citizen, his entire presidential ticket would be invalid. In such a case, would the Presidential Line of Succession take place? No, because a valid President has not been elected.

In such a case, would George W. Bush remain president until another election can be held? That would be quite ironic in a day when tin-pot dictator Hugo Chavez is still seeking to become President of Venezuela for life.

Ten days intervene between the Court's conference and the date on which votes from the Electoral College must be certified. That seems like enough time for our President-elect to show a piece of paper that proves that he is a United States citizen.

The worst outcome would be large-scale riots, which would almost definitely ensue a Supreme Court decision that Barack Obama is not qualified to become President of the United States. Millions are still seething as a result of the Court's decision in 2000 that Florida had to abide by its state recount rules, which effectively installed George W. Bush in the White House for his first term. Imagine how much more anger would be released into the atmosphere this time--if the nation's first black president were to be disqualified by the same body!

Or To Decide Not To Decide...It's odd that it has come to this. Barack Obama could have easily presented his United States birth certificate before now--which leads the scrutinous to believe that he's hiding something. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, not only will President Obama live under a Constitutional cloud for his entire administration, he will live at the beck and call of his Establishment handlers. With his selection of a predominance of Clinton retreads for his
Administration, it's already beginning to shape up that way.

And American foreign and domestic policy will not change substantially--just as it hasn't for the past 20 years.

And somehow a large percentage of people who voted for Obama will be genuinely surprised.

. . .

How do we get ourselves into these predicaments? I'll tell you how--by failing to think for ourselves and by voting for the lesser of the same two evils that the Establishment serves us up on a lead platter every four years. The Democrats rejected their one viable candidate--Dennis Kucinich--who had no personal baggage. Likewise, the Republicans could not have have gone wrong by supporting Ron Paul, yet they cast him aside like a dirty rag.

Now, because we can't think for ourselves, we have been presented with a gigantic conundrum. No matter how the Supreme Court decides, our reaction to that decision will mean that we have become less of a nation.




Comments

  1. The Supreme Court CANNOT DUCK Obama's Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis (albeit the media blackout on the issue). The messiah will NOT become President! This 90-minute blogradio program explains why:

    http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. The media isn't talking about it because he is a citizen. He has presented his birth certificate; media outlets have examined physical copies. The facts have been put to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Davis D:--

    First, the issue is NOT whether Obama is a "citizen". The issue IS whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution's Article II requirement to be President.

    Second, Obama has NOT presented a "Birth Certificate". He has presented a "Certificate of Live Birth" (which some say is a forgery anyway but regardless) which is not the same as a birth certificate. The Birth Certificate on file and now sealed by Hawaii has NOT been seen; and it may not indicate that Obama's birth occurred in Hawaii (e.g., could be a Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Davis D, and, Hawaii routinely issued the Certificates of Live Birth for up to a year after birth even if the births did not occur in Hawaii.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, it's been interesting as I've followed this issue in the past couple of months. Obamapologists like Davis continue to point to the lame attempt made by the campaign to deflect attention to the issue by posting a birth certificate, which as Ted has clarified, in no way demosntrates a natural-born citizenship.

    As per Philip Berg's pursuit of this matter, I like the summary given in this month's The New American:

    [Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania] ruled that even if all of Berg's claims were true, the case must be dismissed because the plaintiff, Berg, was not "entitled to relief" because he had no legal "standing." In other words, Berg was not legally recognized as a legitimate plaintiff against Obama because Obama did not "injure" Berg in some way -- whether physically or financially, either directly or by way of damaging his reputation. But Berg should not have had to prove standing because the Constitution is a legal conract between the government and the people, and any party to a contract has a right to enforce the contract.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the Supreme Court doesn’t pick up the Obama Non-Citizen ball and run with it, the liberal left-wing conspiracy nutcases and the now-in-hiding media together will beat this matter to death.

    And, George Soros will finally get his wish- Come January 20, 2009 it will be President George Soros and his Obama Howdy Doody doll.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Davis D. This is stupid and just another case of sour oranges. Come on Frank, take the tinfoil hat off and get a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Davis and Anon the last:

    I would take off my tinfoil hat, but I use it not only to keep my mind closed, but also to shield my brain from those pesky damaging electromagnetic waves from my cell phone. It's also to protect myself from mean words from mean meanies like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ;-)

    Why would the mainstream media not be interested in the fact that the Supreme Court is meeting to discuss the issue? Do you think that the Supreme Court is doing another political stunt?

    Admittedly, only 4 of the 9 justices voted to hear it in conference.

    But just humor me for a minute: suppose that somehow 5 justices did decide that Obama is not a citizen. What kind of upheavals would happen?

    ReplyDelete
  9. To describe Dennis Kucinich as not having baggage is just a bit bizarre. They guy claims to have heard communications in his mind emanating from a UFO he saw while standing on Shirley MacLaine's balcony in the middle of the night. And that's one of the more mild matters. To consider this man a viable and competent candidate for the presidency is absurd.

    The fact is that there a many, many people (both left and right) that could do a better job as president than either of the 2008 major party candidates. But politics is not about common sense. It is about power. And that makes it a strange world where rationality does not need to apply.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's a bit absurd to claim that Kucinich is not a viable candidate simply because he saw an "Object" that was "Flying" that was "Unidentified". It's much more important to see how he votes in Congress. He voted against the Iraq invasion, and he voted against the 700 billion bailout. He's against NAFTA and the WTO. I probably disagree with his health-care single payer idea, but then again I haven't studied it enough. Sounds to me like he's got a pretty square head on his shoulders, and as Bill Moyers noted on his "Now" series, Kucinich was the one unique Democrat candidate in 2008.

    Politics is only about power because that's what we've let it become. I suspect when all of the bailouts don't help anything that a critical mass of people will start wanting politics to be about integrity. Then people like Kucinich and Ron Paul will figure much more into the political scene.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I cannot believe that you will not accept the most basic assertions of President-elect Obama: that he meets the basic constitutional qualifications of being a natural-born citizen over 35 years old. Can you name me one other President who has been pressed similarly? Why didn't we see McCain's birth certificate?
    Obama has produced an official document asserting that he was born August 4, 1961, at 7:24 PM in Honolulu, HI. While this may not be the "birth certificate" given to his parents at his birth, it does indicate that such a certificate was filed by a registrar on August 8, 1961.
    Secondly, it is not even the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide this. The Congress, in joint session, on January 6, certifies the vote of the Electoral college. If someone has an objection to any part of the election, including the qualifications of the candidates, a member of both houses must sign a complaint.
    I doubt that will happen, because even the most delusional members of Congress can accept simple facts, unlike some of you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DD,

    I'd like to get past this first part of the argument (but perhaps you can't because you're so fixated with your opinion that I'm a doofus-brain).

    But in case you can agree to disagree with me for the sake of moving to the second part of the argument, what DOES happen if a majority of the Supreme Court declares Obama a non-citizen?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Frank, many of your recent post have been reasoned and intelligent. That increased my surprise when I read this post, which seems to be based on such spurious evidence and illogical reasoning.
    The Supreme Court cannot rule on this issue because it has no jurisdiction in the matter. Regardless, I cannot imagine the court would disregard a legitimate, legal document from a state government, as the Certificate of Live Birth from the State of Hawai'i.
    Also, while I am a Democrat and voted for Obama, I supported Richardson in the primary, and I am a rational individual and do not see him as the messiah or FDR or JFK, or anyone else at this point but the President-Elect, legitimately elected by the people of the United States and I hope he leads our nation out of our various crises. I do not see his birth status as one of those because it has been so thoroughly resolved by many independent observers. Your chicken-littleness, the apocalyptic fear you have of his presidency, is what scares me. I don't believe he could be any more ineffective that Carter or Ford, but I hope for more. I hope most of the rhetoric here is deliberately hyperbolic, and I should really let this go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DD.

    I forgive you for thinking that I am in a panic regarding an Obama presidency. Really I'm not. If the Supreme Court doesn't find anything, or if it decides not to hear the case, I'm cool with that, although it will make me and thousands of other Americans wonder why he has been so evasive about the issue.

    Obama's presidency couldn't possibly be worse than a McCain presidency. Besides I have been conditioned to expect back-room politics as usual from the Clinton and Bush administrations of the past 20 years. Americans are resilient and can deal with anything.

    That being said, I really don't think that Obama has proven his citizenship. I look at this from purely a constitutional perspective (not a panic perspective). I disagree with your claim that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the issue. The citizenship requirement is in the Constitution--therefore the Court has jurisdiction.

    Please explain to me what I'm missing in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What I am missing is why he must prove it to you beyond any sane person's doubt? He has asserted, in legal documents filed when he ran for President, that he is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old. Election officials in the many states who administer elections, have accepted his affidavit. Media organizations and courts have studied the issue, and he has produced legal documentation to prove the fact. I find it an incredible double standard that he, of all the Presidential candidates of all time, has been required to prove his natural-born citizenship.
    I think you are missing what the constitution says about the administration of elections, especially considering the role of Congress and the states, as well as what current code states. I am not a lawyer, but I believe the Supreme Court cannot even rule on the issue until the election is certified by Congress. Similarly, I believe the responsibility for determining the eligibility of a person for office lies with the government conducting the election. Therefore, only state governments conduct the presidential election, and the Congress merely certifies the results of the states elections. Thus, as no state court as invalidated Obama's legal status as a presidential candidate, and many have rejected challenges to the contrary, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue until a decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, which apparently will happen but won't make it past conference. Why? Because the Supreme Court has a much higher standard for evidence than the fools at WND. Yes they are fools, and people are foolish for believing them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not sure why the Supreme Court would have to wait to rule on the issue. What if it were more clear that some president-elect were not a citizen? If the Court waited until the elections were certified, that would present a huge conundrum, likely keeping the current president in place beyond his or her constitutional two-term limit.

    You say

    ...the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue until a decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, which apparently will happen but won't make it past conference...

    You're right--they don't have jurisdiction until it is appealed. But as you agree, it has been. It may likely fail in conference by a 5-4 decision, but if I can tempt you once again to answer my original question, what if it passes the conference and what if the Supreme Court determines that he does not have citizenship?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I disagree that politics is only about power because we allow that to happen. The very definition of politics is to gain power over others. Webster says that politics is "the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government." Controlling a government is controlling those governed by that government. Control = power.

    Politics is and will always be about power. Period. It's nice to harbor egalitarian sentiments of altruistic politics, but that won't happen until people reach a perfected state.

    Since politics is about exerting control over people, the best way to ensure liberty is to allow politics to have as little control as possible over our lives. That means limiting government to is minimal appropriate functions.

    Politicians (regardless of party) do not want this to happen because it would diminish their power. Therefore, they rarely speak to individual responsibility. Rather, they always try to tell us how government will solve our problems for us (if only we will cede more power to them). And Americans seem to buy these arguments quite readily.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reach,

    I "altruistically" ;-) disagree with you and Webster's definition of politics. It is largely that way, but it shouldn't be. However, I completely agree with you that because "natural man" politicians want to perpetuate their power, this "means [that] limiting government to its minimal appropriate functions" is critical.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs