Sunday, August 2, 2009

Obama's to Blame for the Birther Movement

Read the full article here:

It's good practice to take a person at his word until someone shows you proof he is lying.

Barack Obama says he was born in Hawaii, and since no one has shown any proof he was born in Kenya or elsewhere, it's OK to conclude he was born in Hawaii.
If he really wants the Birthers to shut up, he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents. Why not just do it then? It's a simple task. Why not get rid of a conversation that has been with America since the campaign?

The issue is the subject of several lawsuits, which only seek a peek at original documents. Can anyone explain why it is smarter for Obama to spend tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours defending the suits when he can win the lawsuit for free by showing the original documents?
By defending the lawsuits and not showing the documents, Obama feeds the suspicion of those who already think he is lying. That's why this issue has the power to linger, and that's Obama's fault alone.

Financial Aid Records: Barack Obama relishes his own personal Sonia Sotomayor (reason for his push for her???)-like story of how he came from a broken home and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. But he refuses to show how his very expensive tuition at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School were paid for.
The Birthers believe the records will show Obama received financial aid as a foreign born student. Obama says they won't. Not to sound like a broken record, but releasing the records will end the controversy, and Obama refuses. Why?



Anonymous Anonymous said...


What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was Kenyan/British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s nominee to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.

Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.

Leave a Reply

August 3, 2009 at 12:57 AM  
Blogger Plowlady said...

I absolutely agree with you, the nation IS watching and that is why I am making these posts. If it werent for these questions, who knows where we will end up...thanks so much for this info!

August 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home