Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    So The Anti-Birther Hawaii Governor Is Actually A Birther

    So The Anti-Birther Hawaii Governor Is Actually A Birther

    If you demand to see Obama’s actual birth certificate, you will be called a “Birther.” 

    It doesn’t matter if your position is that anyone ascending to a constitutional office should provide the best evidence of constitutional qualification, you’re a Birther.  It doesn’t matter that you think all candidates should comply, you’re a Birther.  It doesn’t matter if you think Obama was born in Hawaii, but should put the issue to rest by releasing the records, you’re a Birther.

    The new Governor of Hawaii is getting accolades because he finally is going to shut up all the Birthers.

    How is he going to do that?

    By seeking to have, er, Obama’s birth certificate and other original birth records released:

    The governor, a Democrat and former congressman, said he has initiated conversations with the state’s attorney general and the chief of its Health Department about how he can release more explicit documentation of Mr. Obama’s birth on Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. He said he has done so of his own accord, without consulting the White House, which declined to comment.

    The New York Times describes the Governor as “taking on” Birthers, and The L.A. Times says he is seeking to “discredit” Birthers.

    If the new Governor had been a Republican and sought release of Obama’s birth records, he’d be a Birther. But because he’s a Democrat, he’s an anti-Birther.

    Don’t you ever say the mainstream media spins the news or issues.

    Related Posts:
    Coakley Supporters Fabricate Birther Accusation Against Brown
    Obama’s “Birther” Strategy Has Backfired
    Swift Birthers

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    "Imagine if that someone was purportedly a respected opinion-monger writing for a fairly high-profile publication. Would he/she still be in that position?"

    The worst I've heard about a President's daughter(s) from the right were Limbaugh's remarks about Chelsea Clinton, though he never claimed she was illegitimate (let alone any bizarre mother presenting her daughter's baby as her own), just ugly.

    Obviously he's the owner of his high-profile publication, so he didn't fire himself. But he was roundly condemned at time.

    And Sully's defense for his insane allegations was "I never actually alleged it, I was just asking." I'm sure that's enough legal cover, but the morality of it is entirely debatable. BTW, I just want to know if he's been beating his boyfriend; I'm just asking! (For the irony-proof left: I'm referring to the classic loaded question to demonstrate how a question can introduce a premise into discourse.)

    From the NYT article:

    "The birther movement began during the 2008 campaign when some of Mr. Obama’s critics claimed, without offering proof, that he was born in Kenya…"

    If memory serves, was it not his opponent in the 2008 Democratic Primary, one Hillary R. Clinton, that originally voiced this accusation?

    Even though this accusation could have been easily dismissed, by not doing so Obama only fanned the flames and provided ammunition to the birthers.

    Personally, I find the whole argument ridiculous and pointless, as Obama is now in the last half of his one, and only, term. It really is a bit late to worry about his qualifications.

    Regardless of his constitutional qualifications to hold office, his actions have left little doubt he is not the right man for the job, and that he is definitely not the same man who ran for the office.

    Does the left believe that this latest "proof" will somehow lead the 112th Congress into joining Obama's march toward Socialism?

    The task at hand is to limit the damage that Obama, aided by toadies Reid and Pelosi, is able to inflict before the next great purge in 2012.

    Until the long form birth certificate is released, there will be people who will continue to make the claim that Øbama was born in Kenya. These people include members of the Kenyan government, who even last year made statements that indicated that Øbama was born in Kenya. I remain sceptical until the records are produced.

    However, Øbama is not a Natural Born Citizen, which is the requirement for the Presidency. To be a Natural born citizen, the parents, not parent must both be USA citizens at the time of birth. Øbama claims B H Øbama sr. as his father. Since this is what he claims then he cannot be NBC but is in fact a British citizen because his father, being a native of Kenya was a British citizen, and under British law at the time, it was the father that gives citizenship, not the under age mother.

    The other doubt that I have is whether or not Ann Dunham could confer citizenship since she was a minor (infant) according to the law at the time.

    In John McCain's case it was known that he was born in Panama, but of citizen parents who were on posting in Panama. McCain did not receive Panamanian citizenship just because he was born there. He is an American citizen, but he did not necessarily meet the strict conditions of NBC because he was not born of the soil. The Senate resolution which was not sought by McCain but was agreed by Øbama still requires that the person is born of citizen parents.

    It is interesting that Neil Abercrombie, the one person who knew Barack Obama Sr. and was even a drinking buddy, is now the one who is attempting to release the records. Neil Abercrombie is the only one who has been able to place Ann Dunham with Øbama Sr. He is the only one who stated remembering that he saw her at some of their Communist meetings.

    I do think that the NYT and the Washington rag are being hypocrites on the issue. If the records do get released, then that will simply end the issue of where he was born, but it does not resolve the NBC issue because that requires two people to be citizens not a minor female plus a British subject who had no intention of being an American citizen.

    @ A. Dumas

    I am pretty sure the ball began rolling in the summer of 2008 when Democrat Philip A. Berg, a Hillary Clinton partisan, sued the Obama campaign alleging he was not a Natural Born Citizen. Berg was not shy about his motive: to derail the Obama nomination at the convention. he was, to put it mildly, dramatic, verbose and self-obsessed. A typical Democrat. Previously, he had sued based on an allegation that President Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks. A true Democrat. He seemed convinced that the fed court would drop everything and rule in his favor instantly and thus deprive Obama and enthrone Hillary. A true Hillary partisan. Instead, the fed court judge did not issue his ruling until late October. Democrat Berg tried every means of grand standing known to lawyers and shouted "constitutional crisis" every day. Now, years later another Democrat is stepping forth to change Hawaiian law to, in effect, require the president to turn over documents he clearly does not want to turn over. Since the burden of proof rests on Berg and his fellow dissident Democrats, President Obama has no obligation to turn over the documents. So, if the governor does succeed in getting the documents I will nominate him for King Birther and urge that he be given the Birther Cup trophy by unanimous consent. ;}

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend