If you’ve been following the brewing controversy over Barack Obama’s questionable citizenship based on whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, the legal case to confirm his status (and his eligibility to be President) took a bizarre turn on Monday. Federal judge R. Barclay Surrick decided that former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg did not have the “standing” to raise such an issue before a federal court. As a private citizen – like you and me – he lacks what…. importance? gravitas? connections?
Initially, the Obama camp was given a time frame to provide adequate proof to answer the charge. Obama’s lawyers never complied. Instead, they simply filed motions to dismiss. Yet on Monday, after the deadline had expired, the judge decided to simply drop the case, hanging his hat on the concept that an ordinary citizen does not have the legal clout to challenge the validity of Obama’s citizenship in federal court. Sure feels like a cop-out, doesn't it?
If such is the case, then who does have sufficient standing to satisfy Judge Surrick? His contention is that Congress must be the entity to make such a challenge. Since when? Is that written somewhere? If so, where?
Seems like a huge course change in a very short time span. What happened over the weekend to make this judge execute such an about-face? Did someone lean on him? Who? Six additional lawsuits have been filed in other states. What will become of them? Will they also all be cast off in similar fashion?
Moreover, what was the real reason behind Obama’s sudden trip to Hawaii - only days before the election? Was it really to visit an ailing grandmother, or was it to put out a fire?
Will questions about the validity of Obama’s citizenship be the "October Surprise" that becomes the constitutional crisis of the century? Why is no major media outlet (including Fox) giving this story the exposure it warrants?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment