CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE–HIDING OBAMA’S DEFECTIVE CITIZENSHIP
Joel Skousen – 2008-10-31
THE RULE OF LAW DEPT.
The issue of Barack Obama’s citizenship, totally missing from the reports of the corporate mass media, raises the very real possibility of a true Constitutional Crisis. For if Obama wins the election, which at this time seems likely, and then it is revealed that his Kenyan birth disqualifies him for office under the U.S. Constitution, consider the ramifications. Either there will be a demand to disregard the Constitution which would set a horrible precedent or, worse yet, convene a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. Such a convention would quickly turn into a circus with special-interests groups, lobbyists, corporate money-men and crackpots swarming from every side. The time to determine the truth about Obama’s elgibility for the office of President is NOW.
CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE–HIDING OBAMA’S DEFECTIVE CITIZENSHIP
by Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
October 31, 2008
If there was ever a story of blockbuster proportions that should, on the eve of a momentous US election, be the focus of media attention and the detailed scrutiny of the Federal Election Commission it is this: that Barack Obama continues to refuse to release certifiable documentation that he is a natural-born citizen in conformance with the constitution’s requirement for a US presidential candidate. We are watching the coordinated efforts of establishment media, the federal government, the State of Hawaii, federal judges, and even the McCain campaign to assiduously avoid investigating this issue, ruling on it, or even acknowledging to the public that it exists. At least 6 court cases are still pending and all of the judges are either stalling or using technicalities to dismiss the case. In the most important challenge by a Phillip Berg, former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General, the judge ruled that a voter has no standing to bring suit. Incredible! Why do I suspect conspiracy among the actors? Simply because the issue is so big and potentially damaging to Barack Obama; the evidence so powerful in the contradictions it has put forth, and the purposeful evasion of Obama’s legal team so obvious, that no honest news organization could refuse to pick up on this top internet story unless there was a clear chain of secret orders demanding that every part of the controlled press, election bureaucracy, and judicial system avoid this issue. And so they have.
Legal scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. takes apart the faulty decision of the federal district judge in dismissing Berg’s challenge to Obama’s eligibility. “America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history… Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, ‘a natural born Citizen’ who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative [He’s being too cautious. For example, there were notices of birth placed in both Honolulu newspapers announcing Obama’s birth, but those can be placed by individuals without any documentation whatsoever. The two hospitals mentioned by Obama and his relatives as his specific birth location do NOT show any record of his birth or the presence of his mother. There is a “Certification of Live birth” filed, but that again can be filed without proof by the mother or a relative. There is no official “Certificate of Birth” which is a required filing by any doctor who delivers a child, clearly stating the place, time of birth and witnesses to that birth.]
“But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is ‘his own’ country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is… only [being] asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—-unless he can not? Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders… . anyone who claims eligibility for ‘the Office of President’ must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.”
If Obama comes forth at the last minute with yet another more official version of his birth certificate (there are two versions out already that don’t match in details–one with seal and one without, and one with a blacked out serial number, with is very suspicious) I will strongly suspect that Hawaii issued a forgery on his behalf. Hawaii would probably already have rigged another certificate for Obama (a favorite son) were it not that they would have to falsify the place of birth and the name of the physician–which is hard to do now that all the public records have been searched and those details are plainly non-existent. To forge the certificate Hawaii would have to forge details and then explain where those details came from since they are not on the public records now.
“In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg ‘would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.’ This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for ‘the Office of President’ will not deny his supporters a ‘right’ to vote for him—-rather, it will determine whether they have any such ‘right’ at all. For, just as Obama’s right to stand for election to the Office of President is contingent upon his being ‘a natural born Citizen,’ so too are the rights of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that Office. If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any ‘right’ to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him. The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for ‘the Office of President’ but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks ‘standing’ to challenge Obama’s eligibility: “regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact…. [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters [an incredible assertion–as if citizens rights are not injured by the election of someone who isn’t even a citizen–and give power to rule over them!]. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
Vieira’s follows with a discussion on “standing” and other technical legal constructs that have been used for decades to obscure and obstruction constitution’s limitations on government power. “‘Standing,’ is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of ‘standing,’ as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision…. The test for ‘standing’ is almost entirely a judicial invention… For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true Case. Yet, because the test for ‘standing’ is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty [as was done in this case]. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction [and collusion] are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government.
“In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a ‘generalized’ injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a ‘generalized’ grievance negates ‘the existence of an injury in fact’ is patently illogical—-for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury.”
I will next quote from a powerful argument presented by attorney Raymond Kraft who describes what Obama’s legal response tell us about motives: “I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized…
“Why I am so sure? I was not [fully] convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama’s birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama’s origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama’s birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law [which will probably show something about his origins and student status put on his application forms. They may also show irregularities about his grades and qualifications for advancement]. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America.” This is a crucial argument and does speak volumes about the intent to deceive.
“In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can’t wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they’ll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it. Obama is tap dancing. If I were Obama’s lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.”
The latter is not true. These attacks on Obama’s evasion strategy will never rise to a level sufficient to affect the electorate unless the media makes this a BIG issue by repeating it constantly. They can even report on it once or twice and the public would go back to sleep–the fact that they won’t mention it even once is even more telling about its damage potential. Only a drumbeat of protest by the media gets people talking and demanding answers. That’s how dead is the intellect of the average US voter who is dependent upon the media for his opinions.
“But that’s not what Obama’s lawyers are doing, they’re filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on ‘technicalities,’ at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.
“In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama’s lawyers and ruled [with excoriating and uncivil language indicating extreme bias] that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no ‘standing’ to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot. This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that.”
While an opposing candidate does have stand (though not exclusive standing), it is extremely telling that McCain has refused to get behind this issue and demand proof of Obama’s citizenship. He could even have done this without fanfare, giving deference to “not judging until the issue was resolved.” But no, he has done nothing, indicating to me that this is a broad ranging conspiracy to ensure Obama is not disqualified. Obviously, persons above McCain made this decision for him for McCain desperately wants to be president. However, he is a controlled lackey just like Bush.
Here is Kraft’s argument for citizen standing:
“1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
“2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
“3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing [Sadly, that’s my point. The PTB only use the constitution when it suits their purposes. For the defense of our liberties, it is more or less dead]. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
“4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment ‘to petition the government for redress of grievances.’ If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution. I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.” Worse, it smacks of conspiracy with higher powers.
Kraft goes on to show that it is also the duty of Congress to act on this issue. But it is clear that the PTB have enough control over Congressmen of both parties that nothing will happen in Congress to remedy this deception–much less AFTER the election when huge Democratic majorities will be installed and totally disinclined to disqualify this non-citizen president.