Monday, April 19, 2010
George Washington Would Have Been A Birther
The New York City public library recently discovered two overdue books checked out by our nation's first president, George Washington. According to news reports, one of those overdue books is the legal treatise, Law of Nations. The book discusses the meaning of many terms in our U.S. Constitution, including "natural born citizen," which it says includes persons born in this country to two citizen parents. Because Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth and at all times during his life, he could not be a natural born citizen, a constitutional requirement for serving as president of the United States. John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had actually written to Washington during the constitutional debates urging him to include the "natural born citizen" requirement. Jay was concerned about minimizing chances of foreign influence. In recent years, the meaning of the term has been warped by liberals who despise its existence in our constitution. Liberals would have you believe the term only requires that a person be born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, this is just like Martin Luther King. All records will be sealed until it is too late to do anything.
You have got to be kidding, Gary.
This argument is too stupid to be serious!
Give it up!
Obama's our president, like it or not.
Excuse me for actually believing in the Constitution, Hoosier in the Heartland. It's obvious Obama doesn't have any respect for the document.
I'm a Birther!
I'm a Truther, too!
And proud of it!
The constitution doesn't address the definition of "natural born", Gary.
You're the one with no respect...for the office of president!
Obama was selected, elected and has served for more than a year so far.
Give it up!
It's remarkably simple to end the grousing for records: Disclose them. I don't think it's too much to ask of ANY President to share all birth, educational, political, and health records.
This is too much to ask of the elected position that can send our soldiers into war, lead us to mandatory insurance purchasing, or usurp industrial bankruptcy convention?
I don't think so. Not a bit.
I guess if we want to go back over two centuries and try to guess what a president was thinking at the time without any actual proof of what he was thinking, then we can definitely look back at his actions and compare those actions with what he would feel today: he would be annoyed by many in the Tea Party movement using him as a symbol. Last week during the Tea Party demonstration outside the State House, a person was carrying around a sign with George Washington's likeness on it. Can we go ahead and assume how George Washington would feel about him being associated with the Tea Party Movement? Looking back at his administration, one of the most important precedents he set occurred during the Whiskey Rebellion when farmers in western Pennsylvania (and many other states) refused to pay the recently passed federal whiskey tax. What did the modern Tea Party symbol President Washington do? He federalized the state militias into a large army, personally commanded the army in the field, and crushed the anti-tax rebellion. I would be willing to bet those same Tea Party activists and other conservatives who use his image (including the somewhat silly image of a person dressed as George Washington at the signing of the "Mount Vernon Statement") would be surprised he was so pro-tax enforcement as president. Or, simply, it could be we really should not always try to compare one's way of thinking over 200 years ago to today because so much has changed since then. I have no problem trying to imagine how a Founding Father or even later famous American might feel about an issue of today, but we cannot keep deluding ourselves into thinking these folks' views of their day will always match our views of today -- especially since the Founding Fathers had such radically different views from each other much in the way Democrats and Republicans do in our time. If by some fluke I would happen to become famous, I just hope someone 200 years from now would not do the same as we Americans try to do today with our Founding Fathers' views.
Bradley,
Don't worry. People will likely look back on Obama's administration with the same kind of disdain they hold for Woodrow Wilson.
snare roll....cymbal splash.."Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Melyssa and I'll be here all week. Two shows nightly. Please tip your servers..."
Well done.
Nice try Bradley, but pretty much falls on un-hearing ears here. Such a shame that ability, hard work and perseverance take a back seat to such strange tangents.
"For conservatives, though, demanding to see Obama's birth certificate has become less of a real-world concern—after all, Obama released his Hawaii birth certificate during the 2008 campaign—than a symbolic way for Republican politicians to show that they, too, are worried about America."
http://www.slate.com/id/2251518/
However: Obama was, indeed, born in the U.S.A. The birth records HAVE been disclosed. Over and over again.
http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Don't confuse the issue, Hoosier In The Heartland. I don't contend Obama was not born in Hawaii. My contention is that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen. Also, he later became an Indonesian citizen when his step-father adopted him and changed his name to Barry Soetoro. His parents clearly didn't care about his U.S. citizenship when they allowed that to occur. His birth in Hawaii just became something of convenience to provide the legal hook he would use to become president.
Post a Comment