[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Constitution? What Constitution? Published: December 01,2008 Constitution? What Constitution? By Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired In "Obama vs. National Symbols" I quoted Obama as saying, "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it." What I quoted was evidently written in an Arizona newspaper as a bit of satire and I got sucked in. I was wrong and apologize to Obama (not that he will ever see this) and my readers for failing to be more diligent. Obama's actual words on the subject were: "I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead I'm going to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." Since then, under the pressure of the campaign he gained "enlightenment and wisdom" about wearing the flag pin, in order to gain votes, and for enough mindless lemmings it worked. *Moving along* December 1st, 2008 I was awakened at 1:30 a.m. out of a dream that the Supreme Court was deliberating the case of Berg v. Obama, which challenges Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Much has been written, including a number of articles by me raising the question of Obama's eligibility for the Office. Philip Berg pressed the issue to the 5th District Court where it was denied for a lack of "standing." On October 30th, Berg took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is docketed for today, December 1st, 2008. Despite the fact that it is of great public interest no one in the mainstream media, nor for that matter nowhere does there appear to be any interest. It is as though there is a vast conspiracy of silence although the basic information is available for even the most casual reader. Whether or not the case has merit will soon be determined by the Supreme Court, and that is where the dream shook me awake. Unable to go back to sleep I bundled against the cool December house temperature and began to review the case that has become increasingly mysterious. Actually, it could have been resolved long ago if Mr. Obama had presented to those with more than a modicum of curiosity, the original birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. What he did present was a Certification of Live Birth which is not the same as an original. Despite the posted certification, which was ostensibly certified by the appropriate official and included the State's Official Seal, the question remains unanswered because Mr. Obama has evidently requested that the original certificate be sealed; that fact alone raises a "red flag." If there is nothing to hide there should be no problem or reason for U.S. citizens to see the original certificate. After all, any potentially embarrassing personal information is already in the public domain. On the other hand, if there is an underlying problem with the certificate, then the problem not "should be," but must be resolved. Given the body of evidence that is available, it is evident that the Court is on the cusp of an historic decision. And yet, there is not even a ripple of interest in the media. Where are the "protectors" of the public's right to know? As one TV talking head likes to say, "They are hiding under their desks." That the intrigue of the case is not of interest to the Washington Post or New York Times or for that matter anyone in the "media" to the extent that they have not given it one moments consideration raises a fundamental question about the integrity of the entire establishment. But, alas, that should not come as a surprise. *Article II, U.S. Constitution states, among other things:* "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." *Article II also states:* "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" The Constitution was devised and ratified as the pre-eminent document upon which all U.S. Law and Equity resides. The Supreme Court was established as a separate branch of government and vested with the authority to adjudicate all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution. So, the issue before the Court is fundamental to the Constitutional framework and national integrity. For those who have not bothered to pay attention, Mr. Obama has gone on record that he is not satisfied with the Constitution when he declared that the Founders failed to spell out the responsibly of the Federal Government but rather limited the role thereof. From his remark, it is evident that Obama was aware of the Tenth Article of Amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But evidently he failed to read the Preamble which states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Or if he read it, in his mind did not vest it with any authority. Would that form the basis of selective governance, or capricious, or arbitrary, or dictatorial? If January 20th, 2009 rolls around and in fact Obama is ineligible, but because the people have "spoken" the Supreme Court fashions a decision out of whole cloth to allow him to take office, how can he swear to protect the very Constitution with which he evidently disagrees, and of which he will have succeeded in making a mockery? And how would the Supreme Court ever again have the moral, much less the legal authority to adjudicate the Constitutionality of any issue? Constitution? What Constitution? Judging from their respective and separate remarks, if Mr. Obama and Chavez of Venezuela had their way, the U.S. would adopt a new Constitution more to their liking; or maybe not have one. What a novel thought and scary as hell. In my dream, the Supreme Court ruled that Obama was ineligible to be President; maybe it was just a dream, then again, maybe a premonition of a pending crisis. We'll see how the movie ends. Semper Fidelis * Copyright (c) December 1st, 2008 by Robert L. Pappas. To comment on this story, email to comment@newsblaze.com Copyright © 2008, NewsBlaze, Daily News Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
Hey I had a dream too, just last night. The CIA removed some railroad tracks, so that one would think a railroad never existed there in the first place. The word "Mena" comes to mind. Can the CIA really get away with something like that?
The CIA knows how to play the game. They can get away with anything they want to.
If the CIA truly knows how to get away with anything, then Obama is relatively irrelevant. So is the Supreme Court. Also, in my dream, I was spying on the workers that were removing the track. I was well-armed. All of this leads me to suggest a prudent person might want to invest in a gun and plenty o' ammunition. I hear Obama may not try to confiscate weapons per se, but rather artificially hike the price of ammunition so high that you can't really afford to fire your weapon!
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||