|Just to be clear - this graphic is a|
joke. It doesn't have O's name on it.
It also has a seal in the lower left
that says "Certified Fake".
Me, I buy that he's a natural born citizen as I've said several times before. Really, the newspaper articles lend the credibility to the Certificate of Live Birth for me.
The question is, why all the secrecy? If I want to apply for a driver’s license or a passport, I gotta dig up mine. Why not for the President of the United States? I mean, hey, I nominate Daniel Hannan for president. Prove he’s not a natural born citizen. Bring up the fact he’s British, and I’ll call you a racist. Ask for his birth records, and I’ll say “nope, sorry. Law’s got my hands tied. I really wish I could, but …”
Ok, it’s a little bit of a stretch, but you see the approximate parallel. So I buy Barack was born here, taking a little bit of it (as we all have to do eventually with just about everything) on faith. Yup. Natural born citizen, and even if he weren’t at this point, the moment he was sworn in -- in my book it’s pretty much a moot point – especially considering the obvious historical significance of his election. Too many wicki stickets the Constitution doesn’t address (but perhaps we should think about fixing that).
The question remains (and should especially for “investigative”, “whistle-blowing” journalists) … why all the secrecy?
Now ... call me crazy, but according to that article ... IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ... there ARE birth records that haven't been released (or if there aren’t, they’re not allowed to release information indicating that, either … think HIPPA or FERPA). In the story, it is emphasized that the Hawaii governor ... a DEMOCRAT who wanted badly to PUT THE QUESTION TO REST ... cannot release the document( s ) only because it would be illegal for him to do so. Sorry, I’d love to, but there’s nothing that can be done. The law is the law, and my hands are tied.
What is not emphasized, but is right there in the NEW YORK TIMES article -- is that there is one thing that would make it legal.
And that would be one Barack H. Obama's consent.
Which he apparently won't give.
Is "why not"? such an inappropriate question?
It wouldn't be if it were a Republican, I can guarantee you that. Not to the "protect Obama from any embarrassing questions at all costs" crowd.
Any responses consisting of name calling and derision that don't address the question as to why the question is inappropriate or it's "crazy" to ask it will be summarily tossed out.