Posted by Ed on 12/18 at 12:54 PM | #
Actually, Sen. Rubio or Sen. Cruz, along with a member of the House should formally object to Obama taking the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States, even if they, too, believe he is in every respect legitimate, and especially so. In this way the whole issue of what an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen can be publicly addressed in a neutral setting and a decision rendered. This is especially important and needed since it is apparent the US Supreme Court is not going to do its duty in this regard.
Posted by David Farrar on 12/18 at 12:08 PM | #
Well, we know he is illegally sitting in our WH. What to do, what to do? We have Obama-appointed judges siding with him, against all the rules and scruples.
We have enough to impeach him, but no one in the house with the guts to do it, then we have the ever corrupt Reid in charge of the Senate, so nothing will ever be enforced.
We have the Chief law enforcer of the nation at his beck and call that has already admitted he doesn't prosecute "his" people, what ever in the heck that mean.
He could have been stopped with the electoral vote, only need 17 state to do it, but again, no guts. They Are all so involved in keeping their jobs the next election.
It seems to save is country, we have to clean house, all those riding the self serving train.....out of here.
Then we find a candidate to run in 2016 and we back him, not a little bit, but 110%. We circle the wagons, we take nothing from the left. If the media won't do their job, we do it for them. As corrupt and dirty the left is, they never waiver.
The Tea Party and the right have to join forces, not an option.
If you don't like the candidate 100%, too bad, you still support him or risk losing is country forever. You cannot cut your nose off to spite your face or have a temper tantrum, no room for them this time around. If you want in, you are in 100%, otherwise, don't bother.
Posted by Sam on 12/18 at 09:09 AM | #
I had a lot of hope after the 2008 election that someone from the republican side would step forward and investigate the scads of evidence that proves Obama is not constitutionally eligible. I wrote my senators and congressmen several times begging them to do so and only got form letters back from them stating he was constitutionally eligible. I now have no hope left. They are all too corrupt and wouldn't want to risk losing their cushy positions just to save a country.
Posted by AnnieLaurie on 12/18 at 05:26 AM | #
You are correct that he is not eligible to serve as President. But the biggest failure is the GOP, which holds itself out as the opposition, has completely ignored these issues and violations of the US Constitution. I have concluded that the Banksters, Hedge Funds, and Wall Street crowd that funds the GOP, stands for nothing more than their turn at the public trough. Arriving at Marxist-socialism on Monday with Obama and the Democrats, or Wednesday with the GOP, is not enough difference for me to support the GOP. Please keep writing!
Posted by Bill Riley on 12/18 at 12:01 AM | #
Without rule of law no country can survive. This "king" does not belong in our country. Please, everyone.....don't give up! We will join together if you keep this going!!
Posted by crazyrightwingmom on 12/17 at 11:16 PM | #
Thank you Mr. Caruba! You wrote:
"If Barack Hussein Obama is permitted ... it will mark the end of the efficacy of law in America."
"The end of efficacy of law in America" - literally! - took place already in January 2012, during GA trial - the first trial hearing of the ineligibility case in merits. It was the first time when Dr. Taitz succeeded to subpoena Obama/Soetoro to appear on the trial to produce the original documentation. (Obama failed to show up). First time the testimonies of 7 experts and witnesses certifying the forgery of Obama's birth certificate and illegality of his social security number entered into the trial record.
The ruling of this judge in favor of Obama anyway exemplified a disgrace of the American justice, or rather the end of it. Now the earlier practiced methods of the pre-trial sabotage were replaced with the grotesque violation of the judicial procedures, the laws and the common sense.
Similarly, the end of American justice was reconfirmed during a few more trials or pre-trials of the ineligibility crisis since then (and up to this moment).
However the efficacy of law in America ended much earlier: in fact in 2008.
In a sane society the crisis of this nature ought to be resolved first of all by the US Congress in 2008, by the then-sitting president, and by the political parties. Yet the Congress and the parties have betrayed the Law and the Constitution and the people who elected them.
Moreover, the law enforcement like FBI have betrayed their duty too, and in the most arrogant manner. For not only did not they run in front of the train to uncover the crime: They keep sabotaging prosecution of the crime reported to them by thousands of citizens - up to this very moment!
Therefore yes, the efficacy of law in America has ended.
Welcome to America: One nation under ... fraud, the nation failed and despicable, with baseness of all.
Posted by Alexander Gofen on 12/17 at 08:51 PM | #
One amazing thing about Mr. Obama is that he is not suing or counter-suing for slander, or libel, of for demeaning his character. If he did, he would have to prove that those accusations are false. What's your guess why?
Posted by Alex P. on 12/17 at 05:39 PM | #
Why Obama Should Not Be Allowed to Take the Oath of Office Again
Posted by Alan Caruba on Dec 17, 2012 at 08:44 AM
Mark the end of the efficacy of law in America
If anyone had read any of the many books that have examined President Obama’s life and his many questionable qualifications for office, including a Social Security number that appears to have been purloined from someone else, he should not be allowed to take the oath of office for a second time.More...
Post a Comment on: Why Obama Should Not Be Allowed to Take the Oath of Office Again
Note from the Editor:
This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com.
Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.