Posted by Jeffrey K Radt ("JRed") | Posted in Political Signs , Spiritual Deception , Truth From The Fringe | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008
I've been watching the news closely the past few days certain that we would receive some sort of "October Surprise" in the form of a "startling revelation" regarding Barack Obama's citizenship and legal status as a viable candidate for the office of president of the United States.
Tonight, it seems one may be coming although I fear what it could lead to and possibly mean for the American people.
As many of you probably know by now, Philip J. Berg (a registered Democrat and lawyer from Philadelphia, PA) filed a lawsuit about two months back against Obama because he believes that Obama doesn't meet the criteria to run for president. Specifically, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.
Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes. The fact that there is hard evidence (leagl documents; school records) that suggests Berg may be on to something (as well as the personal testimony from his living grandmother that contradicts Obama's own story), not to mention the fact that you and I have to show more proof of citizenship and residency when we register our kids to play little league baseball, is fueling this entire fire that could become a powder keg if not contained by being addressed right away.
For Berg, it's not a matter of whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen, it's about whether or not he is a natural-born citizen. He has reason to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and was a citizen of Indonesia before moving to Hawaii. He took this to court in August and filed a lawsuit to have the official documents revealed.
However, as recently reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States - the most powerful man in the entire world - is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
This lawyer insists that if Obama has nothing to hide, then he shouldn't be hiding. More on this can be found at Jubilee On Earth.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that in order to run for the U.S. Presidency, a candidate must qualify three criteria:
1) Be at least 35 years old
2) Live in the U.S. for at least 14 years
3) Be a natural born-citizen
Suspiciously, within days of this ruling in response to the lawsuit against Obama, the Senator himself travelled to Kenya to visit the one person whose testimony had contradicted his version of event this entire time - his dear grandmother. Then, as if he wasn't satisfied with giving those of us who have been researching this enough reason to view him suspiciously, he stopped in Hawaii on his way back from Kenya.
So what? Why is that even relevant to this story?
Well, it's relevant when the Hawaii Governor announced - on the same weekend - that Obama's birth certificate was now sealed and that only he can make a request to obtain the original document.
Suspicious? No, not at all. Again, if there's nothing to hide then why not just come clean and produce the evidence and make your accusers look bad?
Even though this particular story is dramatic enough it doesn't end there. A Warren County magistrate said he’ll decide tomorrow whether Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has to get proof that Barack Obama was born in the United States.
David M. Neal, a Turtlecreek Township resident who runs a political website, filed suit last week, saying state and federal government leaders have failed to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, instead of Kenya. Neal says he’s part of a nationwide grass-roots movement that has questioned Obama’s birthplace and qualification to run for president. Neal’s complaint asserts that Obama’s Internet site does not disclose the name of the hospital where Obama was born and that an original long version of the birth certificate should be made available before the election. He also contends that Obama should be removed from the Ohio ballot if Brunner can’t confirm that Obama was born in the United States.
It gets better (or worse depending on your perspective).
Now, tonight we learn that the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.
Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office. In a statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an "Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008."
"I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a Constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a "natural born" citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president," Berg said.
"We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the office of the presidency of the United States," Berg said.
Folks, this is threatening to becoming serious business and all because we looked the other way and allowed the mainstream media to get away with not doing their job properly by asking these tough questions and performing a little investigative journalism.
Even Hillary Clinton tried to raise the issue and give them a solid lead when she questioned his candidacy for the very same reasons during the primary season, but the media did nothing except look the other way and swoon over the notion of "change" from their "savior" Barack Obama.
This is what Harold Ickes, a longtime advisory to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, told Mark Halperin of Time's The Page back in May: “We don’t know enough about Senator Obama yet. We don’t need an October Surprise. And (the chance of) an October Surprise with Hillary is remote.”
Before wrapping things up, let's also consider a number of news headlines that could also prove to be prescient if it turns out they're related. At the very least, together they create a very plausible scenario.
Remember a few weeks back when I reported on how the U.S. military - for the first time in its history - was being put into position across the nation to be used as a police force against the American public in the event of some sort of crisis? In that column, we examined the very real possibility of Martial Law becoming a frightening reality for any number of reasons - a perceived terrorist threat and/or the economic meltdown. Can we now add a perceived constitutional crisis and/or suspension of the election to that list? All conjecture, but certainly plausible.
Remember a few weeks back when the media began reporting on widespread cases of voter tampering and voter fraud thanks to Obama affiliated groups known as ACORN? Some analysts suggest that as the evidence mounts the results of the election could be challenged due to charges of fraud on a mass scale. Does anyone else see the potential for riots in the event that Obama loses when all the polling is telling us he's going to win in a landslide? I can.
A few days ago, Erica Jong, the author and self-described feminist, gave an interview to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera when she said that an Obama Loss "will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets." Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an "obsession...a paralyzing terror...an anxious fever that keeps you awake at night." She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War. Seems to bolster the scenario I just touched upon.
Last but not least, today we received news that there's a new video showing a West Virginia voting machine erratically switching votes, and it's getting international attention – with nearly 400,000 hits on YouTube already! A Berkeley, CA organization, Video The Vote, recently recorded Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright attempting to illustrate the reliability of voting machines, saying he was unable to reproduce a reported vote-switching problem. "We are totally transparent around here," he said. "We welcome anyone who would like to see how the machines operate and how the machines function." The voter machine erratically switched the selection as the equipment picked Ralph Nader when John McCain was chosen in front of everyone! Again, seems to support the above scenarios as possible outcomes from this whole mess.
Does anyone else get the feeling like we could be staring down the barrel of a gun here? It's almost like there's only one bullet - only one outcome that can take place - none of which would be good for the integrity of this election let alone this nation for that matter. We don't yet know which pull of the trigger will release which bullet (if any) so instead we simply sit and wait for things to happen why the mainstream media continues to ignore the obvious.
Simple questions remain.
Why not just produce the information asked for and put this to rest so we can move on to other issues? Why fight so hard against producing the information that should be right at your fingertips? Why is it so important to fight against producing the info instead of just getting it out in the open and over with and moving on? This is a great question since it seems to be such a big deal for the Democrats and the Obama campaign that Obama not be forced to produce information asked for.
Again, these are all really simple questions, and for some reason the Obama campaign does not wish to produce the relevant documents that could make this whole issue go away for good.
Produce the documents - if they exist - and let us get on to relevant issues like voting on Tuesday. If Obama cannot produce the documents then the question of WHY becomes a relevant issue - and we have a serious problem on our hands.
Whatever happens, the next few days promise to be historic if not entertaining. At the same time, let's take our responsibility seriously, do our part, and leave the rest in His perfectly capable hands. Let's also pray for God to have mercy on us and to not send us the judgment - and leader - we so rightly deserve.