Posted on 07/30/2009 1:51:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obama is not a US citizen and is therefore ineligible to be President of the United States. That’s the standpoint of the so-called “birthers.” So what’s behind this claim and what does it say about the beleaguered Republican Party?
A small yet persistent group of conspiracy theorists, called “birthers,” continue to question the legality of Barack Obama’s presidency, by casting doubt on his citizenship. The US Constitution stipulates that a person must be a naturalised American citizen in order to legally take the post of President of the United States. But the Constitution does not spell out how one is born a naturalised citizen and some have seized upon the vague language to advance the argument that President Obama may not be a citizen.
Legal evidence
American citizenship is bestowed upon a newborn child in two instances: if the child is born on American soil, or if at least one parent is a citizen of the US. Barack Obama was born in 1961 on Honolulu, in the US state of Hawaii. His father was Kenyan. His mother, however, was American; therefore President Obama is undoubtedly a US citizen.
The legal documents have not discouraged the birthers. They maintain that Mr Obama was actually born in either Kenya or Indonesia, is therefore not a citizen, and subsequently cannot legally be president. And it seems to make no difference to the birthers that Mr Obama would be a US citizen even if he had been born in another country. Political science professor Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison says the birthers do not concern themselves with logic or evidence:
“The state of Hawaii has the birth certificate. They’ve certified that. They’ve issued a birth certificate for getting passports or any other proof-of-identity under US law. The birth announcement appeared in both Honolulu papers at the time… There’s just more than overwhelming evidence that you would think would put this to an end… these are charges that really do only appeal to a very small and very suspicious minority of the population….”
The birther movement may not appeal to many Americans, but that does not mean this is merely a fringe movement. Prominent CNN journalist Lou Dobbs has fuelled the controversy with his own questions about President Obama’s citizenship. And right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has also devoted much of his recent programming to this topic.
Inconsistent claims
The small segment of conservatives, who vociferously oppose every aspect of Mr Obama’s presidency, is keen to latch onto any rumor that could undermine the administration. During his campaign for the presidency, Mr Obama had to deflect a litany of accusations: that he is a racist, that he is a drug abuser, and even that he is a closeted homosexual. The charges gained little traction, largely because the Obama campaign proactively dispelled the rumors, having learned an important lesson from Senator John Kerry’s failed campaign in 2004. Professor Franklin points out that the spurious attacks on President Obama were so numerous and varied that their inconsistencies quickly became undeniable:
“There are some other examples. There was a persistent rumor he was a Muslim, despite evidence that he got in trouble because his Christian church had a minister who was controversial.”
The GOP’s dilemma
The birthers hold no sway over the vast majority of Americans; their arguments resonate only with a small segment of conservative Republicans. That group may be as little as one-third of the overall Republican electorate. The problem facing the Grand Old Party (GOP) is that irrational arguments have a tendency to alienate the other two-thirds of Republicans who may find such discourse absurd. But some Republican politicians, nevertheless, have felt the need to pander to the radical right-wing of the party to maintain their constituencies. Professor Franklin says these politicians must pull off a delicate balancing act:
“The trouble for Republican leaders is how to regain their image as a responsible, sensible party in the face of factions which paint it in such a bad light, but are, in fact, not representative of the broad sweep of the party.”
The birther movement is unlikely to convince many that President Obama is not a US citizen, but that does not mean the attacks have no effect. Their arguments reaffirm the irrational negative beliefs held by certain individuals who oppose every aspect of the Obama administration. But even worse is the effect on American servicemen, some of whom have already questioned the authority of the very top of their chain of command: the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Listen to an interview with American political science professor Charles Franklin: (AT LINK)
and they are ... ?
Yes, but the topic is going viral worldwide. People will google up better stories and it will gain traction.
Is the Pope Jewish? Does a bear use Charmin? Are there realy moderate Taliban?
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Well, his father wasn’t a citizen, his mother hadn’t reached age of majority here in the States, so she couldn’t confer citizenship, etc.
Lots of problems for Zero, and not just the question of why he’s spending public money to hide his birth certificate.
If there’s nothing to hide, why all the fuss on his part?
(Answer: because he’s not eligible, that’s why!)
“US Citizen” is not identical to “natural born citizen”. The fundamental flaw. “US Citizen” includes, for example, a naturalized citizen. However, no naturalized citizen is a “natural born citizen”.
Sorry! I just couldn’t get past the errors in the first two sentences!
The “Birthers” should actually be called ‘Barry’s Biography Brigade’. Why? because the state-run media, the RNC, and popular Presidential biographers (like maybe Doris Kearns-Goodwin or Douglas Brinkley) lacked the intellectual curiosity to investigate or vet the obscured life of The One. Burf records are only one concern, and Birthers are smart - they can multitask.
I say he is an illegal alien. Come Nobama, prove me wrong.
Show me the certificate.
“People will google up better stories...”
IMO, Google will try their best to hide the better stories.
Federal law states Whether or not someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of the parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born, and the parent having lived in the United States or its possessions for a specific period of time. Derivative citizenship can be quite complex and may require careful legal analysis.
It’s likely that Obama is not even a citizen (let alone a natural born citizen) if his advertised Selective Service registration form is a forgery. Add in the alleged 39 Social Security numbers that Obama used and we should have something here.
I had to have a birth certificate to start school and to get a passport.Now lets see the fools passport..So does Obama have a legal passport..
Ping
Just because there is smoke, doesn't mean there's fire. But it's still a damn good idea to check isn't it?
Here lies the problem. When the two presuppositions don't agree, one of them is wrong.
I don't know if he meets the requirements or not. Let's see his BC and we can take it from there.
Fact is, the only answer the Left has to our demands is to spin the story and make it look like we're after something else.
(Answer: because he's not eligible, that's why)
Exactly...hope it keeps him awake at night.
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.