Guilty verdict in Obama trial: more questions than answers
(EXAMINER) Dr. James Manning’s now-famous trial of Barack Obama in Harlem, New York has ended. The jury found Obama and Columbia University guilty on all charges.
The trial, however, unveils many more questions than it provides answers.
Obviously the event was a ‘public’ rather than a ‘court’ trial. No court sanctioned it. The legality of public trials apart from court sanction has not been established. While the Constitution does, indeed, maintain that the ultimate power of government rests with ‘we, the people,’ and while a case can be made that under the 10th amendment the people, acting under the auspices of local and state authorities, can engage in certain acts of self-governance apart from the sanction and control of the federal government, it has not been established that any local entity in Harlem granted state or local legal status to the trial.
In that sense the trial and the verdict have no binding legal authority.
However, should a legal authority, a court, a law enforcement agency, an Attorney-General either at the state or national level, decide that the evidence presented at the Manning trial is overwhelming enough to launch a full investigation, then ultimately the results of the trial could carry the full weight of legal authority.
Dr. Manning has stated that he intends to present the evidence and the verdict to U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder. At that point the ball will be in the ‘court’ of the Department of Justice. If no action is taken on the verdict, then there is not much further that can be done.
But if action is taken and an official investigation ensues, then perhaps the goal of this event will have been met. The problem is that under the present circumstances it is next to impossible for that to happen. Holder is Obama’s choice and Congress is held in the grip of Obama’s Party. End of story.
Serious, unanswered questions remain, however–questions that the trial did an excellent job of bringing to the surface.
These questions are as follows:
Why didn’t Barack Obama have a Social Security Number issued in his name when he was first employed as a 14-year-old in Hawaii? Why was there such a long delay after his first job before an application was made for a Social Security Number? And why was he given a Connecticut Social Security Number previously used by a man born in the late 1800s, given that Obama never lived in Connecticut to begin with?
The first instance of Obama’s use of the Connecticut number was when he started to work as a Community Organizer in Chicago–a very long way from Connecticut.
Further, why was Obama given a degree from Columbia University when no one in Harlem ever remembers him being there, and although witnesses have testified that he was never a student on campus? And the address given by Obama as the one that he used while a student in Harlem does not exist.
But perhaps the most telling question of all is, why did Obama use a Kenyan passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981? Wouldn’t a U.S. citizen normally be given an American passport? It seems to be standard procedure–and the law–that passports are given only to citizens of the country in which they reside.
And what has the CIA got to do with all of this mess?
The fact is we may never know for sure unless somebody in authority in the government decides to investigate and discover the answers.
But one thing is for sure–Obama is an enigma, a shadow, a persona created out of the murky circumstances of his past, which is being carefully hidden. Why would it even need to be hidden?
These questions are disturbing to anyone who takes our Constitution and our way of life seriously. Our form of government, as delineated in the Constitution, is dependent upon the honesty and transparency of those who hold public office. And if a fraud is elected, a charlatan, a person who presents himself as something he is not, then the entire American system of government is in grave danger.
Better to err on the side of utmost caution than to glibly dismiss all of these questions as ‘mere coincidences.’ Coincidences do happen, no doubt, but this many and this often–all revolving around one man?
The odds are that the country is in grave danger.