My thesis in this post, Gentle Reader, is quite simple: any US citizen who is not a "birther" is, ipso facto, an enemy of Constitutional government and an enemy of and traitor to the Republic.
The dismissive term "birther" isn't applied merely to those who claim to know that alleged-President (*) Obama is not a natural-born US citizen, but also to those, such as myself, who point out that we do not, in fact of matter and law, know that he *is* a natural-born US citizen -- and therefore, we do not know that he meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the presidency, and therefore, we do not know that he really is the President of the US.
Therefore, anyone -- whether "liberal" or supposedly conservative -- who will not acknowledge the simple truth that we, the citizens and electors of the US, do not know whether it is true that alleged-President Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the presidency, and thus we do not know that he *is* the President (and human nature being as it is, thse folk generally denigrate those of us who point out these plain facts) is an enemy of Constitutional government and an enemy of and traitor to the American Republic.
There can be no compromise, nor backing-down, on this issue. Anyone who will not acknowlege the simple truth that we do not know that Obama legally occupies the presidency, anyone who attempts to evade the real Constitutional question by invoking "democracy" (which the United States isn't!) or the result of the 2008 election, has chosen to be a traitor to the Constitution and thus to the United States and thus a traitor to our fathers and our children.
(*) alleged-President Obama -- I have explained elsewhere why I refer to him as such.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
There is a difference between not seeing the evidence and refusing to see the evidence. Choice driven by ideology?
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate. Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
It's not a copy, man.
It's an official print out-- there is a difference, which I find is easiest to explain by pointing out that the computer form shared (in a rather odd manner, if I remember correctly-- first released to Kos or some such?) reflects the information in the computer, which can be changed without notation by adoption, sex change operation, etc.
Hawaii also makes birth certificates for those born elsewhere or adopted as infants, and the odd phrasing that they have his original in a vault is...well, odd.
If what's "debunked" is ignorant of this kind of stuff, it really doesn't do much-- I found this stuff out when I was trying to argue *against* "birthers."
As I keep saying, I don't think Obama is not a citizen-- now, at least, although the questions about how the law would apply at the time of his birth make my head hurt-- I just think there's something he doesn't want known in his past. Only reason I can think of for making such a big to-do about it. {yes, yes, I know the fad to claim he's trying to "sucker" folks into demanding it, then will pull a Big Reveal! and make everyone look like schmucks... which has been claimed since before the official print out was leaked.)
Shoot! His own wife seems to believe he was born in Kenya.
I'll bite, why do you say that Ilion?
There are at least two videos in circulation (one of which I've linked), from before the election, in which Mrs Obama refers to Kenya as "his home country."
You *really* need to get your head out of your "liberal" and/or Darwinistic ... sand.
I'm tempted to agree with the basic idea here, although I don't realistically know what more he could do to prove himself. The idea of his being a citizen of Indonesia sounds plausible, but it would probably be impossible for him to prove a negative. Regarding his being born in America, he has already released a digital copy of that birth certificate with the number blacked out.
Foxfier does make an interesting point, though, about the lack of original certificate, and that the information on it can be updated.
Here we go.
(Yay, google.)
"... although I don't realistically know what more he could do to prove himself."
He could stop hiding *all* his records. Including his actual birth certificate.
"The idea of his being a citizen of Indonesia sounds plausible, but it would probably be impossible for him to prove a negative."
His duty isn't to prove that he is not an Indonesian citizen. His duty isn't even to prove that he *is* in fact a US citizen. His duty is to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President of the US ... and he refuses to do this.
That refusal, all by itself, makes him an illegal interloper.
"Regarding his being born in America, he has already released a digital copy of that birth certificate with the number blacked out."
What he, or his campaign, released does not cut it -- and it was't a "birth certificate," it was a "certification of live birth" Foxfier has already made reference to a quirk of Hawaii law by which the State issues documents which assert that a person born elsewhere was born in Hawaii. We need to know that that isn't what this "certification of live birth" is.
Actually, I'd like to ask a question of my own, just for the heck of it.
Assume for a moment that it's found out that, yes, Obama was born outside the US.
If so, what should the response be?
"Assume for a moment that it's found out that, yes, Obama was born outside the US."
That's still not the right question.
Ilion,
What do you mean? I'm not trying to rephrase your question in any way. I'm just curious what the reaction would be from the commenters here if it was shown that Obama is not a naturalized citizen of the US.
"... if it was shown that Obama is not a naturalized citizen of the US."
That is even further from the issue at hand.
Hasn't come up in the courts yet. Now, back to relevant information....
"Assume for a moment that it's found out that, yes, Obama was born outside the US."
The question isn't "Was Obama born inside or outside the borders of the US?" though that question has bearing on the actual question. The actual question is, "Is Obama a 'natural-born' citizen of the US?"
"I'm just curious what the reaction would be from the commenters here if it was shown that Obama is not a naturalized citizen of the US."
A "naturalized citizen of the US" is a person who was originally a citizen of some other nation-state than the US, but has subsequently been granted US citizenship.
If Obama is a naturalized citizen of the US, then he cannot be president of the US. Ever, under any circumstance. If he is *not even* a naturalized citizen of the US, then he cannot even be a US senator (and one wonders whether he can be an Illinois state legislator).
But the pertinent question is: "Is Obama a 'natural-born' citizen of the US?"
"Hasn't come up in the courts yet."
I could easily be out of the loop (since I don't dwell on this matter), but last I knew on that particular aspect of it is that some moron federal judge had ruled that we mere citizens don't have 'standing' to petition the courts to order that the Constitution be enforced.
Ilion,
If Obama is a naturalized citizen of the US, then he cannot be president of the US. Ever, under any circumstance. If he is *not even* a naturalized citizen of the US, then he cannot even be a US senator (and one wonders whether he can be an Illinois state legislator).
Fair enough - take my question as asking what should be done if it's discovered Obama isn't a natural-born citizen / is (only?) a naturalized citizen.
Now, you say that if that's the case, he "cannot be the president of the US. Ever, under any circumstance."
You also say, "but last I knew on that particular aspect of it is that some moron federal judge had ruled that we mere citizens don't have 'standing' to petition the courts to order that the Constitution be enforced."
What I'm getting at is, I really wonder if the unspoken position of some is, "Even if isn't a natural-born US citizen, so what?" Now, that's not my position at all. But really, I'm just getting this vibe that some people are rolling their eyes over the question, not because Obama was clearly born in the US, but because they don't care. It would be viewed as some uninteresting technicality.
I wanted to see if I was right about that, hence my (apparently poorly worded) questions.
Not so much poorly worded, as worded like folks trying to shift the conversation to derail a subject uncomfortable to themselves. Can't read tone or body language in text, and it's the #1 tactic, so the best defense is to refuse to let a topic be derailed.
Rather putting the cart before the horse, though.
Nah, no discomfort here. But I understand that awareness to the usual Stupid Internet Tricks.
I'll bow out of this, didn't mean to derail (or at least, I thought the question was on-topic enough.)
Crude: "What I'm getting at is, I really wonder if the unspoken position of some is, "Even if isn't a natural-born US citizen, so what?" Now, that's not my position at all. But really, I'm just getting this vibe that some people are rolling their eyes over the question, not because Obama was clearly born in the US, but because they don't care. It would be viewed as some uninteresting technicality."
Exactly; they don't care! That was one of my points in the OP -- these people, and some of them are "conservative" pundits, are, in fact, betrayers of the Republic; for the Republic stands and falls with the Constitution.
To paraphrase Christ on a different, though similar, matter, "If you are not faithful in the small things, then how can you be faithful in the large things?"
Consider just two recent events/items:
1) Alleged-President Obama shakes-down (in good Chicago style) the BP corporation for a $20 billion slush-fund. He had absolutely no Constitutional authority to do this.
2) Alleged-President Obama is said to be pondering issuing an executive order granting a blanket immunity to the illegal aliens in the US. He has absolutely no Constitutional authority to do this.
How can the persons who wink at his "small" violation of the Constitutional requirement that one must be a natural-born US citizen to be President as being a mere technicality object to these violations of the Constitution? After all, it's merely a technicality that he lacks the authority to do these (and many similar) things.
No one really knows what would happen because it's never happened before. Rightfully, I think every law he's ever signed ought to be invalidated if we find out he was ineligible. But I bet the courts would come up with some sort of compromise, balancing test thing.
Post a Comment