.
Posted on 08/22/2010 6:12:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obama can end the "birthers" controversy in one single day by releasing the original documents, but for some inexplicable reason he refuses, and the love-struck media never ask him why...
Trust but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan
It's good practice to take a person at his word until someone shows you proof he is lying.
Barack Obama says he was born in Hawaii, and since no one has shown any proof he was born in Kenya or elsewhere, it's OK to conclude he was born in Hawaii.
Sure his grammar school records show that he was enrolled as an Indonesian Muslim, but some people will say anything to get their kid in the right school. It doesn't really answer the question.
It's OK though for others not to use my deferential standard and continue to question whether Obama was born in Hawaii. We aren't talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here. There is a Constitutional mandate that the President be a natural-born citizen, and if Obama is not one, he certainly will have committed the biggest fraud since the White Sox threw the World Series.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why NOT? (Got something better?)
Sarah Palin would have, but McCain wouldn’t let her.
Yes, I believe you are probably right about that. She would almost certainly have been willing to address the question. Whatever one may think of her she is not a coward.
And Alan Keyes and another candidate asked the questions. The courts blew them off. That’s where we’re at right now. Lawless.
Yes he did, but I don't think his voice was very well heard in the election.
But right now anybody who has been harmed by Obama “acting as President” when only Joe Biden can Constitutionally do so has standing to sue.
I don't think so. That would spread standing too far for the courts. They would never concede to it. I really do think that only Congress is in a position to act on this, and we all know they won't.
And what about the de facto officer doctrine. It would seem to specifically apply to this situation, and that would mean that all of Obama's decisions and acts would still apply even if he were found to be unqualified.
I think each and every state should require proof of natural born citizenship independently of each other before they allow the man on their ballots.
They say trust but variety, well where is the verification? Are we to expect that the same Federal government that theses folk run is going to be honest in telling us about the legality of their own actions?
Call be paranoid but I’d very much like some level of impartiality. It’s only decent.
“...my many British friends say, Obama’s birth place, his religion mean zilch, zero, nothing!!!”
And what your many British friends say shows their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Zilch, zero, nothing !!! And, nada, too !!!
RE: “As De Seno said : “We aren’t talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here.””
It’s amazing the that the MSM thought it was important to investigate Danny Almonte’s birth certificate a few years back, but couldn’t care less about the Obama situation. I think they know but but don’t want to ruin careers over it, so they have to maintain deniability.
The Constitution never gives Congress any authority over the eligibility of the President. The only entity that is recognized as having the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply it to specific cases is the judiciary.
It should be quite clear to anyone by now that is never going to happen...
There is no president elect or vp elect at this time. The method for removing an ineligible president is impeachment- something that would never happen to the first black president.
The Constitution never gives Congress any authority over the eligibility of the President. The only entity that is recognized as having the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply it to specific cases is the judiciary.
Okay, that could certainly be possible. I am speculating from what I know, which is only vague. However, who certifies the election results? Is it the courts, or the Congress? I would imagine that if it is the Congress then one could say that it would be incumbent on them to qualify the candidates since they have to certify the results. May be a stretch, I don't know.
The point is - regardless of the issue that conspiracy theorists and others latch on too - it is pretty much always rooted in something suspicious.
That being said - I don’t consider the “birthers” to be conspiracy theorists - thought they are treated as such.
What I don’t understand - name one president that has not released their REAL birth certificate (since such was available)?
Obama posted what was clearly and easily proven to be a fake on his campaign web site (isn’t that fraud and forgery of government documents - both crimes, by the way). He keeps his attack dogs going after the “birthers” who are simply trying to get answers.
IF Obama and the left want to shut up the birther movement completely - then just release the REAL Birth Certificate. That’s all it takes. If Obama is a real US Citizen from birth (natural born), then what in the world would he lose by releasing the truth?
Which brings us right back to the core - there is a reason he is blocking said release - and it has everything to do with his REAL background.
The problems he is hiding COULD be that he really is constitutional ineligible to be POTUS.
But it could be something as simple as it would reveal that Obama Sr. was not his daddy.
Or maybe that it specifically lists the faith as Muslim?
Or maybe .....?????
But again - if there is no fire here, then why so much smoke (and mirrors)?
Used to be, anyone who wasn’t 100% sure he was born in Hawaii was a birther.
I hate it when people keep changing definitions.
If Obama were found to be ineligible, the validity of all of his “decisions and acts” would be the object of intense scrutiny through the eyes of hundreds of millions of American citizens.
I don’t think any “doctrine” could hold up to that kind of scrutiny.
I don’t think any “doctrine” could hold up to that kind of scrutiny.
Yes, you may very well be right. I am afraid I am not at all versed in the law. What I read seemed to suggest to me that the de fact officer doctrine is reasonably established precedent which had been tested. But, maybe it wouldn't hold up, as you say. As I am sure you would agree, when it comes to courts anything is possible these days. However, practically speaking, I don't think it is going to matter. Nobody with standing is going to ever bring a case, and no court or any other body will ever act on it. I am completely sympathetic to the argument that Obama is hiding something (though I am still angrier about the school records than the BC) but I really do fear it is all for nothing. It just won't go anywhere, valid or not.
You misunderstood my point, because I admittedly didn’t develop it the right way. My premise is that any individual aspect of the total Obama ‘mystery’ could , and is probably designed to be, a red herring that could lead people to harp on one , in particular the BC “magic bullet” of proving he’s not eligible,to the exclusion of all others.
THey’re all interlocked, and all the pieces of the “Who is Obama” puzzle could contain small or large proofs of his identity and maybe his constitutional ineligibility.
One large part of both Obama’s and his Democratic Party’s
desperation in cramming their agenda down our throats is because they many KNOW that they’re in a race against the clock, and that inevitably so much ill-will and loathing will come to them and their man, that the MAIN thing they can’t afford to have revealed is that he’s a total charlatan, a literally counterfeit entity who went right ahead and allowed himself to be ‘elected’ President when he shouldn’t even have been a candidate.
No, no I didn't...and you didn't develope anything because you have nothing to say.
The Constitution states that no one who is not a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS.
His "BC" is no more a distraction than his health care plan, his take over of GM, the banks and financial institutions....it's all unconstitutional, what do you suggest is the "winning issue"?
Well-reasoned article here.
That's pure conjecture on your part, friend. Post a poll that backs up that statement, if you can find one that is representative of the whole population.
From everything I've read on the matter, a sizable portion of the public at least has doubts about Obama's NBC status.
That is the precise point at which all arguments against the birthers grind to a halt.
Obama could end all speculation about his constitutional eligibility by showing the nation his original long-form birth certificate. A person has to abandon all logic and reason to put forth any theory as to why he won't.
If he is everything he and his supporters claim he is, then he has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by releasing his records.
Release of his bc would actually decrease the level of suspicion about him, and would increase public confidence in him. It's a win-win situation that no President would fail to capitalize on, IF he really had the documentation to prove it.
I, for one, cannot escape the logic and reasoning in this issue. Obama will not release his bc, or any of his personal paper trail because it clearly shows that he is not qualified to hold the office of President.
There is NO other reason to allow this controversy to continue.
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.