Frankly, I am not so sure that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement our southern cousins have for their president is a particularly meaningful one. After all, ‘home-grown’ terrorists do exist, as do immigrants who are loyal to their adoptive land beyond anything most ‘natural born citizens’ feel. In my never-humble-opinion, this ‘measure’ does not achieve what I suspect the drafters of the phrase intended.
Still, rules is rules.
Bad rules should be changed. But, until they are, they ought not be broken – especially by the head dude of the organization that has a monopoly on enforcing these rules…not only is it unfair, it corrupts the institution itself.
It is the fact that Obama’s eligibility for the US presidency was not subjected to the same scrutiny other candidates were that has given rise to this whole circus. Whether the whole big deal is justified or not remains to be seen.
And, today (March 1st, 2012), it will be.
It’s the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.
The issues include Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number and the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii.
In addition to the live-streaming, WND will make available to the public, the same day by email, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s investigators. Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service.
…
The Arpaio investigators were given the case following a meeting held in the sheriff’s office Aug. 17, 2011, with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.
Whether you think there is some fire where all this ‘eligibility’ smoke is coming from or not, this will be interesting for several reasons:
- what will be in the report itself
- how will it be spun by the media – if the media addresses it at all
- how will it play among the citizenry – regardless of media coverage, this is just too gossipy to stay totally quiet
- if the report rules Obama ineligible – what will be the legal repercussions, both for Obama’s current status as POTUS and as the presumed Democratic candidate in 2012…because if he cannot run, the Dems will be a little slow out of the starting gate in their candidate selection process
This little dance might prove to be ineresting…
H/T: BCF
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
March 1, 2012 at 14:50
Bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!! You are a fucking moron. And probably a racist – that seems to be teh case for people who choose to obsess about whether America’s first black president is actually a foreign born manchurian candidate.
March 1, 2012 at 14:57
Bwahahahahahahha!!!!!!
Alright, I’ll stop laughing for 2 minutes to address your post.
“It is the fact that Obama’s eligibility for the US presidency was not subjected to the same scrutiny other candidates were that has given rise to this whole circus.” – Oh yeah? To what degree of scrutiny was the eligibility of other presidents subjected to in comparison to Obama? How about, none whatsoever? Because all previous presidents were white and racists like everyone who writes at WND didn’t give two shits about the eligibility of a white president. I would say that Obama’s eligibility has been considered about 10 billions times more than every other president combined. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, just feel ashamed of your racism and crawl under a rock somewhere to die.
“what will be in the report itself” – Absolutely nothing new or revealing an any way!
“how will it be spun by the media” – Racist conservatives will view it as proof of Obama’s Otherness and everyone else will laugh uncontrollably at their stupidity. You will be in the former group.
“how will it play among the citizenry” – Racist conservatives will view it as proof of Obama’s Otherness and everyone else will laugh uncontrollably at their stupidity. You will be in the former group.
Anyhoo… back to it: bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!
March 1, 2012 at 20:21
Can you please write a very serious and science-y analysis of Sheriff’s Joe’s case against Obama’s birth certificate? Like…. make it *super* science-y, with lots of video recreations and men standing around in lab coats and dour looks.
Also, do you think that Sheriff Joe will make the birth certificate wear pink underwear if he gets a conviction?
Also….. hahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!! Are you looking forward to telling your grandkids that you fell for a racist, crackpot conspiracy theory about the first black president?
Xanthippa says:
OK – admission time… I really don’t care what the outcome was. I have not yet checked it out… I agree with Dan Hannan: Obama was truly born in Brussels!
What I am interested in is how the legal situation would play out if a sitting president – any president – were found to be ineligible to be POTUS after he had held the office for a term already.
So I am a bit of a geek, but I find that question fasciating.
Who that president happens to be is really rather irrelevant to me – for much of the last century, the American presidents have been collectivist villains, regardless of the party they represented. It made little difference (with a few notable exceptions) which party was in power: big brother government grew, power became more concentrated…not a good state of things. Clinton or Obama or Bush – who could tell the difference?
But, if the rules were broken and POTUS (whoever he may be) is not called on it until he is running for a second term, there are some serious constitutuional issues which will need to be dealt with. Do you not find the underlying legal questions worth exploring?
March 2, 2012 at 17:54
Hmm…. “collectivist villians” eh? So, as a libertarian, you oppose government interacting with citizens in terms of groups with which they identify, except if they are Muslims, in which case you support collectiveist in the form of governemtn discrimination based on membership in a group? Cause you seemed super keen on the Individual Rights (for non-Muslims) Party of BC, who have a policy of discrimiantion against Muslism based on their religious identification alone. And certainly your blogroll is heavy on people who think only in terms of lumping people into groups. So some clarification would help,. Collectiveism is bad, except to teh extent it is useful in discriminating against groups you dislike….. is that right?
Xanthippa says:
All religions are collectivist in their nature.
It has been my long held position that no religious organizations should be treated in any way differently than businesses or hobby groups; that religious beliefs ought not be accorded any more ‘special’ or ‘protected’ status than any other personal opinions that cannot be supported by real-life facts.
I have stated, clearly and openly, that the IRPBC has a problem because it only goes part of the way ‘there’. It is impossible to defend a principled stance on one religion’s collectivism while ignoring all others’: it does not represent a principled position.
However, the IRPBC is in its infancy. It is my hope that engaging them in a dialogue – and then pointing out their blind spots – will not be as pointless as it is when one interacts with more established parties. Perhaps that is naive, but I consider it worth a try…
I also think that it is important to provide new parties with a podium: let them explain their positions and let them sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas.
As for Islam: it is different from other religions only in that it is currently in a state of expansion and that we are seeing our secular authorities treating Islam with more respect than other religions are being treted with. It would be disingenuous to pretend that here and now, it is not the Islamists who are in the forefront of demanding that secular institutions accommodate religious prejudices and that when religious practices contravene secular laws, it is secular laws that must be changed.
I have no doubt that all other religionists would be happy to ‘piggyback’ on to the Islamist’s erosion of secularism. (Perhaps that is an unfortunate expression – I only noticed it during proof-reading what I wrote…but I have to let it stand lest I be guilty of self-censorship due to religious sensitivities…) That is why I think that the IRPBC has taken a good first step in its criticism of treating Islam as a religion instead of as a political philosophy. Now, let’s work on them to get them to include all other religions in this!
March 4, 2012 at 17:36
“As for Islam: it is different from other religions only in that it is currently in a state of expansion and that we are seeing our secular authorities treating Islam with more respect than other religions are being treted with. It would be disingenuous to pretend that here and now, it is not the Islamists who are in the forefront of demanding that secular institutions accommodate religious prejudices and that when religious practices contravene secular laws, it is secular laws that must be changed.”
Yeah, right. I forgot about all that publicly funded Islamic separate school system in Ontario. Oh wait, that’s Catholic.
But wait…. I forgot about all those Islamist politicians currently sitting as MPs. Oh wait…. there aren’t any. Just Christianists.
But wait…. I forgot about all those years growing up I was forced to recite passages of the Koran as a student in our public school system. Oh…. actually that was Christian prayers I was forced to recite.
Anyone who actually thinks that Islamists have a greater influence on our society and political systems than Christianist is either a fool or a Christianst. Which are you?
Xanthippa says:
The very first protest demonstration I took part in – while still in my teens – was to protest the Separate school system in Ontario…and my opinion on the topic has not changed.
Now, I did go to high school in Canada. In the morning, our principal instructed us over the PA system to stand for a silent morning prayer: I personally started a protest until the school changed that policy. Never was I taught any Christian scripture in public schools.
Now, the only prayers permitted in our public high schools are Muslim prayers…
Open your eyes!
March 5, 2012 at 17:29
My eyes are wide open and I have never, anywhere in my entire life, been exposed to Islamic practices or influences of any kind whatsoever in any public spaces. Nor have I heard this happening to anyone I know. ever, anywhere. On the other hand, I am confronted constantly with Christian influence and practices in the public sphere. The hysteria over Islam on teh right boils down to crass bigotry and nothing more.
Xanthippa says:
I do not know your circumstances. And, I do not deny that Christian influences over secular affairs need to be fought, actively and vigorously.
However, here, in Ontario, there had been an attempt several years ago to introduce a parallel legal system of Sharia courts: that is a serious matter because it would mean that Ontario residents who happen to be Muslims would be subject to a whole different set of laws, over which out secular law-makers have no influence.
I see that as a problem.
We are seeing increasing demands for censorship of speech, based on Sharia – both here, in Canada and internationally. These are the so-called ‘blaspemy laws’ which would make criticism of religions in general and Islam in particular a criminal offense.
Even the Christians around us do not threaten us with violence for criticizing their religion or their religious leaders. Many – certainly not all, but many – Muslims do.
Moderate Muslims – like Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah – not only agree that ‘creeping Sharia’ is increasingly invading our society, they are some of the strongest voices urging us to oppose it. They have both immigrated to Canada to get away from oppressive Islamism – and are fully aware that moderate Muslims like themselves will be the first victims of Islamist influences over our secular society.
Which is why I am repeating: recognizing that Islam is a political doctorine and treating it as such is a good first step…which will make no sense if we limit it to one religion alone. We must recognize that all religions are political in nature and we must treat them as such.
I think you are the only person ever who has accised me of being a ‘Christian sympathizer’. After all, I have published posts that explain how, if one accepts the Christian dogma, one must worship a god who raped his own mother…and how the Christian doctorine of scapegoatism is immoral to its core…
So, how is opposing all religionist intrusion into secular governance not in line with your moral thinking?
March 16, 2012 at 00:58
“It is the fact that Obama’s eligibility for the US presidency was not subjected to the same scrutiny other candidates were that has given rise to this whole circus.”
Obama is the only president whose eligibility was ever subjected to ANY scrutiny.