Posted on 07/29/2009 5:19:16 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
Republicans and conservatives opposed to a rapid increase in the size and scope of government should be heartened by the American public’s gradual turn away from Obamaism.
But when we need Republican and conservative leadership the most, when we need our leaders and thinkers to clearly differentiate their vision for the country from Barack Obama’s vision, many of our leaders have failed us. Instead of taking the opportunity presented to proclaim the conservative vision to the American people, some Republican leaders have opted to latch on to wild conspiracy theories promoted by the fringes of the Republican Party. Or, at the very least, some of our leaders have allowed such wild theories to fester by not proactively combating and denouncing them.
Just last month, for instance, Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Administration Defense Department official and conservative intellectual, wrote in The Washington Times that Barack Obama might very well be a secret Muslim. “[T]here is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” Gaffney wrote. Among Gaffney’s “mounting evidence” was the fact that President Obama referred to the Koran as the “holy Koran” during his June speech in Cairo, Egypt.
But of course this was merely pandering on Obama’s part. It no more helps prove that President Obama is a secret Muslim than President Bush speaking in Spanish to a Latino audience proves he is a “secret Hispanic,” or President Obama wearing a yarmulke at a gathering of American Jews (as he has) proves he is “secretly Jewish.”
How much resonance such conspiracy theories have within the Republican Party is unclear, but a YouTube video put up last week of a town hall meeting held by Republican Congressman Mike Castle is worrisome. A lady pressed the Delaware Republican about why Obama has not produced his birth certificate and then loudly declared that Obama was in fact a citizen of Kenya, not the United States. “I want my country back,” she shouted in her rant at the befuddled congressman, who could only respond, responsibly, that President Obama was in fact an American citizen. It’s impossible to tell how many people in the audience agreed with the woman, but there were certainly enough of them to make some noise.
These “birthers,” as they have come to be known, allege that Obama is ineligible to be president because he was not born in the United States. Despite overwhelming proof that Obama is in fact native born – including an official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii – the birthers movement persists in claiming otherwise.
Why stop there? With equal plausibility, one might suggest that 48 years ago, a group of Islamists conspired to take over America by making Barack Obama president. Having the incredible foresight in the 1960s too see that a black man would be the obvious choice for president of the United States in 2008, their strategy would be to hide his foreign and Muslim identity by having his parents name him Barack Hussein Obama. Somehow, they knew this child would be smart and talented enough to get into elite colleges and become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. The men behind this clever movement to take over America wisely encouraged a young Barack to take drugs in his youth and then to later write about his drug-taking days in a memoir because, presciently, they understood that writing about one’s drug-taking past is usually a successful presidential strategy.
That’s not all. Instead of having Obama be born in America, his mother’s native country, as most people trying to conduct a successful take over plot of America would do, they had Obama be born in Kenya. But in order to deceive the American people that Obama was an actual American citizen 47 years later, the men behind this plot made sure local Hawaiian newspapers published notices of Obama’s birth. The secret cabal behind Obama was also able to fool, evidently, the state of Hawaii.
One might go on and ask why someone who supposedly is a secret radical Islamist, determined to create a Sharia state in America, would add troops to Afghanistan to fight radical Islamists there; launch predator drone attacks against Islamist terrorists in Pakistan; and keep the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facilities open despite his campaign pledge to shut down the facility?
Yet another problem with the conspiracy theories is that they distract from more serious criticisms of the administration. I have written articles in opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and I will continue to do so as long as he pushes policies that I think are harmful. However, we have to have responsible leadership in the Republican Party that opposes Obama on the basis of principle and uses reasoned discourse, not idiotic falsities, to make its case.
Conservative commentators, leaders and thinkers have a responsibility to denounce idiocy put forward under the conservative banner. Republicans and conservatives have a real opportunity to take back the country in 2010 and 2012. But they aren’t going to do it by promoting outlandish conspiracies.
The lawyers in Hawaii did not vett the statement. The statement was directed from the WH. Have you not been paying attention to all of the activity the last week? Do you think these are occuring randomly without Axelrod or some such pulling strings?
Hawaii could not release the information without the approval of president Transparency. They have repeated that over the last year. The WH told them what to release and how to say it and reiterated that they should not release the document to the public; leaving the "best evidence" under lock and key.
The officials in Hawaii have said that those with tangilble interest could see the file. So why aren't they releasing the file of the president to the citizens who vote for him and who are subject to his administration for four years. Not tangible enough?
You have set up an argument based upon assumption and nothing factual and you repeat it ad nauseum driving the less persistent away and interpreting it as a win. I'll not respond because I know you will not acknowledge superior argument. Next time you work your daily talking points, freep mail them to some people to see how they sound and have the logic checked.
They aren’t worrying. They have lots of money and lawyers. They can afford to use them to keep this circus going - because they WANT to keep the circus going.
Consider it as a Judo strategy - get your opponent going in a direction you want him to, to use his weight and momentum against him.
This is a distraction they are using to keep people from griping about things that are relevant to you and that they will actually blame him for.
You can read all of it as this is a direct link to Hawaii.gov.
§338-18 Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
Or malcolm the tenth
It is *you* who is asserting that Dr. Fukino’s statement resolves the issue. Therefore I’m asking *you* and only *you* what Dr. Fukino’s jurisdiction is over the issue, if any. That is a simple question that should have a simple answer, verifiable by anyone. Your answers are non responsive. An analogy: we don’t need Hawaii state mathematicians to figure out the answer to 2 + 2. How may anyone distinguish your non-responsive answers from that of a troll? Repeatedly evading a simple question suggests that a person is unable to defend their reasoning (if not worse).
Which court approved the rebellion against British rule?
I took an oath to uphold the constitution.
For GOD, Country and Family.
I will do so.
And I can do so simply by demanding the truth.
A sleeping giant has awakened and you folks want it to go back to sleep.
Call me all the names you want.
I’m glad to see you’re in touch with the White House... :-)
It’s obvious that the State of Hawaii is not going to put out an official statement like that, bearing on the President of the United States, and concerning an issue that some are hollering about him not being qualified (thus wanting to remove him from office — and not have their State of Hawaii lawyers vetting every single word and making sure they are perfectly accurate... LOL..
If you think that the State of Hawaii is going to let that kind of statement about the President of the United States go out without every single word being vetted by State lawyers — you’re delusional then... :-)
The GOP wont even fight for themselves so screw them.
Hear hear brother.
The GOP wont even fight for us so screw them.
W R O N G or Purposeful LIE #1:
It instructs CONGRESS to name an interim President if the President elect "Shall have failed to qualify". Only way to meet qualifications that remain to be met is showing PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements in Article two. The ONLY way to do this is with a proper birth certificate that PROVES age of eligibility, 35, fourteen years a resident, and natural born citizenship status.
by whom
W R O N G or Purposeful LIE # 2:
The words "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly is speaking of an action by the President elect that failed. Thus, the burden of "qualifying" is on the President elect. If the President elect does not present evidence PROVING eligibility to Congress, the Constitution, through this Amendment disallows his ascending to the office of President and Congress is empowered to name an interim President.
what proof is required
W R O N G or Purposeful LIE # 3:"Qualifications" for holding the office of President is required. Article two, Section one.
or even who has the burden of proof
W R O N G or Purposeful LIE # 4
The burden is clearly an action that the President elect either successfully performed to Congress and the Constitutions satisfaction , or "shall have failed to perform" to Congress and the Constitutionssatisfaction.
among a host of other things.
Name these "other things", so I can disrobe your naked dishonesty on them as well.
I go by the authority vested in the State of Hawaii and the fact that they are the ones who received the original paperwork, have kept the original paperwork and details all these years and thus are the keepers of all that information — and that they are not going to say anything about the President of the United States unless it’s 100% accurate and checked and vetted by their team of State lawyers...
And since they are the holders and keepers of that information — if the State of Hawaii doesn’t know this information — then no one is ever going to know it — because no one else has had it all these years... except the State of Hawaii... LOL...
That’s what I go on... :-)
If enough of us kept demanding his records eventually they
would be released, forgery's or not.
Hows that for delusional?
Dr. Fukino’s statement is derivative. It is at best an interpretation of other documents not in evidence. As an interpretation of original documents, it is subject to error whereas the original documents stand by themselves. Also as an interpretation of original documents, it does not carry any force of law one way or another, by the legal doctrine of best evidence. The legal doctrine of best evidence holds that the best evidence available must be used to resolve an issue in a court of law. Therefore please tell us how Dr. Fukino’s statement is relevant to the issue of whether or not Obama is Constitutionally elegible to hold the office of President given that it is derivative and does not carry the weight of best evidence in a court of law. “Go ask someone else” is not distinguishable by me from “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, you can simply admit it. By the way, what is 2 + 2?
You’ll be in that crowd of protesters at Obama’s grand opening of his Presidential Library when he does the ribbon cutting... LOL...
I’m sure of it... :-)
Actually, she left something out from her previous statement; the part about "in accordance with the laws of the State of Hawaii". The law at that time stated that you only had to have a mother or a relative state that the child was born in Hawaii. Now, lets look at the word "verify" in the legal sense. From the Encarta dictionary: swear something under oath LAW in law, to swear or affirm under oath that something is true. So, by those two "legal" definition, if Fukino examined a document, which stated that the mother stated that the child was born in Hawaii, then Obamis claim would be legally "verified". Sorry pal, not good enough.
Why are there no independent hospital records? Why has Obami not released a document containing the signature of the attending physician. Why does his sister in law have a Hawaiian birth certificate, when we know she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia? When Fukino makes a statement to the effect that she has personally seen a document that contains the signature of the attending physician, and that it matches up with independant hospital records, then I might take her a little more seriously.
You made the point that her statement was probably written/vetted be lawyer and therefor should be believed. Quite the contrary. Lawyers are experts at carefully crafted statement that appear to say one thing, but can really mean something else. As far as I'm concerned, the written/vetted part makes her statement less credible. "Verified" by whom? By what? Carefully crafted by lawyer? Ya, most likely to cover their own asses.
Claire McCaskill.
There’s no doubt that the State of Hawaii has vetted the statement with their team of lawyers and they’ve made sure that every single word is exactly correct, since it involves the President of the United States and the issue that many are saying that they think is something that will remove him from office.
So, I have no problem with their expertise...
It’s a State of Hawaii document, it was originally recorded by the State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii has kept it all these years, only the State of Hawaii can make anyone a “certified copy” of the original birth certificate, and it’s the State of Hawaii that has kept it safe and under their control for the entire time that Obama has been alive — so... when the State of Hawaii speaks on the issue — I know they know what they’re talking about...
And if the State of Hawaii can’t speak to the issue, then no one can, because the *only place* that *anyone* can get the information from (judge, Supreme Court, lawyer, Obama, or anyone) — is — the State of Hawaii itself.
So, yes..., I figure they know what they’re talking about... LOL...
Sorry, I’m not in Missouri, I’m in Oklahoma... :-)
I like Inhofe...
I think the statement for the State of Hawaii is pretty straightforward and speaks for itself and will be totally accurate. As I said elsewhere, it’s the State of Hawaii who has had the document from the beginning...
It’s a State of Hawaii document, it was originally recorded by the State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii has kept it all these years, only the State of Hawaii can make anyone a “certified copy” of the original birth certificate, and it’s the State of Hawaii that has kept it safe and under their control for the entire time that Obama has been alive — so... when the State of Hawaii speaks on the issue — I know they know what they’re talking about...
And if the State of Hawaii can’t speak to the issue, then no one can, because the *only place* that *anyone* can get the information from (judge, Supreme Court, lawyer, Obama, or anyone) — is — the State of Hawaii itself.
So, yes..., I figure they know what they’re talking about...
Do you know what McCaskill’s done vis-a-vis McCain’s and Obama’s NBC status?
Liberty is based upon principles and not policies or the word of courts or government officials. Principles are based on truth.
No person who loves liberty, can, in the face of the danger of its loss, stand idly by when life itself and the pursuit of happiness, hang so precipitously in the balance.
It is in the hands of the citizens.
The citizens demand proof.
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.