| Birthers |
AOL News brought "Birthers" to the mainstream publishing a small
piece referencing Ben Smith's
Politico.com
report, "Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers" -- those who question Obama's
eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief because of his birth and/or
citizenship status.
Smith describes these people as those who believe in "obscure,
discredited theories" and "operate and thrive on the
fringe," and he liberally
sprinkles his opinion-piece with pejoratives -- fringe; conspiracy theorists ; believers in UFOs and
witches; wacko views; crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative,
irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters; the worst enemy of the
conservative movement; crazy, demented, sick, troubled, and not suitable for
civilized company.
Smith's goal is to marginalize "Birthers," and builds his
case on three assumptions:
1. The challenges to Obama's eligibility have no grounding
in evidence.
2. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the
movement's theory -- that Obama can't be a citizen because his father wasn't --
as a misreading of U.S. law.
3. Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth
announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.
Lets' take a look at those statements:
"The challenges to Obama's eligibility have no grounding in
evidence."
False. That's a pretty broad brush -- by not qualifying
"challenges," Smith clearly implies that all of the challenges to Obama's
eligibility have no grounding in evidence, which is patently absurd.
The clearest evidence for a challenge comes from Obama himself,
and it's the Hawaii
Certification of Live Birth (COLB) released by the Obama campaign.
Sandra Ramsey Lines began her training as a forensic document examiner in 1991.
She is a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American
Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern
Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned
Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials.
In a sworn affidavit, Ms. Lines wrote, "After my review and based on my years of
experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet
by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign,
"Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine."
This is the document Obama's lawyers have pointed at as their
evidence. They keep referring to it as Obama's "birth
certificate." They know that a misrepresentation.
Obama's own campaign website
states:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British
colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan
native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was
governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed
the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of
allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on
Aug. 4,1982.'
Hello????? Obama admits he was a subject of Great Britain and a Citizen of
Kenya for 21 years. Does the term, "divided loyalties" ring a bell?
Judah Benjamin,
an historian and former journalist, has written a two-part series
challenging the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be
President --
Part One --
Part Two.
And, there's more EVIDENCE -- that's enough for
starters.
"Courts across the country have summarily rejected the
movement's theory -- that Obama can't be a citizen because his father wasn't --
as a misreading of U.S. law."
False. I guess Smith missed
these two US Supreme Court cases -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg, -- both
address "natural born citizen"
-- and Obama fails both tests.
In
U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the
court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray
quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by
Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution
were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
in a country, of parents [plural]
who were its citizens [plural], became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or
natural-born citizens, as distinguished
from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the
citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but
never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary
to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to
consider, that all children, born of citizen
parents [plural] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v.
Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it
actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a
"citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the United States.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural
born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S.
citizen parents [plural] AND
born in the mainland of U.S.
Even Wikipedia
gets it right:
"It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on
American soil to parents [plural] who are U.S.
citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or
vice-president..."
Two American parents and on American soil -- simple as
that.
"Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth
announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961."
False. Hawaiian officials affirmed no such thing.
Here is the
statement of Linda Lingle, Hawaii's governor and Chiyome Leinaala Fukino,
M.D., Director of the Hawaii Department of Health
Director Fukino never affirmed "that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in
1961." What she affirmed was, " I have personally seen and verified that
the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
Fukino only says she saw the document -- she never,
ever said what was on it. This statement is false, Smith. Take it
back.
Smith moves on, writing, "the suits share a vague,
underlying notion that Obama must be some sort of foreigner, probably Kenyan,
Indonesian or British, though none have any evidence or a coherent narrative to
support the claim."
True:
Mr. Smith
click
this link
-- there's your evidence -- it's still on Obama' campaign website.
"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British
subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality
Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s
children."
"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor
sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship
automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.'
Don't know where he pulled this one from --
Chester Arthur was ineligible to
serve as POTUS.
True. Chester Arthur was ineligible to serve. Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a
fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about
his parents’ heritage. Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States
citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before.
T herefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth,
if not his whole life.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact
from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the
election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester
Arthur supporter that same year.
Historical
facts here.
What Smith is
really saying in his piece is that a large segment of the American
people don't have a right to know if Obama is constitutionally eligible
for the job? We should just take his word for it.
Do the words "Chicago" and
"politician" come to mind?
In his article, Smith writes that the
White House is, presently, ignoring the birth certificate questions,
having released an official copy of the Hawaii certificate during the
presidential campaign. The press aide once tasked with quashing viral
rumors, Ben LaBolt, no longer follows the fringe. But lawyers for the
Democratic National Committee and for Obama have been steadily batting
down a stream of lawsuits, winning motions to dismiss the suits in
courts from Pennsylvania to Hawaii, from the state level to the United
States Supreme Court.
Does Smith forget "stonewalling?"
"the White House is, presently,
ignoring the birth certificate questions,"
--
that's stonewalling -- right there!
"...having released an official copy
of the Hawaii certificate during the presidential campaign.
--
"the official copy" -- that's the
one discredited by Ms. Lines and Dr. Polarik.
"...lawyers for the Democratic
National Committee and for Obama have been steadily batting down a
stream of lawsuits, winning motions to dismiss the suits in courts from
Pennsylvania to Hawaii, from the state level to the United States
Supreme Court
--
48 lawsuits -- maybe more -- and certainly more to come -- and they're
being dismissed for standing -- not for lack of evidence -- it's a
procedural thing -- none of the cases have been given a fair hearing.
Smith manages to twist a legitimate, rational question into a
pejorative, "[Obama] is spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
of dollars to keep this information from getting out,"
--
but Smith, why IS --"[Obama] is spending hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars to keep this information from
getting out," -- NOT a legitimate question -- when he could
release his vault-copy birth certificate for $12.
Obama's California lawyer, Fredric
Woocher, who was named "Southern California Super Lawyer of 2009" and
who gets $600 per hour (claims he's on the case pro bono) is working
Keyes vs. California and to prevent the release
the president's records from Occidental College. Is the whole law
firm working pro bono? Michael J. Strumwasser and Aimee Dudovitz
represented Obama at the hearing.
-- Woocher has used the bullying tactic of threatening sanctions against the
plaintiff's lawyer for pursuing the case.
I guess I'm a "Birther" -- I don't
care about Smith's smear -- it is Smith who is attempting to defend the
indefensible, and he's doing it by by labeling reasonable people, who
hold views different than his, irrelevant. He's not doing it by
presenting a cogent argument.
Smith accepts Obama's nation-wide army of lawyers as somehow normal and
usual -- without question -- teams of lawyers -- in a dozen states --
and the Democratic National Committee has a bunch -- an Occidental
College has theirs.
It doesn't occur to Smith to ask, "why, why is that" -- "why is Obama
fighting the release of his bona fides so ferociously?"
If there's no there there,
then why won't Obama release his bona fides and send the lawyers home--
his refusal diminishes Smith's argument and reinforces mine.
What are you hiding, Obama?"
It's a legitimate question -- it deserves a full and complete answer.
|
