Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Saturday Night Card Game (They Will Not Let The “Birther” Issue Drop Against That White Republican President)

    Saturday Night Card Game (They Will Not Let The “Birther” Issue Drop Against That White Republican President)

    This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

    Two weeks ago I explored the accusation by Leonard Pitts, Jr. that the only reason Barack Obama’s birth certificate was being raised as an issue was because of inherent racism, “Your race card narrative does not fit, so you must acquit.”

    I pointed out that numerous white presidential candidates in the past had their qualifications for office challenged on the basis of citizenship or birthplace, including one candidate (Chester A. Arthur) who was alleged by Democratic Party opponents to have been born in Canada, a rumor which persists to this day:

    Nearly 123 years after his death, doubts about his US citizenship linger, thanks to lack of documentation and a political foe’s assertion that Arthur was really born in Canada – and was therefore ineligible for the White House, where he served from 1881 to 1885….

    The focus on his place of birth became an issue in the 1880 presidential campaign, when Arthur was tapped to be the running mate for Garfield.

    According to historical accounts, Republican bosses wanted him to provide proof of his birthplace, but he never did.

    Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, alleging that he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant.

    He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.’’

    You mean Democrats played the “Birther” card against a white Republican from Vermont?  But Mr. Pitts and so many other people are telling us that this only happened to the first black president:

    “He needs to stop saying that racist bulls**t birther s**t,” [John] Legend told told Vulture last night in New York City. “Quote me please. He should be ashamed of himself. It’s awful, really.”

    As proof that questioning Obama’s citizenship must be based on racism, people point to the fact that nobody ever worried about or tried to obtain Bush’s birth certificate, right?

    Wrong:

    Four days before the runoff, Reese produced a copy of Bush’s birth certificate and accused Bush of omitting the fact that he was born in New Haven. A Bush aide insisted it was an error of “punctuation” – not deliberate deception. The brochure had said: “Born July 6, 1946 and raised in Midland, Texas.”

    The year Bush’s birth certificate was obtained and passed around by an opponent for political gain was 1978.  Which may explain why no one asked for Bush’s birth certificate in 2000.

    Oh well, no one ever said you needed consistency to play the race card.

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

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Barack Obama's color does bother me. Not the color of his skin – the color of his politics. He's red. Communist, Socialist, Marxist Red. That's the only color I see when I see Obama.

    As Always,
    Where's the Birth Certificate?

    Why go so far back? Remember the flap over Dick Cheney and whether he was a resident of Texas or Wyoming?

    The race card is dependent on inconsistency.

    Rather amazing how people forget – or just don't know – their American history. There have been several nominees and presidents who have had to produce their proof of birth. Chester Arthur didn't, and apparently had his personal papers destroyed on his death, leaving the matter unclear at best. Then you have the various nominees of minor parties who were not citizens, too young, etc.

    Of course, it never rose to the level of the card game until "the great unifier" Obama came along.

    All I want to know is: why would anyone "historic" with such a rags-to-riches story want to seal his personal records via executive order, and pay about $2M to keep records from being examined? Never has a press corps been so incurious. Never has anyone had such "luck" that no one can get to the records – no leakers, no greedy clerks, no poor corrupt officials…. Only Obama has such syncophantic lemmings, it seems.

    Keeping things hidden, paying a small fortune to keep them hidden…….only a fool or a dupe would believe there is nothing to hide. Not a conspiracy. Just common sense and reason. Two foreign concepts to the leftists.

    @Christine, my position exactly. I don't give a (beep) about skin tone, what matters is character, performance, etc.

    All of which are rather lacking in the current occupant of the Oval Office.

    @Marie, I also completely agree with you. I wouldn't even think there WAS an issue with Obama's birthplace, etc., were it not for the frenzied coverup that's actually calling attention to the fact there IS something to hide. Right up there with a cat trying to cover up a mess on tile, IMO.


    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.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend