Cash for Clunkers vs. Government Run Healthcare
The same government that cannot manage a one billion dollar program correctly wants to seize control of Health Care and manage $1.5 TRILLION dollars?
The “Cash for Clunkers” program was supposed to run for 3 months on $1 billion dollars in “funding” from the Federal Government. (That funding was your and my tax dollars, but I digress.)
After 2-3 days, the program is “broke.”
The lamestream media and Democrats may claim that “cash for clunkers” has been a runaway success but the reality is this: This Administration couldn’t properly forecast and plan an expenditure of a “mere” $1 billion dollars, and they think they can do it for the $1.5 TRILLION the proposed “health care reform” would cost? I think not.
Speaking of Cash for Clunkers, did you all see on Glen Beck’s program that by signing onto the Cash for Clunkers website you’re ceding ownership of your computer to the Federal Government, who can then audit, download, and potentially prosecute you for anything on it?
Yeah, that’s our “transparent” government hard at work, compliments of Barack Hussein Obama.
“Birthers” Driving Lamestream Media Nuts
Generally speaking I’m fairly agnostic on the whole Obama-Birth Certificate issue. Something tells me if there really was an issue with Obama’s ability to serve as President due to not being a natural born citizen that the Clinton campaign would’ve turned it up and used it during the 2008 campaign. Hillary was relentless in her pursuit of the Oval Office, something in my gut just tells me she’d have used it if it were really an issue.
We also now know that the McCain campaign looked into the issue, and if there was anything there I have to think that they’d have used it in the closing days of the campaign as well. God knows how bad the McCain campaign truly sucked despite Sarah Palin’s best efforts to save it.
Having said that, I do wonder why the Obama Administration is spending millions of dollars defending not releasing it and the lamestream media’s continued onslaught in marginalizing the “birthers.”
Conspiracies tend to die off when not paid attention to, which makes me pause to wonder why the media and Obama administration are paying so much attention to the “birthers.” Seems to me that the whole thing could be de-fused and alot of people in the ‘birther’ movement can be made to look incredibly stupid by simply releasing the original, long-form birth certificate at a cost of $10 or so.
So why spend millions defending not releasing it?
I can think of two reasons.
First this may be political strategy on the part of the Obama Campaign. (Make no mistake, Obama is still “campaigning.”) Seeing a growing number of so-called “Conservatives” buying into the ‘birther’ movement, they may be waiting until the 2010 or 2012 elections get closer to release the original birth certificate which would then completely discredit the ‘birthers’ and help Democrats in the mid-term or 2012 elections. From a political strategy perspective, spending a million or two to discredit a large part of your opponents political base would be a cheap way to win an election.
Second, there may actually be something to the ‘birthers’ claims that Obama is not qualified to serve as President as a ‘natural born citizen.’
In order to understand what has the “birthers” in a tizzy, one must understand what the requirements are to be President of these United States. Most American’s fail to differentiate the difference between “naturalized” and “natural born” American citizenship and here is the challenge “birthers” face in their arguments, thanks in large part to the lack of American Civic’s being taught in our public schools these days.
Legal precedent on the distinction between “naturalized” and “natural-born” American citizenship is not well defined.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defined natural-born status in this way:
"The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."Note that is says citizens, plural. But this Act was revised five years later, and then excluded the phrase "natural-born." While this act speaks specifically to those born outside of the US, it does seem clear that our founding fathers saw a "natural-born" citizen as a child of two US parents.
Then there’s the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, which is frequently cited by those who try to dilute or simplify the meaning of “natural born” citizen:
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,The majority opinion of the Supreme Court for this case (which is what sets precedence) did not explicitly comment on the definition of "natural born citizens." Instead, they simply said:
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ['citizen' and 'natural born citizen']."
And they quite intentionally referred to Kim as "native born" instead of "natural born" throughout the ruling.
Clearly this precedent doesn’t speak to the definition or application of “natural born” citizenship, especially as it pertains of the Presidency of the United States of America.
The closest the courts have come to defining “natural born” citizenship was in Minor v. Happersett (1874) in which the United States Supreme Court stated:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Here’s where things get murky. The law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if one is born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national (of which Obama’s father was) then the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the childs birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” citizen.
Here is where the rubber meets the road for the “birthers.”
The U.S. law in effect during Obama's birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child's birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since).
Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of "natural-born" citizenship - one which confers "natural-born" status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Obama's American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of "natural-born."
So where does this leave us? We know that a child born of two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is most certainly a “natural born” citizen. We also know that if a child has just one U.S. parent and is born outside of U.S. borders they may still be considered a “natural born” citizen presuming that parent is at least 19 years old and has lived in the United States for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14. This is what the law stated at the time of Obama’s birth, therefore there is no precedent to extend the definition of “natural born” citizen.
Furthermore, since Obama had dual-citizenship with the United States and Kenya (which he never actively refuted) there is also no precedent that states “natural born” citizenship may be conferred on a child of dual nationalities, which of course Obama was.
So are the “birthers” crazy, misguided “Conservatives” that are ruining the Republican Party? Not exactly, primarily because there is no legal precedent to state whether or not Obama is, or is not a “natural born” citizen.
Since Obama continues to refuse to provide his long-form, original birth certificate, my own view is that this is precisely where the courts, specifically the United States Supreme Court needs to step in and decide the issue from a Constitutional perspective. To do that requires interpreting the Constitution as it is written and applying it to this specific case.
If that means declaring Obama a “natural citizen” then so be it. If it means otherwise, then this country will in fact have elected a President that was not legally fit to serve and the “birthers” have been right all along.
Whether this is political strategy by the Obama Administration to minimize his opponents in order to win the 2010/2012 elections as we pondered above, or a deliberate attempt to conceal the facts about the status of his birth remains to be seen in my opinion.
I won’t however, call the “birthers” nuts or a “fringe group” having examined the facts as best I can at this time.
Obama can shut the issue down any time he so desires by releasing his original, long-form birth certificate (or certificate of Live Birth as Hawaii defines it.) The question is, why won’t he? Is it political strategy, or does he in fact have something to hide?
Your comments are welcome.