Friday, May 18, 2012

We're All Birthers Now

Obama's newly adopted communist campaign slogan, "Forward", may be where the U.S. must still look for our first ever Black president.

By now everyone knows about the many accusations, lawsuits and still unanswered questions regarding the location of Obama's birth. Yesterday, added to the discussion with brief articles revealing, first, that a promotional booklet was published in 1991 that included a short biography for Barack Obama describing him as having been born in Kenya, and second, that Obama's literary agent continued to use that bio until 2007 right after Obama's presidential campaign began. Of course, such origin would disqualify him from being President of the United States.

Some have asked, "what could be done about it, anyway?" While, I'm not aware of any prescribed method for addressing such an event, I believe the mechanism for removing someone who occupied the White House fraudulently would be very much like the manner in which Honduras removed its president Zelaya when it had been determined that he had broken the law. Honduras's congress ordered the military to arrest Zelaya. His arrest is often falsely referred to as a military coup. In fact, the government of Honduras remains civilian under the same constitution as prior to Zelaya's arrest.

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. Senate ever would order the military to have Obama arrested. Even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama's qualifications did not meet the constitutional demands and that he knew it all along and lied about it, I do not imagine for a moment that there are any, let alone enough, politicians with the necessary integrity to take action so potentially dangerous to their own political careers.

Those who insist that Barack Obama was born outside the United States have been disparagingly referred to as "Birthers." It has always been impossible for anyone without first-, or perhaps, second-hand knowledge of Obama's birth to be certain of the details. That fact alone is intolerable because, if nothing else, it proves that Obama has failed to meet the requirements of the constitution by refusing to prove the place of his birth. Even to this day, Obama has only offered a short form birth certificate and also a .pdf that he claims is an electronic copy of his birth certificate. Therefore, the constitution remains unsatisfied. The actual document in question must be produced for Obama's presidency to be authenticated. Anything less is insufficient. These facts are not specific to a particular nominee or president. They also demonstrate that anyone insisting that Obama was born in the U.S. is being irrational, emotionally impulsive, or perhaps even mentally unstable.

I have not considered myself a "birther" because I didn't have enough evidence to conclude that Obama was not born in the U.S. But I never found any interest in disparaging those who were being referred to as "birthers" because I didn't have enough evidence to conclude that he was born in the U.S. Over time, as more previously available, but not widely known, information has been revealed, it has become clear that many ostensible conservatives, who otherwise oppose Obama's agenda, have independently, but no less intentionally, assisted Obama's obfuscation of the available evidence, apparently out of their fear of being labelled "birthers" themselves. In fact,'s first article consists of almost 50% disclaimer claiming that they are not "birthers", but are merely reporting on the media's failure, or refusal, to vet Barack Obama. This is supremely hypocritical! The new information is only relevant to the question of Obama's birth. The disclaimer, essentially, rejects "birtherism" and criticizes the media for not being "birthers".

At this point, it is not only impossible to deny that Barack Obama has failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to prove his citizenship and the location of his birth, but it is also impossible to ignore the abundant evidence of a wide variety of types from a multiplicity of sources that bring Obama's birth under heavy suspicion, not the least of which is the vast amount of money spent in the form of legal fees in order to prevent court orders for the release of his records.

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily has been a leading proponent of the idea that Obama was foreign-born. A mountain of articles are available there. I recommend that you give the argument a fair hearing and decide for yourself. You might also like to keep an eye on for a while because there are frequent updates to the story. For example, there is a another article casting doubt, by implication, that it was a "fact-checking error" that resulted in Obama's bio indicating he had been "born in Kenya". The article proves Obama's bio was updated in 1998 and again in 2005, but without any change to "born in Kenya".

No comments: