Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
It was a Republican administration in Hawaii that confirmed Obama’s birth there and the authenticity of his birth record and who first declared him to be a natural born citizen.
There has been a Republican majority in the House of Reprentatives since 2011 and not a single minute of hearing time has been spent on this issue.
Every Republican Secretary of State defended Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on their state’s ballot. Not one of them challenged his eligibility although two of them asked Hawaii for official verification.
A Republican Governor in Arizona vetoed legislation to require proof of eligibility and not one state where Republicans control the legislature and the governorship passed proof of eligibility legislation.
The Republican presidential candidates as opponents to Obama in 2008 and in 2012 defended Obama’s eligibility.
I don’t think anyone expects the liberal media to oppose the eligibility position of the Obama administration but the “loyal opposition” major party also has backed them up. That gives the conservative media nowhere to go on this issue. Actions speak louder tan words.
Two points.
1. Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle is not sufficiently knowledgeable regarding the term to adjudge anyone as having met it's requirements.
2. Hawaii birth certificates are unique in that one does not have to be born in Hawaii to GET a Hawaiian birth certificate.
There has been a Republican majority in the House of Reprentatives since 2011 and not a single minute of hearing time has been spent on this issue.
Oh, I see. So the fact that a bunch of people have not addressed it PROVES that there is nothing to it. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Who can argue with actual proof, such as the fact a group of people didn't look into it?
Every Republican Secretary of State defended Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on their state’s ballot.
What, are you kidding me? I recall no one DEFENDING him. They merely took no positive action.
Not one of them challenged his eligibility although two of them asked Hawaii for official verification.
After people had constantly prodded them to do their job, even at that their effort was halfhearted and apologetic. That Public Officials are either incompetent or malfeasancent ought to be a surprise to no one. Even so, the verification Hawaiian officials provided is hardly reassuring. It is conspicuous by not being a copy of a certified birth certificate, which Hawaiian Law itself says can be supplied to any election official for the purpose of an election.
A Republican Governor in Arizona vetoed legislation to require proof of eligibility and not one state where Republicans control the legislature and the governorship passed proof of eligibility legislation.
It passed both the Arizona Legislature AND the Oklahoma Legislature, but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it citing some ridiculous theory about not wanting the State Attorney General deciding election eligibility (He does so anyway.) And Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin quietly worked to kill the Oklahoma bill in committee.
Both governors were motivated more by a sense of embarrassment and a fear of losing Federal dollars than they were by the best interests of their Constituency.
That the combine threat of Media Ridicule and Federal Monetary Blackmail is capable of thwarting the will of the constituents and their legislators is not proof that Obama is legitimate or that he has provided legitimate documentation. Indeed, the only proof he has submitted is a statement signed by Nancy Pelosi, as if she has a clue of what is the proper meaning of "natural born citizen".
The Republican presidential candidates as opponents to Obama in 2008 and in 2012 defended Obama’s eligibility.
Why do you continue to cite these irrelevant facts? None of this constitutes proof that he is legitimate. It is just an argumentum ad populum. Citing John McCain and Mitt Romney's failure to do their job is not proof that Obama is legit. They failed to do their job in many other ways as well.
I don’t think anyone expects the liberal media to oppose the eligibility position of the Obama administration but the “loyal opposition” major party also has backed them up. That gives the conservative media nowhere to go on this issue. Actions speak louder tan words.
The absence of vocal opposition has more to do with their fear of challenging the legitimacy of the "first Black President" than anything else. They are terrified of the media crucifixion they would endure if they challenged and failed. Their bravery lies in the same direction as their own personal interests, Not with objective truth. THAT might require some sort of sacrifice, which they are loath to provide.
“The absence of vocal opposition has more to do with their fear of challenging the legitimacy of the “first Black President” than anything else. They are terrified of the media crucifixion they would endure if they challenged and failed. Their bravery lies in the same direction as their own personal interests, Not with objective truth. THAT might require some sort of sacrifice, which they are loath to provide.”
And besides, he’s already a term-limited lame duck.
But no one can attach the "You are just doing this because you are a RACIST!" accusation to any of these other issues. Citizenship and Legitimacy issues tend to direct attention to a sore spot in our history; The Dred Scott decision. No one wants to get near it, and they would rather ignore the truth than suffer accusations of racism.
They know that the Media would label them as motivated by racist sentiment, and that most of the ethnic population as well as white Liberals would support this accusation. They see it as a social meltdown, and so they would rather not examine too closely, or pull that thread. It would be like pulling the lanyard on a societal cannon.
They don't touch it because they fear it. He is shielded from attacks on this issue because of his ethnicity, and not because there is no merit to the accusations.
In my experience, people who use the race card play it for everything and anything.
In this particular case, our side is afraid of it because it's too difficult to exclude race from the argument when it is an actual part of history. I suspect that the Wong Kim Ark decision had more to do with Post Civil War Republican Judges wanting to rebuke Dred Scott v Sanford, than it did with actual law.
Yes, they had politicized court decisions back then too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.