The Obama Experiment
Enabled by
Congressional and Judicial Acquiescence (CAJA) for America
Caja mortuoria para America
This past year, I and many others have become concerned over how easily and how far the public can be misled by the government, politicians and the media. Like most Americans, I have always been aware that I could not count on politicians to look out for me and my family’s interests. However, I have tried very hard to believe that my Congressional Representatives and the Courts were at the very least committed and strived to live up to the Constitution as best they could. Well folks, it seems that I can’t try hard enough to overcome the political shenanigans that are staring me in the face today.
Even though it may not seem so, I really don’t enjoy paying such close attention to what politicians and judges are doing. I want to be living and enjoying my life, doing what I want to be doing; but I can’t. If I try to allow myself to acquiesce to what’s going on today, I find myself not being able to look in the mirror. It sucks. Acquiescence is a path easily followed with few people holding you accountable. Most times, regular folks, folks without full and complete information, like me – accept, comply, or submit tacitly, passively to what is being told to us by the experts, the politicians and the courts. (Before last year, even the media from time to time.) Who has the time to figure it all out?
Okay, before I get to my concerns, I want to make the point that I don’t generally believe in the possibility of directed big government conspiracies, because there is no way more than 2 or 3 American politicians can keep a secret about anything. I don’t think it works that way in government and politics.
In politics and government, things happen, things get ignored, people get promoted and things receive attention through a (the) political community environment. I think politics and government “work” more along the lines of how the norms of the society in villages or small towns are established and enforced. The culture of “the community” develops and also the ways of making sure that everyone participates to serve the community so that it can continue to function as it has been. In our towns and cities today, behavior is conditioned or enforced generally through fines, tickets, jail or threat of jail. However, in our small towns of yesterday, enforcement was generally done with a more personal touch by scorn, ridicule, isolation, and/or ostracizing the offending person, maybe their families too. (Promotions within the military community had layers of this phenomenon when I was serving.) Sometimes subtle shame or scorn was effective enough to control the behavior of the individual so the daily functioning of the town could go right along.
Politicians, political parties and judges also have their own “communities”, with their own unwritten codes of conduct, ethics, and expectations. They know the rules of the game down to their bones. Fidelity to those who helped get you elected (Judges included), the future path to selection or being blacklisted from higher positions by politicians making judicial appointments, or having the limb one goes out on cut out from under are all the implicitly understood “societal norms.” It’s analogous to the Blue Wall of Silence that can be encountered when a police officer is accused of something, payback can be hell if the code of silence is broken – no directive will go out, but payback will occur.
In real life, operating simultaneously, the politician or judge also wears many other hats. He or she could be a family person, community member, church member, friend, lawyer, etc. Usually there’s little conflict between the rolls. But every now and again, there are political situations will arise that come into direct conflict with the ethical expectations of the politician’s/judge’s other roles. I believe we are currently watching one such political situation, a big one, play itself out in the hearts, minds and souls of judges and politicians across American. So far, the politicians are living up to their stereotype of having low moral character; and they are falling over themselves to acquiesce to the norms of their “Political Community” instead those of the citizen, believer, lawyer, or parent.
The “situation” that is haunting the souls of Judges across America is the application of the following clause in the United States Constitution -
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
I doubt this clause is what’s troubling most politicians because I suspect that they have not actually read or studied the Constitution. If they have studied it, it was merely to see why Courts are always saying Congress can’t do this or that and/or to contemplate how to get around the Constitution’s provisions. To many a politician, the Constitution of the United States is more of a nuisance rather than a revered document.
The issue:
As incredible as it may seem, the problem that millions of Americans are still largely unaware is that it is very likely that Barack Obama fails to meet the above stated test of Presidential eligibility. (Why are so many Americans clueless? Simply, the media took it upon themselves months ago to protect Obama in order to have him elected President so their agendas would be advanced and they would be invited to hear Barbara Streisand sing. The main stream media has protected Obama from every scandal from Tony Rezko to Larry Sinclair.)
How does Obama fail to qualify to serve as President?
Even though Obama is almost certainly a citizen of the United States, he is probably not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Many politicians and Obama supporters who don’t hold the Constitution in such high esteem, they would argue that it is a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago and why should Obama have to meet such a minor technical requirement?
Quick answer, it’s not a minor technical requirement.
The U. S. Constitution has aptly served America through time primarily because of the care and deliberation the framers took in its drafting. If studied seriously, one would quickly recognize that every word was carefully chosen and every sentence carefully crafted by wise and deliberate men desiring to convey a meaning certain; and where necessary, meaning that could allow for evolving interpretations in the unknowable future such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment, and rights retained by the People.
Its requirements have caused amazing social progress to be made through the years even when such “progress” ran against popular opinion. The overarching point or goal held in the mind of many framers during the Constitution’s drafting was the firm belief that the federal government must be limited in size and scope; and was not to stand in the way of individual liberty or the rights of the states any more than was absolutely necessary. At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, the federal government’s primary charge was to for the common defense of the nation against all enemies. As such, it makes logical sense that the framers would have intended that a person holding the Office of President of the United States, the highest office, could not, must not have allegiance to any other nation(s) – no conflict of interests or loyalties. Shouldn’t the same be true today, given that we are under constant threat of attack in the war on terror?
What is a “Natural Born Citizen”?
First of all, notice that the framers expressly made an exception for people who were present at the birth of the nation out of necessity. No one would have been able to be one the first few Presidents under the “natural born citizen” provision if they had not done so.
…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…
So “Natural Born Citizen” – There will certainly be lawyers on both sides of the Obama eligibility issue arguing ad infinitum (without limit) for their client’s position. However, Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. has thoroughly explained this phrase “natural born citizen” in terms that seem to be closest to what the framers probably intended. He postulates that the framers certainly would have relied on the work of Vattel when drafting the Article 2 provision and that the following section written by Vattel is probably the key to our understanding. Note the distinction between a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen” that Vattel makes.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens….
The intention, Vattel’s intention, seems perfectly clear to me, but remember lawyers will argue about the color of the sky.
Generally, what do the Plaintiffs in the scores of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility argue?
World Net Daily has a short summary:
…Some of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago….
What is the Obama camp saying?
Not much. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign has characterized the lawsuits as “garbage.” It’s interesting to note that instead of quickly requesting a $20 to $30 copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate from officials in Hawaii, Obama dispatched teams of lawyers to block any release of information that could provide answers. What does spending hundreds of thousands of dollars versus spending twenty or thirty tell you?
Obama’s campaign did release a copy of a “Certification of Live Birth” to a few partisan blogs, one called The Daily Kos and another called Factcheck. A “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii cannot be relied upon to establish where Obama was born since Hawaii allowed children not born in Hawaii to obtain such documents. An authenticated long form birth certificate is needed to help establish the place of Obama’s birth.
What has happened in the Courts?
So far the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have managed not to hear the allegations against Obama in evidentiary proceedings. Many of the cases have been dismissed because of Plaintiffs’ lack of sufficient legal “standing” to bring such a lawsuit, some for “mootness”, and some for other technical legal manipulations. None have been dismissed on the merits based on evidence.
However, there are numerous lawsuits still alive in the courts, some with military officers, State Representatives, and others as Plaintiffs who should be able to overcome the lack of standing argument. World Net Daily is also reporting the existence of a new federal criminal complaint filed against Obama.
Judges appear to be trying hard to ignore these lawsuits because they don’t want to take the political heat if Obama is forcibly removed from the Office due to his ineligibility. Do they fear for their future positions on the Federal bench? Do they fret about their legacies in history? Do they fear being required to adhere to the Constitution’s eligibility provision? Yes, I suspect they do.
From the moment the first judge dismissed Philip Berg’s lawsuit Berg v Obama based solely on the technical legal argument that the Plaintiff lacked the requisite standing to bring the case; judges across the nation knew they had their out from the burdens of this decision, or at least their direction.
Do whatever you can to bury these actions. Do not under any circumstances hear any of these cases on the merits. Do not allow evidence of Obama’s ineligibility to be presented in any court of law. The judge in Berg v Obama started the snowball of acquiescence rolling and it has grown and grown without one judge having the courage to require or even suggest that Obama to show his long form birth certificate. Having started down this path, the courts now appear to be emotionally attached to it and are circling the wagons.
Consider the lunacy of the reasoning that one judge came up with to his support his decision. In the case, Hollister v Soetoro (Obama), Judge Robertson had the audacity (foolishness) to actually state the following in one of his orders:
…The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court…”
The Judge is essentially saying that Internet Bloggers are the “Triers of Fact” that Judge Robertson relies upon. Robertson’s statement should be an embarrassment to every court in this nation.
The stakes are so high for the Judges that someone appears to be pulling enough strings to have people silenced. One man who wrote a letter to Judge Robertson to complain received an unexpected visit from two U.S. Marshals. (See also: Stephen Pidgeon Involved with Law Enforcement Activity; Update: Police Activity Occurred, WND Reports and WND: Ex-Officer Visited by Law Enforcement Over Criminal Complaint) Where is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) when it comes to protecting the rights of free speech and equal access to the courts regarding the Obama eligibility issue?
Nevertheless, the Genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. One courageous attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, representing, among others, over 100 active duty and retired military, has had over 8.4 million visits per month to her site.
It will only take one brave ethical Judge to look him or herself in the mirror and decide that they cannot continue to acquiesce to this possible injustice and violation of the Constitution. One judge who will order a full blown evidentiary hearing on the subject of whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, that’s all that is needed for a chance to discover the truth.
What are the Members of Congress who ratified the vote of the Electoral College and the Election saying? (CitizenWells and World Net Daily both provide insight.)
Members of Congress appear to be scurrying to acquiesce to and use the misrepresentations made by members of the media to formulate their responds to their constituents.
As an example Sen. Schumer says:
“The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”
Sen. Schumer’s statement, “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen” appears to be a bald faced lie. NO court in the United States has allowed any evidentiary hearings on the merits of the allegations against Obama. No evidence whatsoever has been allowed to be presented in open court, requiring authentication. However, the cases keep coming.
Sen. Schumer’s statement, “…the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu…” is another misrepresentation based upon media misrepresentations of the Hawaiian officials’ actual statements. I feel sure that Schumer knows that Hawaiian officials did not make that broad of an assertion. This looks like another bald faced lie by a Senator sworn to uphold the Constitution?
Senator Sherrod Brown states, “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961…” Wrong. I’m reminded of a famous quote from President Bush. “You’re doing a hell of a job Brownie!”
Under the law in effect in Hawaii in 1961, it was possible for children not born in Hawaii to obtain a “Certificate of Live Birth”. Obama has never provided a copy of his long form birth certificate which should show the hospital where Obama alleges he was born, the Doctor who delivered him, etc. However, there is statement from Obama’s grandmother indicating that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.
All this must be sorted out in an adversarial evidentiary hearing in a court of law if the true facts are to be discovered. America cannot rely on Internet bloggers as the ultimate “trier of fact” regarding such an important question.
Why does it matter?
It matters because it is the right and just thing to do!
The chips will fall where they will if these legal challenges are successful. There will be many disappointed people. However, if we don’t uphold the Constitution and millions of people around the world and at home are left to question whether Obama has any authority to sign legislation, issue “lawful orders”, or engage in binding negotiations with foreign powers – America and her military will be weakened to their core.
If the Constitution can be ignored out of convenience or inconvenience, then the very fabric that binds Americans together will have been shredded.
Unfortunately, there are many in America who would delight in that prospect. Do you remember the picture of Obama’s friend William Ayers standing on the American flag in a dark alley? America’s future will be that dark alley if we, Judges and Politicians included, don’t live up to our American principles. First and foremost of these is that America is a nation governed by the rule of law. Therefore, this controversy really leaves no acceptable option but to find out the truth and follow the Constitution.
The current Congressional and Judicial Acquiescence (CAJA) is in fact undermining the Constitution of the United States by those in power appearing to look the other way, is undermining the confidence of the American people in the rule of law and is inadvertently enabling the financial destruction of America thru Obama’s quest for greater socialism. The CAJA MORTUARIA PARA AMERICA is the cost of such acquiescence. Obama should not be sitting in the Oval Office making decisions which will likely lead to America’s demise if the facts that are alleged are true.
America needs someone at the helm who can be believed in by everyone. Early last year, I thought it could have been Obama, but I started paying attention and got out of my own acquiescence. I’m not like Chris Mathews, living in a constant state of periphescence. Are you?
If Obama is in fact a criminal, how can he ever be believed or respected?
My final question is directed at the talk show hosts and politicians who might be struggling with the Obama eligibility issue and their roles.
Where are the “Big Dawgs”? Where are Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Rielly, and Ron Paul on this issue?
When U.S. Rep. Bill Posey proposed legislation to require proof of citizenship status for upcoming elections, he was immediately vilified in the main stream press and by other politicians. Standing tall exacts a price. I don’t believe that radio talk show hosts are afraid of the media, but there must be something stopping them from taking a stand.
Michael Savage had Philip Berg as a guest on his radio show during the election. However, I haven’t had the opportunity follow Mr. Savage recently to know what his current position is. Glenn Beck thought the Obama birth certificate issue was a distraction during the election campaign and chose instead to focus on Obama’s positions on the various issues.
Glenn Beck now is promoting the “We Surround Them” initiative that is based on belief in common principles, not on Party identification. Doesn’t demanding that the Constitution of the United States be followed fall under Glenn Beck’s 5th Principle?
“5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.”
Rush Limbaugh, a constant target of media and political vilification, appears to be really focusing in on the dangers of Obama’s policies. Rush wants Obama’s policies to fail and so do I because socialism promotes mediocrity. The problems America faces are too big for mediocrity. When Rush said he wanted Obama’s policies to fail, the media immediately mischaracterized his comments as a mean spirited desire for “Obama” to fail.
Isn’t Rush’s experience similar to politicians and the media, based on misinformation and misrepresentations, asserting that Obama is a citizen; that Obama’s birth certificate on the Internet proves he was born in Hawaii in 1961 and location of Obama’s birth was verified by officials in Hawaii; and that courts have decided that Obama was born in Hawaii – when not one of those assertions have been established or proven in a court of law?
Senator Ron Paul is known to be a champion of the idea that the government should follow the Constitution. Where is he? Can it be that Sen. Ron Paul is making political calculations to preserve his credibility regarding his own pet issues?
All of the above named celebrities have had their share of run-ins with the media and politicians mischaracterizing their words and positions. I would think that they would be the people most likely to be sympathetic and/or outraged by the mischaracterizations regarding the facts, proof, and motives directed at the participants in the numerous eligibility lawsuits.
Even if Rush, Glenn or Ron Paul believes that Obama is a “natural born citizen”, shouldn’t they still object loudly against the media’s mischaracterization and lying about what Obama has supposedly established concerning his citizenship status? Shouldn’t they come to the aid of concerned citizens being unjustly vilified or intimidated by the media and law enforcement? Shouldn’t they demand that this issue be resolved one way or the other in a fair evidentiary hearing?
Where are the “Big Dawgs”?
Just to remind everyone what “The Obama Experiment” is offering, I copied just a few of the headlines from The Drudge Report of March 25th & 26th . Obama’s economic experiment (socialism?) is failing badly and may bankrupt this country if it is not reversed.
Geithner ‘open’ to China proposal on currency… Developing…
White House economic adviser Goolsbee won’t rule out…
Dollar drops on Geithner comment… Foreign Exchange Markets Roiled…
Obama Plans to Name Task Force to Overhaul Tax Code; ‘Rebalance’…
Geithner to Propose Vast Expansion Of Government Oversight…
EU presidency: US economic plans ‘a way to hell’…
Anti-capitalist group attacks home of British banking chief…
‘It’s just the start’…
PAPER: Rahm Emanuel’s Short FREDDIE MAC stay made him $320,000+…
And this headline:
