Later this week, both houses of Congress will meet to count the electoral vote for president and decide whether or not to certify the result. In the past, this has been a rubber-stamp procedure, but this cycle, many people who understand the Constitution have appealed to members of Congress to object to the vote. Since Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is not qualified under Article II of the Constitution to become president. His elections is illegitimate.
Congress has the authority to reject the electoral vote. What we need are Congressmen with a backbone to raise a point of order and object to Obama's eligibility. Will this happen? I think not without a miracle. Congress has proven many times that most members lack a backbone. That's why I ask you to pray that God will have mercy on this nation and move some members to stand up for what is right and defend the Constitution, as they have sworn to do.
If Congress refuses to do the right thing, then we will have a usurper in line to become the most powerful man in the world. The results will be catastrophic. Our only earthly hope, then, would be for the Supreme Court to step in and invalidate the election, another very unlikely move.
Although I am pessimistic about the courage of politicians to do the right thing, I have hope. We'll see what happens.
I hope you'll pray with me.
UPDATE
As I expected, Congress certified the vote without opposition, proving that not a single Congressman is willing to keep his oath of office.
Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, we will soon have a usurper controlling the executive branch of our government, thus invalidating it as a legitimate authority. God help us all.
23 comments:
I'm praying...
Considering the fact that the majority in Congress are Democrats . . . Unfortunately this man is going to be the next president.
Scott, I'm not sure it works that way. If the election goes to the House, the vote might be by state and not by representation.
In any case, if a few members raise objections, it should force an investigation, which might make a difference.
We'll see.
I'll definitely be praying. God is in control and knows how to handle this.
As for Scott's comment, there are some democrats who are objecting to his election as well because of his ineligibility to be president.
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) — fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.
SPECIAL AUDIO LINK MESSAGE TO JOHN MCCAIN:
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=691
Have hope
I'm praying, too.
Maybe these facts will calm your fears and concerns:
President-Elect Obama is a native-born U.S. citizen, born in the state of Hawaii. See a copy of his birth certificate here:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Regarding his father's citizenship as it relates to that of President-Elect Obama, see FactCheck.org:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Love In Christ,
Tanya
Tanya,
You are not presenting all the relative facts. First, that birth certificate is not the long-form certificate. People who were not born in Hawaii could get one at that time, so that certificate doesn't prove where he was born.
Second, even if he was born in Hawaii, thus proving that he was a native-born citizen, he isn't a natural-born citizen, which is required in order to become president. Since he was born to a father who was a British citizen, Obama isn't and never was a natural-born citizen.
Therefore, Obama is not eligible to be the president.
As of now, this country has ceased to be a constitutional republic. We are now a democratic democracy. The will of the people overrules that of the document which was built to control the governing of this nation. The constitution is now just a piece of paper laying on display in the National Archives. I am seeing little hope for this nation
I have a question. Is the definition of a natural-born citizen codified in law, in the Constitution, or in our founding documents? I'm interested in this because if it did go to the SCOTUS, wouldn't this omission give them an opening to simply define "natural-born" as being born in the U.S., regardless of your birth parents' citizenship?
- Jason
Factcheck.org is about as objective regarding Obama as a Little League mom serving as umpire for her son's team.
It is owned and run by Annenberg of Chicago where Obama sat on the board for years.
I'm sorry, but since Obama was born in Hawaii, which was a part of the U.S. at the time, then that makes him an American citizen. His parents have nothing to do with it. This issue has been nagging at me (and I'm not too keen on either Obama or McCain-- in other words, really unprejudiced) and I felt I needed to say something about it.
Also, I haven't really heard that much to be against about Obama, besides the whole pro-choice thing, which I adamantly do not support. Can you please, once Obama is the president (because now, he probably will be) give some strong arguments about why you think he will persecute Christians and why you are against him, with both Biblical and factual evidence. Thanks!
Please post this one. I did spend some time typing on it.
G.O., the definition of natural-born is not, as far as I know, in any law, but court decisions have helped us see that a natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen without the need of any statute. That would disqualify both Obama and McCain as natural-born citizens.
The Writer,
It is not at all clear that Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact, his court battles to keep his records hidden would indicate that he might not have been born there.
That aside, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, making him a citizen, he is not a natural-born citizen, which is the qualification for president. Being just a citizen is not enough.
Obama is radically pro-abortion (I reject the "pro-choice" moniker). That is enough for me to strongly oppose him.
You ask for "strong arguments" that would prove that Obama would persecute Christians. I'm not sure what you mean by "strong." Since he has vilified Christian sentiments in the past, I can assume that he will continue to do so. If he works for implementation of certain legislation and international treaties that he has supported, Christians will be persecuted. There is no way around that.
Bryan, I think this issue is hardly the cut and dried one many present it as. You mention in one of the comments that the Constitution does not define its own terms.
That creates a problem. Thus we have to look to subsequent laws and Supreme Court rulings and the totality of those shows that there is debate concerning the definition of "natural born" citizen. Check out this link on Constitutional Law
Some pertinent quotes:
But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress
And this:
Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child.
Also, there is no indication in the Constitution that there was any other category other than natural born and naturalized. To think that the Congressional decisions about children born abroad of at least one citizen establishes a third category goes against clearly stated case law.
As to the documentation proving President-elect Obama's place of birth, I wish that had been challenged when he entered the race. I think his acceptance on the ballot of the first primary negated any realistic possibility of this argument being considered valid. Clearly he has been accepted as a natural born citizen by the majority of the nation, and this is not a violation of the Constitution since the Constitution does not define the term.
My hope is that we Christians can pray for him and all those who join his staff. God is the all powerful one, so why should we fear whoever steps into the Oval Office? And we have access to the King of Kings, with the mandate to pray for our government leaders. May we do so expecting God to hear and answer that His plan and purpose may be furthered.
Becky
Becky,
No, it really is "cut-and-dried." Obama is not a natural-born citizen.
I don't have time to go over all the reasons, but I'll provide a couple of links for you.
The "majority of the nation" (which wasn't the case, because many people did not vote) has nothing to do with it. This nation is supposed to be ruled by law, not popular vote. It wouldn't matter if he won 100% of the vote. He still could not be the president.
I will definitely pray for Obama, that he would repent of his wickedness and step down. I have no fear of him whatsoever, but we might have to suffer greatly because of his policies. That is simply realism. God has often allowed His people to suffer at the hands of wicked rulers.
Some links for you:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenLaw.htm
Another note - Obama hasn't even proven himself to be a citizen, much less a natural-born one. He continues to fight in court to keep his records secret.
Our pastor says that suppressing the truth is like trying to keep an inflated beach ball under water. It will always pop up.
I believe the truth will come out. But the question is, will the American public care?
Another thought: can anyone on a pedestal as high as Obama is on stay up there for very long? Expectations are so very high for him, he can't help but fall. We do need to continue to pray for mercy for our nation.
Bryan, I've only had time to read the article in the first link (it is quite long), but two things jump out.
First (and perhaps this update was added since you've read the article) the author starts out with a line that proves my point: this is not a cut-and-dried issue:
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes.
The second is that his arguments stop in the 1800s. In other words, he is not considering any of the laws passed by Congress since nor the most recent cases. Again, I encourage you to take a look at the case law, not someone's interpretation of it.
Another example: If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ''naturalized'' by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 - 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
Again, this statement makes it clear that even legal minds do not agree that this issue is cut-and-dry.
Becky
I realize that many "legal minds" disagree with my assertions. There are many "legal minds" who see abortion rights in the Constitution, no gun rights, a right to pornography, and the list could go on and on. I'm not impressed with many of the "legal minds."
I have read many, many more sources than what I listed, including a lot of case law. I just grabbed a few that I thought would be informative.
The fact remains, that Obama has not yet proven that he is even a citizen of this country, much less a natural-born citizen. It is crucial that this be proven before he takes office. We shouldn't have to file lawsuits to get him to prove it.
Whether or not we like it or agree, Bryan, the "legal minds" are the one determining what is and what is not law.
That's why I think it is wise to state our opinions as opinions rather than as facts.
Becky
Becky, there are many problems with your comment.
First, whether or not legal minds are the ones determining law, that has no bearing on whether or not my statements are fact. I can state a fact, and if a "legal mind" doesn't act according to that fact, it doesn't alter the fact. So, why should I state something as an opinion when I know it isn't merely an opinion?
Second, blogging is all about stating opinions. It doesn't make sense to constantly preface every remark with, "In my opinion." That's weak blog writing. We believe our opinions to be facts. Why should we weaken them just because a "legal mind" might disagree?
Third, since we are on the verge of losing our once-free nation, I have to state the truth plainly and sound a warning. I will not bow to socially engineered manners that force us to speak without prophetic power. I will speak with confidence, because I know that the wisdom from above is far and away greater than that of the "legal minds" in Washington.
If we speak like poor beggars, we will convince no one, but if we shine a powerful light, perhaps we can lead some out of the darkness.
Post a Comment