Who's left standing?

Following a post at UrbanSurvival, and a letter I received in December from Senator Roger F. Wicker, I have to wonder just who our elected officials represent.

To begin with, every morning I open my computer with George Ure's news analysis site www.urbansurvival.com.

Yesterday, the last two paragraphs under Climate and Change post, may possibly identify where we are headed...

Meantime, the president-elect says the recession requires a "scaling back on promises" which I think is politease for "Now that I won, ya'll won't get what you bargained for...
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”

Not that it's any surprise around here. Folks voted for 'change' but the truth of an old saying keeps welling up within me as a study and write: "The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Who qualifies for "standing"?

So you want to file a suit against a political action figure because you have reason to believe Mr. Action is not qualified to run for POTUS. You have reasonable questions citing Constitutional laws that address the suit and you have EXHIBITS (under Just the Facts link on the left) which further questions the authenticity of Mr. Action's qualifications, namely, place of birth and residency requirements to serve as POTUS.

It would be worth your time to check the entire site as it addresses the question, "Who can run for, and rightfully serve as POTUS?" Also, who has the right to file a lawsuit to vet that nominee, Mr. Action? Who has "standing" to take on the constitutional law?

As the softball media has yet to adequately cover this lawsuit, I addressed this question to Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker my concerns.

I received the following reply...

Dear Oliver (the name is Olivia)

Thank you for contacting me regarding questions surrounding the President-Elect Obama's citizenship. I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this issue.

The U.S. Constitution requires the president to a natural-born citizen. In August, a lawsuit filed in U.S. District court in Philadelphia alleged that President-elect Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. The lawyer who filed this action has also filed suits alleging President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney knew about the September ll terrorist attacks. He also has called for Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner to disbar themselves for their decision in the 2001 Bush v. Gore.

Yes, Mr. Berg, did file those other lawsuits, as the lawyer of record, not on behalf of himself, but on behalf of plaintiffs seeking remedies within the court. But why would these other cases deny him the validity of raising the questions of the right to serve.

Why do you, Senator Wicker, not answer the question at hand? Why subjugate your answers with promoting an "agenda of invalidation" of Mr. Berg's questions raised in his lawsuit?

As I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor conspiracy advocate; there are many folks out there that question our government's ability to run our country into the ground, or allowing it to survive and thrive...to which I do have real doubts, if we concern ourselves with globalization, not nationalism. But that is another question for another day.

In October, a federal judge dismissed the Obama suit, and on December 8, 2009 (yes, they actually wrote 2009), the Supreme Court declined to hear the emergency appeal without opinion. Several similar cases have been filed in various courts across the country and are going through the judicial process. It appears unlikely that senate Democratic leaders will bring up legislation related to this issue in the 111th Congress.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
Roger

RFW/lb

Well, Roger, you need to do some of your own research, and not depend on your staff to get the facts, all the facts...especially since according to your letter, the case you alluded to in October won't be dismissed until December '09.

I know, semantics...but I couldn't help but discern, by the tone of his letter, not to mention that of the softball media's lack of attention; that they could care less if Mr. Action was hatched from a prawn farm operation in Indonesia.

Who cares about these issues? Who of us has standing when it comes to our desire to voice our concerns of possible violations of our constitutional laws?

By the way, it ain't over till it's over. This won't likely be just swept under the rug, as hoped for by the incoming leadership. The stain of corruption will follow him throughout his administration, which is unfortunate.

Scrutiny of politicians is inevitable, however, necessary. For how else can one be trusted to care for our needs, when they, themselves, are so envious of power, that they will do and say anything to be elected.

So who of us has standing, an eligibility to bring forth a constitutional case before the Court? As a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, do I not have the right to question the legitimacy of a candidate who wants to serve as my President?