Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Who's Guilty of the Trashing of the US Presidency - And What Can Be Done About It?

Now that it is clear, to all who have eyes to see - and have done their homework in the regard - that Barack Obama was not eligible to run for the presidency of the United States, what is to be done about this matter, of usurpation?

First, it's helpful to know how we got here in the first place, to learn any lessons therefrom, and thus to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. So: Who is/was at fault here?

First of all has to be Mr. Obama himself. He is a constitutional lawyer; has lectured on the constitution to college students; and thus presumably knows whereof he speaks. He HAS to have known of the eligibility requirements of the office, in order to consider himself eligible to run for it. He therefore would have known of the requirement - the select, special, specific requirement to that particular office - to be a 'natural born citizen'. Even if he felt that there was some ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the term, he - if he believed in the rule of law at all - would have checked the matter out with some constitutionally knowledgeable advisers. And that advice SHOULD have given him pause.

We know he gave the matter SOME thought, because we know he himself brought up the issue of his father being a Kenyan citizen. So - what happened at that checkpoint?

Next stop on this trail, of guilt. He must have been ill advised by person or persons unknown specifically in the Democratic Party camp, to have visited this constitutional crisis on the American people - that the matter could have gotten as far as it has, without serious addressing of it. To say: Who led him to believe that all would be fine and Yankee Doodle Dandy? And why did he, this constitutional expert, believe them?

So the Democratic Party itself has a role to play in this fiasco. Someone high up in that body must have known that there was a difference between him being eligible to run for the national Senate and the presidency itself. This was and is not rocket science. Nor was it above his pay grade. So both he and the Democratic Party have responsibility in creating the crisis.

Next stop: the Opposition; meaning, at the first point of call there, the Republicans, and their GOP. But they may have had their own reasons to tread lightly on this snake, of 'constitutional eligibility'; since the Republicans (and note the near-anachronistic title) were not standing in the way of their own party's playing fast and loose with the Constitution, in the creation of an imperial presidency - excuse me; a 'unitary executive', as it was called in polite company, when THEIR person was in that position of pivotal power. Or, they simply did not want to risk being smeared, by accusations of 'racism' and so forth. Whatever.

Next stop: Congress itself. Now really, ladies and gentlemen of that august assembly: Did NONE of you twig on this issue? And if you did, where did your concerns go?

They obviously didn't go far enough. So how much of that is your fault, and how much of that is the fault of, possibly, your superiors; whomsoever all they may be?

Next stop: The judicial system. But the judicial system can only deal with issues that are brought there. Which finally happened after the fact. And the lower courts have washed their hands of the matter, and said, 'Nothing to do with me'. And added, in some cases: 'You need to go higher up than this court.' Meaning, to (a) Congress, and/or (b) the Supreme Court. As for (a): been there, looked at that. So:

Next stop: the Supreme Court. Which did deal with the matter to some extent; ie, the issue got past the first judicial hurdle, in being entertained by a justice, to the point of being brought to the next hurdle, of a 'quorum' of sorts (four, as I understand it). Where it has apparently faltered, in not getting the required number of justices to take it to the next stage. So: Some fault there. Actually, a lot of fault there - since the Supreme Court is where the legal-issues buck stops. But that body is not alone in culpability in this matter.

Who else, then, is culpable?

Well, there's the mainstream media (MSM). But should we wonder about this source? With its corporate-owner shot-callers?

Anybody else?

Unfortunately, yes.

We are. We, the People.

For letting it go this long. 'It': the serious constitutional issue of someone being eligible or not to run for the presidency of the United States.

Simply put: We have been asleep at the switch, of the American Republic into something resembling an empire.

Forged on both sides of the political aisle.

But it's not too late, to rouse ourselves, and take back our country, from those who would sacrifice it to a larger vision. The vision of a New World Order, run by and for the corporate-government kleptocracy that has risen in our day and age; just about to go for its final stage of takeover.

Except for one little detail.

A citizenry, aroused. And saying, collectively: Not on my watch.

This isn't a matter, then, of being either a Democrat or a Republican.

It is a matter, now, of being an American. And standing for the principles of the American Republic. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And speaking of: This brings up the role of the American military in all this. The military, who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution - "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" - not to any politician or set of politicians.

So: Where do we go from here.

Not an easy place. But it has been forced on us, by necessity. That We the People enlist the American military in applying pressure for Barack Obama to step down from the office that he has occupied under false pretences; and in dissolving the Congress of these United States, and arranging for elections within a set period of time, whatever is in harmony with the rule of law.

It's also a great Opportunity to clean house in more ways than one. But more on that, anon.



* worldnetdaily, and their excellent series of articles on this subject, of Obama's ineligibility for the office



smrstrauss said...

The reason that Obama believes that he is a Natural Born Citizen is the same as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who also believes that he is a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to run for president even though neither of Jindal's parents were citizens at the time of his birth.

The reason is that both of them are right. They ARE Natural Born Citizens.

That is because Natural Born means what it did in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution, in which anyone born in a Colony regardless of the number of his or her parents was considered a Natural Born Citizen of the colony and a Natural Born subject of Britain.

Natural Born, as the Wall Street Journal points out, is simply a synonym for native-born or born in the country. "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning." WSJ Web site, July 31.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Stan said...

With all due respect, Senators Graham and Hatch don't appear to have done much researching on the matter, nor has the WSJ. (Not a very good commentary on the intellectual habits and opinions of ostensible conservatives.)

There is a whole history of litigation, stemming from - at the least - Emmerich de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations' (1758) in definition of the term, that spells out the original definition, plus the reasons why the Founding Fathers made it such an important part of the Constitution, as regards who would be eligible to hold that particular office, and not have potential divided loyalties.

And it won't do for the Obama camp to try to come up with an ex post facto law to try to wriggle out of this matter, either. That is illegal as well.

Simply saying something is so doesn't make it so, in and of itself.

Either we live by the rule of law or we don't. Period. Otherwise, the Constitution IS "just a damn piece of paper".

The more I look into this matter, the more incensed I become. Did not peoples everywhere learn anything at the very least from the time and example of Hitler; who baldly declared, "I am the law"?

That's what happens when people start to play fast and loose with the meaning of words.

"Oh well; we can just interpret this term any way we want."

What arrogance. And shortsightedness.

Please look into this matter more closely, smrstrauss. I think you will find that it's not as open and shut a case as you apparently think it is. And I will continue to do the same. The whole story may not be in yet.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Emmerich de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations' (1758) in definition of the term,

ONLY Vattel said it. No one else did. When John Jay wrote to Washington recommending that the future commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen, he did not say "as Vattel defines it." He did not say: "meaning two US parents."

No framer ever said anything like that. The common law and the law in the Colonies at the time held that someone became a Natural Born Subject of Britain AND a Natural Born Citizen of the colony by being born in the colony, regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. Blackstone said the same thing: that Natural Born means born in the area regardless of the number of parents. In other words, Natural Born is a synonym for native-born, or born in the area.

The Wong Kim Ark case says over and over again that all persons born in England or a Colony were considered Natural Born, and since Wong was born in a State, he also must be considered Natural Born.

There has NEVER been a law case that required a person to have two US parents to be Natural Born. From time to time the USA has passed laws allowing the children of two US parents when born overseas to be considered just as Natural Born as a child born inside the USA. But there has never been a law or a lawsuit that says that someone born in the USA is not Natural Born or requires two US parents, or that Natural Born is not a synonym for native born.

Vattel was a great man, but not everything he recommended was adopted by the Constitution. For example, he recommended that every nation should establish a state religion and force people to join it. Also, though he defined a native citizen (the term Natural Born was not used in a translation of Vattel until 100 years after the Constitution) as someone who had two citizen parents and birth in the country, Vattel never recommended that the head of a country should be a native citizen or a citizen at all. He quoted plenty of cases where nations picked foreign royalty to be their leaders, and never said that doing that was a bad thing to do.

So, you see, Vattel said it, but who else did? Certainly such leaders as Adams, Franklin, Jay and Hamilton did not say it. I have searched their writings. Not a word on Natural Born. Not a word saying that the president should have two citizen parents.

So what does Natural Born mean? Well, it certainly excludes anyone who is a foreigner from being president. It certainly excludes any naturalized US citizen from being president. But it does not exclude the children of foreigners, if born in the USA, from being president.

Stan said...

Thank you for your continued contribution to this discussion, smrstrauss; and I will look into your claims further, in this attempt to gain total clarity on the issue. But two points, for now.

(1) Surely the whole point of the NBC exercise and specific requirement for that particular office was to make sure that the president did not have divided loyalties; and that would REQUIRE that he was born of two US citizens. So it was a matter of both soil and patrimony.
And surely the Founding Fathers were familiar with de Vattell's work on the subject, and its basic definition. Which was part of why they didn't have to specifically mention the two-parent aspect of the matter; it was perfectly understood by them what they were requiring as eligibility to run for and occupy that office. They in particular didn't want the English to slip back in control of the fledgling republic by the back door. Perfidious Albion, and all that.

(2) In any event: Doesn't it strike you as rather peculiar that he won't release his original, long form, vault-copy bc? (And he does have that right to. Statement from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Dept. of Health, released on October 31, 2008: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i revised Statutes $338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate TO PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE A TANGIBLE INTEREST IN THE VITAL RECORD [my emphasis]." It would be hard to believe that anybody had any more of a "tangible interest" in a particular birth certificate than the person for whom it was issued. Except, as in this case, the US citizenry. And why they are not considered as having "standing" in a court of law in this matter, I simply do not know, or understand. (They are the ones potentially being "injured" by the situation.) But that seems to be the law. Which we curious souls in this matter are attempting to abide by. Would that both sides would.)
Or, for that matter, his passport and history? Or his school records?? The question is apposite: What does he have to hide?


Stan said...


And as to his passport, and that history: What about the very curious matter of someone who was involved in his passport info being purloined from the State Dept. being killed?

Consider this, from a retired CIA officer's commissioned investigation into the BHO bc and eligibility issue ('Clearing the Smoke on Obama's Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator's June 10 Report'; westernjournalism/com/?page_id=2697); quoting from the Washington Times:

"Saturday, April 19, 2008

"A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

"Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators [sic], was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department's Criminal Investigations Division.

"Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard..." [That's gunshots. Plural. As in parents, plural. So he didn't top himself.]

What is this all about? Earlier in this report the investigator noted:

"It should be added that 'Obama's top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department's passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General's report released this past July.

"'The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan's firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

"'During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

"'Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to "cauterize" the records of potentially embarrassing information.

"'"They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion," one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. "But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file."

"'At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unoaid adviser to the Obama campaign..."'

So: Circumstantial stuff. But it brings up the last point I want to make in my response here:

that the matter should be taken into a court of law; not just discussed on the internet. Otherwise it's just an academic exercise. Helpful, but ultimately unsatisfying.

And that would require BHO to produce his original, vault-copy bc.

Which he should have done long ago.

Stan said...

Correction in my last Comment (I can't figure out how to do this in the original):

"At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign..." - not 'unoaid'