Really.?!
We're in a Depression with record Unemployment as we're trying to be the last industrialized country to get Universal Health Care, but apparently people are more concerned with Obama's US Birth Certificate. This is after 2 separate declarations by the state of Hawaii that he is a US-national, settling the matter. So what do the time-wasting fucks
( Read more... )
A 'certificate of live birth' is "not the same as a birth certificate and a birth announcement is not accepted as proof for the purpose of securing government issued ID."
Hawaii again declares Obama's birth certificate real
Gibbs: birth certificate controversy is madeup fictional nonsense
Soldier sues Obama: where's the birth certificate?
Soldier questions eligibility; doubts president's authority
Has a smoking gun been found?
Obama's birth certificate challenger keeps going
Obama's birth certificate: is Alan Keyes a sore loser?
Here's an incisive refutation:
The hoaxers have claimed that this certificate is a fake, but have yet to produce any evidence to back that claim up. Their approach, straight out of the Napoleonic code, is to make continual accusations and demand that the accused prove their innocence. They hope that simply by repeating a claim often enough, useful idiots will come to believe it. But here in the United States, we follow the principle that the ACCUSER must prove the accused guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. What that means is that when the Swift-Boaters accuse Barack Obama of fraud, it is they who are required to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, we as citizens are obligated to ignore such baseless accusations, and certainly refuse to forward them along to everyone in our mailing lists (as these spammed emails always insist we must do).
There is more evidence that backs up the Birth Certificate. Hawaii has two major newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin. BOTH newspapers include birth announcements, and pages found in the archives of BOTH newspapers record the August 4th, 1961 birth of Barack Obama.
And here's another angle:
As in similar cases filed in other courts, this one too will be rejected on the grounds that the plaintiff has no standing. Who would have standing? Well, it's too late now, perhaps, but the Secretaries of State of the 50 states in which Obama was on the ballot. You see, although the electoral college is a under the federal constitution, the actual organization of presidential elections is a legal responsibility of the states (that is only restricted by the age and birth status set out in the constitution and the restrictions imposed by things like the 1965 Voting Rights Act). Every one of the 50 secretaries of state (even those in the "red" states), accepted the papers filed on behalf of Obama and certified his slate of electors. Even if Obama was born OUTSIDE the U.S. (and there is NO evidence that), he would still be considered to be a "natural born" citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If this case ever came before the Supreme Court, they would probably refuse to hear it because of the chaos that would ensue if they actually ruled Obama to be ineligible to govern or because no conservative court is going to give the presidency to Joe Biden. If they did rule, they would probably invoke the action taken by the First U.S. Congress (under the current Constituion), on March 26, 1790, which approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." NO ONE has ever questioned the citizenship by birth on U.S. soil of his mother. Case closed.
I think, after delving further in, I see the angle, but would prioritize more substantive contentions.
Reply
Leave a comment