Obama: A Natural Born Citizen with Something to Hide
Just passing on my comments I left at this post at Ace of Spades HQ with regards to the Barack Obama “birth certificate” controversy. I couldn’t even get through the first few paragraphs of Gabriel’s post before I started getting annoyed and bored, but I got the gist of his rant. Personally, I found this post at The American Thinker to be much better thought-out and in a much better tone of respect.
Also, another great article by Andrew McCarthy on this issue at NRO: Suborned in the U.S.A. — The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.
Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”
Such was the ardor of Obama’s denials that jaws dropped when, once safely elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents,” an administration spokesman announced. “You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .” The “Muslim father” theme was an interesting touch: During the campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s Islamic faith reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of what’s-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him.” And, it turns out, the spokesman’s fleeting bit about “growing up in Indonesia” wasn’t the half of it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia — or, at least that’s what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).
These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”
The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.
[ … ]
WHEN DID INFORMATION SUDDENLY BECOME A BAD THING?
While it is all well and good to belittle the birth-certificate controversy, without it we’d know only what the media and Obama himself would tell us about his multiple citizenships, which is nothing. As noted above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a citizen of Kenya (a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That’s something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama’s shocking 2006 conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don’t know about his Kenyan citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.
By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistan he took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.
There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question is: Why don’t the media — the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin’s Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records — want to dig into Obama’s background?
Read the whole thing. Mr. McCarthy, as usual, makes some great factual points, something people who are too focused on partisan politics seem to be all too willing to not do.
But, anyway, here are my thoughts on this issue:
My gosh, Gabe, why didn’t you just post a link to this post at American Thinker and be done with it.
“The media has cast Birtherism as a conservative phenomenon — and it is fast spreading among conservative activists — but it was originally a Democrat obsession. The most prominent Birther, Philip J. Berg, is a Democrat who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. Other rumors, such as the infamous and non-existent Michelle Obama “‘whitey’ tape,” were also weapons in the Democrats’ internal struggle.
In the same vein, left-wing pundits claim the Birther thesis reveals latent racism in the Republican Party. But it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who made race an issue in the 2008 campaign. From the Obama campaign’s charges that Hillary Clinton was the Senator from Punjab, to the Clinton campaign’s leaking of a photo of Obama in Somali garb, right up through Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment and the whole Jeremiah Wright affair, it was the left that remained obsessed with race and identity politics.
The Birther theory is likewise an artifact of left-wing squabbles. Conservatives who are tempted by the Birther theory should ask themselves why the mainstream media is now so interested in the story when they were so reluctant to give any attention to the allegations during the 2008 campaign (when, if true, they might have made a difference).
It’s not because there is any fresh evidence to support the Birther thesis, but because the Birther thesis has again become politically useful to the left.”
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:10 PM
However, misguided they may seem they are not a “Republican” or “Conservative” distraction unless the RNC officially starts to own this issue by pounding it in the press.
Exactly. As The American Thinker notes, this whole issue was started by Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:12 PM
“Exactly. As The American Thinker notes, this whole issue was started by Hillary Clinton and her supporters.”
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:12 PM
Also, this goes against the claim that this issue will hurt the GOP. Because when Hillary finally started getting dirty with Obama and exposing his radical past, she started winning Primaries and caucuses. The only reason this claim “hurts” the GOP/Right is the same reason everything else hurts them: because the mass media is a Democrat propaganda machine. And even when the Right points out that Obama is an idiot because he basically goes out there and says “2+2=5”, the mass media spins for him and claims that anyone out there saying “2+2=4 and Obama is an idiot” is just a conspiracy wacko.
That said, a valid reason for asking people to drop this issue is “we need to pick our battles”. One could rightly say that this is not a battle we can win and there are others we can win. But to just say that this “makes us look bad” is foolish, because just being conservative and standing up for Conservative principles makes us look bad in the eyes of the Left. Just look at the Tea Party coverage by the mass media. They said those were all about racism and bigotry and radicalism.
Also, case in point, I had someone come on my Facebook page last night and call me a “Republican racist”. When I finally got her to explain why I was a racist, it was solely due to the fact that I opposed Obamacare… and because Obama was a Black Democrat. Thus, I was a racist. This is what the Left does. This is what they have been doing for years now.
I tire of this attitude on the Left that we need to stop doing things that “make us look bad”. EVERYTHING makes us look bad. Pointing out FACTS makes us look bad. So stop the whiney ass crap that we “need to stop doing things that make us look bad”. This is becoming a trend here with the “I hope he fails” and Sarah Palin’s resignation. The “oh noes! we can’t do this, because the Left doesn’t like it!” crap is not the attitude of a movement that wants to get anything accomplished.
Pick and choose battles, but do NOT not do something simply because the Left doesn’t like it.
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:28 PM
Also, just an anecdote…
I thought I had a copy of my birth certificate that my mom gave me years ago when I left home to go away to college. She had it in a security box and wanted me to have it now that I was on my own. I never really looked at it, just folded it up and put it in a secure place with the rest of my documentation.
Well, when this whole birth certificate vs CoLB issue came up, where people were saying they were not the same, I went and looked at my birth certificate.
I found out two things: (1) I didn’t have a birth certificate, I had a Certificate of Live Birth and (2) my birth mother’s name was not listed as my mother (she died 2 months after giving birth to me), my mother’s name was listed (she legally adopted me after marrying my father).
So, based on that, I suspect there is some info on the Certificate of Live Birth that is probably either not the same as on the original birth certificate or there is info on the Birth Certificate that is omitted for whatever reason on the CoLB.
My stance is that Obama is hiding something. I believe he is probably a natural born citizen, but — like my birth mother’s name probably being on my BC, but my adopted mother’s name being on my CoLB — I believe there is probably something on the BC, which is not on the CoLB that he wants to remain hidden. I would probably dismiss this entire issue as others have, except that this isn’t some isolated case of lack of transparency and hiding Obama’s background. This is a trend. College records sealed, Chicago Annenberg Challenge records attempted to be sealed and I knew about the whole Rev Wright and Billy Ayers stuff back in JAN 2007, yet blogs and mass media were not reporting it, and didn’t get around to it until Spring 2008. I had people in 2007 tell me I was a raving kook when I tried to tell them that Obama was a radical leftist and showed them the info about Rev Wright, TUCC and Billy Ayers. Now, of course, it is common knowledge.
The fact is that Obama is hiding his background, he lied throughout his entire campaign about who he is and he is lying now trying to shove through marxist legislation. As such, I don’t have a problem with the Birth Certificate issue, so long as it is a part of an overall investigation and attempt to get this a-hole’s radical background fully exposed.
The reason I feel it is important is because this is his core. Still today, even 6 months in office pushing through Marxist legislation, corrupt and radical appointments all over his Administration, czar after czar after czar, insulting our allies, helping marxists and communist enemies, etc etc etc… there are people out there who STILL can’t believe he is a radical marxist. Why? Because we have YET to establish his radical marxist background of the past 2 decades.
I really don’t know what is finally gonna get through to the morons of this country. There is so much out there. But I’m all for hitting Obama with anything and everything to make him vulnerable.
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:40 PM
The Dems played dirty for eight years and it got them both Houses and the Presidency………..
Posted by: David Jay at July 30, 2009 12:38 PM
Exactly. This is why whenever people say “this is going to hurt us, so we can’t do thaaaaat!” it pisses me the hell off. It’s why I was so pissed off with Ace and those who took his side during the “i hope he fails” discussion and his mindset that we can’t say certain things, because it will hoit the widdle feewings of the vaunted Independents and ‘moderates’. Absolute BS. The Left and Democrats went absolute batshit crazy the last 8 years and were rewarded with the White House and unstoppable majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress.
The game has changed — has been changed the last 8 years, first Bush (lies, smears, TANG memos from mass media) then General Petraeus, the Sarah Palin, then Joe the Plumber, then Carrie Prejean — and yet some people STILL refuse to adapt. I don’t know how many people on our side need to be utterly unfairly destroyed by the Left before the Right wakes the f*** up and realizes we are in a gawddamned f***ing (political) war here. Very frustrating and disheartening.
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 30, 2009 12:46 PM
My sentiments exactly:
Actually, I do like the “selected not elected” strategy. I have a fundamental disagreement with all the concern troll crap people like Malor spout “oh, attacking the president this way makes us look bad”. Bullsh!t.
The left attacked Bush in every way, fairly, unfairly, with lies, omissions, distortions and just plain made up sh!t. And it worked. It drove his numbers into the ground and made false narratives (bush lied people died) into common knowledge.
I say we attack Obama with EVERYTHING at our disposal. He’s a closet Muslim. He’s not really an American. His plan is to wreck the US economy. He hates America.
In fact, I happen (and many others agree) to believe some of this is absolutely true. Which is and which is not is irrelevant.
We’re in a political blood sport. We should be doing ANYTHING to tear the president down. In our society today, attacks DON’T rebound onto the attackers. They slime the target and cause many to think “where there’s smoke there’s fire”.
Do you really pretend the left would not do the same thing? Ever heard of the Trig Palin controversy? Where are the leftists who are decrying it? Where is the evidence it hurt the left’s cause by pushing it? You are either dishonest, or a fool, but you aren’t helping our cause.
God, I hate f*cking concern trolls. I don’t care if you are a lawyer or not, you don’t understand our political dynamic. Justified or not, likely to succeed or not, who cares. Attack Obama by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. It works. Period.
Posted by: ms docweasel at July 30, 2009 10:29 AM
You are right on many levels. I agree that while Obama is native born, his birth certificate MAY contain some embarrassing information that he would rather keep under the radar. Some thoughts:
Republicans who get asked about this on television should laugh and say yes, it’s just as crazy as LIBERALS believing Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s son.
They should also point out that Obama brings a lot of this on himself because, in spite of his promises to be open and transparent, he has failed to release the following:
Punahou school records,
Occidental College records
Columbia University records,
Harvard Law School records
Harvard Law Review articles,
scholarly articles from the University of Chicago,
files from his years as an Illinois state senator,
Illinois State Bar Association records,
baptism records (if any),
and his Soetoro adoption records.
I believe that what fuels the zeal of a lot of the Birthers is the astounding lack of information that we have on the POTUS. Can you imagine the uproar the media would be having if they didn’t have this info on Bush? For heaven’s sake, we knew Bush’s SAT SCORES. And Kerry and Gore’s for that matter.
As a lawyer myself, I cannot imagine someone becoming the head of a law review – let alone the Harvard Law Review – without some trail of scholarly writings, or academic awards.
Posted by: CC at July 30, 2009 10:36 AM
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.