Why must it come Down to Popular V. Patriotic: The Obama Eligibility Question?

It´s America all over again. A few people decided to meet in a small room in Philadelphia to say they had enough British tyranny. A few people risked everything to turn Boston Harbor into a giant pot of tea. A few people have checked the constitution and have found a hitch in the outcome of the 2008 election.

From those initial illicit gatherings and conferences came the ´birth of a nation.´

Once again a small group of citizens are meeting in lawyer´s offices, on the internet and in media rooms with the National Press Club. Now it seems the participants in these meetings are clutching the Constitution and fighting to stop what they believe could be the ´death of a nation!´

A few people are willing to knock on the door of both state and Supreme Court justices to settle the question of Barack Obama´s disputable eligibility to be the 44th President of the United States. How is that going?

Undaunted by the Supreme Courts decision not to hear arguments in the Donofrio v. Wells case a volley of additional cases have been submitted to various courts across the nation that are challenging Obama´s eligibility. The "Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz" case is taking up the lead.

A conference on whether the Wrotnowski case will be heard is scheduled in the Supreme Court for Friday December 12, 2008. Lawyers in that case have had more time to prepare. The arguments similar to those in the Berg case and the wording have improved significantly.

More than a dozen other cases dealing with Barack Obama´s eligibility are under scrutiny in various courts around the nation and the interest in these cases is growing.

What is most disconcerting is the willingness of the main stream media to ignore the issue or wait until it busts wide open to give it any coverage. Words like "fringe" are popping up to describe anyone connected to the accountability movement that wants the Constitution to be enforced.

At the moment it looks like one of America´s greatest examples of the "double standard." We want our President Elect to stand with his hand on the Bible and swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States but we are willing to call the average citizen who questions Barack Obama´s compliance with the constitutions requirement that Presidents be natural born citizens "the fringe"

If those who are calling for the proof of constitutional requirements are indeed on the fringe they are in good company. They have the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those from the Boston Tea Party as compatriots and their cause is in every way just as important.

World Net Daily one of the internets most popular news and commentary sites has taken another approach which has begun to draw media attention. Beside the 60,000 letters already delivered to the Supreme Court, WND has submitted over 2,000 letters from their readers directly to members of the Electoral College. They are appealing to the better judgment of the electorates to consider that they may be creating a constitutional crisis like none in our entire history by casting their votes for a candidate that has not been properly vetted as required by law.

The WND´s front door approach may seem more like the ride of Paul Revere rather than the customary advance through the halls of justice but we all know that Revere was highly successful in preparing our young country to defend itself in its days as a fledgling nation.

The arguments seen in the press, the blogs and all over the internet are full of sound and fury but they are signifying something. If they were court cases they might read like "Popular v. Patriot" or Supremes v. the Supercilious. The least funny of all might be "the President Elect v. U.S. Soldier" this one is mine and I am happy to explain exactly what I mean.

The President Elect, the Supreme Court justices and the ordinary soldier share a commonality. They all must take an oath of allegiance to the United States in which they must swear to uphold and defend the constitution. This raises a very important, howbeit, often not asked question. Which of them has the most to gain or lose by swearing this noble oath? Let´s see.

Barack Obama obviously has the most to gain in that after he takes the oath of office he will become the leader of the world´s most powerful western nation. If it were proven that he is ineligible to sit in the Oval Office because of questions about his citizenship then all he may lose is a little face.

The Supreme Court justices would gain only the respect of the nation for impartially deciding that the constitution is being upheld. They will lose almost nothing doing the job they have been appointed to do except a little private time and r&r but hey, that´s why it´s called "public service."

US servicemen have to gain only the love and respect they totally deserve for their sacrifice and service to their country.

By far our servicemen have the most to lose in their promise to uphold and defend the constitution. If they should tour in theater and return without incident they will have already lost time from their own private lives. Their families will lose precious time with their loved ones and their jobs, careers or callings will have been set on hold.

Yet the highest possible loss faces every serviceman or woman 24/7, 365 days a year. They may at any time be asked to sacrifice their lives for this nation and its constitution. Some may be in harms way and have already suffered this loss even as I write.

The question this raises must not go unanswered. Can we ask our young men and women to put their lives up to defend and uphold our constitution and not expect the Supreme Court justices to at least look at the Obama eligibility question? Can we at the very least ask our President Elect to provide certain proof that he is in compliance with our nation´s most important document as well?

The answer to this question should be an unequivocal and resounding yes. It should be the "yes" of every citizen in the continental United States and not one of them should ever be referred to as the "fringe." While it may be an insult to call any man a fringe case, it would rise to the level of sacrilegious to include our servicemen and women in that group.

Since they may at any time be called upon to pay the ultimate price to uphold the constitution perhaps we should be asking their opinions about the matter as quickly as we can!

I should think you might direct your tinfoil insults eleswhere if you are scared or embarassed. Speaking of which that goes for the rest of the skeptics here as well as the Rinos, the weak sister blogs and the Radio jocks!

“Tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy kooks are seldom patriotic.”

Since you are casting stones, perhaps you can explain how calling for constitutional integrity makes somone a “tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy kook”. Do you somehow think you are being more patriotic than they are by insulting them?

It's the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases which are similar--both address the "natural born" requirement. Berg's case questions Obama's citizenship--is he native born?

Why must it come Down to Popular V. Patriotic:

It ain't either!

"It's the Cover Up, Stupid!"

The lying, stonewalling, forging of Government documents, trying to pass them off as genuine to deceive the nation and the knowing concealment of his ineligibility is what proves he is unfit to serve.

Nixon got canned for less.

Do you somehow think you are being more patriotic than they are by insulting them?

A quick glance at the home page indicates an interest in "immigration and trade."

Ten bucks says that interest isn't enforcement related. Sounds like FROBL to me.

For your respective ping lists, and also for the mods to once again investigate keyword abuse on certifigate threads.

blackhelicopters; conspiracytheories; nirther; nutobamatrollsdaily; tinfoilhats; wingnutdaily;

We will not look into your request.
***The admin mod did before and the troll “Searchin” was zotted. I notice that was when JimRob was cc’d. My keyword abuse investigation requests will be cc’ing JimRob from now on.

I suspect that your attempt at distraction from the subject has no sound basis in constitutional law.

Just what are you obliquely referring to?

Have you got any indication that George W. Bush has violated the Constitution?

If so, what are the specifics and what are the sources for those specifics?

I believe that George W. Bush’s ultimate leadership could have been greater, particularly given the excellent start he made, but I cannot see where he failed to obey the Constitution, although he certainly could have, at several points, spoke out more strongly in its defense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.