Call Me A Pro-Birther in a Tin Foil Hat!
By omb on Mar 5, 2009 in Constitution, Obeyme
Oh no, OMB, you’re not going to write a tedious, morality-laden article on the American Holocaust are you? What is it, some 50 million American lives destroyed in the womb since 1973? What’s the big deal? Well, yes, I am – but not today.
No need to examine your own place in the culture of convenience at my prompting today, other than with respect to this one very troubling issue. We have a Constitution, which is a statement of our fundamental laws – it defines that of which we, as a people, are comprised in terms of our shared values and beliefs with respect to how we consent to be governed, and it is not being enforced.
The Constitution of the United States is written in very plain English. It was written in a manner by which it could be read and understood by all literate people, of which, I would argue, a higher percentage existed amongst the population at the time of its’ writing than there are now. In comparison, if The Framers had ‘written’ the Constitution in this day and age, it would have been presented to the people as a hip-hop video or a Super-Bowl ad. My point is that it was written for the people, not the lawyers. The document is many orders of magnitude more clear than any legislation or bureaucratic rules that come out of Washington D.C. these days.
Visions of Supreme Court Justices cloistered black robes in a hallucinogenic incense-filled chamber, struggling mightily to derive the true meaning of each participle as placed in our founding document, like Tibetan shaman sharing ancient and secret knowledge, is what comes to mind for many when issues of constitutionality are discussed – and that’s complete bullshit. ‘Original intent’ is found in exactly what the document states.
Now, at this point it would be easy for me to digress into a discussion of the Bill of Rights amendments, and how they are under attack, but we’ll do that on a case-by-case basis in later posts-as events set me off (which happened today).
What I want to discuss today is not an amendment to the Constitution, which were added later, but an original defining article of the document, and why this has become a third rail issue. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 define the eligibility requirements for the office of the Presidency. Now, let me flatly state, that I’m not saying whether our Beloved and Dearest Leader is Constitutionally eligible or not, I do believe that where there is smoke, there is likely fire, but what I really want to know is why is there so much resistance to the asking of this question from both the left and the right?
Here is what Article 2 says –
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The requirements are pretty simple; natural born citizen of the U.S., 35 years old, 14 years a resident within the United States. The problem for President Wonderful is with the first requirement. For those of you not familiar with questions surrounding this, I’ll list some of them later in this post and provide a link or two. But what I really want to address is the smearing and labeling of anyone who raises this issue.
Let me explain something about today’s political landscape; when your political position attains ‘disparaging label’ status in the media, you’re probably on to a truth which requires immediate silencing and discrediting. A few examples, global warming denier, anti-abortion, right-wing extremist, religious zealot, racist… there are dozens of them, all meant to silence, through stigmatization, dissent on a particular issue. Although both liberal and conservatives alike apply labels, this is normally the home playing field of the political left, and a complicit fifth column media, by a wide margin.
The puzzling thing to me is that this tactic, with respect to the natural born citizenship issue, is being employed by both so-called conservatives and liberals. I can see this happening on issues such as taxes, i.e. ‘tax and spend liberal’ or ‘discredited supply-sider’, but on a basic constitutional issue such as eligibility to office, I am shocked by the attempt of what most would consider conservative-friendly media outlets such as Fox News, conservative talk radio, and some of the larger conservative political blogs, such as Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air, to silence, through the application of disparaging labels and outright refusal to discuss the subject, those Americans who demand that the Constitution be followed with respect to the Presidents’ eligibility to the office.
The Founders included a protection in the Chief Executive role for the American people from any potential outside influence or conflicting loyalty in the Constitution. They thought it important that the one office in the land, elected by all states’ electors, be indisputably American in origin, to prevent any imperial or outside influence, and the potential establishment of a monarchy, i.e. the tyranny of which they had fought to free themselves.
By the definition of Conservatism, we conserve that which was preserved for us, by our fore fathers. If ever there was a candidate to the nations highest office that should have been stringently vetted for Article 2 compliance, it’s Obama.
I can understand the labels from the left, ‘sore losers’, ‘desperate’- whatever, I expect that. Their guy won and they don’t want that challenged. But when so-called conservatives like well sponsored blogger Michelle Malkin takes to labeling those who want to challenge Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution as ‘Tin Foil Hatters’ and ‘the Birthers’, I can draw a couple of conclusions. First of all, they are not Conservatives, secondly, they are being paid a great deal of money, or being threatened, to avoid this topic.
Further, I’ll add radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck to this list. On a Friday show, prior to the election I believe, Hannity had World Net Daily reporter Jerome Corsi on his show, and I listened to the discussion.
Mr. Corsi, author of ‘Obamanation’ was enroute from Kenya back to the U.S.. He detailed his experience in Kenya, how he was held by the police for hours and was kicked out of the country for asking too many questions about Obama and his relationship to Odinga. Now I’m not going to get into this, but it was very telling to me that Hannity promised to have Corsi on his television show the following Monday.
Monday came and I tuned in. There was no mention of Corsi, his Kenya experience, or of any plans for him to be on the show. In fact, I don’t believe Corsi has been invited back to the show since that time, after having been a guest several times prior to this.
In my opinion, Hannity was told to shut up about this. I don’t know by whom. But there is an effort within the media to silence any questioning of Obama’s eligibility to office, both during and after the campaign.
Well, I’m not shutting up about it. And I defy any of you so-called Conservative’s to try and apply your cowardly labels to me. I won’t be having any of it. The Constitution is clear on this matter, I have a right to ask these questions and if you don’t like it, tough shit.
How spineless and despicable I find the sycophants of Malkin’s and the rest that they are so afraid of having labels applied to them, that they won’t stand up and defend the rights of Americans to demand that the Constitution be followed! You are more cowardly than those on the left by a long shot. You are attracted to the strength of conservative principles, but when push comes to shove, you’re afraid of being called a name- you have no core principles, you are just pretenders. You run for cover at the first sign of a fight.
Are you aware that there are currently Military Officers and Enlisted Men in the field that are refusing to follow orders until Obama’s eligibility is confirmed. That, my friends, takes guts. Several retired Generals have also joined the effort.
Now, on to what set me off today. A letter from Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fl) to a constituent who questioned Obama’s eligibility is circulating through blogs where he says something to the effect that, “President Obama was vetted by the voters in the primary process and the general election, by winning”. This is a pile of crap. For a U.S. Senator to say something like this exemplifies the general ignorance of the Constitution that is so pervasive through both houses of Congress.
It’s not up to the voters to say we like this guy, so it’s ok. It is forbidden by the Constitution for someone to serve who does not meet the three qualifications of the office! The only way it can be up to the voters is through the amendment process. That is the only way the voters can change the rules if they don’t like them. The law must be enforced, and the constitution upheld.
Now, yes, I suspect that Mr. Transparency has reasons for not releasing his official long form birth certificate, not releasing his college applications to Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard, not releasing his passports so that we can see how it was he was able to gain entry to Pakistan in 1981 when Americans were not allowed to to travel there, and not releasing his medical records which, by the way, he expects all of you to release so that they can be put on-line. Maybe his reasons pertain to his eligibility to the office, and maybe they don’t. But all of that aside, I’m just disgusted with attempts of both sides to silence those who want their Constitutional rights and protections upheld.
Rather than list all of the issues with Obama’s eligibility, I’ll just include a link to World Net Daily and you can look through and make up your own mind. I think the truth is going to come out, and it’s going to be bad. I’m writing my Congressional delegation on this subject and will relay any correspondence back to the Bunker Faithful. I would encourage you to do the same.
-OMB
You are not alone on this subject. It will come out one day, but it may be too late.
Just why are prominent conservatives so scared to talk about it?
I’m sure Arnold is jumping up and down on the sidelines giving high 5′s.
Nibbler | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
Nibbler,
The whole situation disgusts me. The problem is that if it is uncovered later that he is not eligible, it invalidates all edicts and legislation that he’s signed into law. The disruption that this would cause would tear the country apart if it is discovered that he is not natural born.
-omb
omb | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
If there is nothing to hide let’s just see some documentation. This seems so simple. Why are all of those lawsuits being dismissed? Why not show us the proof and be done with it?
Hold on to your tinfoil hats! It may be a bumpy ride…
EAP | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
EAP,
The Obama team has spent a great deal of money countering these lawsuits – seems like it would be cheaper to produce a $10 birth certificate, and a few bucks for transcripts. He’s got something to hide – I wholeheartedly believe that. I don’t necessarily buy the fact that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, but I’m betting his actual Birth Certificate says something about his citizenship as being U.K., which would have been that of his father’s. Again, I don’t, know, but I’m pissed about people being shouted down when they say they want some answers.
-OMB
omb | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
No kidding, since when is it not ok to ask a question?
EAP | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org
sus | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
One of the ‘Birther’ Myth Busters dropped in and left a web site for your review. I haven’t reviewed all of it, but mainly this looks like a Birther branding site. From what I’ve seen, they have no more factual data on Obama’s origins than do the folks on the ‘Birther’ side, yet there is a we’re right you’re wrong element that would lead you to believe that they do. In addition, the tone of the site is such as to categorize all people who question Obama’s origins and legitimacy to the office as conspiracy theorists.
Now remember, I have stated flatly, that I don’t know whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii (in fact, I think he probably was) – and neither does obamaconspiracy.org, they just take the point of view that he was and argue from there, but there is no proof presented. Which, by the way, is fine with me. In addition, I’m not implying by my original post that there is a conspiracy, I’m merely stating the fact that President Transparency is being awfully secretive about his past, and I believe that where there is smoke, there is fire. Most importantly, I’m defending the right of all Americans to demand that their Constitutional protections be enforced.
The only conspiracy of which I’m aware is the one to silence those who would question President Wonderful’s right to hold that office on a Constitutional basis. Like I said in my post, when the stigmatizing labels start getting applied, you can be pretty sure that you are getting close to truth of which you are not to speak.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Try http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
I realize that this watchdog site was set up by the Annenberg Foundation, founded by Walter Annenberg, dear friend of Ronald Reagan. The same Annenberg Foundation that that funded the Annenberg Challenge, which was the educational reform org. that Obama and Ayers sat on the board of. Ooooo!
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Again, I don’t care who they are funded by, or in this case, what their charter is. I don’t care if they have in their possession, a gold plated copy of an Obama birth certificate, which they do not. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the vetting of Presidential candidates will be conducted by factcheck.org and that all will abide by their findings. You can buy what they say as the final word if you like, my point is that both sides of this argument have resorted to the application of labels to discredit those who are demanding a public vetting of the President, which is their right, and I find that troubling.
I believe that there is more to this than the actual birth certificate vs. the certificate of live birth, blah blah blah, but no one knows for sure- not me, not factcheck.org. And I think President Obeyme is being very secretive about his past. I think it is incumbent upon him to open the books and records and prove his eligibility to all Americans who are questioning it. I honestly hope that when it is all said and done that the Constitution was followed, however, I suspect that that has not been the case. But Obama should be the one to clear this up, not factcheck.org or obamaconspiracy.org, and the people who are questioning his origins have a right to do so without being labeled by either side as conspiracy theorists or extremists, which I will defend to the hilt.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Where was the outrage when Bush refused to come forth with his Guard papers? Or for that matter when the SCOTUS stopped the vote in 2000 and in effect made law for one person? Unconstitutional.
Maybe Jerome Corsi was not invited back because even Hannity found some scruples and decided the guy was just not credible.
It’s too bad labels must be tossed around, you are right.
Signed,
Your Comrade,
Eco-fascist Liberal Progressive Pro-Marxist Socialist, Tree-Hugging Fluffy.
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Comrade Fluffy,
Are you talking about Bush’s guard records that were, in fact, released, or the proven fake documents that Dan Rather aired on CBS? The selected not elected myth has been factually discredited, there were no laws created for one person, it’s a bunch of crap. I read a book by an expert on the subject and he explained the entire process from start to finish and the laws involved. I’m just not going to waste my breath with you on it because I already know that it won’t make a difference. I don’t want to do anything to disturb in your mind the vision of the oppressive bourgeoisie class, keeping the proletariat down.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
The documents were challenged, but never the content. A case of “pay attention to the shiny thing over here”. Yes they were released…my mistake. He just didn’t show up.
Since when is the President appointed?
I think you are just tired of Googling and typing.
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
I would have had to transcribe from the book and my back is killing me and since the source is a renowned conservative, I really didn’t think it worth my effort since I’m not going to get through to you on this. The book is ‘Men In Black’, by Mark Levin. He’s biased, conservative, and he’s a Constitutional, Justice Department, and Supreme Court expert. I’ve read a couple of other articles on the subject that confirm what he says, to my satisfaction anyway. I honestly don’t think that there is anything that I could present to you that would change your mind so why bother. You need to let Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton go, as hard as that may be for you;)
-OMB
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Barak Obama has been elected President. You surely can’t believe that after two years of campaigning, on top of all of his other public life, that no one would have called him out for being an alien? That doesn’t even make sense. I’m letting this whole thread drop, and you should as well, before you start picking up transmissions from Uranus.
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Yes, he was elected- which says nothing of his legitimacy to hold the office. Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely- I’m not saying he’s not legitimate, I’m attacking those who try to silence through stigmatization, the people that believe there are problems with his Constitiutional eligibility and want direct answers to the questions. You, with your ‘Uranus’ comment, are attempting to do the same thing to me. See, I won’t run in fear of being called a name – I could give a shit.
And no, I do not believe this question was given sufficient coverage by the media during the campaign. I think that all contenders were fearful of being labeled ‘racists’ for having asked about it. And yes, I do believe there are legitimate questions that should be answered.
Eventually, the truth will come out, and like I said, I don’t know what it will be. I honestly hope that does meet the requirements for the office because I don’t want to see the country ripped apart by a constitutional crisis, but right now, the only one who knows that is Barak Hussein Obama. One thing I’m pretty sure of however is that it will be someone on the left who digs up the actual facts. Just wait until the approval polls drop into the 20′s, that’s when the pulitzer prizes will start looking very attractive.
-OMB
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
The part of the article from the Constitution, “a natural born Citizen” is what I’m curious about. Really what does that mean?
Back when the republic was established, I know that the founders didn’t want Englishmen to be able to move to the States, become president, and restore sovereignty to England.
When I hear it, I’ve always associated being a natural born citizen, as someone who is a great patriot of their country.
Intuitively, I don’t associate it with necessarily being born on US soil. Natural born just inspires this idea (in me) of someone who loves their country and would risk their life for it. Like the Foundering Fathers did. I just see a natural born citizen as someone who was always an American at heart, regardless of place of birth.
That’s the part of the article that I feel fuzzy on. What do y’all think?
Kaelieh | Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
It disgusts me that if you dare have a thought of your own, but it questions authority, you are automatically a crazy person. A little off topic but this was the same defense that Kobe Bryant used to discredit the woman he raped in Colorado. Destroy their character, label them crazy, stupid, promiscuous, trailer trash, an emigrant and their argument somehow carries less weight.
This is the same thing but a much larger scale, it is completely warranted request. Why not provide the document? Whether or not you believe he is eligible to be president or not you should be asking yourself, “Why not provide the document?”.
There is no reason why “they” shouldn’t.
Turd Furgeson | Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
Kaelieh,
My thoughts are that if the qualification was that in order to be President, one must be a great patriot, then the Framers would have stated that explicitly. Some immigrants to this country are the greatest of patriots, in my estimation, however, they are unqualified for the office of President. The founders were concerned about the potential of competing loyalties – especially those of British descent, at the time.
Thanks for commenting!
-OMB
omb | Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
Kaelieh,
I think you are on target, but I would ask you the question, could someone feign being a great patriot to achieve this office?
Whether or not Obama is a great patriot is not the question. Like OMB said, there are great patriots of this country, but would their ties to their pasts make them more lax on trading policies with their former nationality? Bottom line is that there is no way to tell the ramifications of having, for instance, an Austrian born president (you no doubt see what I’m hinting at).
There are other high offices of great respect that someone could hold, such as Henry Kissinger who was secretary of state who was born in Germany.
I think we should respect the constitution for what it is, and not shove it to the side if it doesn’t suit your needs.
Turd Furgeson | Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
Um, I don’t know if I would trust a document that conveniently shows up now.
With all of the forgery that people can do, how hard would it be to pay someone to “produce” such documentation?
No way! An honest man has nothing to hide, and the “great one” really seems to be dodging this.
Truly, I believe that every other president has been required to produce all of the required documentation, and there should be no acceptions. Let’s pretend for one fabulous moment that we got rid of Obama, I can’t face having Joe Biden for our President. The thought makes me ill.
cocktail weenie | Mar 12, 2009 | Reply
Cocktail weenie,
Repercussions aside, the Constitution must be followed. During the campaign, questions arose concerning McCain’s own eligibility due to the fact that he was born in Panama, on a military installation. He produced documentation of his status which was reviewed by the Senate and a resolution, albeit non-binding, was passed recognizing him as natural born. Mainly a symbolic gesture, I do find it interesting that nothing of this type was produced with respect to Obama’s status. McCain’s parents were both born in America and happened to be serving abroad when he was born a military installation, i.e. on U.S. territory. Obama’s father was a British subject of Kenyan birth. Without going any further down the rabbit hole than that, you would think that the Senate might have sensed some obligation in passing a non-binding resolution with respect to Obama’s eligibility. They did not.
Why is that? Because Obama has never produced a Birth Certificate, only the Certificate of Live Birth which were granted to people born outside of the State at the time? Another obvious question is why does a COLB exist if there is a valid Birth Certificate? They were issued upon request, and not produced with every valid Birth Certificate.
In any case, I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. I there is anything to this, the truth will come out when the approval ratings hit Jimmy Carter levels and the press is ready to toss Barry-HO under the bus. Someone will get their Pulitzer!
omb | Mar 12, 2009 | Reply
Sure, and the hardbacks will hit the shelves on the January 21, 2017.
With Obama being a media darling, I can’t see it being published before that.
cocktail weenie | Mar 12, 2009 | Reply
Coctail weenie,
I don’t know, if it becomes evident that he’s not going to make it to a second term, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the media folks chuck him under the bus in a race to salvage some notoriety.
-OMB
omb | Mar 13, 2009 | Reply