Sunday, November 30, 2008

Amending the Constitution to eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement

As I said in my first post on the Obama Birth Certificate/Citizenship issue, the left has been trying for several years to eliminate the natural born citizenship requirement for anyone to serve as POTUS.

While their arguments are based on the requirement's impediment to globalization, something I'm vehemently against, I do tend to agree that the requirement should be expanded to include naturalized citizens. Emotional arguments against it using the spectre of stealth candidates with anti-American ulterior motives fail to consider that those with un-American ideals can just as easily be born here as abroad. Especially since the America we have today isn't so much the land of freedom that once stood in stark contrast to a world of tyranny, a land by its respect for liberty and its equitable system of laws once inspired the sacrifice of life, limb and fortune to preserve, the very rationale behind the Constitution's 14 year residency requirement. The inherent motivation of our natural born citizens to preserve our precious freedoms has been eroded right along with those freedoms themselves through decades of big government liberalism followed by such heinous legislation as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, numerous executive orders and the behemoth that has become our federal government over the last few decades.

I believe that people from abroad who are lured to this country for its historical promise of freedom and prosperity, and who go through the pains of learning about the foundation of those promises, are much more inclined to protect them than the natural born citizens who seem to know little about our founding principles, take for granted what freedoms we still have, and allow the rest to slip into obscurity out of fear. I won't go so far as to call us a nation of wimps, because we face down death every single day as people crowd themselves onto highways, malls, subways, office buildings with a potential bevy of armed or drunken loose cannons in our midst. Not to mention our propensity to establish residence in the belly of earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides... the risks to life and limb are enormous and we taunt and tease them every single day by virtue of our lifestyles, yet we clamor in fear for 100% protection from a handful of evildoers half a world away, so much so that we throw our freedoms out the window for the mere illusion of gift-wrapped protection. Those who venture here seeking relief from the oppressive regimes of their homelands may indeed be more inclined to stand up for and defend freedom's principles than we are.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Debunking the Debunkers

Finally a Google news alert keyed to "obama birth certificate" arrived in my inbox tonight pointing to a mainstream news outlet's mention of this issue. And as I expected it's another attempt to smear those who are pursuing the issue as conspiracy theorists. Let's take a look:

It's the rumor that won't go away. I continue to get e-mails about why mainstream media are not pursuing the challenge to the authenticity of President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship. The answer is that this allegation has been vetted and debunked.

Not so fast. There are several reasons it won't go away. First, Obama continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting lawsuits being brought for the sole purpose of forcing him to reveal the actual birth certificate on file. Which is more cost effective at putting these rumors to rest: spending $10 +/- to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate to end these rumors, or spending close to a million dollars to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day?

Second, three of these lawsuits have made their way onto the Supreme Court docket. For a mere rumor that's already been vetted and debunked, you'd expect SCOTUS to spend their time on more pressing things. While the rumor and all the supporting evidence behind it may not be considered newsworthy to mainstream media, Supreme Court cases should merit some attention at least.

While it is true that Hawaiian officials have not made the document public because of privacy laws, the state's health director said she and the registrar of vital statistics have personally inspected his birth certificate and can vouch for its authenticity.

I'd like very much for the actual quote from these officials be published in the mainstream media, because all I've seen are quotes stating that they have seen the birth certificate with their own eyes, vouching for its existence in Hawaii's records of vital statistics. I have also read that of those officials interviewed, none would vouch for the information contained therein.

Citing the media reports on, "Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino says she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate." So, let's see a quote from these named officials that actually vouches for the authenticity of the publicly-displayed birth record on Obama's website.

That pretty much amounts to "case closed" for anyone but the conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother fraudulently applied for a Hawaii birth certificate. Even if this were true - it seems rather silly to engage this argument, but here goes - I can't imagine anyone being able to put together sufficient evidence to invalidate a birth certificate that has been in the official vault for 47 years.

Evidence has been presented that Obama was born in Kenya, via statements made by both his relatives and Kenyan officials. Now, is it true that Hawaii allowed the parents of children born outside the US to register their births in Hawaii in 1961, under certain conditions? I've read assertions that it is. This is a simple question that the mainstream media should have no trouble asking, and getting a legitimate answer to. While the birth certificate may have been in the vault all these 47 years, nobody in the mainstream media has any idea what information is contained in that original document, other than what Mr. Obama himself has chosen to reveal, and continues to fight strenuously to limit to that information. See my previous post for more very simple questions the mainstream media seem to have problems with.


Thursday, November 27, 2008

Another Obama Birth Certificate post 11-26-08

One question today.... well, two actually, regarding the Obama birth certificate issue.

1. Which hospital was he born in? Over the last decade, his sister has given the name of two hospitals in Honolulu that he could have been born in. Which of those two is the correct one?

2. Who is the doctor that delivered him?

The "birth certificate" he released doesn't provide this information. Does yours?

I posted these two questions in one comment, and another asking who might have standing to sue over candidate qualifications, on this post at the blog Voenix Rising. Rather than attempting to intelligently answer the questions, both of my comments were promptly deleted. And believe it or not, with a straight face Obama loyalists continue to deny a coverup of this issue.
Some links to columnists and bloggers recently discussing this issue:


Saturday, November 22, 2008

The issue of Obama's citizenship is bigger than a birth certificate

I stumbled onto this post explaining that once again the Supreme Court will decide the presidential election. Written by obsessive Obama supporters, it mocks in standard liberal fashion the current court battle regarding the issue of President-elect Obama's actual country of birth. Apparently an attorney filed suit a few weeks ago to delay the election until Obama produces his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally-required qualifications to become president. The case was initially rejected by Justice Souter, but a re-filed petition was accepted for review by the radical right's darling Justice Clarence Thomas.

Several weeks ago I remember a news article reporting that the appropriate authorities in Hawaii had verified the existence of Obama's original birth certificate, and for me the matter, scant that it was to begin with, was settled. After reading the comical indignant retorts in the comments on the above mentioned liberal blog, I tended to side with their assertion that the "wingnuts" will lose this one, mainly because it seems like such a trivial, inconsequential matter. But there's the rub. If it's so trivial, why would a Supreme Court justice agree to review it? Souter already rejected it once. So why would Thomas take it?

Then it occurred to me, on the issue of the citizenship requirement, "wingnuts" have been joking about electing Schwarzenegger as president ever since he got into politics, and liberals have been advocating for the elimination of the citizenship requirement for some time because of the multicultural diversity of our nation. So I thought it would be really funny if this whole Obama birth certificate suit backfires on the "wingnut" with Thomas ultimately doing a little legislating from the bench and deciding to rescind the natural-born requirement altogether*. This country's leadership has been pushing the globalization envelope so fervently over the last few decades that this would be the perfect opportunity to take down that tiny, insignificant, inconsequential little technicality. And who would argue? It's a silly requirement because naturalized citizens can be just as devoted to our constitution and founding principles as natural born citizens, and probably even moreso given that they're required to actually know the constitution in order to become a citizen.

So I decided to visit the wingnut's website to see what kind of evidence he has that would compel Supreme Court Justice Thomas to take this ridiculous case, and started watching the "wingnut's" press briefing video made about a week before the election. This "wingnut" claims to be a lifelong Democrat, and makes a rather compelling case that his motivation to bring this challenge rests entirely on constitutional grounds. And he's right, the constitution is very clear on the qualifications for our president: he must be 35 years old, lived in this country for the last 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. Cherishing the constitution as much as I do, I can't simply wave this natural born citizenship thing off as a minor triviality no matter how silly I think the requirement is. Nor can I condone the blatant alteration of the constitution via one single judge's ruling. I did however find myself wishing someone had this guy's fortitude to bring all kinds of other lawsuits to the Supreme Court to challenge the rest of the things our government does that violates the constitution... but I digress.

Berg also presents some compelling evidence that Obama may infact not be a natural born citizen, from remarks by his Kenyan relatives to his early travel history and legal requirements for such by all countries involved. But I'm most convinced something's awry by the simple fact that Obama absolutely refuses to provide a copy of his birth certificate, an act each of us regular citizens has had to do several times in our lives. And he also refuses to release his medical and postsecondary education records, reasons for which Berg believes are to protect Obama's citizenship status.

That's when the red flags started going off. The documents obviously exist otherwise Obama wouldn't have had an early passport and Hawaiian officials wouldn't have certified it. And being the Constitutional Scholar that he is, he wouldn't have dared run for president if he didn't qualify under the Constitution. So Obama's refusal to produce them must be based on principles alone. What principles though? It's looking more and more like Obstinence and Defiance rather than the privacy of the 4th Amendment. It's a birth certificate for Christ's sake, the only means available to prove compliance with 2 of the 3 Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the Presidency.

Senator Feingold, probably the most libertarian democrat in the Senate, has just professed his faith that Obama will be joyfully forthcoming with all the required information legislators need to do their oversight jobs, in stark contrast to the belligerent Bush administration. Feingold's remarks on the matter had instilled a little hope in this libertarian constitutionalist that Obama would regard our constitution a bit more respectfully than Bush, even if just a little. But after learning of the possibility Obama very well may become our first unconstitutional president, and his obstinate refusal to do something every other citizen of this country has been required to do multiple times in our lives, that hope is obliterated.

I'm now fully convinced Obama will conduct affairs in his administration with the same disregard for the constitution and outright stubbornness he exhibits in refusing to produce records we the citizens demand in the course of vetting our public servants. But worse than that, he will do so following in the same footsteps of the most horrendous president this country's ever had.

Now the issue is very unsettling, and much bigger than simply resolving Obama's citizenship.

* - The case before Thomas is solely to decide whether Berg has standing to sue, and has no bearing on the facts/evidence regarding Obama's citizenship.