Posted on 07/06/2008 10:47:57 AM PDT by Aria
I had not caught up until today with this apparent controversy over whether the Hawaii birth certificate proffered by Obama's campaign is a forgery and whether there are legitimate questions about whether he was born in the United States — if he wasn't, he almost certainly would not be qualified under the Constitution and relevant immigration statutes to be president. Our Jim Geraghty seemed to pooh-pooh the birth certificate controversy about a week ago, but according to the above cited report (at a site called DougRoss@Journal) and a new one from Israeli Insider, there are new developments, and the Obama campaign appears to be stonewalling. Shouldn't it be a fairly easy matter to prove he was born in Hawaii if he really was? Why wouldn't Obama just end this quickly?
Is there anything to this?
ADDENDUM: I should add to the above that I am not a conspiracy theorist. My predisposition on the many stories floating around about Obama and his circle is to ignore them on the following theory: If there was really anything to this or that, the Clintons would have found it and gotten their media friends all over it. This story about Obama's eligibility puzzles me because (a) it is so basic, (b) it should be so easy to prove the relevant facts of his birth, (c) the Obama campaign's response to the story is bizarre, and (d) it seems to be getting worse rather than resolved.
07/06 12:09 PM
Yes, well, I agree, I think that is too fine a point for the public consumption. But I think it might be a piece in a larger picture of both fraud and radical politics that needs to be painted if he was passing off as real not just a falsely created copy of a certificate of birth, but one with false information, on his web site. The something to hide fits in with the radicalism, and such issues need to at least percolate here over the summer, so they can really be brought out at the time of and after the Democrat convention.
Obama’s very real unsuitability is our only hope, btw, as our own candidate doesn’t shine himself.
You're not alone in that theory.
Have we become that weak a country that quickly? That a bit of a housing bubble and some unpleasant increases in prices are enough to turn the country to Marxism?
I worry about that as well, but there’s a good and a not-so-good way about getting to the bottom of it.
“That a bit of a housing bubble and some unpleasant increases in prices are enough to turn the country to Marxism?”
No, but I don’t think a lot of Obama supporters would recognize a Marxist if it bit them on the ass.
Any candidate for President is required to prove he is a natural born citizen. Goldwater, McCain, & Romney can do so. Obama has not done so.
As a matter of fact; We, The People have no idea where, when, or to whom Obama was born. And make no mistake on this, the burden of proof is on Senator Obama.
A simple birth certificate supporting his “natural born citizen” status is all that is needed. Senator Obama is required to produce it. He has not done so. If he does not, he is disqualified by the highest law of the land...the Constitution.
At this very moment, Senator Obama is flouting the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't get anymore serious than that.
Ha! Completely idiotic! You really want to see a repeat of the ‘60s riots magnified by 10? Where do you live that you wish for such a scenario?
That, plus 40 yrs. of heavy duty brainwashing by the public schools and institutions of higher learning, as well as a daily dose of serious propaganda from the MSM has more than done the job IMO.
re: If Obama wasn’t a legitimate candidate he should have been disqualified during the long, LONG period he was running for the nomination.
On what grounds? The constitution states “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Constitution is silent on who can run for the nomination for president.
Whether or not Obama is a legitimate candidate or not, he is free to seek the nomination of a party, to accept that nomination, to run a campaign. The Constitution does not preclude any of that.
It’s only that, at the end of all that campaigning, if he is not a legitimate candidate, that he will not be eligible for the office of President. He can do whatever he wants up to that point.
That’s pretty clear to me. What’s also clear to me is that, if before, during, or after the inauguration, Obama turns out not to have been a legitimate candidate, and either becomes, or continues to be, president, then THAT would really tear the country apart. If Obama is not a legitimate candidate, then denying Obama the nomination of a political party will turn out to be, in my opinion, a relatively small story that would blow over in a few years. On the other hand, if Obama is, in fact, not a legitimate candidate, then allowing him to become, or remain, president would, in my opinion, be the foundation of a full-scale constitutional crisis. Members of every branch of our government from the Congress to the Supreme Court to the Executive Branch, including the military have all sworn to protect and defend the constitution. Contravening the constitution so directly would probably lead to more than a few deciding that their oath of office precluded them from accepting an illegitimate president.
Just my guess.
Good point.
Now you’re on to something...the real problem in all of this may not be that he wasn’t born here. It may be what else is on the birth certificate. It may have a place for Religion (some states did back then). If that slot says Muslim or Islamic as his proud father may have insisted upon, it might all be over with that revelation. Perhaps it lists he has more siblings when we thought he was a first born...that would require more explanations. Perhaps the certificate says he was white...the father was not present for the delivery and even black babies are born white so with a white mother, white grandparents on an all white and polynesian island, perhaps it says he was white.
In any case, these details cloud our enigma candidate even more and perhaps they believe, past the tipping point of credibility. Remember, when you are trying to be all things to all people, the truth has a way of outing and making you nothing to most everybody.
Wow- take a few hours off from this story and it just keeps on changing.
Now we have LGF and Charles Johnson (a most respectable fellow) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30562_Obama_Birth_Certificate_Forgery_Myth_Destroyed
and he’s going with the StrataSphere debunking the whole fake COLB idea here:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626
While last night we had the famous (or infamous) Jay McKinnon interviewed by (himself?!) opendna over on Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/15947/95667/125/547039
My head is spinning.
Why did Hillary only suspend her campaign rather admit defeat. This is the first time a candidate clearly not having the votes did not admit defeat.
I live in a county that went over 60% Bush. I have yet to see one McCain bumpersticker --and there are plenty for Obama.
Obvious to you evidently...but then I tend to suspect a campaign with it’s own smear control effort would be a little more reactive to an issue like BC fraud unless I was part of the BHO Smear Control brigade...???
Think about your statement. You are saying that the law, in this case the law governing the qualifications for the highest office in the land, should be ignored if it upsets people.
IOW, the legitimacy of the law should be determined by whom it is being applied to.
And, not so subtly, you are saying that it would be racist to apply the law equally to a (sort of) black candidate as it already is to white candidates.
Finally, you are admitting that the left has balkanized our country so severely by inciting racism continually as a political tool, that we have to ignore the law (a very good law in this case) to prevent civil war.
The proud legacy of liberalism and liberal racism.
hmmmmm...I’m always good for a fun conspiracy theory.
Barack’s first book was only published in January, 2007, by which point he was certainly planning his run for President. Does anyone know if he explicitly states in that book that he was born in HI?
I haven’t read any of his books, but an Amazon reviewer wrote this:
The author met his father but once, when he was ten years old. Dr. Barack Obama was already married (p 422) when he met his namesake’s mother while studying in the States. He returned to Africa alone, married again (and again) and had more children.
Does it sound to you as though Obama’s parents were never married? Could there be something on the BC to that effect? I’d always heard that his parents were married.
Yes, but we absolutely have to right to see the authentic birth cert--just as candidates release tax returns.
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.