Since the President of the Republic is a government paid official, it is an inalienable right of any taxpayer to ascertain that the beneficiary of his taxes meets all preconditions to fill the job, which, however, do not end in the electoral victory, but also include constitutional requirements defined two centuries before the elections. As with any civil service entrance examination, the burden of proof lies entirely with the applicant: he is the one who must provide evidence of his qualifications, and it is not the State’s or the taxpayer’s obligation to prove he does not possess these qualifications.

If some judges have lately been ruling the other way around, it is because the American citizens who are questioning Obama’s election in the courts mistakenly put forth as their main argument suspicions about the President elect’s nationality. Nevertheless, even if Obama were born in the Capitol on July 4th, his would be the obligation to demonstrate it with valid documents. The very refusal to abide by this rule would be enough to testify to the candidate’s disdain for the Constitution, thus automatically disqualifying him for the job of supreme defender of the Constitution itself and of United States laws. By putting the nationality issue and not the lack of documents in center stage, the plaintiffs are taking upon themselves the burden of proof, thereby weakening a claim that otherwise no judge could possibly dismiss.

As reasonable as they may be in themselves, suspicions are just that: suspicions. The refusal to show documents, by contrast, is a fact, the most established fact in this whole incident. Actually, it is more than a refusal: it is premeditated engineering of concealment, which was done simultaneously in the United States and in Kenya, in order to block all access not only to the birth certificate, but to almost all of the President elect’s documents, without which nothing his propaganda may assert about him can be trusted, except through an act of irrational faith.

The unusualness of the situation does not rest as much on the potential presence of a foreigner in the presidency as on the fact that this act of faith is being required as a manifest and unequivocal duty of all American citizens, to the degree that any intent to resist it through the judicial system is officially condemned as “garbage” (sic) by Obama’s team.

Under these circumstances, it is meaningless to ask whether the new president “will” or “intends” to set up a dictatorial government in the White House. Even before he is sworn in, a vast dictatorial strategy is already ongoing, which is deliberately designed to place him beyond the reach of the Constitution and the law, with the active complicity of the mainstream media and a goodly portion of the GOP. What is still more critical is that as soon as the Obamist squad assured itself that the armor they had installed around him had been passively accepted by the majority of the electorate, the ban on inquiry was immediately extended to other areas. First, the Federal Reserve announced it would not release the names of those who benefited from two trillion dollars in the form of emergency loans, making it virtually impossible to identify those responsible for the financial crisis. Secondly, the Federal Election Commission has refused to probe 63 million dollars of illegal overseas donations that flowed into the Obama campaign.

Unreachable and untouchable, the man who cannot be investigated has already been granted free access to the highest classified state secrets and is preparing to reign under the double protection of the armed militancy, transfigured into a “civilian national security force”, and the Fairness Doctrine, which will rub out conservative talk radio.

Meanwhile, applicants to the recently posted 70 thousand civil service vacancies are having their personal lives scrutinized (gun owners being among the first to be cast out) and any expression of hostility against Obama in the internet is investigated by the Secret Service in search of “racist” traits.