Posted on 09/17/2009 12:18:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
And you thought birtherism was just for hillbillies and Republicans! David Weigel heard Camille Paglia on NPR yesterday, where the author of Sexual Personae and UArts professor told a no doubt astonished latte-drinking audience that "there are legitimate questions about the documentation of Obama's birth certificate. I'm sorry, I've been following this closely from the start." Indeed she has; we noticed her railing on the topic as far back as November ("simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction"). Now that they've got a genuine intellectual on board, the birthers just need a popular entertainer to carry their message to the sheeple. Come on, Toby Keith, what are you waiting for?
Oops, sorry....Condescending, it is, hmmm?
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of grammarians cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
It’s the Baiters vs the Birthers.
Camille Paglia, the Salon.com columnist. “First of all, I reject the idea that the “birther” campaign is motivated by racism. There may be racism among it, but there are legitimate questions about the documentation of Obama’s birth certificate. I’m sorry, I’ve been following this closely from the start. To assume that all those signs about the birth controversy were motivated by racism, that is simply wrong.”
Much needed cred? Horeshit. We’ve been exposing the marxist right here on good old FR regrading this for months.
He doesn’t need to have a legal eligibility fraud in order to have problems: if his birth certificate says either that his father was “unknown,” or that his birth name is not Barack 0bama, it betrays him as a poseur.
Disclosurists have had a “genuine intellectual” on board from the start: Dr. Alan Keyes.
I guess it worries them that cracks are beginning to form on the left.
Some thoughts on this matter:
In the opening statement of the motion to dismiss, the DOJ lays the responsibility upon the Congress to “qualify” the Presidential candidate. The only job of Congress in “qualifying” the President-elect is that they insure that he or she receives the required number of electoral votes required by the Constitution. It is absurd to expect that Congress members would be physically or mentally able to fulfill the duty of making certain a candidate is eligible to be on an election ballot.
To simplify the election process, each state has their own election laws.
In WV, Obama signed a sworn statement that he was constitutionally eligible to place his name upon our ballot just as he did in Arizona and perhaps other states whose laws required this.
In Hawaii, the state required that the National and State Democrat party officials swear sworn statements as to his constitutional eligibility, which they did.
I don’t know if any states or the parties require a birth certificate to prove eligibility to be a candidate. If not, they are relying upon the candidate or the National and State parties’ sworn statements. It is FRAUD to swear a false statement. This is a CRIME.
I wrote to my representatives BEFORE the electoral votes were certified. Senator Byrd, who is often described as a constitutional scholar, replied to me that it was up to the states to make sure that their elections were handled in accordance with the Constitution. He also indicated that a complaint would offer Obama the opportunity to defend himself in the court system.
It is unreasonable to expect a Federal Agency would be in charge of each state’s elections and ballots.
Governors,legislators, and state office holders of each state also swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. So each state is responsible for assuring it’s elections are lawful. All Congress does is certify that the candidate got the required number of votes required by the Constitution. Any educated and responsible attorney should recognize this. Their motion is truly ridiculous.
If Obama lied when he signed the forms to get on the ballot (and we know from his background that he taught Constitutional Law at the University in Chicago), he is criminally guilty of fraud.
We citizens are required to produce birth certificates for a wide range of situations. We must “prove” our statements. My husband and I had to do that just last March to the retirement board. They made us bring certified copies of our birth certificates to a planning meeting even though we had signed statements prior.
This whole thing is stupid. Just like enrolling in school, playing sports, getting a driver’s license,and a myriad of oother circumstances, noone should be allowed to be on a ballot for any office (or be allowed to vote) who does not submit a proper birth certificate to prove their citizenship to the Secretary of State, a Local Clerk’s office, or their party officials who are charged with handling the election process. There are more liars than not in today’s society. All the more reason for expecting proof of statements.
On another note:
The Constitution says :
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States “
Would it not be a violation of the above when Hawaii has a law allowing a foreign born person to record, receive, and use for lawful purposes, a birth certificate stating they were born in Hawaii, when in fact they were not? Isn’t this circumventing my Constitutional right to expect that my vote is for a “natural born” president or even a citizen president for that matter? Since there has been no amendment changing the natural born provision, it is my right to expect that I am voting for a president who meets this qualification and proves such being that I am required to submit my birth certificate frequently to comply with the laws of my land. I happily do so knowing full well, I do not want to live in a land of the lawless.
bttt
The dreaded “ers”.
We know Obama had a birth, we just want to know where.
Thus, it should be “born-ers”. LOL!
What's going on here? Why would a lesbian atheist Democrat question Obama’s eligibility?
I contacted my State’s Sec’y of State back before the Primaries in my state. They said they had to accept the statement of the candidates that they were eligible for the office.
There were suits filed in my state challenging Obama on the ballot, but the Judges punted and refused any hearing of the facts.
She may be the only “lesbian atheist Democrat” with any
intellectual honesty left on the planet.
Camille Paglia is an intellectually honest liberal. She has been a devoted Obamite from the start...yet...you can read in her columns a disappointment, the beginnings of a buyer’s remorse perhaps.
She is brilliant and scholarly and for her to start to admit she ‘sees’ a problems is big. Really big.
Gee! I thought intellectually honest Democrat ( Marxist really) was an oxymoron.
to the top, back
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.