I agree he told us and I pointed that out in my blog back in January of ‘09. I also agree that everyone who may have spoken up didn’t. Political correctness at its extreme. The thrust of my point was the massive outcry for him to release documents and that he simply refused to do so. Of course the joint session of Congress did not ask for objections to the results of the EC. I have played that video many times and it appears that something was amiss at the point where Cheney would have or should have asked for objections. But that is all water under the bridge at this point.
My fear is that he finishes his term and we are stuck with precedence that will probably destroy this nation in due time. If we can have him declared a usurper on some level we may be able to save our republic.
That is my fear too Greg. Until Obama and McCain became opponents the media, the legislators, the talking heads on the left and right, the New York Times, Washington Post, all spent hours, hearings, and air time on McCain's eligibility. I have a dozen legal essays from presumably reputable professors and law firms in my files. Now the issue is dismissed as crack pot “Birther” fodder. It tells you more about what really motivates people, and also demonstrates the meaning of “feet of clay.”
Pundits get paid to talk or opine, but will now have their audiences diminished, their book sales curtailed, their incomes diminished for avoiding the truth. Levin writes powerfully about our Constitution and foundations, but won't discuss Article II, other than to point out that there is no path to resolving the issue. He talks about Bastiat, but avoids the most frequently cited and most used resource, Vattel’s Law of Nations. He avoids our greatest Chief Justice John Marshall and the dozens of cases remarking about our never doubted common-law definition for natural born citizenship. Minor v. Happersett is savaged by Soros acolytes, who publish scrubbed decisions on the most popular legal archive on our Internet and there is not a peep. Those are feet of clay.
Sounding authoritative is a talent. Talking truth means avoiding no truths. Unfortunately, there is no necessary association between those qualities. There are very few who both have read our framers, and who will honestly discuss the issues guiding our framers who put together such a cohesive and coherent collection of ideas to protect individual freedoms. The only path I see is to continue to clarify the issues which you and I have realized constitute the truth, and have faith that truth will prevail as long as we have a free press.
Requiring the official recognition of allegiance to our Constituion of the parents of our President, citizenship, is eminently wise. The British from whom we separated don't even permit naturalized citizens as Obama describes himself - a “Native born citizen of the U.S.” is a naturalized citizen - to be Members of Parliament.
Leo Donofrio, to whom we owe much of the credit for the legal research exposing the perfidy of so many lawyers, is writing a book. Let's see if his book sales reveal the truth of what concerns citizens who see enough to know they have been conned, and not just by confidence man in chief. I'll not be surprised if his advance sales dwarf the real sales of our presumed pundits, Levin, Coulter, etc. etc.
Mario Appuzo, another lawyer of Italian origins, has tirelessly and patiently exposed our historical foundations, showing how ineffectual are our educational institutions. His writing could, and given all his efforts, should be compiled and sold. Rxsid and Bushpilot1 on Free Republic have scoured paper archives, archives which have not been scrubbed by would-be dictators, to expose us to the real meaning of our common law. I don't know their personal constraints, but have encouraged them both to publish a collection of the historical documents they have uncovered (the latest revelation of Madison's published article on the McClure case, exposing the clarity and intent of Madison's understanding of citizenship, exposing the uncertainty around who were citizens, since Virginia's and South Carolina's definitions were inconsistent, as noted by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, was an Rxsid discovery, ably interpreted by Donofrio and published on naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com).
The truth is there, as professors of law, such as Robert Berring at UC.s Boalt Law school know perfectly well about the corrupted legal documents. They assign students exercises which expose the perfidy of commercial “free” sites. The free sites, following the Solyndra pattern, are “hustles.” Their financial support comes not from advertizing, not from fees for their service as with Lexis and Westlaw, but from political interests with a long range strategy which involves shaping the American perceptions about what is legal, so that when the Constitution is ignored, proof in original documents will only be accessible to those with access to historical archives. One must assume that eventually, even those historical documents will disappear, just as Egyptian Muslims are destroying millions of historical documents to protect the tyranny the need to protect their authority.
Tim Stanley's Justia.org and Carl Malamud's publicresources.org are sponsored in major part by George Soros’ Society for American Progress. Malamud was/is Soro’s Chief Information Officer. Malamud hopes to get rich by publishing “PACER” documents openly. Both of them demonstrated their fealty to the left by scrubbing legal documents, twenty five cases with citations to Minor v. Happersett by Stanley, at least a whole paragraph from Ex Parte Lockwood on the Cornell site by Malamud. Malamud has sponsored, with Soros and other funding sources, dozens of symposia at most of our major law schools. (look on YouTube for law.gov lectures) His role, whether for financial or political purposes, is corrupting our foundation as a nation of laws.