Skip to comments.Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'
Posted on 06/19/2010 2:38:51 AM PDT by rambo316
Obama not born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
AKA The Uncola - “Never had it, never will” was their motto for years.
Comedy works when it is based an element of truth that the audience recognizes.
The element of truth for both "birthers" and anti-birthers is the fact that Obama can't yet prove his HI birth with a 1961 document.
It is a very good sign for Constitutional eligibility activists that the big-name comedians are hitting Obama with the widespread public belief that he has failed to release his HI vital records, even when supposedly "mocking" conservatives.
Thanks, El Gato!!
Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'
[Thanks for the pings, y'all.]
~ Note: I'll be gone the remainder of the day.
There are now more and more coming out of the closet and having the courage to admit that they have seen no evidence that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the Oval Office.
Tennessee's State Senator only wishes we don't. That's the same as stating we don't need the Constitution anymore.
See my tagline from what was said in the Kenyan Parliament.
I tend to agree with you on that, firebrand. If he was serious about challenging O's constitutional qualifications for POTUS, he should have brought up the subject in public a long time ago, rather than waiting until he's in serious trouble in his primary race for re-election.
I prefer WND's perspective on these news stories to the perspective of anyone else that you would care to name.
“I prefer WND’s perspective on these news stories to the perspective of anyone else that you would care to name.”
Seems to be a concerted effort to discredit Joseph Farah and the World Net Daily contributors by Obamatons.
This is pretty much a non-story, although I don’t see why WND should be faulted for printing it. The congressman, when asked how he would prove he was conservative, knew very well what the belief is of most conservative voters—that Obama was not born in Hawaii. So, it is minor news of a sort, that this is an instantly recognizable joke.
All of our Senators understood that in 2008 when they signed the second of two accords, the first a bill, the second a resolution, sponsored by Pat Leahy and Clair McCaskill asserting McCain's eligibility because both of his parents were citizens. Even the recent declarer, Tim Martin, that Obama does not have a Hawaiian long form, doesn't understand, or doesn't state, what our Library of Congress explained in annotations to the Constitution, that it is accepted, based upon English Common law that a natural born citizen, like a natural born subject, must have two citizen parents.
Our more literate framers provided lots of documentation reinforcing this understanding. We have had many in government try to change it, but never enough, in twenty five attempts to amend the Constitution. McCaskill tried again in 2008, February; Orrin Hatch tried in 2003.
I suspect WND is more interested in advertising hits than in helping their readers understand the truth - sad to say.
Even Jerome Corsi has focused solely upon birth certificates, when he could have used his historical training to discover what many here at FR have, the writing of historian Dr. David Ramsay, who eloquently defined natural born citizen in his 1789 essay on citizenship (Ramsay was on the ratification convention from South Carolina, and wrote The History of America Before the Revolution.
This is most devious behavior, ignoring our Constitution while focusing on titillating and tabloid conjecture about almost certainly never to be seen documents, when there are hundreds of references in our history which WND could have helped enormously to exlain to a public who never heard that there was a difference between Native born U.S. citizen (the term Obama uses to describe his own status) and natural born U.S. citizen (the Constitutional requirement for our presidents and vice presidents, and only those two offices). WND employs some bright people. They know the truth. Why do they avoid it? The Supreme Court must affirm what is already our common law, because no one has tested this definition in a case. But if our citizens don't understand why the framers upgraded Madison's initial set of presidential qualifications, at the urging of John Jay and Washington, what incentive is there for the Supreme Court to create the political uproar certain to come when Obama is removed for his obvious ineligibility. It isn't obvious to the ignorant. The ignorant aren't at all stupid; they have not had a reason to learn this corner of our Constitutional protections against foreign intrigue, as eloquently explained the the first four Federalist Papers.
My problem with WND is that it didn’t bother to verify its source - it basically printed baseless allegations as fact while vigorously asserting that the source was reliable. If I want that kind of reliability, I can always turn to the MSN.
I recall at least three different Kenyan parliamentarians stating in the minutes of the Parliament that Obama was born in Kenya. But I don't recall any of them evincing any knowledge of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the US constitution, so as to question the legality of his being POTUS. Rather, they merely congratulated and praised Obama.
It doesn't take as much courage as it did previously, now that O's popularity ratings have tanked. Much tougher to lead on an issue when it is unpopular than to join the bandwagon later.
There is a lot more proof that he was not born in HI than that he was. IOW there is zero proof he was born in HI.
He’s not an NBC anyway but his foreign birth, if proved in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, will be needed to bring about his downfall. And may that day come soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.