“We are talking about the person being hired (elected) to the highest office in our country?
As his ‘employer’ don’t we have the right to know?”
_________________________________________________________
Yes, I think the reasonalble answer is yes.
I make the SAME argument toward the end of this article(see link).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076357/posts
This is what I then said, as follows:
“A few years back I sent away for an original copy of my birth certificate.
I had lost mine.
The original copy paper says (not on the copy-image itself but on the copy paper to the left of the copy-image) ‘must be validated on back’ … and there is a date and signature etc.
On the back is an embossed stamp together with more dates and signatures etc.
It cost me about ten dollars (in those days) for an official original copy of my birth certificate, on file at my state capital.
I got it in about ten days.
I was young and had moved to another state.
Having lost my birth certificate, I needed an original copy in order to get a driver license, a bank account, and ultimately… a job.
Employers — especially companies that must report taxis and pay into workers compensation and other programs — expect to see some sort of identification from a potential employee.
They like to know who they are hiring.
They also like to know that the employee is honest and trustworthy.
The American people may be ‘hiring’ Barack Obama as the next President of The United States.
As a potential employee, we (the People of the United States) would like Obama to submit legitimate identification, namely:
A birth certificate or an official original copy of his birth certificate.
I don’t think that’s asking too much from a potential employee.”
STE=Q
May be hiring? Um... 69 million Americans already hired him. Nearly fourteen months ago.