How Crazy are those Birthers?

In case you don't know, after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, there were indeed a few Americans who honestly believed that the federal government was so corrupt that it was behind and responsible for the events of September 11. Even though we all watched in shock, as hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, these folks imagined that someone in Washington DC might have blown up those buildings instead.

Not that our federal government isn't capable of such things, mind you... but they are not likely to pull off such a thing without anyone spilling the beans sooner or later.

These believers were labeled "truthers" - and were often the same folks who claimed to have seen UFOs or even to have been abducted by aliens from outer space at some point in their lives.

Most Americans passed these folks off as crackpots - mentally unstable individuals in need of help, not a seat in congress.

So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled "birthers" for questioning the "Natural Born Citizen" status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office.

Every mainstream media outlet in America has either ignored the question, or joined the chorus of pro-Obama propagandists in discrediting "birthers" as the same crackpots known as "truthers."

What had "birthers" done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that "crazy" request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama's personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney's $20,000 for "filing frivolous law suits" on the matter.

Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the "transparent president" is anything but "transparent." He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past.

Now, how reasonable is Obama's behavior, and how unreasonable is the behavior of the so-called "birther?"

Article II - Section I - Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a "natural born citizen" hold the office of President. It's no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.

Lets not play any games here... too many games have been played with this phrase already. It's a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.

Not Naturalized - "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship" (as with an immigrant)

But NATURAL - "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power."

The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a "natural born citizen" of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John's birth. In other words, by "divine power" and the "laws of growth," "produced by nature" of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.

However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.

Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama's actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.

I won't get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!

Officials in Hawaii have issued their "opinion" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their "opinion" is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama's birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim.

Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.

Some "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That's because Obama's Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama's birth in Kenya.

But where he was born isn't so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that makes him an "unconstitutional president" at best!

Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less "natural born" status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I'm wrong, send me the proof you have!

We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a "diplomat," while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.

But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.

We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.

The BIG deal is national security! Like it or not, the Unites States has enemies, some of them obvious and others less overt in their strategies.

After nine months of Marxist agenda advancements at odds with most Americans, leaving Obama with record sinking approval ratings in the states, no imagination is required when wondering what damages can be done to the USA from within the halls of our corrupt federal government.

So, how crazy are those "birthers" to ask a question as basic as a birth certificate?

Not only has Obama never passed any standard security clearance, he has never been asked to apply for such clearance and couldn't pass that clearance if his life depended on it.

Yet, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, the highest office in our land and the most powerful office in the world, without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the lofty office he holds.

What if he had to pass security clearance before having access to Top Secret information, as any other American citizen would have to pass?

The security check will begin with you filling out a 17-page questionnaire. Most of the questions seek information that can be investigated, such as past residences and employment. It will also ask for contact information for people who know you. Fill out the form thoroughly and honestly. Providing false information on a U.S. security form is punishable with a fine, jail time and/or a dishonorable discharge if you are in the military.

None of this information has been made available on Barack Obama... He has filled out no such form, has no "employment history" - won't discuss any of the people he spent twenty years hanging out with, some of whom are known terrorists, all of whom have a very funny view of America.

A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don't want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government.

Oops! --- No record of how he paid for college, where he traveled or on what passport, or why. Twenty years in the pew of a racially charged anti-American church run by an overtly racists preacher. Friends like Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Saudi Royal front man Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, criminal Tony Rezko, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and many - MANY more!

The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; c. The frequency and recency of the conduct; d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; e. The voluntariness of participation; f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; g. The motivation for the conduct; h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:

a. Voluntarily reported the information; b. Was truthful and complete in responding to questions; c. Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate; d. Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern; e. Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment; f. Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

Maybe "birthers" are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate, which any other legal American citizen with nothing to hide would have released immediately upon request! Maybe it is "crazy" that "birthers" are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?

Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver's license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?

Yet somehow, it isn't Obama who is in trouble here, but rather those crazy "birthers" who simply want to know who in the hell this mystery messiah from Kenya is and why he is so damned anti-American, and anything but transparent?

The US citizen is becoming aware of the fact that they have an entire administration of foxes guarding their hen house and they are growing desperate in their attempts to seek peaceful redress in the courts, which are supposed to be the unbiased defenders of the Constitution and rule of law in this country.

It's clear that neither the executive or legislative branches of the federal government represent the will of the legal US taxpayer anymore. Before we commence to "altering or abolishing" a government which has indeed become "destructive" of the individual right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we must exhaust the peaceful means of redress established in the courts.

But it appears that we may have already arrived at this point in time, as NO court in the land believes that average American citizens have the "proper standing" to ask who in the hell this mystery man really is?

That being the case, I suppose all peaceful means of redress have been exhausted and it is time to take matters into our own hands while there is still a country left to save and a Constitution around to uphold.

Before citizens allow people who won't even disclose a birth certificate to control life and death by way of nationalized medicine, they had better wake up and take a stand.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If it's true that NO American court will allow the people access to peaceful redress of such a fundamental concern, then I'm afraid we have indeed arrived at the moment in history when the people are left to their own remedies.

I will NOT call for violent actions, but I sure have no hesitation in predicting that violent action is the natural result of no access to peaceful solutions. The people are tirelessly, relentlessly and patiently hoping that some court somewhere will rise to the duty of their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, before the people themselves have to rise in defense of their beloved country.

If the courts continue to run interference of Obama & Co., I predict it will be a grave error of enormous proportions...

In the end, citizens of this country will demand freedom and a constitutional government. They will seek peaceful solutions first, but when all else fails, they will once again arise to the call of duty, in defense of the greatest nation ever known to mankind. For freedom to exist anywhere on earth, it must exist in the United States of America.

I sincerely pray for wisdom in the courts, before the people run out of patience.

The "birthers" aren't crazy. They're right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived.

From what I have read so far, the basis of the suspicion is that American citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan at that time. Therefore, if Obama traveled there and if it is true that he traveled there directly, the question is how?

I also do not know if it was the Pakistani government or the US government that barred Americans from traveling to Pakistan. In either case it creates suspicion and raises a legitmately asked question that would be fair game to ask any American.

This is incorrect, but was frequently repeated and not everyone has seen the correction. There was no travel ban. There was travel advisory No. 81-33A

“Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa. Tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha.”

As you see, no ban involved. US citizens had to obtain the proper visa in advance if they planned to stay more than 30 days or were crossing at the Indian border, otherwise a visa was available at Pakistani airports.

I also would like to know about when he obtained his first passport - would he have to had one to travel to Indonesia at the age of 6? Could he have traveled on his mother's passport? Was his first passport really the diplomatic one? Is that information publicly available? Any freepers who know about this please jump in.

“Yes, I am that disgusted with Rush, Beck, Hannity, OReilly, Coulter, Malkin, Levine, Boortz, Medved, Ingram, and the entire stable of Fox News beauties.”

Yet look what Beck in particular has achieved in hacking away at the Marxist appointments of Obama and all of the others have achieved in undermining Obama in the polls on the issues.

The FCC can kill Murdock so he and others have to be careful. Note that O’Reilly sneaked in the “Big Bird” Tonight Show “Obama is a big fat liar” clip and Coulter entitled her latest column “Natural Born Loser” knowing exactly how that would be taken as a double meaning. Just look at the title of Malkin’s book and you can see that they are killing Obama on the issues with demonstrable facts, not legalistic wrangling over the NBC issue on which SCOTUS has never ruled in circumstances that the founders never contemplated.

Obama’s protective “cloaking” by the MSM is falling away, as can be seen by the SNL skit.

It is entirely likely that the far left is going to start looking for Obama’s BC in Kenya after Obama orders the 40,000 troop increase for Af/Pak.

"Apparently, citizens have “no standing” to question the emperor."

There are long-standing rules about "standing". They aren't some new invention. Without them, there could be 100 million lawsuits being heard about everything the government did.

"Fidel Castro could be nominated, placed on ballots."

In some jurisdictions I suppose he could. But since he is well known to be an alien and ineligible, I suspect he wouldn't get on many. But it's curious, you guys keep raising this spectre of some outrageous character getting on the ballot. They still have to win! There's not much chance of that.

"Citizens could elect Fidel Castro...The Electoral College could vote for Fidel Castro for U.S. President."

Well, yeah, they COULD. Not actually very likely is it? And if it were, you'd have a pretty serious problem with the people of this country, no matter who was running, wouldn't you?

"Somehow, I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind."

What the founding fathers had in mind was that a natural born citizen be President, and that a particular procedure be followed in selecting him. On both counts, that has happened. There is no legitimate issue here.

Statements that DO NOT illicit a response from the FR Eligibility Troll:

Obama is a corrupt liar - no response

Pelosi is a corrupt liar - no response

Reid is a corrupt liar - no response

Obama, Pelosi & Reid are trying to Socialize the US - no response

The MSM are corrupt liars - no response

The MSM backs Obama and his agenda - no response

ALL of them are CORRUPT and WOULD DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to keep Obama & the Democrats in power - no response

But ... mention that Obama is not a natural born citizen and Pelosi, Reid and the MSM did NOT vet Obama's eligibility before the election ... and the TROLLs come alive:

the 14th Amendment says ...

in Wong Kim Ark ...

Black's Law Dictionary defines “citizen” as ...

Orly is nuts ...

Vattel was not a founding father ...

THAT reporter was WRONG ...

I voted for McCain ...

You're racist ...

"Obama supporters have consistently shown
irrational passion to defend Obama from what
they claim are ridiculous charges."

Bingham had al the brains he needed, and used just exactly the amount of ink he needed.

However, certain judges since, and here I refer to at least one of the majority and probably all of them in the Kim Wong Ark case, seem to have checked their brains at the courthouse door the day they decided that case.

Even so, and as wrongly decided as hat case was, what has been done in the name of that ruling since ought to have resulted in the responsible judges and legislators swinging from gibbets. They took a Constitutional amendment which ought to have made it impossible for citizenship to devolve in the children of illegal aliens, and stood it on its head. I call that treason.

!. This is not about something that the “government” did. This is about something that was done to the government - and to the American people by fraud.

2 and 3. I raise the specter that some outrageous character DID get on the ballot, and what’s more despite the Constitutional prohibition of folks like him serving as President, he was ostensibly elected, and sworn in in spite of that Constitution he is sworn to defend. What a joke. If it weren’t so serious, I might be able to laugh about it.

4. The American people to not have the power, or the authority to elect a non natural born citizen to the Presidency, regardless of his popularity, charisma, transformativeness, or party affiliation. We have this little thing called the “Constitution”. Obama may not like it, but he ought not be free to ignore it.

This had better be fixed in the Courts, because the American People have an absolute right to demand that one way or the other this unqualified usurper be removed. If the courts can’t do it, the people will - and that will be very messy, painful, bloody and traumatic. It will be much better if the courts man up to their responsibility and deal with it bloodlessly.

"!. This is not about something that the “government” did. This is about something that was done to the government - and to the American people by fraud."

The point was about the legal issue of "standing", which still stands. Anyway, the government did do it. The Electors and the Congress voted and certified the result, making Obama the President.

"2 and 3. I raise the specter that some outrageous character DID get on the ballot, and what’s more despite the Constitutional prohibition of folks like him serving as President, he was ostensibly elected, and sworn in in spite of that Constitution he is sworn to defend. What a joke. If it weren’t so serious, I might be able to laugh about it."

But is't not a fact that he is ineligible. He is not constitutionally prohibited from serving. He is just a horrible choice.

"4. The American people to not have the power, or the authority to elect a non natural born citizen to the Presidency, regardless of his popularity, charisma, transformativeness, or party affiliation. We have this little thing called the “Constitution”. Obama may not like it, but he ought not be free to ignore it."

The American people excercise their power through our republican form of government. Obama is a natural born citizen so it's not an issue.

"This had better be fixed in the Courts,..."

The courts cannot address this. They do not have the constitutioal power. You can't seek to uphold the constitution by asking that it be defied.

"...because the American People have an absolute right to demand that one way or the other this unqualified usurper be removed."

He is in fact eligible. Once again, you don't defend the constitution by destroying it.

America is a republic. We do have power, but only through our republican institutions. We don't excercise it directly. Through the Constitution and the laws we designate certain bodies to handle certain issues and disputes.

This one is no different. The procedure for selecting, validating and approving a President is set out in the Constitution, and it has been followed. There is no other legal power to do something than what is in that document.

The Electors and the Congress had the final authority to see that a qualified person was elected. They made their decision. It is done. Even if they were wrong about his eligibility, which they weren't, there is no other authority that can intervene.

If the people come to regret their choice and want to remove Obama, we can also excercise that power through our legally designated republican bodies. The Congress also has the sole power of impeachment, and can excercise it at will.

There is no other constitutional answer. If we really respect the constitution, and it's not just that we want Obama gone, the we can't advocate unconstitutional means of removing him.

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.