Topic: Barack Obama
The Crazy Birthers Over the past year, this controversy has raged in the background, slowly gaining momentum. I decided to finally rant about it as the mainstream media finally paid attention to it enough to ridicule it. But, then I realized a horrifying thought.by Taliesin
(libertarian)
Monday, August 3, 2009
The first part is my original rant. The second part is my conclusion and hypothesis on the underlying cause of this controversy.
Part 1- The Original Thought
"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."
I have followed this controversy for about a year now. As it has finally started to attract the notice of popular media, accompanied by little actual reporting and much ridicule, I have to go on a rant. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. I do not find it ridiculous that our President should be required to prove natural born citizenship. The Constitution is quite clear on that. It has been alleged by birthers that Obama has spent as much as $1 million to fight any legal action requiring him to do so. Keep in mind that this may be an overstatement, or just an estimate. Either way, he has had lawyers in court on his behalf in this matter. And those lawyers were not free, and they certainly cost more than the cost of allowing the certificate to be studied in court. Fighting a lawsuit costs more money than a capitulation. Even having Orly Taitz over for a beer and a perusal of the certificate would be cheaper.
And this is not the most preposterous thing in my mind. That is reserved for those who do not find it to be so ridiculous. No, I will not be citing sources for each alleged controversy regarding Obama's citizenship. This is more a common sense rant, not a report. The most extensive source of these questions would be at WWW.WND.COM, if the reader wishes to read further, that is the place to go. I am ranting because the logical parts of my brain can't fathom this controversy in silence anymore.
This is not racist. Let us look at the two major candidates of the last election. John McCain, a white male, reportedly born in Panama to two United States Citizens, a man with an extensively documented public history is called before a Senate hearing to determine if he is eligible to be elected to the office of President. In short, does he meet the "natural born citizen" requirement? He produces his birth certificate. The applicable laws are reviewed. The controversy is done.
Barack Obama, a nominally black male, reportedly born in Hawaii, to one US citizen and one Kenyan Citizen, whose history has many gaps, who has lived in several foreign countries, one of which issued him a passport, is sued multiple times to produce his birth certificate. Every suit is dismissed; the idea of questioning his citizenship is dismissed as crazy. The existence of a scanned document on the internet which bears little resemblance to a full Hawaiian Birth Certificate is referenced as legal proof. No one so far has claimed the $10,000 reward for which the only qualification is for the claimant to have been present at Obama's birth. The controversy continues.
It's not about race; it's about logic and fairness. The one candidate's citizenship is questioned and officially resolved. The other candidate's citizenship is questioned multiple times and never officially addressed other than in dismissal of any need to address it. Why is one candidate vetted while the other is not? Let's pause just to quickly review some of these allegations from "birthers". I want people who may not know to have some idea of the inconsistency that has lit the fire of this controversy.
His Paternal Grandmother allegedly said he was born in Kenya, I can't verify because I don't speak Kenyan and I'm unwilling to support another's translation as proof. His campaign manager said on video that Obama understands the plight of immigrants because he is one, this video is in English and I did see it. In his youth, Obama carried an Indonesian passport which is not issued to U.S. citizens, which indicates that his mother may have changed his citizenship while they lived in Indonesia. His father was a foreign national making his citizenship more complicated than most people born in the U.S. His mother was too young to confer citizenship if he was born outside the U.S. 2 different hospitals have been reported as his place of birth. The state of Hawaii said the original document had been destroyed and yet also stated that officials went back and reviewed it saying it is valid. Hawaii did issue such certificates to Hawaiian residents whose children had just been born elsewhere. Although the Supreme Court was set to hear the merits of this case, that hearing never took place. With no explanation for it, it was simply removed from the docket. The list goes on and on.
Do we see the ridiculousness? What so-called """birthers""" are asking for is a Long Form Birth Certificate, reviewed by an independent 3rd party in a court of law. What is posted on the internet is a Certificate of Live Birth, issuable to any Hawaiian resident who had a child regardless of where the child was born. An actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate is a grid filled with information, such as attending physician, hospital where birth took place, etc. Several examples of such a document have been posted on the internet by people born in Hawaii in the same year as Obama. The full, long-form certificate makes the copy posted by the Obama campaign look like a blank piece of paper in comparison. It is like looking at a doctoral thesis compared to a high school essay.
Plus, the "proof" showing his Hawaiian birth is a scanned image on the internet posted by Obama's campaign. Are we to believe they wouldn't forge anything to make sure their candidate is electable? This is proof? I mean, is the contention that no document on the internet has ever been doctored. That such documents are beyond reproach? And the birth announcement posted in a Hawaiian newspaper is also cited as proof. Of course, this "proof" assumes the newspapers always vet such announcements as only issued to people whose children are born in Hawaii. Are anti-birthers positing that if two Hawaiians are on vacation in, let's say, Kenya, and they have a baby and then come home and put an announcement in the paper, the newspaper would certainly bar such an announcement as false?
Skeptics ask why anyone would fake any of this. The answer is simple. Unless Obama was born in Hawaii, not only is he not natural born, he is not a citizen at all, since his mother could not legally bestow citizenship and his father was a citizen of Kenya, and Obama has never gone through naturalization. Not only would this invalidate his presidency, it would invalidate everything, his actions in the Senate included. And it would probably land him in jail for fraud.
The end of this is very simple. It really doesn't require much. An afternoon spent in court where the long-form Birth Certificate is produced and verified and it is over. But here we are, a year later, court and attorney fees for Obama and no such afternoon has happened. WHY?! Congress has now issued an announcement that Obama was born in Hawaii. Did they see the certificate he won't allow anyone to see?! What is going on? According to "birthers", only one thing stands between Obama's Presidency and the end of the controversy, and that is the release of a piece of paper! One piece of paper which all persons must produce for various reasons that don't include a $400,000 salary, extraordinary personal power, and a guaranteed lifetime pension after 4 years of work. Perhaps the next time I need to renew my driver's license, I should simply provide the web address for a scanned copy of the newspaper announcement of my birth. I am certain the DMV will shrug their shoulders and say, "Okay, if that's all you have..." No, in the real world, they will tell me to come back with a real document.
For all the talk of how crazy "birthers" are, I have yet to hear a rational reason for Obama's continued refusal to produce a real birth certificate. The most rational reason I have received on why he has refused to produce the certificate was from a fellow libertarian and the reason was because he can refuse and if I want to spend $1 million to fight the DMV on producing a birth certificate I am more than welcome to. The irrational part for me regarding this explanation is that the country should accept it regarding our ultimate employee.
I ask the reader this question: What occurs if it is discovered that Obama is not a natural born citizen? Any military action he orders will be questionable, something that will not go unnoticed by the countries or persons affected by such action. Anyone who is taxed by a law he signed, who is jailed as a result of a law he signed, anyone at all affected by anything he has done in his capacity as President will have cause to tie up the court system in appeal. The country will go through crisis as the Constitution, as the foundation of all laws in this country, will be blatantly and incontrovertibly shown to be worthless and by inference all of our laws as well. If Congress acknowledges that he is not a natural born citizen and proceeds to impeach, again they would also have to re-submit all bills, Joe Bidden would have to reissue all executive orders, if in fact he could even assume office since his election could also be considered tied to an invalid election. The entire election would have to be re-done with Nancy Pelosi as acting President. And anyone affected by any such orders or laws would have the right to sue that the law was not valid at the time of such affection. In short, the longer this controversy proceeds, the greater the chaos that will occur.
Such chaos, of course, is predicated by the production of a Birth Certificate showing he is not natural born. It must be established one way or another. The very worse case is for him to be discovered as a non-citizen after his presidency. It must be resolved now. The longer it waits, the more people will question. The longer we question, the more the office of the President is undermined. The ranks of birthers is fueled and expanded by the continual refusal to officially resolve these questions. One way or the other, we have to lay this controversy to rest. It must be done legally, without compromise to the Constitution. It is not resolved by dismissal, or witty quotes about how it has been twittered long enough.
The country is headed for serious and complete crisis if a non-citizen is allowed to remain in office. Indeed, the only way a non-citizen could attain or remain the office of President if he is not a citizen is by Amendment. We must first find the truth, and if the truth is that Barrack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, then we can consider if the American people will allow an Amendment to favor someone who possibly lied to achieve the highest public office.
Part 2- The Horrible Thought
Now, I was all set to publish the above. I stopped to tweak it a bit and do some review. I walked away to give myself a mental break so I could look it over with fresh eyes. A number of factors then started to hit me. I realized that I had fallen into a trap I constantly try to avoid. I was acting as if other people thought and acted like I would. Personally I find this one of the most dangerous beliefs. It is the power source of the Big Lie. People do not doubt the Big Lie because most people would never have the audacity to try it so they assume no one will.
So, here I sat believing that Obama was pretending qualifications he did not have as part of a Big Lie. But then wouldn't people want to know why he spent legal fees to suppress his birth certificate? If people knew all the inconsistencies, wouldn't there be an outcry? Why spend that kind of money? For me it was simple, he has something to hide. After all, no one has come forward to claim the reward put forth by Joseph Farrah of WorldNet Daily for being able to testify that they were present at his birth. Surely someone is still alive that was working at the hospital. Surely they would check in order to qualify for some easy money. It was a mixed race birth in the early 60's. It would be memorable to someone, I'd imagine. But Hawaiian officials maintain that while they will not release the certificate without a court order, they can confirm that he is a natural born citizen. I couldn't fathom the logic. Why hide the truth when the truth exonerates?
Somebody in the Obama camp would realize that conservative news agencies wouldn't let this die. There were too many illogical aspects to it. Reporters like Joseph Farrah, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh would vent about it. Word would get out. They couldn't hide it. Eventually his enemies would attack relentlessly. Joseph Farrah and WorldNet Daily have committed a lot of resources to this. Les Kinsolving, their White House correspondent has asked the Obama Administration point blank, twice, about it. The response was ridicule. But WorldNet Daily is determined to pursue it.
Then I remembered something from when I was in high school. I was on the fencing team. I fenced epee, where every body part is a target. The slightest flaw in one's guard can be exploited by one's opponent. The most frustrating person I ever faced was a boy named Schmee. I'll wait for you to stop chuckling. Yes, his name was Schmee. Schmee fenced a little sloppy. His guard was a little off., and he was short so most epee fencers had better reach. But Schmee had a fool proof style. He never attacked. In fact he barely moved. When I fenced him, I lost pretty miserably. Whenever I attacked, Schmee would strike, as fast as a snake at me and score a hit before I ever came close. He would wait, unmoving, for me to expose myself in my impatience to score a hit. Schmee's tactics were brilliant. The longer the match went, the more frustrated I became and the more I attacked, and the faster and more completely I lost.
I propose that Obama is doing the same thing with the "birthers". The clues are tantalizing. The advantage seems so clear. The money spent in defense seems to prove something to hide. What is the advantage to spending any money to hide nothing? To counter anyone who may claim the WorldNet Daily reward, a larger sum would have to be given to any witness. All that money spent in order to attain what? Well, people who believe Obama is not a citizen will eventually commit, without reservation, to the attack. Those who do not like his policies see an easy win. They see an easy solution to the unassailable President who can change so much, and already has. Not, in my opinion, for the better. Those of us with conservative or libertarian ideas find his policies horrible and the ease with which they are accomplished to be quite frightening. The liberal and totalitarian machine has become a powerhouse. But to take him and all he represents down by uncovering that he isn't qualified to be in office. That would expose the Big Lie of how great he is. His policies would die as the country became outraged at his party, just as Bush's failures doomed the Republicans.
But what if there is no lie? What if Conservative Media commits to the attack and he is a natural born citizen? Then Conservative Media outlets will be shown to be rabid zealots who will do anything to find controversy. Truth will seem to take second seat to idealism in the Conservative agenda. The amount of effort expended on this crazy pursuit of a certificate with nothing to hide will prove it. Serious news agencies die if they are not credible. The Killian controversy destroyed Dan Rather, for example. This goes beyond leaving someone rope to hang themselves. This practically encourages Conservative Media to tie the noose and mount the chair while declaring hanging to be a relaxing way to pass the time. WorldNet Daily, as the most vocal pursuer, the most committed, will fall hardest. Remember, this news agency is one of the top online news outlets and its bias is obviously Conservative. They have a history of doggedly criticizing the Liberal Agenda. To strip WorldNet Daily of its credibility would be worth a million dollars. To expose the most vocal critics throughout the country to association with the "crazy birther" appellation, that would be worth a million dollars. A million dollars for all that would be a bargain.
I just leave the reader with one thought. Imagine the mind that would conceive this plan. And that such a mind supports this administration which already takes our liberty like a con artist takes your life savings, not just with consent, but with encouragement.
God help us all.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 30 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Taliesin only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Taliesin is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a US citizen because he was born in Hawaii. Those who claim otherwise without proof do a disservice to our country. And the media who fan the flames of this conspiracy theory are complicit. However, those who assume that being a US citizen from birth equals being a natural born citizen do a disservice, too. The latter is not a conspiracy, but a question of constitutional law. And the media who ignore this issue are derelict.
The Constitution does not define natural born citizen. There is much evidence that being a natural born citizen requires two US citizen parents.
For the first time ever, the US knowingly elected a president who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both US citizens at the time of birth. (For the exception, see Chester Arthur.) Isn't this unique situation worthy of the discussion as to whether or not this satisfies the requirement that the president be natural born?
There is no US law that designates anyone as a natural born citizen. From time to time the Supreme Court has designated an individual as a natural born citizen, but it has never done so for anyone who did not have two US citizen parents.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. The 14th Amendment describes circumstances under which a person would be considered a citizen. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happerset in 1874. In this case, the Court said that the Constitution does not say in words who would be a natural born citizen. This includes the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the 14th Amendment does not designate anyone to be a natural born citizen.
Later, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, the Court said that Wong Kim Ark was just as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, but Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark case is the Holy Grail for Obama defenders, but it is a fig leaf of legitimacy.
What does the Constitution intend by natural born citizen? This question will not be answered by public opinion, an election, the Electoral College, the Congress, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, or by me. This uncertainty can be resolved only by a Supreme Court opinion or by a constitutional amendment.
Was George Washington a natural born citizen? Why did Chester Arthur go to great lengths to successfully cover up the fact that he was born before his father was naturalized as a US citizen?
Again, this is question of law, not of the birth certificate. Barack Obama is without doubt a US citizen, and he has been one from the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Is this the only requirement to be a natural born citizen? There is much evidence that says no.
Taliesin -- I was reading your article with interest until I got to the statement that "our Current President has spent $1 million to fight any legal action requiring him to do so."
I've been following this issue carefully, and I doubt that you have any evidence for saying that. The Wall Street Journal says:
___
• “Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?” X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from “thousands” to “almost a million”; one reader set the amount at “$950,000.” As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.
The Journal addresses other questions surrounding the controversy as well, and it seems to me that on a subject as important as this, it's important to get the facts right.
As I said, I stopped reading when I got to the first false statement, and you may have lost other readers in similar ways. Please clean up the article. You may have valid things to say, but the untruths get in the way.
For those that state with 100% certainty that Obama is a US citizen, I wonder what this is based on. You have not seen the original, either.
What explanation do you give that he has not provided his "original" birth certificate"?
This Federal Government has invaded our privacy at every possible turn. What could possibly be on the birth certificate that needs to be hidden? Black it out if you need to. Obama does not have a "right" to a level of privacy greater than you or I.
I have to show ID just to buy a drink. Positive ID. It even has my fingerprint encoded on it. Should that require more proof than what is required to hold the office of President?
Show the original birth certificate, and the "birther" issues go away.
When the simple solution is avoided, it is reasonable to wonder why.
Are the Humiliating Comment-makers Netizens CHICOM or just ACORN? Thank God for Attny. Taitz and her actions to save the US Constitution and the US, itself. Ever notice: On ALL the search engine searches (Read they've been suppressing pro-birther results) the criticisms of all us "Birthers" is the same as they do in Red China? There, the government employs a horde of "Netizens" to go to sites to humiliate & denigrate & suppress anti-government talk. They're paid about $.25 each, I've read. Just like these apparent ACORN operatives do, they ALWAYS humiliate, denigrate, and use varying terms of "Mental Illness" in volume! Buzzwords like "Wingnut," "Birther," "Insane,"Unhinged, "Delusional," That's what happens to the average Chinese when they type out loud, and the Chinese have even more "Mental Health" Prisons as do the Russians. The apparent wave of the future for us here in Obamaland? But the CHICOMS have been waging economic and PSYOPS warfare on us a long time. They've apparently continued their terroristic use of Biblical prophesies (Remember what they did on 6/6/6?) by creating as part of The Big 0's Economic Manchurian Candidate grooming and Legend, that he's actually the Anti-Christ (Imagine the desired reactions.) That his name, "Barrack Obama," means "Antichrist," in ancient Hebrew in the Book of Luke, according to a religious researcher can be seen at this YouTube video on World Net News. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527 This creation of a well-groomed "Legend," part of an overall economic warfare agenda, taking over at the top, is as old espionage craft as is planting ads in prominent Hawaii newspapers, making myth become "The Truth."
I don't know what is so hard to understand about the Bottom Line: Barrack Obama is a life-long groomed CHICOM Economic Manchurian Candidate spy, operative and ursurper. Keep that in mind, and the rest falls right into place.
Posted By: Captain Steve
Date: 2009-08-03 12:22:35
Good points and thoughtful. I'm a birther. If he delivers natural-born proof, I say "fine, problem over."
I don’t trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media. I still want two answers.
1) Why can't we see his long-form? Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding?
and most disturbingly,
2) Why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there’s a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
The existence of a scanned document on the internet which bears little resemblance to a full Hawaiian Birth Certificate is referenced as legal proof.
Says who? Unless Hawaiian state officials have said that, why take that assumption seriously?
The one candidate's citizenship is questioned and officially resolved. The other candidate's citizenship is questioned multiple times and never officially addressed other than in dismissal of any need to address it. Why is one candidate vetted while the other is not?
Completely false statement. Both candidates' (John McCain and Barack Obama) were settled except in the minds of extremists. If McCain had won last year, I'm sure there would be a "birther" movement attacking him too.
His Paternal Grandmother allegedly said he was born in Kenya, I can't verify because I don't speak Kenyan and I'm unwilling to support another's translation as proof. His campaign manager said on video that Obama understands the plight of immigrants because he is one, this video is in English and I did see it.[Where's the video? - Dale Husband] In his youth, Obama carried an Indonesian passport which is not issued to U.S. citizens [May we see that passport? - Dale Husband], which indicates that his mother may have changed his citizenship while they lived in Indonesia. His father was a foreign national making his citizenship more complicated than most people born in the U.S. His mother was too young to confer citizenship if he was born outside the U.S. 2 different hospitals have been reported as his place of birth. The state of Hawaii said the original document had been destroyed and yet also stated that officials went back and reviewed it saying it is valid. Hawaii did issue such certificates to Hawaiian residents whose children had just been born elsewhere. Although the Supreme Court was set to hear the merits of this case, that hearing never took place. With no explanation for it, it was simply removed from the docket. The list goes on and on.
You got all this from WorldNetDaily, right? Sorry, but if so, then you might as well be making it all up! WND is run by right-wing extremists, and is hardly objective!
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
Assumes there is one. What if there is not? Does Hawaiian state law require one?
I don't know if Obama is a natural born citizen or not. But I've been pondering the consequences if he is not.
First of all he would have to be removed from office.
But who would then become the president? Biden would be next in line. Those who don't like Obama would not like Biden any better. However, some would argue that the entire election should be invalidated since Obama was never eligible to run. That might make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the president since she is 3rd in line. (Wow things are going from bad to worse)
On top of all that, everything Obama did as president could be invalidated. Every bill he signed and every appointment he made could be nullified. And if any of this ends up in the Supreme Court would Sotomayor have to recuse herself, assumming she does indeed become a SCOTUS justice?
And what will be the effect on Obama's supportors who will lose their wonder boy over a single line in the constitution, especially since they never gave a damn about the constitution in the first place.
All I can say is; what a lovely kettle of fish this is!
What about all the other disclosure willfully omitted? It would seem to me that any public servant...senator, president, commander in chief or sailor would be required to produce full disclosure of their history.
I remember in the Navy I was required to undergo a full background check to be able to even see the electronics manual for the piece of equipment I was responsible to maintain. They did everything but go inside me for that one and I'd have bet that these days they'd even do that. I also remember that just having a certificate of live birth didn't pass muster. It had to be a certified fully detailed report of birth.
Also, I was extensively investigated while getting my securities licenses back in my broker days. I remember that for each time I had to go on record and disclose my history and background I then had to sign under perjury that it was so!
Have they changed all of that these days? Is the commander in chief excused from any historical scrutiny? Apparantly so!
Where is our media on this stuff? Where have they been and where are they now on anything salient that has to do with this man's history and genuine issue relative to what our constitution prescribes about the position he has attained.
I remember many circumstance and even trivial pursuits to which I've had to fully disclose the most insignificant and embarrassing details in my life... and under penalty of perjury I might add! How has this guy gotten a pass on EVERYTHING when running for the most powerful position on the planet. That success really re-enforces fears I have about the potential of what this man and whomever is pulling his strings are up to!
Finally... That idiot Bill O'Reily that my wife insists on watching can kiss my butt! Mike
Good unemotional article... you mentioned logic! Thank you. ....You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If anyone can look at a logical " 1+X=3 " and refuse to use that as evidence that... IF TRUE... X MUST = 2 because they don't "feel" comfortable in doing so... because it might "offend" 'X' or '2'...then how can we expect them to logically look at.......
1. all records that would feature citizenship of origin (university records and all) are all purposfully hidden. 2. He DID live overseas when he was a kid under a differnt name. (supposedly went to school in a country that prohibited forigners from attending school) 3. His Father was from another country and never a US Citizen and 4. His mother was traveling at the same time he was born.......
and conclude that "we NEED to UNEMOTIONALLY solve for 'X' in this matter" and the "truth deniers" conclude that "we DO NOT need to definatively solve for 'X' in this matter" Because we might not "feel right" in doing so... If this is the case...then ... well our Constitution IS infact a relic of a once great nation that has been destined to be dismissed and forgotten in the present, and for all history. I say LET.. no.. MAKE the truth be known. Show ALL records, not just partial records. (ex "Cert. of live birth" vs. "The copiously signed and noted "Birth Certificate", all university and immigration/passport records to settle this once and for all. I'm unemotionally unaffraid of either "obama '12" as well as "biden'09".... are you?
What difference does it make. I doubt anyone but Obama sees the Lawyer Fees for this. But since Lawyers charge you for reading an email or taking a phone call, we can surmise he has spent quite a bit since there are motions that have to be filed.
"What about all the other disclosure willfully omitted? It would seem to me that any public servant...senator, president, commander in chief or sailor would be required to produce full disclosure of their history."
Required by whom and for what purpose? The Constitution does not provide for the American public to view the long-form birth certificates of public officials.
"Also, I was extensively investigated while getting my securities licenses back in my broker days. I remember that for each time I had to go on record and disclose my history and background I then had to sign under perjury that it was so!"
That's a fair point, but our electoral process has never required this of presidential candidates. If you'd like to see these sorts of measures introduced in the future, that's fine, but it seems odd to make that an ex post facto requirement for a current office-holder.
"Have they changed all of that these days? Is the commander in chief excused from any historical scrutiny? Apparantly so!"
See above. Commanders-in-Chief have historically been excused from that sort of scrutiny. The only requirements for the office relate to age, residence, and citizenship status.
As noted earlier, it's not just the birth certificate, it's the college applications and funding forms that are being withheld. These too are likely to provde some truthful information.
None the less you will not be able to sway Obama backers to believe anything needs to be looked into. (Not because your position might be true, just because you're wingnuts).
I went to a site (cannot find now) where a guy had his own blog on this subject. His arguement went something like this: " Obama cannot provide the original certificate, Hawaii cannot possibly produce it either. They haven't produced an original certificate in over 30 years. It's just impossible".
My immediate thoughts were, why have/keep the certificates at all if they're never to be seen again? Into the abyss they go.
Can we see his other papers? No, apparently not. His college transcripts have been barred from public view, as well. Interestingly, Obama has 2 stories for how he met his wife, his to biography has been shown to have flaws, yet no one calls him on it except for, yes, the fringe. Everyone else drinks the Kool-Aid.I can show you do not know anything about this from the below statement:
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
Assumes there is one. What if there is not? Does Hawaiian state law require one?
My reply is that there have been other people, a simple Google search will show them, who have posted their own Hawaiian certificates from that same year and they have substantially more information on them. I mentioned it in the article, but apparently you censor your own reading so you don't see what you don't like. You also mentioned McCain, who you would know if you actually had read the article, went before the Senate regarding his own status as a natural born Citizen. You claim both candidates were vetted, yet I see no record that Obama got called in front of the Senate to prove his citizenship status, as McCain was. Obama's citizenship was questioned and we were directed to a scanned image on his campaign website. That has been the full extent of the vetting of his citizenship, any further questions were dismissed because of te evidence of a scanned image on the internet (just making sure you understand what evidence has been presented by Obama). You make statements and questions regarding point that have been addressed, again proving that you did not actually read the article above.
As I stated, I would like this resolved, one way or another. What bothers me is that it is not resolved and I cannot fathom why this certificate is not brought into court by the Obama administration so that it can be legally resolved. That is a simple and quick solution.
As Bill Mahr said, controversy that is not addressed will grow. My question is why it has been allowed to grow. Bill Mahr also supposes that if Birthers were shown the Certificate, they would not believe it. This is a straw man since birthers are practically begging for this and it has not happened. My question concerning this, is :why?
Why is Obama not addressing this easily resolved question? This is not complicated. Bring the paper into court and all except the delusional will be satisfied. Birthers who are not delusional are questioning this subject because this simple act is not being done and we can't understand why. We are accused of not believing evidence that has not even been revealed. Where is the logic in this?
My apologies if this figure is false. As I stated in my opening this is more a rant about why this continues to thrive when it has such a simple solution. Although the figures may be incorrect, Obama has spent legal fees well in excess of the cost of producing the certificate. I will change the statement to to refkect that it is an allegation and not an actual figure.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a US citizen because he was born in Hawaii. Those who claim otherwise without proof do a disservice to our country. And the media who fan the flames of this conspiracy theory are complicit. However, those who assume that being a US citizen from birth equals being a natural born citizen do a disservice, too. The latter is not a conspiracy, but a question of constitutional law. And the media who ignore this issue are derelict.
The Constitution does not define natural born citizen. There is much evidence that being a natural born citizen requires two US citizen parents.
For the first time ever, the US knowingly elected a president who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both US citizens at the time of birth. (For the exception, see Chester Arthur.) Isn't this unique situation worthy of the discussion as to whether or not this satisfies the requirement that the president be natural born?
There is no US law that designates anyone as a natural born citizen. From time to time the Supreme Court has designated an individual as a natural born citizen, but it has never done so for anyone who did not have two US citizen parents.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. The 14th Amendment describes circumstances under which a person would be considered a citizen. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happerset in 1874. In this case, the Court said that the Constitution does not say in words who would be a natural born citizen. This includes the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the 14th Amendment does not designate anyone to be a natural born citizen.
Later, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, the Court said that Wong Kim Ark was just as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, but Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark case is the Holy Grail for Obama defenders, but it is a fig leaf of legitimacy.
What does the Constitution intend by natural born citizen? This question will not be answered by public opinion, an election, the Electoral College, the Congress, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, or by me. This uncertainty can be resolved only by a Supreme Court opinion or by a constitutional amendment.
Was George Washington a natural born citizen? Why did Chester Arthur go to great lengths to successfully cover up the fact that he was born before his father was naturalized as a US citizen?
Again, this is question of law, not of the birth certificate. Barack Obama is without doubt a US citizen, and he has been one from the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Is this the only requirement to be a natural born citizen? There is much evidence that says no.