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.
Why?
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.
Permalink Reply by tom dodd on Permalink Reply by George on COLB=Certification of Live Birth= what Obama says he has. Just a document saying there are docs on file. Trump keeps on calling it a Certificate of lLve Birth. It ain't.
Certificate of Live Birth= the genuine article, with signatiures, hospital, witnesses, corroboratable to hospital records. some even have footprints, like the Kenyan one, which we don't know iis real or not. the Gold Standard. He has not produced one.
Permalink Reply by DocHollywoodMD on
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=287817#ixzz1Jgwd52Yc Reference below:
The controversy over Obama's Social Security number traces back to a WND story May 11, 2010, reporting that two private investigators working independently were questioning why Obama was using a number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.
The records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, when Obama was between 16 and 18 years old and living in Hawaii.
The Social Security website confirms that the first three digits in Obama's Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.
Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by one central office, and the first three digits of a person's Social Security number have been determined by the Zip code of the mailing address on the application.
WND reported on an article written by Shurei Hirozawa in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Sept. 19, 1959, that establishes when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in the islands to begin his studies at the University of Hawaii. The university registrar's office has confirmed that the fall 1959 term for which Obama Sr. was registered began Sept. 21, 1959.
WND also reported on two separate articles published in June 1962, in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in which Obama Sr. stated he was leaving that month to travel to Cambridge, Mass., to begin graduate studies.
Had Barack Obama Sr. attended Yale, he might have lived in New Haven, Conn., some 90 miles south of Boston, but there is no record Obama Sr. ever attended any classes at Yale.
In September 1962, Obama Sr. entered Harvard to pursue a Ph.D. in economics. Before completing the requirements to obtain the degree, however, he returned to Kenya.
The assertion that Obama is using a Social Security number issued to an applicant with a Connecticut address because his father lived in Connecticut can be traced back to a piece Carol Bengle Gilbert posted on the Yahoo blog "Associated Content."
In that piece, Gilbert claimed, without providing any documentation, that Barack Obama Sr. lived in Connecticut after divorcing Obama's mother.
"In fact Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider he might have checked out his father's alma mater?" Gilbert wrote.
The story Obama told in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," was that he saw his father only once after he left Hawaii to study at Harvard, during a return visit to Hawaii in 1971.
Read more: Social Security claim vanishes from O'Reilly podcast http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=287817#ixzz1JhUD7dmb
Permalink Reply by tom dodd on 
Permalink Reply by Roland C. Cartier Jr on Permalink Reply by Roland C. Cartier Jr on Carol I was born in Ct. although I'm older than the President by a few years I kinda wonder how he got a number in Ct. since he should have gotten one when he was born in Hawaii no? My Mother registered me the month after I was born.
Tea party Veteran
Permalink Reply by George on There was no requirements to register infants then. I didn't get mine until I got my first part time job and became a unwitting subject of the Corporate Fascist State.
You now need one to claim a dependent on your taxes.
Next thing you know, they'll be implanting microchips in the new born and it will be time to reject the "Mark of the Beast."
Permalink Reply by Roland C. Cartier Jr on Permalink Reply by tom dodd on 
Permalink Reply by Nancy on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
