Friday, December 04, 2009

Obama's Birth Certificate - A Fair Question?

Sarah Palin was on Rusty Humphries show and responded to a question on Obama's birth certificate. Here's the transcript:

Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.

Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?

I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.

I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?

Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.

The Left, of course especially morons like Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan are pouncing on this as proof that Governor Palin is a deranged 'birther'.

What she's actually saying is it's not her issue,but that it's fair game for those who want to question it...and she elaborated on that here.

For those interested in a detailed look at this issue, this article of mine mine might provide food for thought.

One more time - I personally think the people who are working this angle are wasting time and energy, since the Supreme court will absolutely not touch this with a ten foot pole - for fear of civil unrest, if nothing else.

And my personal opinion is that while President Obama may likely have been born in Hawaii,there is obviously something else on his birth certificate that he doesn't want us to see, and he's deovted considerable time,money and energy towards that end.I will leave it to the imagination of my readers as to what that might be.

The voters had and have a right to full disclosure, and I hope Obama resolves this matter by releasing his records, since it's simply the right thing to do. As president, he took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and putting to rest any doubts about this matter obviously falls within his oath of office.


Larry Sheldon said...

One of us non-lawyer types has read the Constitution and about the Constitution a little and have concluded that the reason the Supreme Court has not touched the case is that there is no case to touch.

Congress has certified Obama as elected to the office.

If there was suddenly to appear iron-clad, irrefutable, absolute prof that he was born on Pluto (which sometimes seems to be the case), there is no mechanism for removing him.

There are five ways he can leave office:

1. God forbid, die. Biden as President? For him to die violently is there very worst thing that could happen--and I say that with absolute seriousness and conviction, and here I am NOT talking about the threat that Biden represents

2. God forbid, finish a second term.

3. Please God, finish his current term and not be re-elected.

4. Be impeached and convicted. Like what planet are you from if you think that is going to happen?

5. Resign.

I suppose armed insurrection is technically a possibility, but my question for #4 applies.

Freedom Fighter said...

You're quite correct, Larry.

However, if it was proven that he was not a natural born US citizen at the time of his election, he committed fraud and the SCOTUS would have to rule on whether his improper election could be decertified.

If memory serves me, there have been a few other occasions in US history where an elected public official has been seated and then removed because his election was found to be unlawful or a recount of votes revealed that he was not legally elected.

This hasn't happened in years, but there are precedents.

Of course, as you mention, we're talking utter fantasy here - ain't gonna happen ( look at Clinton, for example). My whole point is that Obama owes it as part of his oath of office to clear this up, and if he hasn't there is a very important reason behind it.

It's not very well known, but in December of 2008 Justice Souter requested to Obama that he just 'show us the birth certificate to clear up any doubts.

Obama agreed to do so, but then never complied.


Anonymous said...

What do you think could be on his birth certificate that he doesn't want anyone to know? That his father was a black african? His mother was white? He was born with a head of curls? You people are completely nuts!

Freedom Fighter said...

It could be many things...and remember, I'm talking about the long form Cert of live birth which is sealed, not the short form with just the basic info.

It could be, for instance, that there is no physician's affidavit on the long form , merely an affidavit from his mother saying he was born at home...which wouldn't prove he was born in Kenya, but wouldn't disprove it either.

Or it could show someone else's name as the father, thus torpedoing all the 'Dreams of my father' narrative.

Or perhaps some of the dates reveal a conflict in the timeline, when Stanley Dunham was known to be elsewhere.

Or it could something else or be nothing at which case, Obama's behavior in expending an enormous amount of effort in hiding this info and many of his other records is quite curious.

In fact, we've never had a presidential candidate, let alone a sitting president who has almost all of his personal records, long form birth certificate, etc. sealed in this fashion.

Why the secrecy?

It's likely he was born in Hawaii, and I've said so. But I also think it's his cONSTITUTIONAL duty based on his oath of office to dispell all these nagging doubts.It's simply the right thing to do, I think.

Don't you?


Swiff said...

Or maybe he won't release it because the Birthers are a political headache for Republicans.


Nah, I'm sure its more likely that 9/11 truthers like Phil Berg are onto something. (OMG! Have you seen Loose Change!?!?!)

In any case, I predict he will release the long-form during his 2nd term.

Anonymous said...

--"Why the secrecy?"

First off, there are degrees of secrecy here -- Obama has been transparent enough to satisfy the vast majority of Americans. But inasmuch as he hasn't disclosed enough to satisfy the birthers, maybe it's to drive them nuts and further marginalize the conservative movement.

--It's his "duty" to dispell "all these nagging doubts."

So the president has to join in parsing the circumstances of his birth with Jesuitical rigor because of the doubts of a small minority of people, many of whom will never be satisfied no matter what he says or shows them? You are creating an impossible standard here. Where does this power come from?

Had the same standard been applied to the election of 2000, for instance, then Bush would have been under what you call a constitutional duty to conduct a full and fair recount in Florida even after he was sworn in. After all, many more people think Bush lost in Florida than think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Freedom Fighter said...

Well Swiff,

I don't know whom Phil Berg is, but I do know that this predient has gone to some extraordinary lengths to hide a lot of his personal information.

Wasn't this supposed to be 'the most transparent administration is history ?'

And given the way things are going, I wouldn't want to give odds on that second term.

Anonymous 12:26 PM,

You make a number of assertions here with zero proof.

a) "Obama has been transparent enough to satisfy the vast majority of Americans." - Anybody ever asked them? And why is that even an argument? Shouldn't a president who took an oath to defend the Constitution be interested in clearing this up beyond a shadow of a doubt,simply because it is the right and proper thing to do?

b)"maybe it's to drive them nuts and further marginalize the conservative movement." Check Rasmussen and Pew, boyo. The clear majority of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, although I do not. Even the generic GOP vs. DEM ballot now shows the GOP with a slight majority. Meaningless stat, I know,but indicative.

c)"So the president has to join in parsing the circumstances of his birth with Jesuitical rigor because of the doubts of a small minority of people.."

Again, you provide no evidence that it's a small minosity, but even if that were true it's a fallacious argument. The president should do this ( which merely amounts to signing a single piece of paper - some 'Jesuitical rigor' - )because it is the right thing to do. Again, wasn't this supposedly the most transparent administration in history?

d) "Had the same standard been applied to the election of 2000, for instance, then Bush would have been under what you call a constitutional duty to conduct a full and fair recount in Florida even after he was sworn in."

Yeah, sure, another recount. And another, and another, and another, until the numbers came out the way you wanted them, right? I want to point out the the SCOTUS agreed 8-1 that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional..the 5-4 decision was about the remedy.

The two situations are not even remotely similar since the SCOTUS had already ruled on this question...thus satisfying Bush's Constitutional responsibilities.

And if we're going to count EVERY vote, I'm sure you would want to include the 5,000 or so overseas military ballots from the state of Florida that were postmarked prior to the election but were voided by the Dems on the technicality that they arrived in Florida after election day?

Oh, and while we're at it, how about we do a recount in Democrat strongholds like Chicago, New Jersey, King's County ( Seattle) Detroit, Newark and Jersey City among others, shall we?

Sorry, no sale.