The 1992 L.A. Riots (pictured above) will look like a Boy Scout campfire-and-sing-along compared to what might be just around the corner for major U.S. cities.
Consider what enraged L.A.'s inner-city community which sparked the billion-dollar rampage of destruction; it was that police officers, who happened to be white, were found not guilty for trying to subdue a resisting Rodney King, who happened to be black.
Yes, that 'not guilty' plea was justification enough for some to loot, shoot, beat, burn and kill, destroying entire city blocks.
Now imagine what is going to happen if President-Elect Barack Obama is found by the US Supreme Court to be ineligible to hold the office of the President of the United States because of the fact that he was not born in the USA and is not a US citizen....!
Do you think that those who looted and burned over a relatively minor local judicial decision will somehow show integrity and restraint over a judicial decision that prevents the 'messiah' from getting in to the White House? Would you bet $1,000 on it? Me neither.
And do you think that the only people who would loot and burn all live in L.A.? Or might there be some who would do likewise in different cities if enough 'justification' were presumed by their community?
Now if Barack Obama was indeed not born in the USA, he is guilty of lawlessness and so is the DNC for presenting his name on the list of Democratic Presidential candidates. For each have willfully tried to subvert, undermine and bypass a very clear posit of the United States Constitution. In my book, this clearly makes both Obama and the DNC 'domestic enemies of the Constitution,' and they should be prosecuted for treason.
But what about the 64 million people who voted for the ineligible candidate? How are they going to respond to enforcement of the rule of law? How much preference for the rule of law was found in L.A. in 1992? Are there other communities who might respond similarly?
Unfortunately I have seen too many instances of community members ignoring the rule of law and pressing for what they want, regardless of its legality. And if the person whom they voted for President began his election by choosing what he wants over the rule of law, how can we expect anything less from those who view him as the Great Hope?
No, if Obama is ruled ineligible, every major US city is going to have elements within it that will riot, burn, loot, pillage and kill. And it could very likely be a bloody affair as armed law-abiding citizens legally protect their property, business and lives with the use of armed force.
If this is what has to come, so be it. If lawlessness seeks to take over, I can think of nothing more suiting than a confrontation and the elimination of those who refuse not submit to the laws of the United States of America.
So get some water, food and ammo before tomorrow, when the US Supreme Court decides if it will take the case.
Because we could see unprecedented riots all over this country and such lawlessness needs to be confronted or it will rule.
Don't Tread on My Constitution.
3 comments:
.
Are you really wishing for riots in USA? Is this what you want? For what purpose can you be trying to suggest this?
Dream on, when you say, "...Now imagine what is going to happen if President-Elect Barack Obama is found by the US Supreme Court to be ineligible to hold the office of the President of the United States because of the fact that he was not born in the USA and is not a US citizen....!"
You have a long way to go to make Mr Obama not a citizen. According to official records, Mr Obama was born of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States... He qualifies as a citizen.
Article. II. Section. 1. (US Constitution)reads:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
AMENDMENT XIV Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ..."
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401
"... defines a citizen of the United States at birth a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States..."
(Now heck where are the 'activist' judges when Amerika needs one?)
and what about this:
In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.
heh heh.
.
1795? Heh, heh.
You want to hang your hat (for the future) on events in 1790's, go for it. Citizenship was exclusively for _white_ _men_ who owned land; women and slaves were property.
This is like people who scream hysterically about their right to bear arms. The doctrine of original signers of the constitution is what the document is all about. By this line of thought, the the Second Amendment only applies to weapons that existed in 1790's (black powder - flint locks etc.).
Wow. I was not born then. Do you really want to go there?
Has USA changed a little since then?
.
Post a Comment