Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Crazy are those Birthers?
Right Side News ^ | 14 October 2009 | JB Williams

Posted on 10/14/2009 9:50:04 PM PDT by kellynla

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?"

Natural Born Citizen

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 just any ole "citizen..."

Not Native - "belonging to a particular place by birth"

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.

The Birth Certificate

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!

Proof of Constitutional Standing

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.

Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!

What's the BIG Deal?

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?

Standard National Security Clearance

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.

Next, the actual security check...

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!

Adjudicative Process

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?

Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?

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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: afterbirthers; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; phony
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last
To: mlo
He is a natural born citizen because being born in the United States makes him so.

That is simply not so. Your education and/or powers of reason are lacking.

81 posted on 10/16/2009 8:36:51 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"That is simply not so. Your education and/or powers of reason are lacking."

Oh mine are fine. Notice how I use them to discuss actual issues instead of bailing out on reason and just insulting people.

It is so. Anyone born in the United States that is not the child of a diplomat or invading soldier is a natural born citizen. It has been the rule for centuries, going back to England. It is not only me saying that, the US Supreme Court has said the same:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)


82 posted on 10/16/2009 8:42:46 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Please don't quote me Wong Kim Ark, a badly reasoned, wrongly decided case that is not, repeat, NOT on point.

One of the great weaknesses of Wong Kim Ark is that the second paragraph you quote: "The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established," is factually incorrect.

First it is simply stupid to say that the English rule was in effect in the English Colonies. Of course it was. That's why we fought a revolution.

And you can be sure, because I will tell you it is so, that this "same rule" was NOT in effect in all the newly independent colonies, which were very quick to set their own standards, most of which disavowed the English rule.

And it very definitely did not continue to prevail after the adoption of the Constitution as could have been determined by a very minimal amount of research, which the court at the time must have felt to be beneath its status.

And we're left with people like you who hew to a nonsense line so strictly as to make one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for.

I think it is possible that you are actually a paid operative of the Obama machine. How else to explain both your obstinacy on this point and your continued presence here?

83 posted on 10/16/2009 9:31:05 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"Please don't quote me Wong Kim Ark, a badly reasoned, wrongly decided case that is not, repeat, NOT on point."

You don't get to pretend a Supreme Court decision doesn't exist because you disagree with it. Doesn't work that way. And it is very much on point.

They were deciding Wong's status. That quote is part of the line of reasoning in reaching that determination. What they wrote there very much applied to Wong. More importantly, it appies to anyone born in the United States. It's quite clear. You can't claim somehow what is written there doesn't include someone born in Hawaii.

"First it is simply stupid to say that the English rule was in effect in the English Colonies. Of course it was. That's why we fought a revolution."

It's noted that you think a large number of judges that have served in the US throughout its history are "stupid", but that says more about Birther legal analysis than it does those judges.

We fought a revolution to be independent of British RULE, not the principles of Brithish LAW. Two different things. We did in fact inherit the traditions of Britain's legal system, and much of English Common Law. You may recall discussions about the historical meanings of "high crimes and misdemeanors" during Clinton's impeachment.

You are mistaken, and are basically taking the position that it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says, you disagree, so you are right. I don't think so.

"And we're left with people like you who hew to a nonsense line so strictly as to make one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for."

The nonsense line is thinking that you overrule the Supreme Court. It makes one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for by Obama to make conservatives look bad.

84 posted on 10/16/2009 11:23:48 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Again, I believe you are profoundly wrong to put so much faith in Wong Kim Ark, perhaps the most notoriously wrongheaded Supreme Court decision of all time, but no matter how bad that decision might have been, it had NOT ONE THING to do with “natural born citizenship”.

In fact the Supreme Court has never had a case on point come before it, only tangential ones such as Wong Kim Ark and maybe a half dozen others, and NONE of the decisions support the notion that anything born in a catbox is, without further examination, undoubtedly a cat. Never.


85 posted on 10/16/2009 4:42:09 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"Again, I believe you are profoundly wrong to put so much faith in Wong Kim Ark, perhaps the most notoriously wrongheaded Supreme Court decision of all time, but no matter how bad that decision might have been, it had NOT ONE THING to do with “natural born citizenship”."

Reading the words of the decision is not a matter of "faith". Your opinion may be that it is wrongheaded, but that doesn't make it so.

The plain words of the decision DO relate to "natural born citizenship". To claim otherwise it to be in denial. It's nonsense.

The court had to determine Wong's citizenship status by virtue of his birth. In doing so, they examined the whole question of citizenship at birth, in great detail. It goes for pages. The one passage I quoted directly speaks to natural born citizenship.

86 posted on 10/16/2009 8:51:04 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: mlo; John Valentine
The court had to determine Wong's citizenship status by virtue of his birth. In doing so, they examined the whole question of citizenship at birth, in great detail. It goes for pages. The one passage I quoted directly speaks to natural born citizenship.

Natural born citizenship is MORE than the citizenship at birth you describe, it is citizenship by NATURE and not by mere statute. For you to ignore this is to be in denial.

87 posted on 10/16/2009 8:57:36 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
"Natural born citizenship is MORE than the citizenship at birth you describe, it is citizenship by NATURE and not by mere statute. For you to ignore this is to be in denial."

And citizenship by birth is in fact not about a statute, so your point doesn't make sense.

A person born in the United States is a natural born citizen. It has been the case since the founding of this country, and before under the English system. There is not a single legal authority, no law, no court ruling, nothing, contradicting this. It is just something birthers have latched onto because it fits their desire.

88 posted on 10/16/2009 9:02:14 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson