Is Obie Eligible?

Here is an update/commentary on the ongoing matter of Obama's true place of birth, citizenship and eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

I have mostly ignored this issue because it sounded at a distance like another of the lunatic fringe conspiracy schemes rampant around the web. (Combine a cup of rumor, a dash of innuendo, a pound of bad information, a tablespoon of freaky opinion and bushel of wishful thinking—and shake.) But there does seem to be something to it, insofar as apparently Barack Obama has failed to produce an actual Birth Certificate.

Like so much about Obama, it's an odd non-response to an important concern. Surely if the man was born in Hawaii, it would take a phone call and $10 to acquire a Official Certified copy of his Birth Certificate. But this he has not done.

One must ask "Why?". Surely this growing (even if erroneous) issue would be better nipped in the bud than allowed to grow wings during the last days of the campaign. Obama's continuing refusal to produce a Birth Certificate leaves one wondering—who never wondered before—whether he is in fact ineligible by birth/citizenship, to be President.

As I see it, there is only one upside to allowing this matter to perculate, garner bad attention, and blow out of proportion right before the election, rather than producing the single document that would, once and for all, put it to rest—and that is that hiding his Birth Certificate does less harm than revealing it.

With the information available, I see no other logical conclusion.

More on the issue can be found here.

And here: by Joan Swirsky at Right Side News

The Gunslinger

"For those who have been perusing the articles I have posted over the past several days, and who possibly read that the Pennsylvania court case, Berg v. Obama et al, was dismissed, here’s my quick, uneducated take on it:

The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick’s ruling portends, in my opinion, the coming of a true Constitutional crisis. Judge Surrick didn’t actually rule on any of the merits of the case; rather, that the plaintiff (former PA Deputy Attorney General/lifelong democrat) simply did not have “standing” to present the case.

At issue in the “standing” verdict, I see two main points: that no voter can challenge a federal election in federal court, simply because he is a voter (along the same logic that no taxpayer can sue the federal government by virtue of his “taxpayer-ness”).

The other mitigating factor in the dismissal is the issue of “injury-in-fact.” The plaintiff has to be able to demonstrate a real and measurable injury. The fact is, Obama is only “running” for office; whereas, the constitution merely states that someone cannot “hold” the office of President if the rules of eligibity are not met. Theoretically, nodoby has sustained actual injury if there is but a chance the injury could occur.

My very brief response to these two arguments is that, if a voter has “no standing” in matters pertaining to a federal election, then the notion of “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” actually has little meaning (if “the people” truly have no voice); and shouldn’t the act of running for office suffice as intent to hold the office? That kind of thinking seems to necessarily preclude any preventative dynamics in law (we can’t adjudicate attempted felons—only those who are successful with their crimes).

But, these brief conclusions lead me to a much deeper question, for which I believe there are two possible answers. Were the framers of our Constitution remiss in their lack of defining who has “standing” in cases of presidential election fraud (since the Constitution, while defining the qualifications of the POTUS, mentions nowhere who has the right to challenge (on a federal level) the qualifications of someone who aspires to that office?

First, our Constitution begins, “We the people . . .” I think it should be fairly easily discerned that, when no federal or state body is charged with authority over or duty for a specific aspect of the Constitution, the framers were implying that it would remain with those on whose behalf the document was framed (we the people). As a voting citizen, this is part of Judge Surrick’s decision with which I must heartily disagree. I am a bona fide member of “we the people.”

However (and this is just a personal inclination), I believe it is wholly possible that our forefathers never even considered such a fraud even to be plausible—that someone, who either has not or cannot show proof of eligibility, would be able to travel this far down the campaign trail. And it is that belief that causes me, not just a little concern and patriotic anger, but also a firm conviction that this is no small “loophole” in our Constituion—one that should be tied and tightened in short order.

While the PA case will likely be appealed—probably to the Supreme Court, take note that there are presently eight known similar cases that have been filed in other state courts (not federal court, as the PA case was). This may be the more proper avenue anyway, since election day actually boils down to the several states all holding their elections on the same day. And, state courts don’t have the same requirement of proving “standing” that the federal courts have.

In those state cases, since each state’s Secretary of State is charged with verifying the eligibility of all candidates on the ballot (in some states it is the Board of Elections), they are being challenged to supply proof that that verification has occurred by producing certified copies of Sen. Obama’s “vault” birth certificate (the long form on file in Hawaii—not the more-easily-obtained “certification of live birth” that can be supplied by the state without the person actually having been born there—yes, another loophole). The suits charge that, if the documents have not or cannot be produced, the candidate must be removed from that state’s ballots.

So, this battle is not yet over; expect to see a lot more about it in the coming days. And, the deadline is not actually Nov.4 (although it would be nice for this to be settled before then) because that’s not the day when the POTUS is actually elected. The Meeting of the Electors occurs this year on December 15, and is to be confirmed by both houses of Congress on January 6. It is my understanding that, until that time, either candidate could be disqualified because of ineligibility or fraud.

In conclusion, I would just like to echo the question that has already been asked so many times,

“Sen. Obama, why not just produce the documents that prove your eligibility, and save everyone all this time and hassle? What are you hiding?”

Just my two cents’ worth.

Dean Haskins"