We have been waiting for nearly two years for someone with authority in this country to take some responsibility for answering questions that are of the utmost importance to determine if we are a legitimate nation, under God, with law and order or are we a shiftless, drifting, wayward vessel of more than Three Hundred Million citizens that lacks the rudder and steering necessary to conduct daily legal transactions and can speak the truth?
Up to this date, we have been the latter irresponsible ship of state without conscience or the necessary leaders capable of standing straight and handing down a direct decision of constitutionally accepted verity.
IOW (in other words), as they say on the Internet, a bunch of spineless, truth-less, unprincipled butt-protectors reluctant to hand down a direct
ruling that might place their jobs in jeopardy.
It’s not as if someone would be required to rule on whether or not Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is factually correct or whether homosexuality is a
before or after birth affliction or abnormality.
No, those examples are particularly stressful to someone charged with ruling on them; all of what the American people are looking for in this instance is a final judicial determination as to whether or not the current occupant of the Office of President of the United States is legally qualified to serve in that office pursuant to the terms of the United States Constitution.
The only stress involved here is the feared backlash of political retribution. The people so appointed to high level positions should be
above the trauma of facing criticism or scorn for making such a simple declaration. The facts for such a rendering are in themselves, quite
A casual look at the qualifying facts should make the determination just as simple. Yet it appears that the anticipated backlash will continue to numb those who should be capable of a not particularly burdensome task. Millions of Americans have themselves already made their determination in this case, based again simply, because of the intransigence of the most directly involved individual in furnishing or providing access to the document that contains the proof.
If the proof is being kept secret due to its negativity of qualifications of the Constitution the person or persons most responsible for this withholding of evidence should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for such actions. There can be no other justifiable reasons for withholding this evidence.
Today we find on the website orlytaitzesq.com, the lawyer most prominently involved in trying to get a decision as to the legitimacy of Barack Obama to serve in the capacity of President of the United States, a long and tedious chronicle of that attorney’s extensive efforts to uncover the truth regarding Obama’s legality to serve as president.
At another website, Political Forum.com author Flanders (only name given) stated, “Eligibility-doubters pretty much know about the court cases in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is still to be heard from. Will the SCOTUS rain on Hussein’s parade?”
The spurious argument that nothing should be done or decided in this matter because 69 million people voted Obama into the office is to me a slap in the face for anyone who puts his trust into the Constitutionally backed laws of our country along with a facial slap to the many millions who voted against him.
This is fallacious as those 69 million people were not given the assurance that Obama’s credentials were thoroughly checked by the Congress as also required by the Constitution. It’s like saying, “Oh Congress forgot to do it, so let’s skip it this time.” Is this really what law-abiding Americans want to do in the future? If someone forgets to do his or her duty, are we to just ignore the consequences of that forgotten obligation?
In a “what if” scenario; what if the same sixty nine million people who voted for a particular candidate and caused his election later witnessed
that same candidate commit an egregious crime of rape or murder, should the same argument be made that nothing should be done? And I can hear the scoffers now saying, “Well, that’s different.” But is it? Where do we draw the line on law-breaking; only on some or should it be on all?
Any person who deliberately misleads millions and millions of people in order to acquire personal gain should not be excused on a whim of errant justice, particularly one as strategically important as the highest elected office in our country.
This question must be settled once and for all and with no further delays. It is an abomination of our highest legal document that has served us well for two and one quarter centuries. Or will we continue to fear intimidation at all levels? Forget that alibi about a lack of standing; three hundred million citizens have an inherent standing in this crucial and country-damaging matter.
Tired of seeing this subject surfacing over and over again? Well so am I; but I intend to keep on it until it is resolved one way or the other, so as
John Wayne would say, “Ya’ better get used to it, podner.”
Jerry McConnell is a longtime resident of planet earth with one half century on the seacoast of NH. He is a community activist but promises not to run for President and he feeds ACORN’s to the squirrels. He can be emailed at
McConnell’s e-book about Guadalcanal, “Our Survival was Open to the Gravest Doubts”
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement