ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE AND INHERENT PREJUDICE ARE NOT THE SAME
by Sharon Rondeau
While the author does not provide links to the instances he cites, if accurate, The Post & Email denounces them as most most definitely “racist” and having no place in civil discourse. The same would be true of similar caricatures of whites, Asians, Native Americans, or any other race or group of people.
“Racism” is described as a “specific form” of “prejudice” against a particular group of persons.
This publication stands against all forms of racism and has reported documented instances of racial slurs and other forms of discrimination based on color to the Trump presidential transition team as well as in its articles.
However, we disagree with one statement the author, Roger Guffey, made in his piece: that questioning whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is “a native-born American” makes one a racist.
Extensive research should be performed on anyone seeking to serve as the nation’s chief executive, and Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires it. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States,” it states.
While the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” has been intensely debated since Obama entered the national spotlight in February 2007, the discussions do not end with his occupation of the White House in less than two months. During the 2016 presidential primary season, the same questions were raised about Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who are not black.
Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children). No hospital official will confirm the claim, citing “privacy” laws, although the birthplaces of previous presidents have been well-publicized, some with markers, even while those presidents were alive.
Inconsistencies which have arisen and remained unexplained over more than eight years would cause any reasonable person to ask questions about the person’s true birth narrative and life story. While Eli Saslow of The Washington Post reported in 2008 that Obama was “raised in the Kansas heartland,” the more commonly-related narrative is that Obama spent the first six years of his life in Hawaii, then moved to Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, then relocated back to Hawaii at age ten. NBC’s Brian Williams, who as a “journalist” was proven to have exaggerated and created stories for public consumption, reported in an NBC special presentation that Obama returned from Indonesia at age nine.
As The Post & Email has previously reported, one Associated Press article said that Obama moved to Indonesia at age two and that his father attended Oxford University in the UK, with no mention of the University of Hawaii, where Obama’s parents reportedly met.
MSNBC’S Chris Matthews reported in December 2007 that Obama was “born in Indonesia” but later became angry at guests who questioned Matthews’ then-staunch declaration that Obama was born in Hawaii or “the United States.”
When a candidate’s spouse states the candidate’s “home country” as a foreign land, what are Americans to believe, especially when the claim is supported by the ambassador to the U.S. from that country?
When passenger manifests are missing from the National Archives without explanation for the exact week in which the candidate was allegedly born and his proffered documentation is deemed to be fraudulent, why should questions not arise?
After his defeat in the Republican primaries, Cruz announced that he would seek reelection to his U.S. Senate seat, but he has never released any documentation showing that he was either born or became a U.S. citizen. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1971 to a father who was then a citizen of Cuba. It has been reported that in 1973, the elder Cruz took an oath of allegiance to Canada after he and his then-wife, Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz, resided and ran a business there for at least five years prior.
Last May, The Post & Email was informed that Eleanor, too, became a Canadian citizen before the family left for Texas in 1975.
According to Article I of the Constitution, an individual seeking the office of U.S. Senator must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years and reside in the state he wishes to represent. For members of the US House of Representatives, the citizenship requirement is seven years.
The Post & Email has been waiting nearly two years for the U.S. Justice Department to release documents bearing Cruz’s signature which may or may not ask the question, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” With a Canadian birth certificate and an NBC report that Cruz became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2014, long after he had left his post as an assistant deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush Justice Department, is it an unreasonable question to ask?
There is nothing “racist” about “Trust but verify.” In fact, in this day and age of “Photoshop” and the easy manipulation of data, why should we “trust” anything without verifying it first?
On April 27, 2011, an image purported to represent Obama’s long-form birth certificate from Hawaii was posted on the White House website. However, it has been declared a “computer-generated forgery” by a team of criminal investigators commissioned by Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, along with Obama’s Selective Service registration form.
A “short-form” birth certificate posted in June 2008 from an unknown source was denounced as a forgery by a number of credible analysts early on.
Given the various life narratives and lack of verifiable documentation surrounding Obama, how is it “racist” to question his veracity and published biography on the White House website?
Whether or not a candidate for public office holds U.S. citizenship and unquestionable allegiance to the United States of America is a legitimate concern. From the First Selectman of a tiny New England town to a county commissioner to a state legislator to a member of Congress to the federal courts and the executive branch, investigating the background of prospective public servants is the job of the American people, as the political parties have proven unwilling to undertake it.
If anyone — black, white, Native American, Asian, or any other race — should present the same questionable background and run for office, the response from the American people should be the same: investigate.
Finally, The Post & Email asks, “Will Yahoo! News publish this?”