By Alan Caruba
As President Obama’s head moved robotically from left to right and back again while his eyes followed the scroll of text on the teleprompters, I began to think about this ever-present factor for all his speeches and why this man is president at all.
It’s not that he isn’t in a world of trouble two-and-a-half years into his first and mercifully last term in office. All presidents “inherit” a variety of problems from their predecessor, but not all presidents—none in fact—spend all their time blaming their predecessor. If there are problems, the presumption is that they were elected on their promises to solve them.
Ronald Reagan asked “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The voters said no and he served two memorable terms. The nation is now immeasurably worse off than just two-and-a-half years after Obama’s election.
Obama has exacerbated the problems he encountered that first day in the Oval Office and added several horrors, not the least of which is called Obamacare.
Behind the avalanche of words regarding Barack Obama is the central issue of whether he should be president. Anyone else would have been impeached by now. The news media of the 1970s that revealed the corruption of the Watergate scandal, with notable exceptions, now remain silent on this issue.
On July 22, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, writing in The Washington Times, bluntly said “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors…Mr. Obama should be impeached” and was met by wall-to-wall indifference. It wasn’t even a topic for the cable news 24/7 chattering class.
Earlier this year, after reading Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, I opined that Obama would likely be forced to resign based on the weight of evidence that he was not only ineligible to hold the office under the terms set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but that there was ample evidence that even the Social Security number he was using was fraudulent.
That’s how naïve I am, but I should have realized that the U.S. court system has systematically dismissed cases brought to expose his ineligibility, mostly on the basis that the complainant had no “standing” to do so. If a citizen, operating under the same Constitution as the President has no standing, who does?
Most certainly the Obama administration’s Department of Justice would not take any action. If it prefers to sue the State of Arizona for trying to defend its own border with Mexico, and wouldn’t prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped trying to intimidate white voters, the likelihood of the DOJ doing anything involving a constitutionally ineligible President is slim to none.
Corsi’s book, 392 pages of fact-piled-on-fact, begins by asserting that “no legal authority has ever verified Barack Obama’s legal eligibility to be president, that glaring inconsistencies and blackouts in his life narrative has caused widespread doubts among the American populace, and that, in fact, a compelling body of evidence exists that Obama is not a natural-born citizen as is required of all presidents by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.”
“No usurper of the office of the president of the United States can be tolerated if the Constitution is to have enduring authority,” said Corsi.
“The test in the upcoming presidential election of 2012,” said Corsi, “is whether or not President Obama will get a second pass on having to present his eligibility credentials to the American public.” Most certainly the birth certificates he has offered thus far either do not meet that test or are complete forgeries.
There is no greater peril to the nation than to have its guiding legal instrument casually ignored. This is written prior to the Republic candidate’s Iowa debate on Fox News Channel, but I would bet the subject of Obama’s ineligibility and usurpation of the office of the presidency will not be mentioned.
© Alan Caruba 2011