RedState writer, Erick Erickson, goes and rants this bizarre and disappointing shuffle:
The most offensive is this:
“Truthers” are, indeed, a nutty bunch and I’ve never agreed with their complaints — all of which have been refuted with and by physical science and other facts (so I can understand “banning Truthers”);
But, RedState ranting that there’s some similarity or even an equivalency between “Truthers” and “Birfers” (as RedState mundanely labels those who question Barack Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy for the Presidency) is about as stupid and emotionally fevered (meaning, hysterical) a rant as ever I’ve read (or heard).
RedState can and does ban anyone they want — it’s a website, the writers there are individuals, they can manage their opinions and site editorially as they deem fit — but what RedState has done is declare and apply some sort of “subhuman” characteristic to the questions themselves and about whoever raises such questions as to the Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency by Barack Obama or lack thereof.
Where Obama was born is hardly a proven point — stories abound, even facts revealed along with statements by living relatives of the man make various claims about where he was born and many of those facts don’t substantiate any birth in Hawaii that any living person witnessed or has substantiated despite a lot of complaints to the contrary (just saying, what evidence exists does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii or when) — and that the state of Hawaii has “a” Certificate of Birth on the individual of “Barack Hussein Obama” is debatable as to what that actually represents — I don’t know, I haven’t seen it, few in the public ever have, but what they/we have seen is a mere graphic file displayed on a Leftwing website (dailykos published a graphic file as illustration of an alleged “real” document).
That internet published graphic file was followed by a physician in the state of Hawaii making an utterly irregular public declaration: that “(Obama) is natural-born.” That determination was/is not within her expertise nor purview — she’s not a court of law, she’s not a jury nor judge, she’s not Congress — yet there she was, making such a statement. That individual might just as well have said that she had pixie dust readily available that she made by waving her magic wand. And that leads to the essence of this machination…
What’s taken place — by both the Liberals on the Right and on the Left — is that the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency (to be a citizen, to be at least 35 years old, to have resided in the U.S. for a certain amount of years prior to the office, AND TO BE “NATURAL-BORN“) have been mushed-down like Hawaiian poi: a doctor in Hawaii and website-authors among Leftwingers and the Progressives on the Right, and even Barack Obama and Congress by default or not (can’t say as Congressional motive), attempting feverishly to demean (or even dismiss) the full range of requirements of eligibility: specifically, that “to be natural-born” (to be a citizen AND to be “natural-born”) is — so is being attempted to smush-into-mush — as being the equivalent of “merely” being born on U.S. soil.
That is, the two distinct eligibility requirements among the full range of Constitutional requirements for the Presidency — to be a U.S. citizen AND to be “natural born” — are attempting to be comingled by mere colloquialized opinion into one requirement, that they mean the same thing or that they represent “only” one thing: U.S. citizenship.
To the contrary, the two eligibility requirements are distinct and unique and do not equate with one another, are not definitions of one thing but represent two distinct requirements of different criteria.
“Natural born” as a U.S. citizen has been argued (substantially, credibly, well-supported argument Constitutionally) as disallowing U.S. citizens who are naturalized and/or not born to parents who are U.S. citizens, whether in or out of the U.S.
In other words, one is a U.S. citizen if born in the U.S. (so the 14th Amendment has been forced into accommodating only in recent times by a Leftwing interpretation) even if your parents are not U.S. citizens (again, I believe this is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment), but you are not, then “natural born” (nor are you “natural born” if you are a naturalized U.S. citizen).
To be “natural born” as a U.S. citizen (and therefore, to meet that Constitutional requirement for the Presidency), one must be born on U.S. soil to parents who are U.S. citizens, or, at least a father who is a citizen and a mother who is over the age of eighteen years of age. Barack Obama’s declared father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not over eighteen years of age (though she was a citizen) so even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not “natural born” as a U.S. citizen.
Which is the entire argument, specifically: that Obama is likely not “natural born” due to his debatable and inexactly established parentage. Whether he was born in Hawaii and has ponied-up a bogus, frontage identity and/or documentation of such is secondary to that full set of Constitutional requirements, though of course, it’s critically important as to what might be established, if so, as deplorable character having created substantial fraud.
And yet, the denigration (by those I’m referring to as the “Anti-Birthers”) attempts to bury both the terrible implications of fraud committed against the Constitution as they also do pivot upon their alleged “fact” that Obama “has a Hawaiian birth certificate so (the issue of his birth is moot).” They’re irritated at the very questions raised. The questions raised pose “political” hangups, so they’re intolerant of them.
Yet it seems to me that Constitutional integrity is far more important than some hapless media personnel who rail-on about potential “political” gamesmanship in the same sense as if they were discussing fastballs, uniforms or referee personalities.
It’s not “merely” his Birth Certificate — which few have even seen, him and handlers and appeasers having limited his documentation to a graphic file on the internet posed as a Certificate of Birth (not the same thing) that in and of itself has been disproven as credible by several document experts. A graphic file on the internet or otherwise is not a real document, it’s an illustration of a document.
And a Certificate of Birth (or an illustration of such) is not a Birth Certificate. The State of Hawaii verified in public statement that “a” Birth Certificate was on file but it’s not been released, only confirmed as existing — yet the statement was keen to avoid identifying or explaining just WHAT was ON that Birth Certificate they had on file: could be birth anywhere other than Hawaii, but it’s still “on file”.
Hawaii was known globally for over a decade during the time of Obama’s birth (as also before WWII) as a “document mill” wherein anyone from anywhere could fill-out forms stating whatever they wanted, pay filing fees and have a state employee type-up a Certificate of Birth based upon the form, for anyone they “swore” was born there (but wasn’t documented, even up to or around one full year after an alleged island birth) — a trusting environment, yes, but it resulted in many undocumented persons from anywhere else arriving in Hawaii (or acting there on others’ behalf) for just such purposes; and, those Hawaii-issued Certifications were then catapulted into feigned U.S. citizenship afterward. So the complaints in these regards as to Barack Obama are hardly minor. And in the case of the U.S. Presidency, they are hardly inconsequential.
Another wrench in this regards as involves Barack Hussein Obama is that his half-sister, born in Indonesia, has her copy of a very same Certificate of Birth from Hawaii as has brother, Barack, been said to have.
“Anti-Birthers” (as O’Reilly has done on numerous broadcasts) complain that there were two “birth announcements” in local, Hawaii newspapers regarding Barack Obama’s birth, which, so the complaints go, somehow “proves” he was, indeed, “born there”.
Absurd, most of all, for Bill O’Reilly, to make such a loopy declaration: classified announcements published in local newspapers are not proof of his birth there (or anyone else’s anywhere else) — telephone-in the information on behalf of anyone else, dictate what was/is desired to be printed, it’s a common practice even today via phone call or letter to newspapers by relatives or concerned third parties who want to make a public announcement, but the information is heresay only.
In Obama’s case, his mother, underage and at that time, promiscuous (by society’s norms as also her “interracial” relationship with whom Obama claims was his father), would reasonably result in appeasing Grandparents seeking to present a societal formality to the arrival of a grandson, regardless of where he was born or fathered by whom.
The only thing newspaper announcements represent is a time and place as to the publish date of the announcements themselves but nothing more specific, nor are they “scientific” or objective proof of any of the statements contained in them. Again, it’s a case of one human being dictating to another for payment what one desires to be stated for public knowledge: here I am, there he is, name is, this street, these people, etc.
Someone in New Jersey, for example, can call a newspaper in Hawaii (or anywhere else) and dictate copy and pay the classified-ad-costs and see that information then published later. There are no “classified announcement police” verifying the information dictated or printed afterward.
And these are but a few of the irregularities with the identity and identity circumstances maintained by Barack Hussein Obama. The addresses listed in those newspaper announcements are contrary to other address information for alleged parents and grandparents, the hospitals referred to by the ads and by Obama and his living relatives are contradictory, no physicians or nurses or hospital staff has ever been identified as witnessing any birth by grandparents or daughter, and much more: so the information contained in those two announcements is unreliable, generally, in any context except that they were published by the papers on specific dates.
And since we the public do not have access to Barack Obama’s medical records, anything about his person physically or mentally in the medical context is entirely nonexistent. That strikes me as extremely odd.
HOWEVER, I’ve never been too occupied with trying to prove or disprove (argue or otherwise) what alleged document I have or have not seen, nor that anyone in the talking-writing media continues to claim exists (and that includes RedState’s foolish rant linked here, alleging some “Birth Certificate” exists as per Hawaii’s say-so — which is all heresay), BUT, I do mistrust the hysteria on the Right and the Left that can’t tolerate any inquiries so much as questions and discussions about these issues – in any capacity, due to fears of political ramifications or gamemanship foibles or “plots” or whatever else, particularly as to the possible offenses upon our Constitutional.
These issues are important, needless to say: when boiled down, the most significant and problematic among them is possible violations of the Constitutional requirements for the U.S. Presidency and whether or not any individual (in this case, Barack Hussein Obama) has forged his way into that position.
It may or may not be “a winning political issue” per what certain other hysterical media heads insist — those are their opinions (Andrew Breitbart, Hot Air writer, Ed Morrissey, as also belittled as inquiry and issue by Bill O’Reilly and and Glenn Beck among others — note most of these are not Republicans but media personalities [Beck and O’Reilly, at least, who fancy themselves as “Independents” and the Leftwing media otherwise is happy to proliferate and exploit their snarls about the Right).
I like Glenn Beck (very entertaining) and Bill O’Reilly but both of them display flashes of intolerance and immaturity in regards this issue that tend to deflate overall credibility. These two figures are far better than the alternatives as to viewing socio-political opinion, granted, but they’re not demigods or representatives of some “group think” from the Right and both seem eager to routinely emphasize that they “aren’t Republicans”. So I do recognize their programming as individual opinion, some of which I enjoy and take seriously, some of which I don’t. Breitbart’s what I’d call a Libertarian — a Leftwinger, a Liberal, who was riveted to the Right after the events of 9/11 — and his condemnation of so much as discussion of these Constitutional issues and implications of offense represent what I’d call an emotional outburst of some deep-seated malingering of Liberalism.
Because the “politicos” ranting about what anyone “can” or “can’t” express are concerned with game-scoring or popularity or what their traffic is or whatever else defines their vanity and/or egotistical needs, but it does nothing to address the issues involved:
the possible capture of the U.S. Presidency by someone who is not Constitutionally qualified to occupy that office, and, who, if so, is engaging in dreadful fraud upon our nation (and why he/she would do so, another important ethical area of concern).
As I have read, those denigrating these concerns — those important issues — opine that there is some sort of “plot” being waged politically by the Democrats/the Left to somehow belittle the Right, that to so much as discuss this issue represents some sort of playing of that “plot” by the Left infiltrating the Right to disrupt and agitate (this is Glenn Beck’s erratic figuring, so he’s stated).
That very well may be, certainly possible — that the evil Democrats have eeked into the public discourse and introduced a false-flag argument to derail the Right — but even if that’s the accepted “plot” involved (trying to follow Beck’s figuring here for the sake of argument), the eligibility issues remain unproven, or, rather, the allegations, regardless of who has crept into what camp, remain substantial and in need of resolution: questions remain as to the issues themselves; though some players may be corrupt, the complaints may not be.
If it is — as Glenn Beck has opined — creeping Democrats hailing the Obama Administration who have attempted to ridicule him via various phone-ins to his radio broadcasts, asking questions about “Obama’s birth certificate,” then ridicule the calls but reserve ridicule from those others who are attempting to discuss such. It should not be such a threat, the issue itself, to Beck or to anyone else except, of course, to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party and anyone else in government who has assisted in any suppression of the truth in these regards.
However, citizens questioning these eligibility and ethical issues have no responsibility “to prove it” as Breitbart demanded at the Tea Party Convention recently — the burden of proof rests on the candidate to establish himself as qualified per the U.S. Constitution, as with simultaneously the political party naming a nominee and later, Congress in verifying an election.
Once administered that Oath, then, Congress is responsible to resolve and remedy any fraud discovered afterward, and that should include (one would expect) removing anyone from office who is there by means of fraud. I don’t know that a person of such type would actually BE a “President” and so impeachment wouldn’t be regular, but, certainly such a person would be evaluated by Congress and imprisoned if such a fraud were uncovered. So why not ask for verification of Barack Hussein Obama’s various stories? No harm, no foul.
And responses to requests for verification are in order when the Presidency is at stake and an individual such as Obama occupies that office on so little as a graphic file posted on a Leftwinger’s website and a “physician” proclaiming her individual opinion from Hawaii as the rule by which the nation must obey. I repeat, we the public do not even have access to Obama’s academic records or medical records (all of which, withheld from the public), and both of which would define who he is, specifically (and substantiate or disprove whether or not, say, he was ever enrolled and/or funded in the U.S. as a foreign student, using citizenship of another nation other than the U.S.A.).
During his campaigning in 2008, Barack Obama said publicly — in one of his campaign stops before a live audience with a live microphone in his hand — that “(if his Birth Certificate was released), that there’s something in there that a lot of people would find embarrassing.”
So he’s publicly admitted already that his Birth Certificate has never been released to the public, that he knows that it has not, and that he is aware that he is concealing something controversial from the public. This is an admission of fraud by Barack Hussein Obama about himself — because he’s declared his “Birth Certificate” has been released, while it certainly has not been and he’s aware that there remains to be released some added, defining information about who he is that he’s intentionally denying to be released.
But websites and other media just “banning” and marginalizing Americans, who raise questions about this guy in the White House, do nothing to address the issues involved, the most important among those issues being the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency having possibly been corrupted, ignored and manipulated. And there’s a preponderance of information that suggests if not defines Barack Obama as having done that, and, more broadly, the U.S. Congress “allowing” him to do so by certifying him as winner of a Presidential election (did anyone in Congress even address his numerous identity and citizenship characteristics – I strongly doubt it).
So questioning the issues involved as I’ve attempted here to iterate them is threatening to the RINO element of the GOP (Liberals who operate within the GOP, or, “Republicans In Name Only”) as it is to the Left among Democrats because it calls into question Congressional credibility (and the two parties accordingly): Congress certifies Presidential elections, and, they certified Barack Obama’s Presidential vote win (and then allowed) him to receive the Oath of Office.
As to the various lawsuits attempted on these issues (by dentist, Orly Taitz who is also a practicing attorney): ridiculing a dentist who is not talented in Procedural Law — who is obviously poorly trained on a Procedural basis — does nothing to address the questions involved. I agree that Taitz has failed to display legal expertise so far based upon her various failed lawsuits in these regards but it seems that’s due to her incompetence or poor knowledge of legal procedure — not the failure nor “discreditation” of the issues she’s attempting to question. There’s been no legal contest yet that I am aware of that has even considered the issues Taitz has attempted to be heard, because she’s been disqualified repeatedly on procedural irregularities (which means nothing’s ever yet gone to trial, so there’s been no trying or legal deliberations of the issues themselves).
This site will not and does not ban comments that express concerns in these regards. However, this site does ban “Truthers” or related commentary (and links, all/any) because abundant physical information is available to disprove the accusations (they doubt that terrorists flying planes caused the terrorist events of 9/11 and that somehow the U.S.A. arranged and inflicted all that damage of that day upon itself).
But in the case of Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to the Presidency — his possible fraudulent occupation of such in defiance of the Constitutional requirements for that Office — no such physical or scientific information is available to substantiate the assumptions he’s promoted about himself, except two books of possible fiction he’s published under his name (and even those are questionable as to who wrote them, perhaps on his behalf). Obama’s entire identity as the person he poses as today is based upon extensive story-telling and what facts have been examined about him only serve to raise more questions about that story-told as to who he is or possibly pretends to be.
Science — physical formulae, mathematical permutations, measured, tested information based upon physical laws, physics and engineering statistics and other proven machinations — has disproven the “Truther” accusations.
Contrarily, no science, no facts, no objective deliberation of information, are present that can prove Barack Obama’s allegations as Constitutionally qualified for the Presidency, so the issues are entirely different on so little as an evidence basis and on so much as Obama’s “story” being highly supported as false by most of what information IS available (living persons’ testimony, document analysis determining the graphic-file-Certificate published on the internet to represent a phony document, and so much more) .
So there is no correlation nor synonymity between “Truthers” and the Obama eligibility concerns and questions — just none whatsoever, except in the perceptions of the confused, foolish “politicos” efforting to corral and herd others for political expedience purposes (or to protect and continue possible fraud, who at this point can say other than to speculate as to motives).
Allowing ongoing DISCUSSION about this latter issue — is Barack Hussein Obama Constitutionally qualified for the U.S. Presidency — is hardly a boat-rocking, end-of-the-world scenario: discussion, I emphasize, discussion. Most of us people also discuss campaign finance, the economy, our energy situation as a nation, taxes, National Security, terrorism, our border security, immigration, Medicare, Social Security and many more important issues, as they question much more. Denigrating these questions and attempts to discuss any or all of them bespeaks of that “Leftwing” crud the so-called media on the Right daily denigrates (and vice-versa).
Because people sharing information and raising questions harms no one except those who want to silence inquiry (for whatever their reasons may be). This hysteria by whom I now deem “Anti-Birthers” is a means by which disorganization IS created, not contained or concluded; the “Anti-Birther” insistence has, and continues to, create and perpetuate division, distrust and disorder.
While, instead, allowing the discussion would begin to resolve the questions raised, and with hopefulness of a federal response afterward, by Congressional action resulting from voter demands.
So RedState and other sites and/or individuals of similar perspective — the “Anti-Birther” crowd — are actually the problem here. Their sole message has been and continues to be: “shut up, sit down, go away (with name-calling here).”
While there’s no law against being stupid and/or acting stupidly, there is reasonable if not often great incentive to avoid those who do. We Republicans witnessed the McCain nomination and a near-amnesty for illegal aliens, among so many other pushes for Leftwing goals by so-called “Right” sites and media individuals, in the last few years, and, just when I think the Right has gathered momentum toward a concerted voice politically, sites such as RedState and others in media take it to the sandbox and start ranting yet again about “Birfers.”
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli(*) and jus sanguinis(**).
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, “Of the citizens and naturals.”
“ELIGIBILITY AND CREDIBILITY” with many useful, informative links/articles/information.