Michael Gaynor
When it comes to Obama, DON'T assume!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
February 5, 2010

The sooner the whole truth about Obama and his radical enablers is generally known, the better.

Law students are told not to assume.

It's good advice for everyone, especially when it comes to President Obama, about whom much is assumed and much is not generally known.

Support for Obama's radical policies, like Obamacare, has plunged, but Obama's personal popularity remains high, thanks to the liberal media establishment's lack of scrutiny of, and willingness to turn a blind eye or even cover up or lie for, Obama.

As I reported on October 22, 2008:

ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief "had been working with New York Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom, but what ended up published as Ms. Strom's ACORN articles were so 'watered down' that Anita decided to turn elsewhere.

"Wisely so.

"Yesterday, Anita advised me, Ms. Strom apologetically canceled a meeting for today and explained that New York Times policy was not to publish what might be a game changing article this close to the election."

Neither The New York Times, nor ABC, nor CNN wanted to do a pre-election Obama/ACORN expose, lest it be a game changer.

The ugly truth about Obama and the Obama campaign and such radical organizations as ACORN, SEIU and La Raza should have been generally known before Election Day 2008, but it was not.

It still needs to become generally known and that involves setting aside the assumption that Obama is a person of great personal integrity and scrutinizing the facts.

The so-called "birthers" are intent on ascertaining the facts, but my friend Doug Edelman admonished the Right to "put [Obama's presidential] eligibility question on the shelf until after election night, 2010," because "[i]t is a potentially disastrous distraction before then," in "Beck and the Birthers" (February 3, 2010).

Make no mistake: Doug did not bash "the birthers," like buffoonish Glenn Beck and blustery Bill O'Reilly.

Doug: "There is indeed reason to question Obama's eligibility and he has invested MILLIONS in quashing the probes into the question! Once the security and stability of the fundamental structure of the Republic can be assured (after the 2010 elections), the question MUST be raised and resolved!"

But Doug believes that Beck is right that the eligibility issue "could serve to advance Obama's interests at least at this point in time!"

If so, that's partly because Beck and O'Reilly tried to enhance their own credibility by using a Saul Alinsky tactic and ridiculing "the birthers" instead of pointing out the obvious: (1) Obama has been hiding his actual birth certificate, (2) it's reasonable to suspect that a hider hides because what is hidden would be hurtful, not helpful, if discovered, and (3) the burden of proof on anyone claiming the presidency is on the claimant, regardless of race, color, creed or sex, and if that person's "national origin" is NOT the United States, that person is not qualified.

I suggest that every presidential aspirant should produce his or her birth certificate.

In 2008, John McCain did, but Obama did not.

That make Obama suspect, not "the birthers" ridiculous.

Doug rightly provided reasons why "the birthers" are right not only to demand President Obama's birth certificate, but also, based on subsequent events in Obama's life, to seek confirmation that Obama remained a "natural-born" United States citizen even if he was born in Hawaii.

Doug:

"...those who dismiss the eligibility debate as unimportant, irrelevant, settled or 'tinfoil hats' nutz really need to cool their jets and open their minds too. While there are those who have made headlines and court cases postulating that Obama was born in Kenya and proclaiming the birth documents Obama has put forth as fraudulent, there are indeed others who reject that theory yet still hold that there are OTHER constitutional disqualifiers for Obama. To call these people 'Birthers' would be inaccurate, as they don't dispute Obama's Hawaiian origins as whether he were born there OR NOT, is irrelevant to their ineligibility arguments!

"It IS a fact that the document Obama hangs his hat on, the 'Certificate of Live Birth' IS NOT a 'Birth Certificate,' and CAN BE LEGALLY obtained for a child not born on US Soil. I've written previously on this so won't waste space on it here.

"It is also a fact that Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved with him to Indonesia, where he was enrolled in school with documents showing him to be an INDONESIAN citizen. Why is this important? Because, at the time, there was NO Dual Citizenship between the US and Indonesia.

"Then there is the Passport Question: What passport did Obama use to travel to Pakistan?

"He couldn't have travelled on a US passport, as Pakistan was a 'no travel' destination for a US Passport holder. Was he using a Brittish passport? This would lend support to the Kenya Birth theory. And if he travelled on an Indonesian Passport, that would prove his Indonesian Citizenship, and by extension his forfeiture of any prior-existing US Citizenship. The answer to the question of what passport he presented on entry into Pakistan is of paramount importance to the eligibility/citizenship debate and the 'Birth Certificate' is irrelevant to that answer!"

I don't assume that Obama was born in either Hawaii or in Kenya.

I think Obama should prove where he was born by producing his birth certificate, not conceal it and expect us to blindly accept his claim.

After all, Bill O'Reilly is the one who was ridiculous when he said that "birthers" believe Obama was "born on Saturn" or that no one would have falsified the place of Obama's birth because it was not expected that he would run for President of the United States.

Note to Bill: You should NOT assume that the only reason for faking Obama's birthplace would be to facilitate his election as president. There are valuable advantages to being a "natural-born" United States citizen besides being eligible to be President. Think about it! Check with the hospitals along the border to which pregnant mothers come in order to give birth to "natural-born" United States citizens.

Doug:

"Before a war erupts on the Right between the Constitutional Eligibility Challengers and their deriders, BOTH sides need to step back!

"The eligibility issue is a distraction, and as Beck RIGHTLY points out The focus needs to be on Obama's policies. ObamaCare can still be rammed down our throats. We must put ALL our energies into convincing our elected officials that NOTHING that comes out of Conference Committee can be acceptable and WHATEVER emerges must be voted down. Focusing on 'Where's the Birth Certificate' right now will simply waste energy and resources that we need for the healthcare fight and failing in that arena will permanently damage our Republic. PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!"

Respectfully, if the goal is to block Obama's policies, HE as well as his policies should be scrutinized.

Doug:

"The issue SHOULD be tabled until after the 2010 elections, when hopefully Obama's ability to dismantle our Constitutional Republic will be significantly diminished. Currently, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Triumvirate bears enough power to do far more damage to our Constitution than the question of whether Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications for the office he was elected to and has held for a year.

"So please, challengers to Obama's eligibility... take a neutral corner for a while. The bell for the round has rung. There will be another opportunity to grapple, but right now is time for a breather, a sip of water, and some towel-fanning!

"Therefore, my admonition to the Right is this: Put the eligibility question on the shelf until after election night, 2010. It is a potentially disastrous distraction before then."

It is also "potentially disastrous" to assume that Obama is qualified to be President and a person of great personal integrity.

The sooner the whole truth about Obama and his radical enablers is generally known, the better.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

December 7, 2017
President Trump should privately consult Ed Rollins and appoint a new attorney general to supervise Special Counsel Mueller's investigation


December 6, 2017
Bad jury verdicts like the one that found Kate Steinle's death to be a tragic accident are shameless politicking


October 22, 2017
Sharon Waxman and Bill O'Reilly are both right. New York Times spikes legitimate exposes when they don't fit its business and/or political agendas


September 13, 2017
George Soros anointing Patrick Gaspard is bad news


August 17, 2017
Is the liberal media deliberately shilling for the far left or blinded by Trumpphobia to its misdeeds?


August 8, 2017
President Trump won't kowtow to or pay off North Korea


August 2, 2017
Tragically, aging and ailing Senator McCain teamed with "resist" Democrats and pro-Planned Parenthood nominal Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to prolong Obamacare and postpone Trumpcare


June 12, 2017
Senator Gillibrand is the reckless liar, not President Trump!


May 31, 2017
Does the price of the Murdochs owning Sky entirely include Sean Hannity leaving Fox News?


May 30, 2017
Will President Trump invoke the Bush Doctrine to eliminate the North Korean nuclear threat?


More articles