For Canada Free Press
“The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama
has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair
and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how
wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again.
Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.”
—Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief,
US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted
for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News,
endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!
The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a
king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the
law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present
and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was
usually bloody.
“Who will rid me of this meddling priest?”
England’s King Henry II was reputed to have said of
Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was
murdered on a cold December evening.
I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising
among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama.
I would never suggest or condone the sword,
but surely one would think we the People might have
recourse to the courts or Congress.
The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous
process involved and, of course, the outcome.
Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed,
first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies
following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more
recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other
problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of
removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before
he could be impeached.
The Constitution stipulates that “The President, Vice President
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably
cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians.
It is not a good choice.
Presumably, lying about one’s eligibility to hold the office
of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one’s
birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain
unknown would justify removal.
We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a “natural born”
citizen may serve as President. His father was a British citizen
and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born.
We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards
the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama.
Was he a Kenyan?
Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?
The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court
cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have
encountered so much resistance? Surely this is a matter of
major national concern. What nation would permit an
imposter to serve in its highest office?
Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them
were deemed to have no “standing” before the court though
one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.
As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office
via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no
legitimate reason not to proceed.
There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered
with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya.
I have seen a photo of a document said to be his
Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it,
I am reluctant to pass judgment.
The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008
campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed
to the “long form” issued for those actually born there.
There was some question raised at the time as to its
authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped.
There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.
My personal view is that many in government fear the
consequences of removing even an illegitimate President
from office, given that it would require that all legislation
signed into law and all executive orders issued by him
would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos
more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will
end his term in 2012.
My problem is that the nation must endure some 900
more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence
he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress
following the midterm elections that would impose
Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations.
A large majority of the electorate presently wants
Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same
about the alleged financial “reforms.”
There are constitutional scholars who know far more about
such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by
the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the
right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the
United States.
Replies
Obama-- let's just CROWN him!
Latest definition of Natural Born Citizen is supposed to be Born on U.S. Soil. But that is the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868. (Everybody read the 14th Amendment. Pay close attention to the part 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. If born here, but, moved to Mexico, are they still 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'? Does this mean anchor babies are not legally citizens?) Congress (both D and R) don't care what the Constitution says.