The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
I've never understood why people even like Bill O'Reilly will dismiss this issue because of a single birth announcement in a newspaper and yet totally disregard a school document in Indonesia. The document in Indonesia that states Obama is a citizen of that country seems to me to be much more credible than an announcement of birth in a newspaper.
Also, why does no one argue the point that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is still not a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the constitution given that it is an undisputed fact that his father was not a US Citizen at the time of Obama's birth?
It was the duty of Howard Dean to confirm Obama's eligibility before he ran for President. And it was Diane Feinstien's duty to do the same when he ran for the Senate. Why has no-one ask them what proof they verified to satisfy their legal duties?
I'm sure she was bashing politicians, I can't imagine anyone bashing the men and women of our military. They offer the ultimate and some have paid that price but what she is saying about our politicians is deffinately not gender biased.
Doreen, I concur. You guys need to quit picking each other apart, unless you're practicing for the libturd rebuttals. Could be. We are all TeaPartiers, united in our desire to return this nation to the Constitution and the way it was meant to be by the founders. We've proved we can do it if we stand together and act as one. We have won only the first battle in the war against the liberals and RINO elements in our government, more to go before we win this war. Then, constant vigilance against this happening again.
Stanley needed clarification of the statement. I understand that. A different approach to that clarification could have been used. Less accusatory would have been good. Stanley committed the same error in wording, forgetting that there are also women in our Armed Forces protecting our right to speak freely.
Just sayin', give some thought to what your fellow TeaPartiers are attempting to say in their posts and cut them some slack. Some of us are not so good with grammar. We still have the same desires for this nation, just sometimes not expressing them so good.
But Romney is a Rino, a neoconservative, anything but a conservative! It's great to stand together on a great issue, but you first must have those who are installed within our government who will instill those principles, Mitt Romney does not intill those principles that you claim to be riding on? Attached to this post is a video that shows near the end Romney complementing Obama for a job well done, he also goes on to lie that he never backed the stimulus, even after he was shown that he did indeed back it, and this is from his own mouth!
Jules with all due respect, these things are not divisive, they are proven facts, the truth, is that not what we demand of the Liberals, or are we now exempt when it no longer can benefit us?
I HAVE seen that....This doesn't make him a flip-flopper -- It makes him an out and out liar.
We don't have to like or trust Romney, just vote for him! LOL! Anything's better than Obama, right?
Actually, though, as I'm in a Red State that will go Republican regardless, I'm thinking of writing in Jesus. Someone else on here posted a link to a site, but I'm not going to sign the petition (they wanted an e-mail address) I'm just going to do it!
Romney is a patriotic American. He is not a person who has proven his loyalties to Islam, and caused the ruination of our economy.
Romney is, at least, the lesser of two evils.
I totally disagree about Romney and the bailout, he said time and time again,he was against the bailout, he said he favored letting them go through bankruptcy, and give them government guaranteed bank loans. He stated that exact thing in the last debate. The thing you do not seem to understand is, what made Romney a lot better man than Obama is , the fact he was, and is a gentleman. He still respected his opponent, even if he didn't agree with him. That's what is wrong with this country today, people express their views, and others climb all over them, because it's different from theirs. Romney would have been a better pick than what stole his way in to office.
Romney is an experienced businessman. He spoke of a "controlled bankruptcy" which can save companies, albeit at the expense of some employee's jobs.
A full bankruptcy can result in a company going out of business, with all the employees thrown out of work.
Which is better?