The Importance of President Obama's Birth Certificate

There is a great deal of controversy over whether President Obama has the credentials, per the U.S. Constitution, to hold the office of The President of the United States.  On April 27, 2011 (about halfway into his presidency) President Obama produced a Certificate of Live Birththat allegedly validates he was born in Hawaii.  Let's examine this very important issue further...

PEOPLE THAT SAY IT IS NOT IMPORTANT

Before I continue, I want to address people that say this is not an important issue and that it just distracts from more important things that need to be addressed.

First, saying that it's not important is demonstrating a complete ignorance about the intent of why that requirement was put into the United States Constitution in the first place.  Keep in mind, we're not talking about some random company policy, we are discussing the highest law in the land: the Constitution of the United States!  Further below I'll discuss why the forefathers included the requirements for the Office of the President, but suffice it to say if we start pushing aside the Constitution, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

Many people are claiming that this issue is diverting valuable time away from more important issues, and the President himself said this was becoming a "sideshow".  Frankly, that statement is ludicrous for three main reasons:

1. The only reason there is any attention on this issue at this point in time in the first place is because the President chose not to release the document a long time ago.  He spent over 2 million dollars in legal fees to avoid doing so.  Consequently, much more time, effort, and money has been put into not releasing the document than simply doing so.  That should actually cause any reasonable person to question why it was not released a long time ago.

2. It should not take up that much time to ask a staff member (or Michelle) to get the document, have it scanned, then hold a 5 minute press conference about it.

3. If President Obama can spend hours on the golf course, basketball court, and fill out a "March Madness" basketball bracket on TV; then surely he can take a few minutes to address the American people and the constitutional requirements of the office he holds.  Saying this is diverting valuable time and that it's the "birthers" to blame is a lame argument by people that either do not see a much bigger issue at hand, or just want to bury their heads in the sand because they also sense there could be more to this than they want to admit.


AUTHENTICITY OF THE RECENTLY RELEASED DOCUMENT

Substantial questions remain about the authenticity of the birth certificate.  However, anyone that brings this up is immediately labeled as a "birther" that will never be satisfied.  I wonder what similar strategies were used when anyone objected to Hitler's tactics and policies?  Will the American people also let the facts of the matter be squashed because bringing up the issue results in persecution and ridicule?  I fear, for the most part, the answer to that is that most people will.

Though mostly ignored for the aforementioned reasons, experts are presenting compelling evidence suggesting the document is a forgery.  THIS LINK presents some videos that question the authenticity of the document. 

In addition to the technical issues, other people point out that President Obama's father is listed to be from "Kenya, East Africa", yet Kenya was not an independent country until 1963 — 2 years after the date of the birth certificate.  Others point out his father's race is listed as "African", yet the term used in the early 60's, when the document was allegedly recorded, was actually "Negro".  They also claim that government agencies that tracked statistics had narrow guidelines of how to record that information so that statistics could be kept.

I am not an expert, so I don't know if perhaps Kenya would still have been a valid option to record on a birth certificate regardless of its official independence and whether or not his father could have been recorded as "African" since he actually was "African".  I would think other birth certificates could be examined and compared to see, though perhaps the odds of finding someone born in Hawaii with a father from Kenya, East Africa are very slim.

IS IT A MATTER OF RACE?

This is a good place to interject that this is not a matter of race!  If there were the same questions surrounding anyone — regardless of their color, race, gender, or religion — many people would want to know more.  In fact, though a much lesser issue in terms of the affairs of our nation, recall that President Clinton was under a lot of scrutiny for his affairs with Monica Lewinsky.  George W. Bush was sharply criticized for his behavior during his college years and President Nixon was forced to resign from office for engaging in unlawful behavior that had much less impact on his presidency than does the issue about President Obama's birth certificate.

There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh would get equal or more scrutiny if he were president and his ideologies and credentials were in question.  Indeed it's about a much more important matter: we are trying to explore the beliefs, values, and political ideology held by the person holding the most powerful position in the United States and whether or not they are in line with the best interests of the United States.

Playing the "race card" about this issue is divisive and only diverts attention where it need not be.  The real attention should be about the Constitution of the United States, whether or not the person holding the highest office in the land is adhering to the law of the land, and the purpose that requirement for being President of the United States is there to begin with...

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT

The founding fathers of the United States did a fantastic job drawing up our Constitution.  It took them a long time to do so as they carefully thought out, debated, and finally agreed to all that its comprised of.  They carefully added many important things: like establishing the three branches of government, wherein a system of "checks and balances" was put into our governmental system; establishing what congress may and may not do; creating the courts and their function; and ensuring U.S. citizens enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the Office of the President and requirements thereof.  Therein we have the law that someone must be a natural born citizen, age 35, have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years prior, and so on.

Why were those requirements included?  Were the founders just arbitrarily adding some meaningless law to the Constitution?  No, of course not!

So, then, what were they thinking?  It's quite clear if you logically think about it: they were recognizing that it would be in the best interest of the U.S. if they could reasonably ensure that the person holding the highest office in the land was absolutely loyal to the U.S.; thus, all of the beliefs, values, political ideology and consequent decisions that person made always had the best interest of the U.S. in mind.  Now whether or not the policies were always right, at least it could be reasonably assured the right intentions were there.

That is why it is an important issue.  If the President of the United States has had substantial influence from another nation's ideas or from a religion that is hateful and opposed to the religion that most of the citizens of the U.S. hold, then it is very important to know that.  In essence, it protects us from "enemies, both foreign and domestic", as it helps us avoid having someone that is really a "spy" of sorts making policy not in the best interest of the U.S.  During the campaign President Obama repeatedly said there would be "change", though the question that was not asked is, "Exactly what kind of change?"

WHERE HAS THE PRESS BEEN?

What makes that issue difficult to deal with is that the press is readily accepting the document, though we have to seriously question if the press is doing its job!!!  Why this issue was not investigated while President Obama was running for office rather than actually holding the office is astounding.  Where was the press when there was substantial ambiguity about the man running for President of the United States?

The question should be asked, "Why wasn't the birth certificate released long ago given it was asked for time and time again?"  The mainstream press is not asking that very important question.  Was it not provided to make some point that we have no right to know or that it should not be a constitutional requirement?  I can't see either of those reasons settling well with most people.  It was either a blatant act of defiance, or there is another reason.  Frankly, I can not think of any goodreason nor have I seen one proposed.

Another important consideration about this matter is this: why isn't the press wanting to know about the college papers President Obama wrote?  While not the "all knowing, all telling" indication of one's beliefs, values, and political ideology, I would think they could weigh into the matter at least some.  Put another way, why is President Obama hiding that information?  In fact, it's still ambiguous to me where President Obama went to school, what he was taught, who his friends are/were, what his friends and teachers have to say about him, etc.

Many employers require that one's work history be valid and ask for official college transcripts conditional to employment, and that is a very reasonable request.  Frankly, the "employers" (the American people via the press) did not do their due diligence concerning Barack Obama.  We really know very little about him.  He was ushered in on a popularity contest where speeches and other factors played a larger role than the substance behind the man.

Had the issue of the birth certificate and such been discussed prior to the presidential election, the American people could have, at that time, made the decision at the polls of whether or not it was an issue.  (Though arguably the founding fathers intended for it be a law, not something we vote on based on "popularity".)  We'll never know how it may have played out, because the press did not do its job and, therefore, the issue is still being dealt with now, after the election.

As for correcting the problem, to do so would require that the press essentially report on itself about how poor of a job it did, which is not likely to happen.  Also, many people in the mainstream media likely voted for President Obama, therefore they have further motives to ignore this issue.  Except for web sites like this, the issue will not likely get any attention.  If you dare to share this blog, then perhaps you can help.

Consequently, there is still a cloud of doubt about whether or not President Obama is actually legally holding the office of President of the United States.  Now, some people are quick (too quick) to say that it should be a non-issue and that anyone discussing the matter is doing so foolishly.  They mention that our economy is in trouble, we have conflicts going on around the world, and that there are otherwise many other issues to be addressed.  It's for exactly those reasons that this is an important issue.  As noted before, the founding fathers of the United States thought it was quite important!

WHY DID IT TAKE THIS LONG TO RELEASE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? 

Had the document been released a long time ago, questions of whether or not it is legitimate would have long been dismissed or dealt with; but that is far from the case.  I won't rehash some of the points that reasonably question its legitimacy, but I think the main point is worth asking: what, then, was the motivation behind hiding this document for so long?  Why hide a document substantiating one's legal eligibility to be in office (and pay so much money to do so) only to eventually produce it?

Moreover, all too readily accepting a document that was produced years later and still has a lot of questions about its authenticity is foolish at best, and hints of not wanting to address the deeper issue at hand: who is the man holding the highest office in the nation, what are his values, what is his political ideology, and therefore what is his agenda?

Time will tell how this all plays out, though I'm not sure if it will ever be settled.  Should the Lord tarry, it could go down as one of the most unsolved conspiracy theories ever.  Who shot Kennedy, what happened at Roswell, did President Obama ever legally hold the office of President of the United States... ? 

Now you may be asking, "What does this have to do with Bible prophecy?"  It could actually have a lot to do with that.

Where Is President Obama Leading Us?

President Obama has demonstrated that he has the moral and political fortitude to push his own agenda, regardless of the wishes of most Americans.  We need only look to the Health Care Bill which was passed despite obvious opposition by the American people.  Many elected officials in the Legislative Branch made deals, bowed to political pressure from the White House, and essentially ignored what their constituents wanted.  It was one of the major reasons so many democrat incumbents who assisted in doing so were voted out of office in the recent elections.  It's a topic all its own and I only use it to set up the thesis of another important matter...

I believe a much more grave issue of prophetic proportions is on the horizon.  Namely that now that the elections are over, President Obama will turn his attention to the Middle East; and while most Americans support Israel, there is strong evidence that President Obama does not! 

What makes President Obama's potential to dismiss the best interest and wishes of the American people even more ominous is that the office he holds is arguably the most powerful political office in the world. Historically, the U.S. has exercised it veto power within the U.N. because it only does what is in the best interest of the U.S. and its close allies; therefore, Israel has been saved from its enemies within the U.N.  However, if President Obama's campaign platform of "change" were to extend to that area of policy too, then the U.S. would withdraw that support and leave Israel very vulnerable to U.N. resolutions that would not favor the nation of Israel.

What makes it all the more interesting is what is foretold in Zechariah 12:2-3, where we read that at some point in the future “all nations of the earth” will be against Israel:

I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling.  Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.  On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.  All who try to move it will injure themselves. (Emphasis added)

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ABOUT ISRAEL

So, then, it's not really of any surprise that we have recently seen the United States pulling back its support for Israel compared to the strong alliance the United States and Israel once enjoyed.  In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in late September 2009, President Obama said, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”  First, let's note that he is speaking as if he is speaking for "America", yet poll after poll suggest that is not how most U.S. citizens view Israel!  Once again we are witness to the fact President Obama will do whatever his own personal agenda and beliefs dictate, regardless of how most Americans feel about a given issue.  President Obama was talking about Israel building homes in the area of land called the West Bank, yet this is land that is rightfully Israel’s via a promise from God to Abraham and his descendants recorded in Genesis 15:18-21, as well as by the fact Israel took the land back during the Six-Day War, which they were lawfully allowed to do under international law (not unlike how most nations, including the United States, have the land they now occupy).

It's important that we recognize Israel is very small and does not have land that it can easily afford to give away, especially when we understand that it is still rapidly growing in population.  Moreover, if the West Bank were to be given to the Palestinians, Israel would then be only nine miles wide in a location directly north of Tel Aviv.  As we look at a map, we realize that it would be nearly dividing the country in two and that it would make the Israeli citizens much more vulnerable to military attack. 

If that’s not enough, Israel is being asked to give the land to an enemy that time and time again has fired missiles and launched attacks against Israel and her people.  What makes President Obama's rhetoric even more suspicious is that after the disputed elections in Iran (with protestors in the streets complaining the election was not democratic), he said that he would not get involved because Iran was a sovereign nation; yet a short time later we saw him getting involved with Israel's right to build homes within its own borders, and he continues to do so today as much as ever.

IS PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR THE U.S.?

Another disconcerting issue is that when President Obama was elected, the American people knew so very little about him (and to some extent we still don't know all that much, especially in light of the position he holds).  As Chuck Missler once said, "The U.S. population got an I.Q. Test, and failed!" Indeed our knowledge of President Obama's school records and place of birth are murky at best, as he spends a considerable amount of money keeping them from our awareness.  WHY?  Anyone with a reasonable amount of discernment knows he is hiding something.

To use an analogy, it would be like walking into the kitchen and finding a plate of cookies beside a 3 year old that is standing there with his hands behind his back.  You then ask him if he has anything in his hands and he sheepishly replies, "no".  So you ask if you can see his hands and he refuses to show you.  You ask several more times, at first nicely, and then a little more sternly, perhaps even demanding that you see his hands; and yet he still refuses, and even begins to retreat.  If he didn't have something to hide, then why would he just not show his hands to easily prove that?  Obviously because he does, indeed, have something to hide.

President Obama says he is a Christian, but he gives every indication he is a Muslim through his actions.  As we all know, actions speak louder than words. Moreover, according to the Koran, a Muslim has permission to lie to the "infidels" (even pretending to befriend them) if doing so ultimately will help the Nation of Islam.  It is called “Al-taqiyya.” Consequently, we should look to one's actions, not their words, more than ever concerning such matters.  Not because we are on some religious "witch hunt", but because knowing someone's faith (particularly someone that holds a powerful position and whose faith is hateful and violent against anyone outside that faith), helps us determine what their underlying motives, beliefs, political and religious agenda may be.  As we do so with President Obama, I believe the actions are telling...

Referring to the United States, President Obama has gone out of his way more than once to proclaim we are not a Christian nation.  Why would a Christian, surely either aware of our deep Christian heritage or extremely ill-equipped to hold the office of President, say that about the United States?  Moreover, why would he say that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth", when anyone with just a little knowledge about such matters understands that Islam commands its followers to hate Christians?  Surely, he knows that the Muslim faith contradicts God's Word wherein Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."

Also, in a speech he distinguished himself from Christians that believes in the authority of the Bible by saying, “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.”  He then went on in that speech to make fun of scripture and take some verses out of context.  Does that sound like something a true Christian would do?

Moreover, examining his actions, we know that President Obama stands against the principles most Christians hold dear.  For example, he is pro-abortion (and even supports the horrendous partial-birth abortion practices that many pro-abortion people concede is going too far) and he strongly supports homosexuality (despite numerous places in the Bible explaining it is an immoral lifestyle that God does not condone).

WHERE IS THE U.S. IN END-TIMES BIBLE PROPHECY?

When I speak to people about Bible prophecy, one of the questions often asked is where the U.S. fits into the prophetic scene.  The Bible says that at the very least the U.S. will not be on the side of Israel.  That also has to take place because of the way in which God once again will permit Israel to be victorious, which would not be as miraculous if a superpower were on Israel’s side.  The reason why the U.S. will be “against Israel” is not clearly known.  Many eschatologists theorize that the Rapture will have taken the Christians (and thus, the driving force behind why the U.S. is “Jewish-friendly”) away.  Indeed, such an event would thrust the entire world into a chaotic situation and open the need for a so-called “savior” to offer peace and stability to a world in turmoil; hence, it would provide an opportune time for the Antichrist to enter the scene.

There are many other theories that, when especially combined with the rapture theory, easily explain how the U.S. will be absent from end-times prophecy. I explain them all in my book, Pray That You May Escape; but for the lack of space and due to the focus of this article, I will not include them all here. Suffice it to say, no matter how it happens, we know it will happen because God's Word says so.

In light of the political environment in which we are in right now, the question is: "Where is President Obama leading us?"  As we ponder that important question and continue to watch the news unfold, we should follow Christ's words in Luke 21:36, wherein Jesus told us, "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."