Why does it need to be such a difficult issue? Concerning President Obama, is he or is he not technically eligible to be president of These United States of America?
The professional politicians of our day have trampled the Constitution under foot in pursuit of gaining and retaining power. It has been a deteriorating situation as the years pass and the full time politicians feel the need to always be doing something in D.C. to justify their presence. Unfortunately for we the people, the laws, regulations and uncontrolled spending have produced an oppressive atmosphere in our beloved country.
The arrogance of our legislators, judges and executive has created a situation where even our freedom of speech is being threatened. To challenge the validity of President Obama's qualifications is now looked upon as lunacy and appears to be approaching criminal activity. Court cases are dismissed without hearings for a variety of reasons. Judges even mock those who bring the cases. The political parties have no courage to stand up for what is right. The people of this great nation are not being listened to on this issue or any number of other issues from the sanctity of life, to the definition of marriage, to the illegal alien invasion.
The very oath taken by our federal officials is broken almost immediately after the swearing in ceremony. The Constitution they swear to uphold and defend is only consulted when it supports what they want to do. If it is in the way of their goals, it is as if it doesn't exist.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."
President Obama has, and has had all along, the power to put the debate to rest. All he has needed to do, and can still do, is to produce a valid birth certificate. What has been published on his website is not an actual birth certificate. So the question that needs to be asked is, "What does President Obama have to hide?"
A World Net Daily report explains, "Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama 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 complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan.
Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation."
Perhaps the birth certificate does not exist. Concerning the Hawaii certificate, it is a certificate of live birth which is different from a birth certificate. From Berg v. Obama, "Obama has tried to obfuscate the issue by providing a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii authorities. Said document has been proven as a forgery. The left-wing Annenberg organization factcheck.org has tried to obfuscate the issue even more, by declaring the forged document as real. The primary issue however, is that the document in question is only a registration of birth filing, and not an official "Vault" Birth Certificate. Registration was a method used by some to gain U.S. citizenship even after being born in a foreign country. Many of Obama's relatives in Kenya say that Obama was born in Kenya, and flown to Hawaii after three days to enable the registration filing. The above linked video of his Kenyan Grandmother suggests that Obama was born in Kenya, but is not conclusive."
And what of his school records? Is it possible that he used foreign student status to gain exchange student privileges and grants? This is consistent with the ploys of today's politicians in general. Use the details and facts when advantageous to achieving the goal, otherwise ignore them.
Beyond the eligibility issue, other amendments and rights are under attack. From free speech, to bearing arms, to freedom from involuntary servitude, all are being threatened. It isn't all President Obama, in fact, it is mostly the Democrat controlled House and Senate. The President still signs off on the issues and is therefore held to some degree of responsibility for the resulting actions and repercussions. As we heard throughout the campaign, eight years of failed Bush policies was the cause of all of our ills. Of course the opposition led Congress was not held accountable by our media.
Back on November 7, 2008, I wrote about "America Serves" on change.gov which was President Obama's site on which he spelled out some of his plans. This was a program that mandated community service under the guise of volunteerism. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that volunteerism and community service is a good thing. Once it becomes mandated by the Federal Government, however, it crosses the line and is no longer volunteer service.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I wrote, "That's it, the whole amendment. It is pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Involuntary servitude is not constitutional. the phrase, "developing a plan to require" is the key point. If the service is required, it is involuntary."
Shortly after this article was written, along with a great many other articles decrying the proposed action, the website was changed. So "by developing a plan to require" has been changed to "by setting a goal that". Whether the word "require" is used or not, if the service is in fact required, the point that it is unconstitutional remains the same. More information can be found at the linked article.
And now it has become The Give Act. Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act’ or the ‘GIVE Act’. More details can be found at the Education & Labor site. A FOX news article states, "The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation."
"We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn't emulate and probably can't imagine," said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. "The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative."
"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union. I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."
On February 28, 2009, I wrote an article titled, When they silence the opposition. In the article I discussed the so called Fairness Doctrine and the less offensive sounding Localism. Either way it goes, the democrats are looking to limit the effect of conservative talk radio hosts to challenge the performance of Congress and the White House. Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is:6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. The Constitution on the other hand states,Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.NoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Make no mistake, the Democrat Party leadership has made ample comments directed at silencing the opposition. Witness the recent demonization of Rush Limbaugh. This is a very popular tactic of the leftists in this country. Allegations and screaming flies through the air in character assassination style. Once out there, it cannot be called back in the sound bite society we live in.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is under constant threat and usually exists in a perilous state when Democrats are in control in both State and Federal governments. I find it odd that people are willing to vote away a right that is actually in the constitution but will fight for supposed rights that are not. For instance a vote against abortion or gay marriage is somehow voting away the rights of others. Those items are not in the Constitution and should be State issues. Instead we have the tyrrany of the Feds and Judges step in and impose their will based on their own agenda. In the case of an ammendment being passed at the state level, a challenge will made saying that we can't vote away individual rights. Yet the right to bear arms is regularly squelched and it does exist in the Constitution.
I encourage you to watch this administration with an eye to their behavior and attitudes. Everything seems to be a crisis and legislation needs to be rushed through. When they say it is for our sake, for the good of the people or the nation, beware! The smoke screens are many as they mask what is going on. They cannot afford to let the people see what is really in this legislation because the result would be outrage that would stall the agenda they are trying to push through. In the meantime our rights and liberties will be eroded as they continue to change our society forever.
Just as a point of interest, I encourage you to review the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
"So, is the U.S. a "free country" today? Hardly! Not compared to what it once was. Yet, very few Americans today challenge these Marxist institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal or even gradual phase-out."
I encourage you to visit the site for more reading on each of these planks. Some are seeming all too familiar while others are on the horizon, being strengthened as our legislators throw money at every issue thinking that they are somehow being creative while they are really making us subservient to world rule as a debtor nation. The collapse of our monetary system will be the next "bubble" to burst and will provide the needed impetus to transfer what little wealth we have left to others in the world. Those who say that president Obama doesn't have Marxist tendencies ignore his past and most likely have not read the Communist Manifesto. Yet, without knowledge of what Marxism entails, they will vehemently deny that he is Marxist. It is looked upon as a derogatory term rather than a definition of his ideology.