Archive for January, 2009

The Role of the Military (cont.) Day 12 – January 31, 2009

January 31, 2009

More from Leo C. Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen:

EVERY SOLDIER BEING ASKED BY OBAMA TO POSSIBLY LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR THIS COUNTRY HAD TO PROVE IDENTITY TO THE GOVERNMENT.NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO POST A PHOTOCOPY OF A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH TO A WEBSITE, HIRE FACTCHECK.ORG TO CHECK IT, AND THEN HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO BACK OFF.

No chance of that happening for our troops, so why is the commander in chief cut such slack?

Obama owes these men who are willing to die for us the courtesy of proving who he is under at least as stringent proof requirements as they have been ordered to subject themselves to.  Shouldn’t the commander in chief be held to a higher standard of proof, not a lesser one, especially when the commander in chief was a British/Kenyan dual national at birth?….

Day 12

Advertisements

The Role of the Military: Day 11 – January 30, 2009

January 30, 2009

“Ineligible POTUS Best Challenged by Active Military in Federal Court”

ACTIVE MILITARY USING FEDERAL COURTS ARE OUR BEST CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS.

(Leo C. Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen; January 30, 2009)

(excerpt, emphasis added)

I’m not speaking of a military takeover. I’m speaking of “standing” to challenge whether Obama is a natural born citizen. Active military who are currently taking orders from the commander in chief – especially those who are set to go off to war or who are currently in harm’s way -have the best possible standing to challenge whether Obama is a Constitutionally eligible President….

This just in; more later. As we well know by now, “Standing” , or the judged lack thereof, has been the major roadblock in the effort to force Obama to prove his eligibility.

First Military Refusal? Day 10 – January 29, 2009

January 29, 2009

Military Judge Refuses Obama’s Order To Halt Trial Of USS Cole Bombing Suspect

Military Judge James Pohl has refused the Obama administration’s order to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

From FOX by Catherine Herridge (emphasis added)

A military judge has refused the Obama administration’s request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.

Judge James Pohl’s ruling throws a wrench in President Obama’s plans to suspend the military tribunal process for 120 days while the administration reviews how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year…..

Yesterday we wrote in these pages about a Military Times survey that showe 60% of active duty personnel “uncertain or pessimistic” about Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief. We wait to hear more from the brave Judge Pohl.

h/t drillanwr at Pat Dollard/Young Americans

Washington Post reports today (article by Peter Finn) (excerpt):

…The chief military judge at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Army Col. James Pohl, said that he found the government’s arguments “unpersuasive” and that the case will go ahead because “the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment.”….

“The Commission is unaware of how conducting an arraignment would preclude any option by the administration,” Pohl wrote in an opinion obtained by The Washington Post. “Congress passed the military commissions act, which remains in effect. The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future.”

The administration, which expected military judges to agree to its motions seeking suspension, was taken aback by the decision. Judges in other cases, including one involving five Sept. 11 defendants, had quickly agreed to the government’s request.

Also see this letter posted today at The Steady Drip: (by Zach Jones)

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic

usurpation1

More Questions About Soetero-Obama…..Day 9, January 28, 2009

January 29, 2009

Soetero-Obama Meets Privately with Eight Supreme Court Justices While Controversy Swirls Around His Eligibility and Cases Pending Before the Court

What did Soetero-Obama tell the Supreme Court?

(World Net Daily – Jan 27, 2009 Bob Unruh)

Proof Obama went by Barry Soetoro at Occidental

Posted by David Crockett at The Betrayal (Jan 28,’09)

WILL THE MILITARY SERVE OBAMA IF HE CANNOT PROVE HIS ELIGBILITY FOR POTUS?

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.

The writer at Hillary and Me blog says:

Here’s my question.

What happens if you serve in the military and believe that Obama is not legitimately POTUS . . . that he is a usurper or worse? You are sworn to uphold the Constitution of our Republic. Your obligation & loyalty is to the country and not to any individual man or woman.

Further, is there any possibility that the military would consider/or act on removing a person that has fraudulently obtained the office and is ineligible? I would not want to be faced with this dilemma.

The Consequences of Usurpation: Day 8, January 27, 2009

January 27, 2009

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down….

( Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.)

Dr. Vieira’s essay on our constitutional crisis originally appeared on October 29, 2008. Since then the usurper has assumed office and the consequences of the usurpation are now all to real. (Excerpts from Dr. Vieira’s thesis):

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. 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….

Dr. Vieira outlines the consequences of usurpation:

1. … if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President”.. (and as such) he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
2. …. if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7).
3. ….his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242,…
4…..if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces…..
5…. as nothing but an usurper… (Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)….
6…. perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President….
7….if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people…
8….even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office.

Dr. Vierira’s conclusion:

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

The Perjured Oaths: Day 7 – January 26, 2009

January 26, 2009

(Reprinted from World Net Daily, Jan 20, 2009)
h/t Citizen Wells

Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional government

By Alan Keyes and John Haskins
© 2009

Now steps onto the stage of world history a man apparently quite conscious that the Supreme Law of the United States prevents him from being president of the United States.

For why else would anyone hire lawyers and expend millions of dollars to avoid producing a $12.50 birth certificate to show eligibility under the Constitution? ‘Midst the rhythmic chants of a delirious, sycophantic media, inaugural splendor will substitute for simple proof that the United States of America will have a constitutionally legitimate president.

If Obama is not eligible, legally, the United States of America will have no president. A usurper will wield such power as few men have ever held, having no constitutional warrant. However beloved of the media or adored by racialist groupies, and irrespective of public support, Obama will be a tyrant, in the original sense of the word (from the Greek tyrannos meaning one who wields power to which he has no lawful claim). As he sends young soldiers to die, even the appearance of his usurpation of presidential powers will insult their sacrifice and thwart the Constitution they give their all to preserve. Even as he utters the oath – hand on Lincoln’s Bible – he will betray it, not upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution, but subverting it.

The elites insist that we should pretend to be convinced by an exhibition of a “certificate of live birth” via the Internet, lacking the very information the Constitution requires. On the strength of this we are to exercise blind faith and risk the consequences of an unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency?

“Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the constitution,” Jefferson warned us. Caesar rose to power on the passions of men, and killed a republic. Napoleon did the same. So did Hitler, with strong support from the secularized, university-educated elite. But the elites approve as Obama whistles past the Constitution, just as they did when Mitt Romney flushed away the Constitution he’d sworn to uphold. They regard the Supreme Law of the United States as a dead letter, “living and breathing” of course, which is their code for dead and buried.

Like the sophisticated, educated elites in Weimar, Germany, they long to live under what they presume will be a benevolent dictatorship. This one will be different, they are quite sure: soft, touchy-feely, agreeably in tune with the restless, ever-mutating consensus of the chattering class. Thus was it in human history, until the Declaration birthed our state and federal constitutions, now just archaic platitudes, to shape naïve youths in American History classes as docile subjects of bureaucratic tyranny.
It would not be hard to clarify Obama’s eligibility to be president. The Constitution provided an entire branch of government to adjudicate constitutional questions. But judges have concocted various “rules” over the years that they cite as their license to violate the Constitution and to excuse their failure to uphold it. These they now use to claim that Americans lack standing to ask their courts for a judgment of fact required by our Supreme Law. They dismiss lawsuits that ask only that judges fulfill their oaths and uphold the Constitution. Are solemn oaths now meaningless?

Whether rooted in incompetence, cowardice or calculated cynicism, these dismissals of valid lawsuits are willful subversions of the Constitution, the inevitable result of legal education that substitutes judicial decrees for the authority of real laws and constitutions.

‘Discretion’ to violate one’s oath?

An article in the Michigan Law Review rehearses the legal gibberish being used to obscure a simple issue. It boils down to this: Constitutional law makes the Constitution unenforceable. By what anti-logic can a Constitution make itself unenforceable?

Clearly solemn oaths to uphold the Supreme Law of the United States are now meaningless. “We’ve washed our hands,” the judges are saying. Politicians are on the honor system now, they say.

But among those who claim that “prudential” or discretionary considerations prevail over solemnly sworn non-discretionary oaths, honor is obsolete. What remains is the law of the jungle, tarted up in lawyer-talk. It’s every man for himself. The strong versus the weak.

The article relies on the hidden presuppositions and circular legal reasoning that lawyers and judges use in totalitarian regimes. For example, a claim that citizens have no “standing” to demand that the law be carried out:

The three requirements for Article III standing are well-established. …

The author’s passing reference to Article III in the Constitution is a lawyer’s head-fake. Revealingly, he’s forced to take immediate cover in judges’ thoughts (which modern lawyers pretentiously call “case law”) rather than the Constitution itself:

Under current case law, plaintiffs in the cases challenging the presidential candidates’ eligibility probably lack standing. In fact, it is questionable whether anyone would have standing … in federal court as an initial matter, due to the prudential limitations on standing. … First, as described in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and other cases … the Court has said. In Allen v. Wright, for example, the Court held …

The vocabulary and hidden dogma would not even make sense to those who wrote or ratified the Constitution: “Current case law.” “Well-established.” “Probably lack standing.” “Questionable.” “Prudential limitations.” “The Court has said.” “The Court held.” It is all about judges’ thoughts, which over the years produce multiple layers of self-contradiction.

Attempts to equate the modern fiction of judge-made “law” with the ancient system of English Common Law are inept or dishonest. Those who established our form of government left no room for the concept of judges’ opinions as law. The Massachusetts Constitution is more brutally explicit than most: “[T]he people … are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (Part I, Article X.)

The term “case law” did not exist and could not have existed because it was a negation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and of the United States of America itself. The term had to be invented much later by lawyers to hide their theft of power from the people. Portrayal of judges’ opinions as the law itself reveals that the Constitution has been put out to pasture – even when it is the subject of dispute. But fear not. Judges’ opinions about the Constitution are even better than the real thing.

Ironically, judges’ failure to carry out their oaths and uphold the Constitution fatally undermines the reasoning that supports their authentic role as “guardians of the Constitution.” As Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote:

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course, to be preferred; or, in other words the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” (The Federalist Papers, No. 78, italics added)

Hamilton made clear binding principles of American law and government then universally understood and both explicit and implicit in our Constitutions:

* the duty of judges to faithfully defend the original intent of the fundamental law of the United States is never discretionary, but always obligatory;

* It is a duty to interpret, not to generate law;

* jurisprudence is original intent jurisprudence or else it is not jurisprudence at all;

* The Constitution is fundamental, which in plain English means simply that when not honestly interpreted and enforced the foundation of government is removed.

Some shout that “an election” cannot be overturned, Constitution or no constitution. This is irrational and is the road to tyranny.

A simple majority vote for any particular president can never trump the ground rules established by the people as a whole: the duly ratified Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the United States. Therein are found the rules by which a simple plurality of voters may legally impose on an unwilling remainder of the population a president by whom the remainder do not wish to be governed.

The sovereign collective act that ordained the Constitution determines the legitimacy of every subsequent act under its authority, including elections by the people. If the Supreme Law establishing the rules and boundaries of elections and government is abrogated, the legitimacy of the government itself is undermined. If any transient majority can use an ordinary election to bypass the Constitution, there is no Constitution, only the tyranny of the majority. Judges are obliged by their oath of office to declare illegal acts that violate the Constitution.

The legitimacy of government is not merely an abstract concern. Laws are more easily enforced, and with less occasion for violence and conflict, when government has the respect and allegiance of the people. Under despotic government based on fear, cults of personality and sharing of the spoils, power is the personal instrument of the rulers (res private). Under constitutional government, power belongs to the people (res publica), whose will and intention the Constitution declares. Loyalty to the Constitution displaces personal fealty as the focal point of respect for law. When public officials show contempt for the Constitution, they set the stage for an escalation of force as the instrument of the law; and for the eruption of civil conflict.

Throughout the history of the United States, the frequent descent of other nations (France, Italy, Germany, Spain, India, China, Sudan, etc.) into anarchy, violence and dictatorship has reminded conscientious leaders in America that inculcating respect and love for our Constitution is a matter of national survival. Enlightened self-interest made the Judiciary one of the chief promoters and guardians of this essential sentiment. So also public-spirited elements of the American elite were prudent enough to fear the consequences of letting our government slip into the pattern of devalued legitimacy that produces historic cycles of repression, violence and perpetual conflict seen around the world.

Today, technological advances and sweeping expansion of corporate enterprise have encouraged boundless self-satisfaction and arrogance among our elites. Through the virtual reality of the information media and economic manipulation, they shape perception, consciousness and behavior, dispensing, they believe, with the practical need for moral leadership and for education that inculcates character. They scorn character as the basis for self-government, creating in its stead a powerful illusion of their own infallible technical and economic competence. For now they preserve the outward appearance of respect for the people, but as modern techniques of despotism take their effect they will no longer need the mask of constitutional process to obscure the end of the age of government based upon the consent of the governed.

It is no accident that, as his hands reach for the levers of power, Barack Obama feels safe in refusing to show meticulous public compliance with the Constitution’s requirements. After all, among those who swear our solemn oaths, honor has gone out of style. Cavalier disregard for the Constitution and the authority of the sovereign People who ratified it as a whole, suggests the imminence of the power elite’s nonchalant abandonment of the very guarantee of our liberty.

Like the dog who didn’t bark in the Sherlock Holmes story, the silent complicity of America’s elites, including judges, elected officials and others sworn to uphold the Constitution, reveals to those who are not asleep, or blinded by selfish ambition, that the silver blaze of liberty is being extinguished by the very guardians who ought to be keepers of the flame.

On Usurpation: Day 6 – January 25, 2009

January 25, 2009

The Liar Who Became President

This article is reprinted by permission from Steady Habits, December 7, 2008:
Once upon a time there was a politically ambitious man who told many lies about himself and his family. We shall call him Mr. X. During one of his early political campaigns a political enemy circulated rumors that Mr. X was born in a foreign country and therefore ineligible for high elective office. Mr. X denied the charge saying his father was a British subject but that he (X) was born here.

Mr. X claimed that his mother had always lived in the U.S. which was untrue as she had lived in another country with her husband and had (a child) there. Mr. X realized early on that he was not a “natural born citizen” because he knew that he was born before his father was naturalized. X told lie upon lie about his father’s age, the year the father came to America, even his own age; and he destroyed most of his papers all in the effort to conceal the fact that he was ineligible for high office. Who is Mr. X?

As strange as this may sound, we are not discussing Barack Obama here. Mr. X is Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States who succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President James Garfield. Due to the diligent research of Leo C. Donofrio with the assistance of Arthur biographer Greg Dehler we learn that Chester A. Arthur was a usurper, never eligible for POTUS. Talk about an amazing confluence of events: just as we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to follow.”

The political enemy mentioned in the lead paragraph was, in reality, one Arthur P. Hinman (see footnote below)*, who may have been hired by the Democrats to smear Arthur. Interestingly, the charge of ineligibilty for POTUS brought by Hinman against Arthur was true, but for the wrong reason: Chester A. Arthur was a British subject at birth (just as Obama was) but by virtue of his birth prior to his father’s naturalization rather than birth on foreign soil. As in Obama’s case, who acknowledges on his website that he had dual citizenship at birth, we find the evidence in plain sight but too late discern its meaning.

President Chester A. Arthur

President Chester A. Arthur

*More interesting but entirely without foundation was the Hinman myth circulated in 1880 and 1881. This story asserted that Elder Arthur had three sons: William Chester Alan Arthur, born at the home of his mother’s parents in Dunham, Province of Quebec; Chester Abell Arthur, born at Fairfield; and William Arthur, Jr., born at Hinesburgh, Vermont. When William Arthur, Jr., was born, the oldest son dropped the William and retained the names Chester Alan, as he could do because of the death in infancy of his brother, Chester Abell. He later, according to the Hinman story, appropriated the birth record of the second son in order to sustain his American citizenship. No death record existed to prove this substitution because the father had sold the infant’s body to a medical school! On the basis of these allegations, the American public were assured that Arthur was a British subject and in consequence disqualified for the Vice Presidency or Presidency. It was a political maneuver, and, as such, ineffective. (from “Chester A. Arthur-A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics” by George F. Howe)

The End of Democracy: Day 5 – January 24, 2009

January 24, 2009

A little noticed aspect of the Obama inaugural address; one important word conspicuously absent” DEMOCRACY.

Joe Rosenthal at Pajamas Media comments:

Amidst all the “soaring rhetoric” and many high-sounding words in Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, one word was conspicuous precisely by its absence: “democracy.” Neither the noun “democracy” nor the adjective “democratic” was uttered. The “democracy agenda” so closely associated with the foreign policy ideas of President Bush appears to be well and truly off the table. But the “democracy agenda” was not only an integral part of Bush foreign policy; it has — at least on the level of rhetoric — been an integral part of American foreign policy as such for decades now…..

Rosenthal mentions the word count for “democracy” and “democratic” in previous inaugural addresses: Bushes & Clinton 20 – Obama Zero

More disturbing is the mangling of our sacred founding text in the Obama address.

Paul Kengor (American Thinker 1/24/09) writes: (excerpts)

Something quite notable was said before an audience of tens of millions of Americans on January 20, 2009. And although I wasn’t the only one who noticed, the full implications seem to have been missed.


Alluding to the American founders, President Barack Obama, in his Inaugural Address, stated: “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” This seemed to be a reference to the Declaration of Independence, or at least to the principles in that sacred political document.
The moment I heard those words, I immediately noticed — as did others who quickly commented — that Obama neglected two crucial things from the most famous line not only in the Declaration of Independence but in the essence of the American founding: 1) He left out the unalienable right to “Life;” and 2) He left out the words “created” and “Creator” — the God who “endows” that “Right,” a right which is a “self-evident” “truth.”
This slight was significant for a myriad of reasons. Chief among them, it is patently clear — as it was to the American founders — that one must have life before one can even begin to entertain liberty and the pursuit of happiness…..Whether the new president — and his speechwriter and staff — realized it or not, he appears to have inter-mixed the core of the Declaration of Independence with the core slogan of the French Revolution: “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” He seems to have integrated the guiding document of the French Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, with the guiding document of the American Revolution.
There, too, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the emphasis on “life” is replaced with “equality,” as it was in the new president’s Inaugural Address. In the French manifesto, the word “life” is non-existent, as are the words “God” and “created” or “Creator.”….
The American founders, who read the French documents, saw the dangers endemic in the words of the French revolutionaries. As John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, expressing his trepidation for the French Revolution, “I know not what to make of a republic of thirty million atheists.”

So, how can it happen that such a mangling of the most famous quotation in American history could take place before the (supposedly) largest crowd at the most hyped inaugural ever, and with such a profound, far-reaching twist of language, and few noticed or care? The answer is American education, from K-12 to higher education, which is a human disaster…..
Death of Democracy

President Joe Biden: Day 4 – January 23, 2009

January 23, 2009

biden-oval-office

Reader Ted supplies this cogent analysis of the constitutional crisis:

Take the test.

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

This Loose Cannon Actually the President

This Loose Cannon Actually the President

For discussion about Presidential Succession and other constitutional matters see City Desk Blogs

Also see CiitzenWells

Photo seen at First Friday Collective

Bungled Oath Do-Over: Day 3: Jan 22, 2009

January 22, 2009
No Bible

Obama Re-Sworn: No Bible

Fox News’ Chris Wallace wonders “….whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the President of the United States , they had a garbled oath, it’s just conceivable that this will go to the courts…”

(You Tube Video)

Acting out of what White House counsel Greg Craig called “an abundance of caution“, Chief Justice John G. Roberts administered Obama’a oath of office a second time Wednesday. This do over may be unprecedented and must be an embarrassment for the Chief Justice. The second swearing-in took place in the White House Map Room according to Washington Post. (via Drudge) No Lincoln Bible this time around:

“….After flubbing his one role on Inauguration Day — administering the oath of office to Obama — Roberts traveled to the White House to re-administer the oath…..After a flawless recitation that included no Bible and took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, ‘Congratulations, again.'”

Such abundance of caution may be prompted by the Obama administration’s wariness concerning the dozens of law suits still pending regarding his eligibility to be President. There are litigants in waiting pledged to challenge Obama’s every action taken as President because of his constitutional ineligibility, i.e. his usurpation. Fox News reported on the re swearing-in:

President Obama took the oath of office for a second time Wednesday, FOX News confirms, after Chief Justice John Roberts and the new president stumbled slightly over the language on Inauguration Day.

Some constitutional scholars had suggested that Obama re-take the oath just to be on the safe side. Obama did not substantively change any language on Tuesday, but after Roberts flubbed some of the wording the new president used language different from that prescribed in the Constitution.

Blog Wizbang was out front on this story:

….They were concerned about even a sliver’s chance that someone could bring a lawsuit and try to argue that he did not meet the Constitutional requirements to be president because he didn’t say the oath absolutely as it was supposed to be said…..

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air comments:

Apparently Barack Obama must read the blogs, or listen to constitutional lawyers on television. The new President took some free advice and re-took the oath of office today, just to be on the safe side….The prospect of President Joe Biden must have caused Obama a sleepless night in his new residence. And as it turns out, Obama wasn’t the first president to flub the oath on Inauguration Day. Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur both had do-overs after fumbling the first attempt, the AP notes. I’m pretty sure that Obama has to feel some relief at not making history with this.

By the way, Chester Arthur was the original usurper; a long article about his duplicity is here.

Maureen Dowd, NY Times columnist, uses the “U” word in an article about the Hillary Clinton confirmation hearings: h/t Free Republic (emphasis added)

(Hillary Clinton) will easily intimidate the world’s dictators, just as she often intimidated Obama in the primaries. But it remains to be seen whether she can put aside her tendency to see disagreement as disloyalty. Can she work at the State Department with those who deserted her to support the usurper Obama? Can she manage Foggy Bottom better than she managed her foggy campaign?

Obama Sworn In

Obama Sworn In

Also see : Obama’s Bad Omens by Jed Babbin at Human Events