If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IS THE TRUTH TOO DIFFICULT TO SEE?
submitted by Readers
(Sep. 10, 2011) — The following letters have been sent to The Washington Times regarding its dismissal of the remaining questions about the birth certificate presented by Obama to the public on April 27, 2011.
Editors, Washington Times:
You mentioned in your September 9, 2011 editorial, The foreign-born candidate, that to Donald Trump’s questioning of Obama’s birth circumstances and documentation, “the White House responded by finally releasing a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, which for the most part put the issue to rest.”
Clearly your editorial staff is woefully ignorant of the facts. A respected organization such as yours should set its standards higher. The document offered up by the White House on April 27, 2011 is a fraud. One need do no more research than investigate the findings of Paul Irey, a professional typographer with fifty years experience. The differences in the letters from one word to another are stunning. The document was a compilation of words, letters, and numbers from a variety of sources, and reproduced on a variety of typewriters and computers. The differences between characters which should be exactly the same are indisputable.
There is so much more that is wrong with the document, all of which has been written about ad nauseam, I cannot believe you missed, or like the MSM, chose to ignore it.
That you have elected to swallow the lies from the White House, hook, line, and sinker speaks poorly of your editorial board, and your organization.
What a shame, I expected more.
If I want good solid news, and editorial opinions worth reading, I’ll have to go elsewhere.
I am an online reader of your paper.
Your recent editorial on the FEC and Mr. Hassan was interesting, and seems to have created quite a stir among “birthers.” And while, as you note, the president’s release of his long-form birth certificate seems for the most part to have put the issue to rest, nagging questions persist.
For example, you note that Mr. Hassan relies on a Supreme Court case, Schneider v. Rusk. That is a bit odd, because in that case, Justice Douglas confirms that “only the natural-born citizen is eligible to be President.”
Another nagging question relates to the apparent deliberate alteration of the words of another Supreme Court opinion by a lawyer at the Congressional Research Service in a memo prepared for all members of Congress and addressing the issue of the president’s constitutional eligibility.
Through an “ellipsis omission,” the Congressional Research Service memo makes it appear that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, when in fact, it has not. The ellipsis in the memo altered the actual wording of a Supreme Court case, Perkins v. Elg, in a way that seemed designed to improperly support the conclusion the Court had already strongly indicated that the president was, indeed, constitutionally eligible, when in fact, he may or may not be so eligible, regardless of the authenticity of the birth certificate he released last April.
These issues were addressed here (http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/19/is-vattel-irrelevant-to-the-natural-born-citizen-question/), but remain unanswered. In preparing your editorial, did you examine the “ellipsis” question? If not, you should, because as one of the few remaining relatively independent and objective news organizations covering these stories, an argument can be made that you have an obligation to do so.
Keep up the good work.
The Washington Times
Editor at Large National News Editor
Messrs Ed Kelley, Victor Morton
EDITORIAL: The foreign-born candidate
[WT quote] “circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth. The White House responded by finally releasing a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, which for the most part put the issue to rest.“
This is not journalism, this is biased unsubstantiated opinion. Did anyone at your Newspaper investigate, actually look at the supposed long form birth certificate or take a short cut and copy another liberal paper? If you had actually done your homework, you would find experts are on record as saying this white house posting is a fraud. It isn’t everyone that puts a smiley face embedded in their signature on an official document! The joke is on the believers that this document is real. For Constitutional Conservatives, this issue is far from “put to rest” until the truth is exposed. Barack H. Obama/Soetoro or whatever his legal name is, has anyone checked, is not qualified to be President of the United States. When the Senate debated S. Res. 511 on April 30, 2008, 110TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES defined Natural Born Citizen as “of two parents” repeatedly stating plural parent (s). The Committee on RESOLUTION enlisted the investigative skills of Tribe/Olson ‘s report.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents,[plural] you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
Therefore, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen, was temporarily in the United States, his mother was not of age. henceforth, Mr. Obama can not be a Natural Born Citizen a requirement to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The same requirement includes the Vice President.
Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal can NOT even be considered for the position of President or Vice President. In both cases their parent’s were not American Citizens at the time of their birth. This seems a simple prerequisite for those that can read.
For your information, The Federal Election Commission monitors donations and does not Vet candidates running for office. I thank you for exposing Abdul K. Hassan in your article and equally exposing how stupid the FEC is for even considering such, much less making the dumb statement that they did. It reeks Washington corrupt politics, that is an embarrassment to the Natural Born Citizens of America.
Instead of a retraction why don’t you post a story on the questionable published, bad quality, determined to be fake birth certificate or have one of your forensic experts take it apart, layer by layer. You could also attempt to acquire the official documents from Hawaii and find out if the Hawaii documents identically match the one posted on the white house web site. The privacy issue no longer applies when Hawaii discusses it and the person’s name on the long form birth certificate posts it on the internet, further claims ownership to it in the press, therefore it is not private any longer. Why was it private in the first place, every president has disclosed such documents except this one that hires expensive lawyers to keep from disclosing it. Now that would be a story making headline news.
This issue can not be ignored, nor “put to rest” it is history still in the making and will become part of preserved American History, that never should be repeated, honoring our forefathers creation of the Constitution and their intent for America and her Natural Born Citizens.