Friday, May 18, 2012

Who Is President Obama?

There are many questions surrounding just who President Barack Hussein Obama II, the 44th President of the United States, really is.  There are two questions in particular.  First, there are legitimate questions about whether or not he has the legal credentials, per the U.S. Constitution, to hold the highest office in the land.  The other related question concerns his overall agenda for the United States and its role in the world.  I will address both of those very important matters in this article.


On April 27, 2011 (about halfway into his presidency) President Obama finally produced a Certificate of Live Birth that allegedly indicates he was born in Hawaii, and therefore is a natural born citizen of the U.S.  There are still many issues surrounding the matter: such as its importance, the timing of its release, and even its authenticity.

First, to address the contention that some people have about whether it's important or not: quite simply, people that claim the issue is irrelevant are either unaware of why the drafters of the Constitution included certain requirements for whom may hold office of President (i.e. one must be a natural born citizen of the U.S.) or, worse, they do understand why it is a constitutional requirement and intentionally want to marginalize its importance.  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.

President Obama himself has even said the matter was becoming a "sideshow".  That statement is ludicrous for four main reasons:
  1. He was being asked to show his birth certificate because legitimate questions were being raised about his legal eligibility, per the highest law of the land, to hold the office he was running for (and now holds).  Did he not provide it 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 good reason, nor have I seen one proposed. 
  2. It has become, in the words of President Obama, "a sideshow" because he chose not to release it and then spent over 2 million dollars in legal fees to avoid  releasing it.  Thus, much more time, effort, and money has been put into not releasing the document than simply doing so.  That should cause any reasonable person to question why it was simply not released to begin with.
  3. It would not take up that much time to ask a staff member to get the document and hold a 5 minute press conference about it.
  4. If President Obama can spend hours on the golf course, vacations, and fill out a "March Madness" basketball bracket on TV; then surely he can take a few minutes to reassure the American people that he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the office that he holds.


Substantial questions remain about the online version of the birth certificate that was released late into his presidency.  Anyone that brings this up, however, is labeled as a "birther" that is worrying about something that they have no right to be concerned about.  I wonder what similar strategies were used when anyone objected to Hitler's tactics and policies?  Will the American people 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.  If we put the technical issues aside,we can look at this from a some other angles.  For example, experts point out that President Obama's father is listed to be from "Kenya, East Africa", yet Kenya was not an independent country until 1963 — two 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". 

The birth certificate released by the White House lists Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital as the place of birth. However, there were actually two hospitals and they were called "KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”. Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital was not the name until 1978 when the two hospitals merged.  There is no way a birth certificate issued at the time of President Obama's birth could have listed Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital!!!

Moreover, why was only a digital copy released via the Internet? Seems to me a quick press conference with the original document, on original paper, would be appropriate.  Another source of authenticity would be the microfiche from the hospital, which has not been released.  A digital copy that has questionable content and technical aberrations is hardly evidence President Obama was born in the U.S.


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.

Certainly 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", though sadly somewhat effective, is divisive and only diverts attention.  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.  They carefully thought out, debated, and finally agreed to all that its comprised of: such establishing the three branches of government for "checks and balances"; 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! It's quite clear what they were thinking when we logically think it through: 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.  President Obama finally released a questionable version of his birth certificate after Donald Trump began to make it an issue and, unlike the press, was not afraid to let the issue rest. The question one has to ask is where was the press when there was substantial ambiguity about the man running for President of the United States?


Another related consideration is about President Obama's college records, or lack thereof.  According to Wayne Allyn Root, a person that attended Columbia the same time Obama allegedly did, there are substantial questions about that very matter.  In summary, Mr. Root says:
  • Obama's college records are the proverbial  skeleton in his closet.
  • Obama's presidential  campaign team is strategically distracting American voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns.  It's a strategy of having a strong defense by presenting a bold offense.
  • Obama's college records contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election; thus, they have not and will not be released.
  • Root thought he knew most everyone at Columbia and certainly thought he’d heard of all of his fellow Political Science majors. But he never met or even heard of Obama (then called  Barry Soetoro, which is an oddity in and of itself). Moreover, Root asked other classmates at Columbia and they also never met, saw, or even heard of Barry Soetoro.  The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of their Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met him!
  • If we could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records, we would learn:
    • Obama rarely attended class.
    • Obama's grades were not up to par with the kind it usually takes to get into Harvard Law School.
    • Obama attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student. [If true, that means there has been birth certificate fraud, that Obama is not a U.S. citizen and he is holding the office of president illegally!]


Not surprising in light of what we know (or don't know) about President Obama, very credible new research is now being presented that suggests he is systematically expanding the role of government within America and shrinking the role of America throughout the world (a.k.a. anti-colonialism) in line with the radical ideologies and political beliefs passed on to him from his father.  An important question we must ask is what will happen if he is re-elected and, without worry of a re-election bid, he is able to push his agenda even further.


Had these issues been discussed prior to the 2008 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 the citizenship requirement to 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.  Americans have another shot at this in 2012 -- the results of which are to be determined as of this writing, but Americans failed the test once and if the race card or other factors come into play, they will likely fail again.

Our economy is in trouble, we have conflicts going on around the world, and there are many other issues that need to be addressed by a strong leader with America's best interest at heart.  It's for exactly those reasons that these issues are important.  As noted before, the founding fathers of the United States thought it was quite important!

Now you may be asking, "What does this have to do with Bible prophecy?"  It could actually have a lot to do with that, as discussed in a previous article entitled, "Where Is the United States Headed?".


No comments:

Post a Comment