reply to this great blog
i don’t know what the posting rules are and guess i don’t meet them.
Where is the Fan? By now wouldn’t something from this gross miscarriage of easily seen and understood lawlessness regarding the application of the Constitutional have made contact with the proverbial fan?
Possibly today 10/24/11 Rick Perry has placed the fan closer to the issue and potentially the possibility of Marco Rubio being considered a VP contender has made the fan larger.
Adopting a campaign to determine the status of Rubio’s eligibility will also by its nature have to include the status of Obama’s eligibility. Thanks to a Washington Post, pro Castro reporter the accepted lawlessness that is American politics can be made the centerpiece of the 2012 elections. It is time the feelings and reputation of one man quit being lofted above the collective rights of citizens of the Federal USA as a whole.
People who read what’s written on this site and on http://www.theobamafile.com and any other site showing the truth and facts regarding the usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” in regards to POTUS eligibility must not be afraid to take public action.
Persons deeply concerned with the ineligibility on Constitutional grounds of Obama must in good conscience must also take a stance on Rubio’s status and not be afraid to discard Rubio as a VP candidate, the Constitution requires such. If you are true in your knowledge you must not sit by and wait for action. You must inspire action on your own and start emailing Perry’s campaign, calling radio shows, emailing TV News shows, and getting vocal at every opportunity.
Equally anyone who believes the phrase “natural born citizen” includes the known facts regarding Obama’s birth in its definition must in good conscience start emailing Perry’s campaign, calling radio shows, emailing TV News shows, and getting vocal at every opportunity, and give claim as to how Obama is eligible and Rubio ineligible.
As far as I’m concerned Phillip Berg in the run up to Berg v Obama et. al. 2008, had more complicit motives regarding the reason for his case. Berg went on many opposition shows to drum up support for his case based on hearsay and scant eyewitness evidence, there was no document of fact and the burden was on him regarding Obama’s COLB.
The adage “Beware of strangers bearing gifts” is as forgotten then and now as it was in the city of Troy. Berg sought remedies based on Obama’s birthplace and his lost billable hours for his preparation of the case. And with the dismissal of Berg v. Obama et al. Berg provided an end around judgment that Obama is an ex post facto “natural born citizen”, especially in pop-culture jargon. When in fact Berg v. Obama et al. never truly defined the phrase “natural born citizen” in his case in Constitutional law nor did he present a case regarding the status of parentage at time of birth, past defining Obama is a citizen per the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952.
Regarding Perkins v. Elg, so what? That opinion overstepped it’s authority and bounds and was probably inserted in the opinion by a pro suffrage activist who thought they were craftily making it so a woman is eligible for POTUS since in all the years up to the 19th amendment it was judicial fiat that citizenship didn’t confer voting rights. Why would an activist of the day had believed suffrage would make a woman any more or less eligible to be POTUS?
Therefore during the same time period an activist would also likely hold true that citizenship, and voting rights for a female do not confer “natural born citizen” status for POTUS eligibility. Elg being a female was as good a case as any to insert such a phrase, “natural born citizen”, that is clearly out of place when reading the opinion in its entirety and taking the rulings as a whole. So it’s likely some activist decided to do what activists do and that’s carry out a great miscarriage of fact and justice in order to feel they’ve done right in their mind v. the world.
Also when hasn’t it been good that the oligarchy collectively called the court declare itself in law and at times to reverse itself? Any honest person who supports Obama’s eligibility or equally any honest person who supports Obama’s ineligibility have to both equally admit the Court is both deeply fallible and capable of issuing great nonsensical reasoning to bend the organics of law with any implied justness to match the organics of reasoning.
“Natural born citizen” as a phrase and as defined has remained so defined since before the adoption of the US Constitution, and in all definitions until today means the same. And now is the time for the court to stop it’s usual nature of deferring action to the future. Must we make our children pay for our monetary as well as ethical and moral indebtedness?