Sunday, August 2, 2009

Birthers on Obama- - Hawaii is a foreign country and Jesus could not be president

How many have listened to all the news stories about whether or not Obama should be president due to his being born in the foreign land of Hawaii? It's generally accepted as true among the intellectuals in this country that Hawaii is not a foreign country. Some even remember when it was not a state, but it became the fiftieth state the same year as Alaska before Obama was born.

I take this as a great insult to the state of Hawaii. Aloha to my friends in Hawaii. I know you are one of us, but I am having trouble explaining to the birthers. To even believe Obama was born in Kenya is to believe that Hawaiians are in on a conspiracy to sneak someone in as president or are too stupid to record a birth. I think if either premise is true, all the people of Hawaii are really from Kenya or cannot fill out documents. These birthers believe that you people of Hawaii are either not citizens or are incapable of documenting whether their newborns are even born in their state.

Martin van Buren our eighth president was the first president to be born on official US soil, the first president to be born on undeniable "American soil" because he was born after the revolution when it became legally our country. We allowed seven presidents who were technically born on British soil to be president. If we had done otherwise, we would have to elect a baby as president that was born after July 4, 1776. Some of these disloyal British colonists staged a revolution and overthrew the government. They were called patriots, people who loved their country. But their country was Great Britain. The first seven and ninth presidents were born on what was considered British soil at the time. Alexander Hamilton who once ran for president, and whose picture appears on our currency was not born on American soil. He was born in the British West Indies at Saint Croix. Should we allow these foreigners on our currency? I really don't care.

I see a more serious problem here. It is blatant prejudice and discrimination against people born in other countries. Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies but he was nonetheless devoted to our country. Are people less of a patriot of the great United States due to the ground where they were born? Where an individual was born is an accident of birth. We have no control over our birthplace. Not yet born children cannot pick their place of birth nor parents for that matter. To hold birthplace against someone is ludicrous. Should we allow people born elsewhere to even become citizens if they are lesser beings? Obviously, we can deduce that anyone born on anything less than American soil is inferior. Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem, folks, did that make him a lesser being? He would not be allowed to be a president of our country but Timothy McVeigh could if we had not killed him for blowing up a courthouse in Oklahoma.? To imply that anyone not born in this land is and cannot be president is to assume that Americans are superior to the rest of the world. I personally would like to believe it since I am one, but we are not. One of the bases of our country is that all people are created equal. Do we really believe it? I hope so.

As for the pictures of all those old guys, not born on technically American soil at the time, I propose we replace these boring old dudes on our currency with some cute foreign guys like Craig Ferguson who has become a citizen. Sean Connery has a commanding presence and I wouldn't mind having him on the green paper in my purse. The new James Bond guy would sure make money more interesting. I would try to hang onto it longer. Talk about saving money, we could frame it.

I sincerely believe Hawaiians are Americans and are as capable as any state of documenting children born in their state of our country. I think the birthers are morons who cannot read a valid government document. Of course Obama is an American citizen and Hawaiian. Does anyone really believe there is a conspiracy to deceive the American people of his birthplace? If it were, does anyone really care? Besides we wanted change. I truly believe he was born in Hawaii and is a citizen. But birthplace is not the single factor that would qualify one to be president. Majority and electoral votes do. Generally, the majority of people and electoral votes believe he is qualified and is a citizen. We, the majority wish you guys would quit wasting money that might provide health care, disability benefits, food, or infrastructure for the economy. This is squandering time, money and energy. Stop it! Let the media report news and quit this weird speculation.

If Sara Palin were to run for president, would anyone question her citizenship? I would. I would like to see actual documentation that Alaska is a state. I have never seen that. Have any of you?Maybe the whole state sneaked in when no one was looking. IQ and a true devotion to the people of our great land should be requirements. You should be smarter than your average moose. We saw what happened when we elected someone who wasn't. The point is, let it rest. He is not going away and we won't stand for it. Quit your whining and concentrate on the real problems, two wars, health care, unemployment, homeless people, and leave the idiot questions out of the discussion.


Ted 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


You are a legal scholar!

I would like to hear more of your opinions as you are obviously well-educated and know a good bit about Constitutional law. Jonathan Turley better watch out for you. You know your business. I thought about Sotomayor's pending confirmation and is does make sense to delay an almost assured confirmation.

When Bush was elected, did Congress agree prior to the Supreme Court's ruling? I find you very intriging and look forward to hearing more from you. I always like to know more about politics and law in general. You got it!

Jose said...

second reading in a magazine from Obama's brother is drug addict, good brother and visited him often, but secretly, in Africa



Thanks for the tip about the Google translator. It's a super tool. Now only if it could help Republicans understand Democrats!


Hey Jose!

Who are you? We would like to know you better.