Yes, "any alterations invalidate this certificate."
I wish this issue had never arisen, that there was unquestionable proof that Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth. On political grounds, I abhor what I expect Obama will bring to the presidential office and expect to oppose him down the line. But it will be very bad all around if anti-Obama sentiment becomes associated with a "conspiracy theory" rather than his ideological positions. And as unthinkable as it seems now, should the federal judiciary get involved in this mess and declare there is a reasonable doubt about about Obama's citizenship — or find a "smoking gun" proving he is not eligible for the presidency — it could provoke the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
So, should we ignore the controversy and the evidence?
We cannot. If the "conspiracy" is a fact — and I hope it is not — it must be brought to light, whatever the consequences. To openly cast aside a provision in the Constitution is one more step toward making that great document irrelevant, a historical artifact that can be re-interpreted according to politics or convenience. It would be a major advance toward a government that rules rather than legislates, for the presidency as a Roman emperor–like cult subject to no law, not even the very Constitution that is the basis of all law, including limits on the power of the government over the individual.
Whether Ron Polarik's report is valid in its conclusions or not, to suppress it will not make it go away. It will take on a life of its own that no amount of denial, even honest denial, can stop.
Of course, the journalism industry that never gets tired of patting itself on the back for its "All the President's Men" moment of glory will be considerably less interested in pursuing this story, since the subject is its idol Barack Obama rather than its earlier ogre, Richard Nixon. That, too, would be a mistake. If it turns out that a cover-up has actually taken place, the news media will lose what little is left of their credibility.
I will read Polarik's report through, but I don't expect to end up with a firm opinion, since it is largely based on computer technology that I understand in a general way but not in depth. Readers of this blog who believe they are competent to judge the validity of Polarik's conclusions are welcome to comment.
7 comments:
The report is more than I care to go through in fine detail, but I will say Ron Polarik had better be sleeping with one eye open and a loaded gun at hand.
Rick,
Thanks for the hat tip. We cannot ignore it, damn the consequences, I agree.
I heard a talk radio host (sorry, can't remember who it was) say to one of his listeners concerned about this issue a few days ago that he expects the Supremes, even if they find him ineligible, to rule in favor of BHO's eligibility to avoid a Constitutional crisis.
Huh?
I am afraid that if it was learned definitively that Obama was not born in the U.S., that the result would likely be an emotional and massive quick push to pass an amendment removing that requirement from the Constitution. The Democratic Congress would pass it quickly with a little help from Republicans who would want to appear to be fair-minded, and I think it is safe to bet the at least the required 3/4 of the states would quickly ratify it - there would be a more or less open competition to try to be the among the earliest to ratify it, and thus prove how non-racist they are.
So the final result would be that it would no longer be a Constitutional requirement that a President be born here, with the likely eventual result that foreigners would start being elected President. In much the same way the Roman Empire was eventually ruled by non-Romans.
So, in a Machiavellian sense, I'd rather that this come out some time down the road at a point where Obama is no longer seen particularly favorably and the fervor over electing a black President has worn itself out. I say bring this up in about three years and get Obama impeached for it. By then no one will be eager to change the Constitution to keep him in power.
Jaz,
I do hope that Dr. Polarik's whereabouts are not easy to discover, although if an agency with enough resources wants to find him, there is nowhere to hide. But now that his report is circulating on the Internet, he is probably safer than when he was investigating.
Terry,
I honestly hope this is a wild goose chase. Obama should be rejected for his policies and actions; trying to take him down because of his birthplace is bound to look like persecution. Still, as I wrote, to wink at a violation of the Constitution is another blow to small-r republican government, and we've already had too many of those.
Mark,
Thank you for an extremely sophisticated analysis of how this might play out. Your scenario is well worth pondering.
Rick,
I agree that Hussein O. should be opposed for his policies. But I think that virtually any opposition to BHO on any plausible grounds is going to appear to some to be persecution given the opinion that America has finally reached its apex in electing him to the presidency.
Maybe we should look at this birth certificate-gate ordeal as a form of poetic justice. Hussein O. is still in the partial birth stage of his presidential life, and, well, you get the picture.
Mark wrote:
I say bring this up in about three years and get Obama impeached for it. By then no one will be eager to change the Constitution to keep him in power.
Mark, respectfully, I would not bet on that. In liberal dominated America, after three years of Obama and stiff conservative opposition to his policies at every turn, the tone of his skin considered and so forth and so on, Obama's likely, to my mind, to come out looking more like a saint and his opposition looking like devils. Again, this presupposes that we live in a liberal dominated society where people are guided in the main by liberal, not conservative principles.
Your scenario concerning the changing of the U.S. Constitution to retroactively qualify a found-to-be unqualified Obama (and all future presidents) seems to me implausible, even in liberal dominated America. Even if I grant that the new Congress would rush through such an amendment proposal, I don't believe the requisite number of States would ratify it, as an attempt to prove their non-discriminationism or otherwise. But I could be wrong.
Good article. I have to take exception to the idea that it would be better to expose this 3 years from now when, presumably some of the "glitter" will have worn off. If he is found to have been ineligible to sit as POTUS, wouldn't that mean that anything he did while president would be null and void? I don't think he would be subject to impeachment procedures, he would simply not be president-right?
At the very least can this imbroglio not be used to design the certification of birth on U.S. soil into the process by which a candidate officially declares they are running a campaign for POTUS? I realize it is water under the bridge, but however this turns out for Obama, shouldn't there be at least a draft of legalese that will prevent any recurrence of this problem that should never have been a problem to begin with? Such essential facts should not be a secret at any advanced stage of he game.
Post a Comment