Frankly, although I believe the 'birther' movement is based on a legitimate question about Obama's actual place of birth and his constitutional legitimacy to be president, this has turned into a sideshow that few folks take seriously anymore.
Bill O'Reilly and his TV show may be flawed but he has a right to his opinion and to state that he believes that the 'Obama isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen' argument is bogus. Most Americans would agree with him so this 'birther movement' will likely go nowhere. Thus, Bill O'Reilly's gratuitous slap at the concept - and Orly Taiz.
I’m not interested in where he was born. But I demand that a person who wants to be POTUS, has the decency to be forth coming and show We, the People, an original copy of his Birth Certificate. Is that to much to ask from Obama? I trust but I need to verify. Anyone with to brain cells between his/her ears would understand that.
Jim I understand your comments, and the reasons you made some of them.
To my way of thinking, the birther movement goes far beyond the naturalized birth issue. Of course that is of prime importance in the movement. It is still of vital importance that we address the issue of our presidential candidates being allowed to place a lifetime of personal documents in a lock box when asking to be considered for the Presidency.
We know very little about Obama’s youth. We know entirely too little about his birth. We know very little about his movement to Malaysia, and it’s requirements for schooling and how this period may have impacted his citizenship.
We know next to nothing about his high school years, what grades he got, what people he was involved with, and what his and their activities were. Was there some activity that took place, that we should be aware of?
When it comes to his higher education, what information did he use to get loans? What names has he used in his life? What information do we know about him under those names?
Who paid for his higher education? Who paid for certain trips he took abroad? What was his vision on this thesis?
I could go on, but I think it’s clear there’s much more than meets the eye on this birther thing. The media has tried to place this folks in a loony-bin lock box themselves, instead of realizing they have a point, and siding with them at least in part.
Even if they don’t want new regulations to touch Obama, they should at least acknowledge there are issues that need to be addressed here.
That they don’t acknowledge this speaks volumes.
We should not shy away from loud support for the birther movement. There’s too much at stake now, and it is an issue that is vitally important for our nation now and into the future concerning other candidates, as well as this one.
We still have a man doing anti-American (U.S.) things that may in fact be either an illegal alien, a foreign operative, or both. He’s sure as hell not on our side.
Check out this link. Take a few minutes and read it carefully and, if you are open-minded in the least and skeptical of Obama in the slightest, you will come away with a head full of thoughts about how easy it would have been for Obama to have been born outside of Hawaii in 1961 and yet have been able to obtain one of the substandard types of birth certificates that Hawaii made available to such people with only the flimsiest of attestation.
“Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility”
First, I agree that Obama is a far-left radical, a Marxist even if he doesn’t accept it. However, the ‘birther’ movement is totally ignorant of Constitution, which says a president must a ‘natural born’ citizen. Doesn’t say prez has to be born IN the country.
I read extensive commentary by Constitutional scholars during last campaign, not over Obama, but McCain, born in Canal Zone, and Dodd, born in Germany.
In Federalist Papers, one Founder wrote that they left it to Congress to define what ‘natural born’ meant.
Congress passed law around turn of 20th century saying a child born in foreign country of ONE U.S. citizen is a ‘natural born’ citizen. So, while it would be politically horrendous for Obama, he meets criteria, even if born in Africa.
In 1930s, someone pointed out that such a law didn’t cover babies born in US territories such as Canal Zone. Congress passed another law two years after McCain was born to include them. A few years later, someone pointed out this latest law left out those born before law passed, i.e.those such as little Johnny McCain.
Congress passed another law making this U.S. territory law retroactive to all born before first law passed, thereby taking in McCain.
All the scholars pretty much agreed in MSM. I’m not the scholar claiming this.
Eventually the truth will come out, whatever it is.
And history won’t be kind to those who were wrong.
A bit like global warming being caused by CO2...
What proof do you, O’Reilly or anyone have that it is bogus?