Posted on 08/14/2009 12:49:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Tulsa World again showed its bias against Sen. Jim Inhofe in the headline for its article on the questionable evidence of Barak Obama's natural-born status ("Inhofe weighs in on Obama birth site," July 28).
Inhofe specifically said he didn't weigh in because he hadn't studied the facts. Jim Inhofe said, "No comment," but he "weighed in"?
Your article derisively calls all who wonder if Obama is a natural-born citizen, "birthers," while Obama has blocked access to his long form birth certificate.
Two Hawaii hospitals have claimed to be the hospital where Obama was born. No hospital has produced the long form certificate that lists the attending doctor.
His Kenyan grandmother said she was present when he was born in Kenya. He was accepted into an Indonesian school, which would require him to be an Indonesian citizen. He has blocked attempts to see the passport he used in traveling to Kenya and blocks all his school records. Why, if he has nothing to hide?
Fifty eight percent of an AOL online poll said he should show his long form birth certificate, and 49.3 percent of the scientific Wenzel poll agreed. If about half the U.S. want these questions answered, you shouldn't call it a side issue.
The appearance from your editorial ("The 'birthers,'" July 29) and cartoon is that your agenda is to destroy the messenger if you don't like the message.
More than half of your readers voted for Inhofe. It is amazing you have so little concern for their thoughts and abandoned any semblance of fairness and truthfulness toward him.
Wayman Patterson, Tulsa
Editor's note: Inhofe did not say "no comment" in response to questions about Obama's birth. He said "I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that.''
In an interview with the Tulsa World he stressed repeatedly that Obama's citizenship is not an issue he has taken on and added in a subsequent statement that he is not a legal expert on the subject and has given Obama "the benefit of the doubt." But he also said in that statement, "If there are legal experts who have concerns, I would encourage them to continue looking into it."
Sen. Jim Inhofe is one of the “good guys”. I knew about him and respected him when I lived in OK.
Just because he does not take the citizenship issue on as a cause, does not mean that he has confidence he is qualified for the office.
There are times when the battle lines are focused on more important things. This may be the case here.
Inhofe is arch enemy of the Cap & Trade scam.
No one spend $1.5 million to hide something unless it has very damaging information. Even 0bamunists have to ask themselves what it shows.
With all the factual errors, Mr. Patterson gives “birthers” a black eye!
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
My strong suspicion here is that Barry’s birth certificate was obtained based on the testimony of his relatives rather than official hospital records. That’s why the Hawaii officials declarations have been so legalistic and why he can’t let anyone see the original info. In other words, he might well have born in Hawaii, but full disclosure doesn’t strengthen his case.
We've been saying all along that anyone can get any birth printed in any newspaper. Apparently, some people have to be grabbed by the nose and have a fake announcement shoved in their face before they will see the light. Although I'm not surprised he couldn't be bothered to research the process himself but paid someone else to do the work for him.
Just because he does not take the citizenship issue on as a cause, does not mean that he has confidence he is qualified for the office.
Senator Inhofe actually has taken on the citizenship issue as a cause, back in 2004. He co-sponsored a bill, S.2128, proposing to amend the Constitution, as follows:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States--
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
So, this puts Inhofe's "no comment" in a slightly different light, does it not?
And, get a load of defining Washington, DC as a state.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States—
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
If Senator Inholfe backed this above,I’m dissappointed in him. This IS NOT consistent with the original meaning of “natural born” at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. A “Natural Born” citizen is one born with both parents (especially the father) being U.S. Citizens. From birth the child cannot, IMO, have any potential divided loyalties. That is the original intent in requiring a POTUS to be “natural born.”
In my opinion, persons that cannot grasp this simple concept are as obtuse as those persons that for years tried to argue that the 2nd Ammendment wasn’t an individual right. The meaning of “natural born” is only “muddy” because folks don’t what to stay in the historical context of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not want a POTUS that had any possibility of divided loyalties. Therefore, only a natural born citizen could be president. Otherwise, why would they make such a point of putting it in the Constitution and “grandfathering” in themselves (most born under another jurisdiction because there was no U.S.)
Putting all politics and any personal dislike I may have for President Obama and his views & policies aside, I can, without hesistation, say that the Founding Fathers would not consider him to be a “natural born” citizen as they intended. Therefore, regardless of any “election”, he is not Constitutionally qualified to be the POTUS.
Because of neglect, cowardice, and chicanery at many levels he is the POTUS. As such, for the sake of maintaining the stability of our country, I will continue to call him POTUS and will, as a loyal citizen, continue to regard him as POTUS with all the respect due the office/position.
However, I really think that both the legislative and judicial branches of government have betrayed the U.S. Constitution by allowing President Obama to be the POTUS.
I admire brave men like Major Stefan Cook, USAR, that have the courage to challenge President Obama’s validity in a civil manner so that courts might be nudged to take action. I don’t have the courage this man has displayed to put myself on the firing line in order to hopefully correct a wrong committed against the Constitution. I sit here passively hoping others like him will succeed.
That makes me a coward, and I am ashamed. I can only say that I sit passively because I do not want a civil war, I want a stable and properous U.S. I am just concerned that ignoring the Constitution, as in the “natural born” requirement, is setting a very bad precident.
Well, consider yourself disappointed in him, then.
Because, he did. I'd say he likely still does.
The good conservative voters of Oklahoma need to find out where Senator Inhofe stands on this crucial, Constitutional matter.
Completely false.
But it didn't define DC as a state. It just included DC in the term "United States", which is accurate.
It's obviously not already the case, if Senators are sponsoring bills proposing to amend the Constitution over it.
You are the 5th post, but you are too late.
“A “Natural Born” citizen is one born with both parents (especially the father) being U.S. Citizens.”
You replied:
“Completely false.”
I am fully correct when speaking in context of the 18th Century and what the people that wrote the U.S. Constitution meant. To not acknowledge this original intent is to be as obtuse as those persons that cry the 2nd Ammendment is not an individual right. The original meaning of “natural born” is clear to persons with sense and any understanding of history. President Obama, following the original meaning of the Constitution, is not “Natural Born” because his father was not a U.S. Citizen at his birth. Thus, President Obama has potential divided loyalties and would not be allowed to be POTUS....if the Founder’s intentions were to be followed.
“The good conservative voters of Oklahoma need to find out where Senator Inhofe stands on this crucial, Constitutional matter.”
Unfortunately, I haven’t resided in Oklahoma for several years and can no longer vote in its elections.
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.