Posted on 07/23/2009 9:40:02 AM PDT by pissant
Every day I get countless e-mails from people who are just beginning to become aware of the questions surrounding Barack Obama's eligibility for office.
Because I can't answer thousands of individual questions, this column is designed to provide a basic backgrounder on the most frequent questions – questions that could all be answered in far greater detail if readers had the patience to wade through the voluminous collection of stories on the issue we offer the public free in our archives.
You can find the hundreds of news stories WND has written on this subject here.
You can also find a thorough exploration of this subject in publication form here.
Question: What about the claims by some other news organizations, public officials and websites to have seen and inspected the original birth certificate?
Answer: I don't believe them. The statements they have made are ambiguous. They have offered no information to verify their claims – such as the hospital in which Obama was born. I think they have all inspected the same document we have all seen on various websites – the certification of live birth, which, as WND reported recently, is not even considered by the U.S. State Department to be a document with which you can obtain a passport, let alone establish a constitutional standard of "natural born citizenship" and qualify to serve in the White House.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join over 400,000 others and sign up now!
Question: What about those newspaper birth announcements?
Answer: Newspaper birth announcements are generated by public health authorities when a birth certificate or certification of live birth is issued. Therefore, the birth announcements only
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well, the problem here is that there is not any legal requirement to produce the “real thing”.... LOL...
That’s been the “bottom line problem” all along...
Well there is also a 2nd ‘bottom line problem’ which is we have a bunch of treasonous nitwits in Congress who demanded proof from John McCain but gave Obama a free pass. This whole thing would have been resolved last summer if Obama had been put through the same investigation as McCain was.
I’m actually not arguing semantics, but merely stating what all the prior candidates for President of the United States have done...
Obviously they weren’t arguing semantics either and yet, they were never legally compelled to produce a birth certificate... :-)
I thought that they passed a resolution in Congress saying that McCain was eligible... didn’t that happen?
I tried to explain this in several ways last night, but was unsuccessful. Just want to let the more persistent among you know, you're wasting your time.
Very relevant if there is no law requiring a candidate to show his birth certificate... :-)
Hence, that’s why I say that state laws need to be enacted to change what all the prior candidates have done in the past. From now on we need a law that requires, legally, the candidate to produce a birth certificate, or else they cannot get on the ballot.
So when he gets pulled over by the cops for speeding and they want to see his license and registration, he just points out all the other cars on the road and says “THEY don’t have to show their license and registration!”?
Good luck with that. I hope they taser his a$$... ;o)
Well, that’s pretty clear as to what I’ve said — and — as to what the situation is. The problem with many who post on the subject, is that they don’t *recognize reality*...
The reality is, that while you or I do want to see the birth certificate, there is no law requiring a candidate to produce it or show it to anyone. So, we’re stuck in an “endless loop” — we all say “Show your birth certificate”... nothing happens, there is no law compelling it to happen, and we once again, say “Show your birth certificate...”
Repeat the cycle about five thousand times and do it over again... LOL...
Nope, that’s not a “rational response”... :-)
The rational response is to make some state laws so that a candidate is *required legally* to produce their birth certificate...
The thing about the cop and the driver and showing the driver’s license is that the driver is compelled by law to do so... LOL...
He DOESN’T HAVE TO show his birth certificate.
He DOES have to prove he’s qualified.
The easiest way to prove that would be a birth certificate.
If you have any other ways he could do that, let’s hear them.
The only methodology that has been done, all along, with all candidates, present and past — is — a candidate swearing that he is qualified for office.
And absent a specific law — legally requiring — the showing of a birth certificate... that’s all you’re ever going to get...
Who doesn’t recognize reality?!
This is about the President having to meet the requirements of the Constitution.
YOU are trying to pretend it’s about a law requiring someone to show a birth certificate.
I guess semantics was the wrong word, how about obfuscation?
If you want a different method for a candidate verifying and proving that he should be on the ballot, than what all candidates presently do — right now — then you are going to have to make a specific law, such as the one I said needs to be done — in that states legally require the birth certificate or else a candidate cannot be put on the ballot.
Short of that, you change nothing...
Yeah they did - S.R. 511 as I recall. Did absolutely NOTHING regarding Obama. But interestingly Obama did sign S.R. 511 that stated McCain was eligible having been born to TWO citizen parents on a military base. In other words they reaffirmed country + parents (plural).
No need for a law, the Constitution is quite clear.
And if someone lies about their eligibility, there are existing laws for that.
The problem is that the law (and Constitution) are not being enforced.
IIRC McCain was not born on a military base. He was born at a hospital in the city of Colon, Panama.
You said — And if someone lies about their eligibility, there are existing laws for that.
—
I would agree that there are laws regarding swearing falsely and the resulting fraud. Now all you have to do is provide the proof for it and you’ll have a case...
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.