Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Dizzzzzy Yet?

Whenever I have been given a job, I had to prove my eligibility as a legal American to work. Not to mention extensive background checks by the Ok. State Bureau of Investigation...
most recently last February.
How the OSBI overlooked my teenage-terrorism is
a subject for another's bloggie, perhaps.

I had to have my Social Security card and Driver's license photocopied, swear out an I-9 form, get my dead grandmother's signature, undergo a credit review and submit to a urinalysis
to work for the state as a lowly auditor, just a well-paid bean counter.

To pay with a check at the local SqueEZy Mart, or make a purchase at the Talihina liquor store, I have to prove that I AM who I claim I am, as old as I claim I am, with my photo I.D.

So when controversial candidate Barack Obama is not asked to prove his eligibility to hold the Highest office in the land, the Precedency, as outlined by the Constitution of the United States, is like being slapped in the face.
Again and again.

Why, shouldn't you and us all demand, has Barack Obama spent over $800,000 to hide, to obfuscate the circumstances regarding his birth and eligibility to hold his next job, when all he SHOULD HAVE done is provide the $12.00, legitimate, original birth certificate from Honolulu, Hawai'i?


Why?

Don't you wonder? Don't you wonder why all his college papers, college transcripts, all enrollment and academic records from Colombia and Harvard Universities are being withheld from public examination?
Could these admissions records indicate his foreign birth?

Where is your idle curiosity, far short of your outrage or of alarm at this point??

By his own admission in his two divergent biographies, Obama says that his mother was a Kansan girl, age 17 at his birth, who was impregnated by a Kenyan national. At an early age, around 4 or 5, Obama and his mother went to live in Indonesia, where he first attended school. Laws on the books in Washington, D.C., in Hawai'i, in Indonesia, in Great Britain and in Kenya at the time of his 1961 birth somewhere ALL seem to indicate that for one reason or another, little Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a "natural-born United States Citizen", as required for the Presidency, in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Why just assume he is who he claims to be?
Why just take his word?
Why not demand absolute proof from this obvious fraud?

This is not simply cashing a check at the market, this is the Presidency and the future of, the United States of America. The former case cannot be more important than the latter,
requiring more proof of identification, in any rational mind.

8 comments:

Jungle Mom said...

It's insane is it not?
I am trying to figure out how you got your dead grand mother's signature????

McGehee said...

I'd really hate to see the debate focus on things like this for the next four years. He is going to hold the office regardless, since there really doesn't seem to be any mechanism at this point for preventing it.

If he's going to be the disaster we know he is, I think we should let it happen on its own merits. In my own personal life I've always gotten a lot farther against would-be rivals by letting them fail on their own schedule.

Father Gregori said...

I have posted on this same subject in the past. There is even a court case that has been filed against Obama and the DNC demanding that he produce his birth certificate and/or an oath of allegiance signed before a federal judge or state department official. Back in September, the court gave him three days in which to produce the documents. To date, he has blatantly refused to so, and the courts are doing nothing.

I can only believe that we no longer have a Constitution.

Father Gregori said...

To McGehee: I hate to disagree with you, there IS a mechanism in place to prevent this farce, it is called the the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court. If the Justices on the Supreme Court did their job, they would vacate Obama's election due to the fact that Obama has failed to abide by the order of the Pennsylvania Court to produce his birth certificate. This order was given back in September. There is something despicable going on and the localmalcontent is correct, we do have a right to know.

If we let this be swept under the rug, then we no longer have a Constitution.

The Localmalcontent said...

Kevin, I see your point, and it is a good one; let him and the DemoCongress fall onto their own swords, and maybe like in 1980, America will rise up and elect a batch of conservatives to clean up the mess of the next four years.

A lesson to be valuably learned, let's hope.
But my question remains: Why?

For every high position in any field of business, minimum qualifications are established, are they not?
Can you be hired as a hospital administrator, tomorrow?
If I were to move to Coweta County, Georgia and then run for Governor of your fine state, would I be qualified??
What if I was elected?

That's not a good analogy, since I AM a conservative (good!), and there's the precedent of Governor Arnold Swarzeneggar, too. crud.

The Localmalcontent said...

Abouna, you beat me commenting here by two minutes!

Agreed, The Supreme Court has the responsibility to make sure that the Constitution is adhered to, followed. Tomorrow morning, there will be a "conference", among the nine Jurists (one of the links in my post goes there) to decide whether or not to take up this issue.... They must do it before December 15, or Obama is precedent.

And the Constitution is raped and shreaded right in front of us all.

McGehee said...

I think as it stands the Constitution is ultimately a political instrument rather than a legal one, especially where the question of electoral qualifications is concerned.

SCOTUS intervened, rightly, on Bush v. Gore but they really didn't want to. I think they will back away from this one.

If it turns out later on that Obama doesn't satisfy the presidential qualifications set forth in the Constitution, the people will be responsible for forcing Congress to take action.

Really, though, without having specific statutory rules in place before the election to require candidates to prove their qualifications, and define what proof is sufficient, I really can't see how a candidate can be prevented from taking office once he's been elected.

That's what I mean by "mechanism." The Constitution is a framework, and SCOTUS is a means, but the mechanism isn't there. Congress has to set one up, and it never has.

It's high time, but good luck getting this Congress to do it.

Father Gregori said...

I signed that petition. Let us just hope that something comes of it.