A Second Chance

… Senate (Obama’s Senate seat was still in dispute and Democrats had not yet completed their theft of Coleman’s Minnesota Senate seat) filed into the House chamber for the purpose of certifying the votes of the U.S. Electoral College.

The results of the Electoral College vote were read by the House and Senate tellers. The tally was 365 votes for Barack Obama (D-IL) and 173 votes for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Not one member of Congress, House or Senate, Democrat or Republican, rose to question Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the

United States.

These were men and women who, just two days earlier, had stood in their respective chambers and recited the following Oath of Office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

It took just two days for every member of Congress to violate that sacred oath.

By his own admission, Barack Obama was born to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a British subject, depriving him of status as a “natural born Citizen.” This was apparently of no concern to members of Congress. But now, as Obama seeks a second term in the Oval Office, the members of Congress may be given a second chance to do their sworn duty.

In the absence of pressure from constituents, the Congress can be expected to once again “tuck tail and run,” allowing a usurper president to simply slide by, thumbing his nose at Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, I am suggesting that readers write to their senators and representatives, reminding them that, should the Electoral College submit Barack Obama’s name to the Congress for a second term, they are being given a second chance to do their sworn duty. I suggest that they request a firm commitment from their representatives in Congress to fully vet Obama. Letters might read as follows:

Dear Senator (Congressman):

In drafting the

U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers stipulated a unique set of qualifications for those who would serve as President of the

United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the

United States. They insisted that all candidates for the offices of president and vice president must be “natural born Citizens,” as opposed to those who were either naturalized citizens or the children of aliens… a far more stringent standard than that for members of Congress, the

U.S. Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary.

Writing in the Federalist Papers, the Founders expressed concern over “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” They asked, “How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the

Union?”

To insure that none but the “natural born” would ever command the armed forces of the

United States, they put the responsibility for selecting our presidents and vice presidents into the hands of an institution called the Electoral College, a small group of citizens, “Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” And finally, to insure that only fully qualified men would ever serve as President of the United States, they placed in the hands of Congress, men and women sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the solemn responsibility for certifying the decisions of the Electoral College.

With the development of political parties, a three-step vetting process was perfected, with the quadrennial party nominating conventions being the first hurdle in the three-step process. It was a process that served the nation well until 1880 and 2008.

In 1880, Republicans nominated

Chester A. Arthur, of

New York, the son of an American mother and an Irish immigrant father, a man who was not a naturalized American citizen when his son was born, which made Arthur ineligible to serve as president or vice president. Arthur became president on

September 20, 1881, just six months after taking office, when President James A. Garfield was assassinated. The delegates to the 1880 Republican National Convention, the members of the Electoral College, and the

U.S. Congress all failed to do their sworn duty.

Then, 128 years later, the Democratic Party nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as its candidate for president. Obama was inaugurated on

January 20, 2009, even though it was widely known that he was not a “natural born”

U.S. citizen. The delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention failed to vet him, the 365 Democratic members of the 2008

U.S. Electoral College failed to vet him, and 533 members of Congress failed to vet him. His election represented yet another failure of the three-stage vetting process and none of those who played a role in his ascendency have been held to account. That simply cannot be allowed to happen again.

Accordingly, should the members of the 2012 Electoral College submit Barack Hussein Obama’s name to the Congress for second term certification, I am asking your firm commitment to demand answers to the following questions:

Who were Barack Obama’s parents, and can he provide legitimate documentary proof of their identity and their citizenship?

Dozens of experts have conducted comprehensive forensic examinations of the document posted on the White House website on

April 27, 2011, purporting to be Obama’s long form birth certificate. Essentially all objective analyses have concluded that the Obama document is a poorly crafted forgery. What technical evidence can the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership produce in contravention of the expert findings and in support of the authenticity of the Obama birth document?

If Obama’s documentary proof of parentage provides indisputable evidence that one or both of his parents were foreign nationals at the time of his birth, what constitutional or statutory provision would allow an individual born with dual citizenship to qualify as a “natural born” citizen of the United States?

At the close of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, the Chairman and Secretary of the convention, respectively, provided a certification to the State of

Hawaii stating that Barack Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the

United States Constitution.” Why was that qualifying language deleted in certifications for the remaining 49 states? What did Speaker Pelosi know about Obama’s lack of eligibility, and when did she know it?

Indisputably, Barack Obama held dual US-British citizenship between

August 4, 1961 and

December 11, 1963; he held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from

December 12, 1963, until

August 4, 1984; and he currently holds dual US-Kenyan citizenship, dating back to

August 4, 2010. Official

US government policy provides that dual nationals “owe allegiance to both the

United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.” Under what constitutional and/or statutory provision does Barack Obama presume to serve as President of the

United States and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy while owing allegiance to a foreign nation?

As a representative of my state in the

U.S. Congress, you have been entrusted with the solemn responsibility to “support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” On your honor, I expect you to live up to every word of that oath. Please give me your firm commitment that you will do so, if and when Barack Obama’s name is once again submitted to the Congress for certification as President of the

United States.

If you feel as though you need political “cover,” I will accept your commitment to require proof of “natural born” citizenship of all putative electees, regardless of party. As for me, I pledge that I will never again cast my vote for a man or woman who refuses to make and honor their oath of office and the commitment I request.

Respectfully,

Your Constituent

Because of their failure to properly vet Barack Obama in January 2009, it is clear that we cannot trust even the most respected members of Congress to uphold their oath of office. If they are given a second chance in January 2013, we must hold their feet to the fire. We cannot allow Barack Obama to ever again set foot inside the White House after

January 20, 2013.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Authors Note ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>

Sean Hannity has made much of what he calls a "vetting of Obama," devoting an entire week to that sham. But that's not what he's doing. Hannity begins with the assumption that Obama is a legitimately elected and seated president and refuses to even consider indisputable evidence to the contrary. Bill O'Reilly is even worse. So far as I know, O'Reilly's position is that Obama has been asked whether or not he considers himself to be a "natural born Citizen" and Obama has responded, “Yes I am.” That, apparently, is good enough for O'Reilly in his never ending quest to be loved by everyone on the left. Now that we find ourselves with a 10 month interim period before we inaugurate a new president, the American people have time to gain commitments from those who represent them in Congress. On

January 8, 2009 they all sat on their hands. We can't let that happen again.

Paul

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply