Try this, socialism_stinX. Open the White House forged birth certificate in Abobe Acrobat at 1200% magnification and focus on the certificate number...
Furthermore, the vast majority of voters don't know anything about Mr. Zullo and don't know if he's a credible investigator. Most of the voters don't even know much about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and don't know that Joe is the sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, which is the location of Phoenix, it's surrounding suburbs, and over 4 million people (the majority of Arizona's population). The voters don't know that Sheriff Arpaio runs a very large police agency with highly sophisticated investigative methods. Thus the voters don't fully realize that Arpaio is a very solid and competent guy, and the voters don't understand that simply because Arpaio selected him that means Zullo is very probably also an outstanding police detective.
So this investigation by Zullo is perceived by most voters as a murky bunch of uncertainties and possibilities, but not as hard comprehensible evidence that the White House staff posted a forgery on the White House website. And keep in mind folks that in electoral politics, perception matters much more than absolute truth. In the 1-4 year timeframe of politics, it's how an issue is perceived by voters that counts, not what is actually true. In the very long historical timeframe, the truth will ultimately surface about where Obama was born and whether he's really eligible to be President of the US. But Boehner and McConnnell have to deal with voter perceptions over the next 1-50 months and they know that a highly public investigation into Obama's birthplace would be a wild gamble politically that could be perceived as just a partisan witch-hunt by most of the voters (especially considering how the MSM would spin the coverage of such an investigation.) That's why they're not going to touch this investigation, because of how it could be perceived. All of this investigating in Hawaii and in the British National Archives should have been done back in 2007 and 2008 before the Obama/McCain election, but unfortunately conservative investigators didn't get it all done back then (and I realize of course that new evidence has emerged since 2008). The best plan of attack for conservatives is to let the new media people like WorldNet and some of the talk radio people work on this issue. But congressional Republicans are right to not start this investigation.
BTW, I don't buy any of the talk that McCain didn't make an all-out effort to win in 2008 or that Romney isn't making an all-out effort to win right now. Romney certainly is fighting as hard as he can to win and at this point I give Romney a 70% chance of winning. It won't be a landslide but he can definitely win a fairly close election.
When most citizens, apparently including you “socialism_stinX”, have not the knowledge of our legal history to understand the issue, it is unlikely that any legislator, judge, or political pundit will attempt to raise an issue which will embarrass both parties. The issue doesn't fit sound bites, and is not easy to understand, particularly with the cover of a campaign to ridicule people who express doubts. The over-simple truth is that Barack told us all he is a naturalized citizen, while the Constitution requires a natural born citizen to be president. The con, apparently accepted by most people, is that The Constitution never defined what a natural born citizen was. Why is that a “con”? Because the Constitution was explicitly written by very bright men who understood that words acquire new meanings over time, so they, Madison and others, quite explicitly created the Constitution, both to maintain the time invariance of its critical meanings, and to make it accessible to any literate citizen. We were were the first republic in 2000 years to be based upon laws and not men, using definitions from the common-law and common language familiar to its framers. And what is that definition, which appears in at least thirty supreme court cases, and has never been amended? Here is the law, from Chief Justice Morrison Waite 88 US 162, (1884):
“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.”
Documents from Obama's birth, selective servie, or foreign student applications are unlikely to appear. Courts will not charge Obama after he leaves office. Republicans are complicit too, so they don't want this discussion. But the truth will not change, even with an amendment to Article II or reinterpretation by the court, since precedence, while it is much a part of decsion making, isn't binding. Obama is the second ineligible president to sign contracts, to control our military as Commander in Chief, and both he and Chester Arthur knew the truth. One difference is that Arthur kept the secret, hid his birth certificate and had his personal papers burned just before he died.
Obama's ineligiblity is protected because no legislator will address it. Judges have lied, amazing as it seems. But remember, federal judges are political appointees. Our legislators might say they remained quiet because there was a financial cliff in front of us and the turmoil of exposure would be attributed to racism, creating a potentially violent struggle. Would you expect Chris Mathiews to explain the Constitution, and quote the Federalist Papers of Thomas Paine as Boehner claims that Obama is ineligible because he was born a British Subject. Sadly, less than half our high school age students in a recent survey know that we fought the British for our freedom from King George, and from monarchy. How many would believe it discriminatory not to allow a British subject to be our president?
The other reason for the reign of silence, one they won't talk about now, is that Democrat legal scholars had proved beyond most doubt that John McCain was not eligible. Four years ago you could find dozens of WAPO, NYT, LA Times, Chicago Trib, articles, discussing the law suites and congressional hearings, none of which ever determined that McCain was eligible. It never mattered because he didn't win, like George Romney, or Marco Rubio. They needed the cover McCain's ineligibility provided, so Senator Obama and his campaign co-chair, Clair McCaskill, submitted a Senate Bill in February 2008 to cover McCain's ineligibility. The bill is quite explicit about who it is intended to help. It was SB 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It failed to pass, but was not framed as a Constitutional Amendment, as were Orrin Hatch’s 2003 amendment to try to make Schwarzenegger eligible, or the two amendments attempted by John Conyers between 2002 and 2006, almost certainly trying to make Obama eligible. The progressive Democrats had been preparing to run their community activist for a long time, and, since amendments to Article have failed twenty six times, decided to use subterfuge.
When SB 2678 failed McCaskill went back to work and, with Pat Leahy, submitted Senate Resolution 511, specifically created to provide plausible talking points, since “Resolutions” are not actionable - they don't create law. Obama’s con-law professor from Harvard, Larry Tribe, was deployed to write a sneaky letter to the SR 511 hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee. In essence, Larry opined that McCain satisfied the “citizen parents” requirement, and the lack of US jurisdiction over his birthplace was an oversight, later remedied by Congress (In 1937). While McCain's ineligibility is a regrettable oversight, it was the law, thoroughly explained by Professor Gabriel Chin at U of Arizona, among dozens of others. But the real significance is the signature of every US Senator on SR 511 in April 2008 in which the understanding, as explained by judge and Dir of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, is quite clear:
"“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”"
Political power has prevailed over our Constitution, and it would be a surprise to find more than a few legislators who don't understand this truth. Our founders and framers were very clear, as was the sponsor and author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman John Bingham, the Naturalization Amendment, that natural born citizens are born to parents who were citizens and on sovereign US soil. The only role in our nation that requires a natural born citizen is the presidency. Barack told us “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” He knew that few would know that the clause native-born is from the 14th Amendment. We have case law, Wong Kim Ark, establishing that a native-born citizen is not natural born. The evidence for Obama’s ineligibility is our Constitution, and roughly thirty Supreme Court cases, including the case quoted above, Minor v. Happersett, in which the definition was essential to the decision, making the definition precedence.
Try this, socialism_stinX. Open the White House forged birth certificate in Abobe Acrobat at 1200% magnification and focus on the certificate number...
However, your core conclusion is thus.....
“The best plan of attack for conservatives is to let the new media people like WorldNet and some of the talk radio people work on this issue. But congressional Republicans are right to not start this investigation.”
I do not see the logic unfolding here.........
If I think this through, you posit that the New Media should gin this up.........
Then what?
Since all Federal Agencies are controlled by Obama at this point, our only legal authority that is not under his control and that does have authority is Congress itself.
Ergo, skip the middle part and go right to Boehner.
There is no other path.
I welcome input.
All this nerd-talk about bits, bytes, pixels, layers, Photoshop this, Quark that, etc. is never going to register on the voter "mind," which of course is demonstrably non-existent.
The simpler fact is ... well ... simpler. What Obama's lawyer received from the Hawaiians is NOT what The WH released to the world. A side-by-side comparison would demonstrate that to even the densest tattooed fattie in the Wal-Mart parking lot. "Put down the Twinkie. Look at this."
This is why the Hawaiians would not show Zullo what they gave Obama. That's all folks.
Long, boring, meaningless, arrogant, and ignorant comment.
Yawn.
Go back to your business and “Fuku won’t melt down” threads.
TexasVoter’s image is easy to understand, even for an average non-tech person.
I’m going with the blackmail theory as the one that makes the most sense.
Another tidbit of information: I work with several left-leaning engineers. These are extremely smart people. They would have no trouble understanding evidence about forgery. But they just refuse to look. One of them, a brilliant man responsible for some valuable patents, believes that Palin said “I can see Russia from my house.” (Maybe they all believe that, but this particular guy cited it as evidence of Palin’s stupidity in 2008. I tried to point out that Tina Fey said it, not Palin, and he just steamrolled past it. He was not kidding or speaking metaphorically. He actually believed this.)
These guys are geeks, but not the out-of-touch type geeks. They are politically and socially competent. (That may be part of the problem. They are “hip” and get a lot of news from Colbert, Stewart, etc. During the day, they have CNN and MSNBC on in the break room.) But they just put their fingers in their ears when presented with evidence they don’t like. This is one of the things we are fighting: willful refusal to face facts.