http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0D1D0BCC-18FE-70B2-A8AAAE2A129A1676
How depressing, I suppose I'm banned from the conservative movement for wanting evidence the president is eligible to hold office. The problem with anti-birthers is simple. They can't produce Obama's long form vault copy birth certificate. I looked at my own Birth Certificate just recently, and found much more information than you'll ever find on Obama's certification of live birth posted online. Asking Americans to have faith in a man who's been caught blatantly lying in his own autobiographies seems more "crazy" than wanting this guy to show his credentials to hold the highest, most powerful office in the land. Now, I make no accusations toward the president about his citizenship, but I do accuse him of hiding something. Many lawsuits have been brought on this issue, but instead of just giving up the BC, birther lawyers have been fought every step of the way. All of the lawsuits have one thing in common: They are all dismissed on "lack of standing" or "lack of jurisdiction." This means, the court decided it didn't even have the authority to hear the case, or We the People haven't had the authority to bring the case. Suspiciously, instead of releasing the certificate, the Justice Department has used countless taxpayer dollars to tie the lawsuits up in red tape, as well as delay tactics. The State of Hawaii has only fanned the flames of controversy, by talking about the document (violating privacy rights), and then claiming it can't be released because it violates Obama's privacy. How can you send out a press release on a private document? Does this make sense to anyone? With another twist, now the Hawaii attorney general has decided not to back up anything in those press releases, declining to comment instead.
Now, I'm not in Obama's shoes, but if I and I didn't have anything to hide, or I wanted the people of the United States to stop questioning my eligibility, I'd release the BC and be done with it. Why drag this out in the courts for over a year?
In the end, this is actually a good thing for birthers. It's like when Atheists get fired up about God, screaming that he doesn't exist and trying to ridicule people that believe in Him. If there is no God, then why worry about whether people worship him or not? I look at conservatives attacking birthers as the same thing. Why would you go out of your way to ridicule something you claim is too ridiculous to take seriously in the first place? Why would Glenn Beck be on the hunt for Truthers if they weren't on to something?
I want to be very clear, believing in a theory can be foolish. Just look at global warming and climategate. The only thing more foolish is having faith in a government, which has been caught lying to us more than once.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
For those people out there who think that the birthers are nuts, let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteOnce you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, you can use it to decide if Obama has met his burden of proof by posting his 2007 Certification of Live Birth on the Internet. You might, however, want to consider this fact before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth an "official" birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a scant summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at http://birther.com. Look for the links in red.
Does anyone really know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an "official" scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of the "original" birth certificate." The issue is, do you trust that kind of a summary?
Apparently, all three branches of the government, as well as the media and the Left, do. To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government, or anyone else for that matter, has bothered to look at Obama’s 1961 vital record. They have instead just chosen to accept his posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth, a scant summary of that 1961 vital record, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -"Born in Hawaii." It reminds me of someone who tells another, "Because I say so."
What other evidence is the because-I-say-so kind that they are saying proves Obama’s natural born citizen status? How about that 1961 Hawaii newspaper birth announcement? For those who dare to scrutinize it, the Left claims that the birthers believe that the announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. This is their way of discrediting them. Let’s be honest here. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could attest to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.
So there you have it, Obama’s evidence – a 2007 scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of an unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record, and an old newspaper announcement generated from that same unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record. Has Obama satisfied his burden of proof? You decide.