The anti (so-called) birthers may be correct that in the end nobody, including the SCOTUS will do anything to remove Obama, even if they are made to be convinced of his illegitimacy.
Still, if there are any doubts that this man (and his handlers, by the way) have been honest and forthcoming in all of this — about the place of his birth — this should be dutifully pursued.
Not only for the sake of trying to remove this imposter (I believe that he is some kind of imposter and deceiver regardless of his actual place of birth), but for the absolute legitimacy of all future presidential elections.
If the USA is no longer a nation of laws (no more rule of law), if the Constitution is now toilet paper, then somebody needs to be honest and say so.
Non-citizens seem to be encouraged to illegally enter the United States across our southern border by all promises of future amnesty, and the high probability of just simply getting away with it.
The State of Georgia is told by the Feds that they can’t require voters to prove they are citizens.
If citizenship means nothing anymore, I want the rascals in Washington to open their traps and say it honestly -— this so that we who still believe in nationhood and borders can make the decisions we need to make as to how to properly defend our nation, and defend our families.
What does it really mean to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC” ??? What does it mean?
And what does it really mean if the people taking that oath encourage, in effect, illegals to sneak into our country illegally by a continous promise of amnesty.
Doesn’t Obama sealing his records and providing no real proof as to the wherabouts of his own birth have something to do with all of that? I deeply believe that it does. Does he not intend to destroy borders and anything remaining of national sovereignty? I believe he does, because every piece of proposed legislation this man has offered or supported thus far is right out of the politics of the Communist Internationalle. He is not to be trusted by the authority of his own word as to where he was born; it must be absolutely verified.
If a president or a candidate for the office (or for any office, for that matter) is allowed to seal his background records up, then we can never trust any candidate for the presidency in the future who does the same.
If the effort to prove the whereabouts of Obama’s birth accomplishes anything, it might accomplish greater vigilance on the part of the Secretaries of State of the several states, and the state electoral commissions in future election cycles.
In such an important matter, the state of Hawaii should not have the right to seal the birth records. Let them do that for their own governor, if the people of Hawaii will tolerate it, but they should not be able to do this for a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I do not understand why the SCOTUS should not declare that Hawaii is under obligation to make Obama’s birth records public. The secretaries of state of the several states should sue before the SCOTUS that Hawaii does not have this right when it comes to any candidate for federal office.
Since the Constitution itself gives specific qualifications of natural-birth citizenship, it is an easy judgment that no state has the right to make laws or to take actions that prevent, hinder, or obstruct absolute verification of natural-birth citizenship where it comes to any individual aspiring to the presidency.
And so, as long as Obama, his handlers, his lackeys, or the State of Hawaii continue to obstruct justice, this should be pursued. It is they themselves who are creating and deepening the doubts about the character.