0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
We've all been watching the discussion of the citizenship questions regarding Obama. I've said almost nothing about it because the whole subject is so complicated, seemingly, that it makes my head swim to try to sort it out. And regardless of what some critics say, we don't know for certain where Obama was born; the question of his birthplace is far from settled.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
Labels: Citizenship, Constitution, Globalism, Presidential Candidates