SCOTUS Fears POTUS But Not US

I will begin today by asking the same question that I have asked at least several times before in my columns: Is there even just ONE judge anywhere in the United States with superlative courage, who lacks fear of reprisal or retribution for simply, 'telling the truth" and ruling accordingly? Or have our judicial authorities at the higher levels devolved into catatonic wimps who are afraid to "embarrass" someone in high authority?

---

In all my life I never imagined that I would hear of a Unites States Army Colonel being afraid of "embarrassing" a high level politician simply by producing a truthful document with accurate personal birth information. But it happened recently when US Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, the presiding judge in a lawsuit that questions Obama's natural born status and requests that the original birth certificate be presented as evidence when Judge Lind said "opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president." So it appears that our United States Army, at least in the person of one Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, has placed in jeopardy the 18-year career of a highly decorated medical officer, Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, over the supposed "embarrassment" of a very possible usurper in our nation's highest elected office who may not even be eligible to be there. Is this the sort of justice we will now be faced with in this once Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? Examiner.com NATIONAL edition of December 02, 2010 published an article written by Anthony G. Martin titled, "SCOTUS: petition denied in Presidential eligibility case" which stated, "In a ruling that was issued without comment this morning, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied the petition submitted in the Kerchner v. Obama case involving the question of Presidential eligibility." This is just the latest in a most puzzling series of requests for information that would lend some closure to many lawsuits before the courts of our land. If, as Judge and Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, states that opening such evidence would be 'embarrassing' to the President, I should think these continuous refusals for clarity would also be overwhelmingly 'embarrassing' for our judicial entities throughout our entire nation. Are we no longer interested in the average person's status in accordance with the law and only concerned that some exculpatory evidence might 'embarrass' another more privileged person of higher standing? Is our Constitution no longer as stated therein, for WE THE PEOPLE, or has it devolved to, only as long as it doesn't 'embarrass' someone higher up? I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say about these judicial refusals based on possible embarrassment to others than those seeking redress of unfair withholding of aid in their plight. The total number of incidents such as this latest refusal of a judicial authority, and unfortunately, the highest, must number in the dozens, and lower courts now will be buoyed by this Supreme Court decision not to get involved, and will do likewise, throttling justice in every court in our country. This only lends credence to the theory that money and power can get away with impunity for even the most serious of violations. Again; this is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when our Constitution was constructed. So the ruling, by way of NOT ruling on the issue, gives support and credibility to a wayward person's efforts to usurp presidential authority by means of cover-ups and refusal to provide information of ANY sort that could reveal his or her true identity. These widespread and superabundant decisions that are really non-decisions, could set a dangerous precedent for future misdeeds against our government that could survive unpunished due to the inability to acquire personal information from a suspected individual. As Anthony G. Martin observes in his article cited above, "the nation still has no word from the judicial branch on the all-important subject of what the Framers meant when they specified that a President must be a 'natural-born U.S. citizen'. In spite of the fact that the matter would be settled once and for all should such (Obama's closed to public) documents be opened, the Court has decided instead not to issue an order but to allow the question to remain unanswered. Why? There is no conspiracy here, but cowardice. It is clear that the Court knows that for the truth to be made public about Obama's heritage would risk sending the country into social upheaval and violence in the streets." Such malfeasance in office of all of these 'refusnik' judges does not tend to help bolster a strong government of laws; instead showing weakness in rendering decisions that may, or may NOT, cause public unrest. My personal thoughts are that a large majority of the people would be so relieved to have closure and settlement to the question that only minor public reactions would occur. Contrarily, the reverse or current attitude against ruling fairly could spawn at least as much unrest to the public. Seemingly small matters such as this are actually paramount to this society of ours that holds great stock in our United States Constitution; it tends to gnaw at the very fibers of that body of laws that have held fast for 235 years. It makes one wonder if that gnawing is the result of intended and planned actions. Patrick Henry once said, "If this be treason, then make the most of it." History may be repeating itself.