Thursday, May 17, 2012

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...

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.


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.


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...


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?"


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!


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment