Michael Bresciani
Obama eligibility question - - nonsense or a possible reprieve?
By Michael Bresciani
Anyone in this country who mentions the legal suits now being brought before state and federal courts about Barack Obama's citizenship question is seen as a fluke. The most common retort is "the American people have spoken" but have they?
In fact the sixty seven million people who voted for Barack Obama make up only twenty two percent of the entire population of this country. Regardless of how they voted seventy eight percent of the country remains largely in the dark due to a mainstream media blackout on the subject that could just be the calm before the storm.
The real issue the Obama eligibility question raises isn't about what the American people said, but it is about what was said to the American people.
In short they were told even if only by omission (un-vetted qualifications) that Barack Obama was perfectly eligible to be a candidate in accordance with the Constitution. In fact with or without the much disputed birth certificate, he is not.
Having admitted on his own website that his father was a British subject automatically disqualifies him under the "natural born citizen" requirements of the constitution. Now cases similar to "Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz" which is awaiting the results of a Supreme Court conference are popping up across the nation.
Main stream media conspicuously silent on these cases may be in for a rude awakening. Those who are raising this question are more often than not constitutionalists without regard to political affiliation. They will not cease to raise the question before or after the inauguration but should it be post inaugural it can create even more of a national crisis than anyone has yet imagined.
Many ministers and Christian writers have begun to compare Obama with the bible's King Saul. (1 Samuel 8:1f) The ancient Israelites wanted a king to rule them like the surrounding nations rather than a theocracy with prophets and judges. God gave them what they wanted but not before he sent his prophet to warn them that the price would be paid in the lives of their young being called to military service, high taxes, poverty and other problems that would hound them for generations. The rest is history.
The present court cases that demand the vetting of Obama's candidacy to state attorneys general, election commission officials, members of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court is much like the warnings of old time but at the very least they are a reprieve for a nation to consider what it is about to do.
The equation may be exaggerated and oversimplified but it goes like this. If our top lawmaker and defender of the Constitution is in violation of its most fundamental laws then perhaps we should open our jails and prisons and let all the law breakers go home. This is an absurdity of course but not totally untenable to common reasoning. It is the idea of such an absurd and extreme outcome that speaks to the extreme conflict the Obama eligibility question is asking us to overlook. Isn't that a lot to ask even for those who voted for Obama?
It is what causes many people to question Barack Obama's promise for "change" and a new "transparency." If by change he meant that we could start a new era in America where the constitution isn't important anymore then why shouldn't we all be frightened?
If we have come to a leadership based on popularity, personality, political slogans or anything that precludes our laws then we cannot ignore our own impending demise as a world power.
Finally it does well to remember that throughout history any nation that wanted change and was willing to give up its lawful foundations was always presented with someone who personally promised a new day. Some of those you will remember were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro and others. Those nations did get a new day and it turned out to be the day they rued.
There is still time to answer or resolve this very important question. I can safely predict that if I know anything at all about the American people it is that some who love this nation and its constitution will not let this subject abate until it has been lawfully and publicly satisfied.
At this point it doesn't matter whether Sen. Obama produces his birth certificate or not. What should matter is that he has spent approximately $800,000 in legal fees to suppress or cover up a document that costs only ten dollars to produce. Obama's promise of a new transparency is mocked by this fact.
On December 11, 2008 I submitted a blog entry to the Washington Times article posted Dec 10, 2008 entitled "Justices to mull Obama citizenship again" that best summarizes my position on the matter. I am not surprised to see by the many emails I have garnered from this statement that others feel pretty much the same way. Many veterans wrote to say thanks because they felt exactly as I do.
"The newest cases have nothing to do with producing the birth certificate but are dealing with the citizenship of Barack's father. Even Obama has admitted that his father was a British subject. That admission alone says constitutional law has been breached.
Secondly we must not lose sight of why we are in this fight, it isn't about saving face. It is about the law. Obama and the DNC will continue to slur any conservative effort on any level at any time. I think it's better to consider the source and keep up the fight.
Lastly, How dare we ask our service men and women to stand in harms way to defend us and our constitution if the very one who puts them in harms way isn't in compliance with it. I'll take a little razzing if I have to for the sake of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They have a lot more to lose than a little dignity."
© Michael Bresciani
December 14, 2008
Anyone in this country who mentions the legal suits now being brought before state and federal courts about Barack Obama's citizenship question is seen as a fluke. The most common retort is "the American people have spoken" but have they?
In fact the sixty seven million people who voted for Barack Obama make up only twenty two percent of the entire population of this country. Regardless of how they voted seventy eight percent of the country remains largely in the dark due to a mainstream media blackout on the subject that could just be the calm before the storm.
The real issue the Obama eligibility question raises isn't about what the American people said, but it is about what was said to the American people.
In short they were told even if only by omission (un-vetted qualifications) that Barack Obama was perfectly eligible to be a candidate in accordance with the Constitution. In fact with or without the much disputed birth certificate, he is not.
Having admitted on his own website that his father was a British subject automatically disqualifies him under the "natural born citizen" requirements of the constitution. Now cases similar to "Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz" which is awaiting the results of a Supreme Court conference are popping up across the nation.
Main stream media conspicuously silent on these cases may be in for a rude awakening. Those who are raising this question are more often than not constitutionalists without regard to political affiliation. They will not cease to raise the question before or after the inauguration but should it be post inaugural it can create even more of a national crisis than anyone has yet imagined.
Many ministers and Christian writers have begun to compare Obama with the bible's King Saul. (1 Samuel 8:1f) The ancient Israelites wanted a king to rule them like the surrounding nations rather than a theocracy with prophets and judges. God gave them what they wanted but not before he sent his prophet to warn them that the price would be paid in the lives of their young being called to military service, high taxes, poverty and other problems that would hound them for generations. The rest is history.
The present court cases that demand the vetting of Obama's candidacy to state attorneys general, election commission officials, members of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court is much like the warnings of old time but at the very least they are a reprieve for a nation to consider what it is about to do.
The equation may be exaggerated and oversimplified but it goes like this. If our top lawmaker and defender of the Constitution is in violation of its most fundamental laws then perhaps we should open our jails and prisons and let all the law breakers go home. This is an absurdity of course but not totally untenable to common reasoning. It is the idea of such an absurd and extreme outcome that speaks to the extreme conflict the Obama eligibility question is asking us to overlook. Isn't that a lot to ask even for those who voted for Obama?
It is what causes many people to question Barack Obama's promise for "change" and a new "transparency." If by change he meant that we could start a new era in America where the constitution isn't important anymore then why shouldn't we all be frightened?
If we have come to a leadership based on popularity, personality, political slogans or anything that precludes our laws then we cannot ignore our own impending demise as a world power.
Finally it does well to remember that throughout history any nation that wanted change and was willing to give up its lawful foundations was always presented with someone who personally promised a new day. Some of those you will remember were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro and others. Those nations did get a new day and it turned out to be the day they rued.
There is still time to answer or resolve this very important question. I can safely predict that if I know anything at all about the American people it is that some who love this nation and its constitution will not let this subject abate until it has been lawfully and publicly satisfied.
At this point it doesn't matter whether Sen. Obama produces his birth certificate or not. What should matter is that he has spent approximately $800,000 in legal fees to suppress or cover up a document that costs only ten dollars to produce. Obama's promise of a new transparency is mocked by this fact.
On December 11, 2008 I submitted a blog entry to the Washington Times article posted Dec 10, 2008 entitled "Justices to mull Obama citizenship again" that best summarizes my position on the matter. I am not surprised to see by the many emails I have garnered from this statement that others feel pretty much the same way. Many veterans wrote to say thanks because they felt exactly as I do.
"The newest cases have nothing to do with producing the birth certificate but are dealing with the citizenship of Barack's father. Even Obama has admitted that his father was a British subject. That admission alone says constitutional law has been breached.
Secondly we must not lose sight of why we are in this fight, it isn't about saving face. It is about the law. Obama and the DNC will continue to slur any conservative effort on any level at any time. I think it's better to consider the source and keep up the fight.
Lastly, How dare we ask our service men and women to stand in harms way to defend us and our constitution if the very one who puts them in harms way isn't in compliance with it. I'll take a little razzing if I have to for the sake of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They have a lot more to lose than a little dignity."
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
