Article, # 53 , # 63 , # 80.
Thanks, maggief.
Posted on 12/30/2010 9:24:48 AM PST by Kaslin
I believe that the president was born in Hawaii. But am I the only curious cat who thinks it's rather odd for that state's newly-elected governor, plus Chris Matthews of MSNBC, both liberal Democrats, to have just forced the "Birther" issue to rise again?
Am I the only curious cat in America who thinks it rather odd that the newly elected governor of Hawaii — a liberal Democrat — has just forced the “Birther” issue to rise again?
Not only has Hawaii’s governor-elect, Neil Abercrombie, just announced that he is on a mission to bury the “Birther” issue, but Chris “Obama-sends-a-tingle-up-my-leg” Matthews now wants to know why President Obama doesn’t release the darned document and put this relentlessly pursuing ghost to rest once and for all.
If Abercrombie and Matthews were utterly desperate Republican operatives, hog-tied to a sinking political ship, I might understand the newly reincarnated brouhaha. But both these men are as-liberal-as-liberal-gets Democrats. And Republicans, at this juncture, are anything but desperate. They are set to begin the 112th Congress with the clout of a mid-term election landslide not seen since 1938.
So, what on earth would motivate a governor-elect with more real problems than any sane man would want on his plate to go fiddling around in an issue which for all intents and purposes is as dead as a doornail?
It simply makes no sense in the real world, where real unemployment still hovers at double-digits, where the president is about to face a real hostile Congress, and in an atmosphere where the season’s holly- jolly spirit is about to melt faster than snow on the ground in Atlanta.
If you ask me, this folderol of reincarnating the “Birther” issue by two prominent liberal Democrats just smacks of orchestrated political psy-ops. Hoping to get a prominent and public rise out of Republicans and/or conservative pundits, these two utterly loyal-to-the-president guys — Abercrombie and Matthews — are simply creating a diversion in the hopes that their party can regain some of the traction it’s lost over the past 2 years.
Now, I’ve never fit the standard, press-defined definition of a “Birther.” I do believe that the president was born in Hawaii. I’ve written only one column on the “Birther” controversy and that was back in August 2009. As I opined back then, the whole controversy has legs because of the complete dearth of documentation regarding this president. No presidential candidate of the past 30 years has been permitted the level of secrecy and non-disclosure that President Obama received.
To date the following are all undisclosed:
1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate
2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
8 ) Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released.
10) Columbia College records — not released
11) Columbia senior thesis — not released
12) Harvard Law School records — not released
13) Obama’s law client list — sealed
14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16) Obama’s medical records — not released
17) Obama’s passport records — not released
In my opinion — as a civics-minded citizen — Obama’s as yet unreleased original long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii is merely the tip of a mysterious iceberg when it comes to the 44th president of the United States. Any journalist worth an ounce of salt would be curious as to why any presidential candidate would conceal nearly every documented item from his own past. Obviously, America does not have many remaining curious journalists.
For the entire campaign season of ’07-’08, the nation witnessed hordes of “journalists” hot on the trail of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe costs, her final pregnancy and childbirth, and her unwed daughter’s pregnancy. We American voters were privy in ‘08 to seeing the complete, suicidal destruction of a once-heralded media enterprise. Rather than take the responsible position of delving into the very, very important and pertinent non-disclosures of a presidential candidate, these media buffoons chose to lampoon the lady from Alaska with adolescent-styled mischief. The campaign coverage was so bad, so childish, so without real substance that on election day, voters still knew next to nothing of substance about the man who would be their next president.
Which brings us back to the original question as to why on earth the Democrat duo of Abercrombie and Matthews would want to raise the all-but-dead “Birther” issue. The country has beyond-huge problems on its plate and Obama has two years to go before his reelection bid.
As much as I detest Chris Matthews, he makes a very salient point, when he asks why on earth the president hasn’t just released the darned document. Barack Obama has been the defendant in more than a dozen eligibility lawsuits since 2008. He has employed legal counsel to answer every one of them; lawyers do not serve free for millionaires like Obama. The cost of supplying the long-form, original birth certificate, which has been said by many officials to be on file in Hawaii, is approximately $15. No matter how one does arithmetic, $15 is bound to be less than Obama has paid lawyers to prevent the release of said document.
Now, we have the governor-elect of Hawaii saying that he will take pains to have state law revised which will enable him to legally release “certain details” contained on the original birth certificate — presumably prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is possible, I suppose, that there are details on that birth certificate which belie the Obama narrative, details that might prove a substantive embarrassment of some sort.
A president elected on the strength of a narrative must protect that narrative at all costs. Abercrombie and Matthews are merely carrying water for the Obama narrative and attempting to divert the public’s attention from more substantive issues, namely the remaining dearth of real background data on the 44th president of the United States.
Journalism certainly isn’t what it used to be. Nor is it even a shade of what it’s supposed to be. Shame is too mild a word.
For all the modern press notables that slam Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity, there isn’t a single American journalist who has demonstrated even a speck of the stuff when it comes to Barack Obama. It’s a purely disgusting state of affairs.
The is one dumb article written by one dumb writer. It does not take a genius to figure out that BO is preparing to release a forged BC because he knows that if he doesn’t he will be excluded from the ballot in several States in 2012.
BO is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS regardless of where he was born because by his own admission his dad was a British/Kenyan citizen. SCOTUS has never defined the term “natural born citizen” to any category of citizenship other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens of the United States of America.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html
There is a clear, concise and definitive statement in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal treatise used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
“The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Sixteen years later the Supreme Court…does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship contained in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings…
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case the Justice Gray cites the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Any country that can make $100 bills like our present ones can fake the BC, including deleting a legit one from the records and substituting BO’s in its place..Heck the CIA fooled the Soviets for years with bogus docs, and that was before the computer digital age...
Agreed, but do you think the average American sheeple, who listen to Katie Couric for the “news”, will give a s&*t about that little wrinkle?
Article, # 53 , # 63 , # 80.
Thanks, maggief.
‘Surely Cassius was an honorable man?’
Release for independent forensic examination **all** of the ***best*** evidence that would prove or disprove Obama’s natural born citizenship.
Simple!
Release for independent forensic examination **all** of the ***best*** evidence that would prove or disprove Obama’s natural born citizenship.
Simple!
No. The communists are trying to head off a qualification fight prior to the next election. I hope it does not work.
Since it is soooooooo straight forward I have a great idea!
Release for independent forensic examination **all** of the ***best*** evidence that would prove or disprove Obama’s natural born citizenship.
Simple!
Independent forensic examination would require a Grand Jury investigation and everybody who could pull that off seems to be too intimidated to go that route or else it would have already happened by now.
And...Obama and the Democrats will win or lose this in the most important court of all: The people's court of opinion.
Those in the jury of the Court of Public Opinion don’t think like attorneys.
And...Obama and the Democrats will win or lose this in the most important court of all: The people’s court of opinion.
However it is looking like a copy of the long form will be released for public perusal under a Democratic administration in Hawaii while it was blocked from release under the previous Republican administration.
Whomever runs against BO should have his/her BC on an overhead projector during every campaign speech while claiming they are proud to show it and proud to be an American. The candidate should read it out at every stop.
That about sums it up. We'll see what Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck say next week now that CNBC, Abercrombie, NYT, etc have opened the barn door. FWIW, Megyn Kelly talked about this issue on her show today. She had Rich Lowery on. He said Obama should release his birth certificate. Maybe O'Reilly will pick up on this next week, too.
CNBC=MSNBC (Chrissy Matthews).
Today's article on ABC that went to some length explaining differences btw. COLB and a BC.. NEVER done before. In the past they spent all their time confusing, misdirecting or denying both types of documents. I did not have access to comments section, but wanted to ask ABC what is behind all this..(not that the question would ever be honestly answered) .
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.