Thursday, April 28, 2011

Finally! A Birth Certificate! But, it's not enough!

I had to show my birth certificate to get into kindergarten back in the mid '50s. I had to show it to get a Social Security number. I had to show it to get a driver's license. I had to show it to join the Air Force. I had to show it to get a security clearance. I had to show it to get a passport. I had to show it to get my current job. I had to show it again last year to renew my driver's license.

It took over 2 years and millions of dollars to get a man with significant gaps in his history, Barack Obama, to come up with a birth certificate to prove his eligibility to be President of the United States. When he finally produced an electronic copy (not an original or certified paper copy), instead of acknowledging that proof of eligibility is a legitimate constitutional issue, he arrogantly declared, "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." Then he jetted off to Chicago to appear on Oprah.

A PDF of Obama's birth certificate is finally posted on the website. At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be anything shocking or embarrassing in it that would explain the reluctance to release it. However, it appears to me, and my untrained eye, that this certificate has been altered -- take a look at the inconsistent font of the document number, the mother's occupation, and the "accepted" dates. Opening the Whitehouse PDF file in Adobe Illustrator reveals layers that point to tampering. It appears to be an amateurish fake. Hmmm.

Obama needed a certified copy of his birth certificate to get though life. All he has produced has been recently-made copies. Where is the copy he used to get into school, to get a driver's license, to get his license to practice law, to get a passport? I, a commoner, am responsible to still have mine. Where is his? I think the so-called "birthers" may yet have the last laugh.

But, even if this birth certificate is as legitimate as my own, why was that simple, "silly" task of producing an un-tampered birth certificate so hard to do when we commoners easily perform that "silliness" just to get into kindergarten? What is he hiding? Remember, the president said, "Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." How are we doing on that? It is truly a shame that the leader of the free world takes the eligibility to hold the office so lightly.

While the issue of eligibility (and a birth certificate to prove it) is an important constitutional detail, a far deeper concern is the the set of principles by which he (and every other politician) governs. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to "transform America." He's certainly doing that! That promised transformation is based on certain principles he and his handlers possess. The question is, how well do those principles match the principles of a thoughtful voter and the Constitution?

In the election of 2008, far too many votes were based primarily on skin color rather than character. Many voted only for a political party label. I, on the other hand, voted based on principles (which was mighty hard to do considering the quality of the candidates on the ballot). My principles include the following:
• We are sons and daughters of God and are created in His image. (Gen 1:26-27, Mal 2:10, Matt 5:48, Eph 4:6, Heb 12:9)
• All that has been revealed, all that is now revealed, and all that will be revealed from God is truth. Man may discover truth from time to time -- especially when he is inspired by God -- but he also conjures up a lot of baloney, too! Truth is real. Truth is eternal. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. Truth does not change -- it is never relative! We are freest when we have and live truth. Truth is often unpleasant to the unrepentant and especially to evil people. This seems especially true in politics and in government affairs. Got wants us to seek, recognize, have, live, and govern by truth -- not the depravity of moral relativism and so-called progressivism. (John 8:32, 1 John 2:21, 2 Corinthians 13:8, LDS 9th Article of Faith)
• As children of God, we "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This concept of God-given rights differs from how other nations and ill-informed Americans view rights. They believe that rights are limited to what the government allows them to have and do. (Declaration of Independence)
• A few of those inherited rights are listed in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the Constitution. "We the people" made it clear that we retain our rights, including all those that are not listed (ie the right to privacy). Many of the nation's founders felt the Bill of Rights was not necessary since it was clear to them that our rights come from our Creator -- not from any government. (9th Amendment to the Constitution)
• "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Declaration of Independence)
• Through the US Constitution, "we the people" formed the government of the United States and delegated to it specific responsibilities and powers. The government has no legitimate power except that which we delegate to it. Whatever illegitimate power government usurps can be traced to the neglect and poor judgment of voters -- "we the people." (Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
• I hold the US Constitution to be divinely inspired. I believe God will hold us just as accountable for corrupting the Constitution as He would for our defiling any other gift He has given us. (Doctrine & Covenants 101:80)
• "We the people" identified the US Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land." All agencies, laws, rules, policies, treaties, and judicial rulings that conflict with the US Constitution are invalid and must be purged. (Constitution, Article VI)
• "We the people" established a representative (republican) form of government that includes separation of powers. At the national level, those powers are separated between the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches. "We the people" also established a separation of powers between the national, state, and local governments -- all of which are to be representative (republican). (Constitution, Articles I, II and III, 10th Amendment, Marbury vs. Madison)
• "We the people" made it clear that all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment to the Constitution)
• "We the people" directed all national, state, and local public officials take an oath to the Constitution -- not to any political leader, party, or even to the flag. (Constitution Article II, Section 1)
• While "we the people" require our politicians, judges, and politicians to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," "we the people" carry the ultimate responsibility to protect the Constitution. "We the people" can only do this though informed and wise voting. Over the past 100 years, "we the people" have failed to protect our Constitution by electing politicians who promise to "transform America" in ways that violate the Constitution and the God-given rights it was designed to protect.
• The concept of a "living constitution" is flawed and dangerous. The US Constitution has a defined amendment process. When "we the people" determine that the Constitution needs updating, our representatives in the national and state legislatures follow prescribed amendment steps in a manner that makes them accountable to the people. The "living constitution" concept is based on the progressive idea that statist elites are wiser than us commoners and are free to misuse, misinterpret, or ignore the Constitution at will. This inevitably shifts power from the people to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and judges. A "living constitution" is a dead constitution!
Bottom line: I have been among those who cherish the Constitution enough to demand that only constitutionally-qualified individuals serve in public office. It is, after all, "we the people" who must ultimately enforce the Constitution because we can't always trust presidents, congressmen, or judges of any political party to do it for us.

Those who focus primarily on Obama's birth certificate believe that the efforts spent trying to get Obama out of office, will make a difference. They do not focus on the evil he and his fellow anti-Americans have done and the need to overcome the big-government movement (ObamaCare, etc.). Instead we must go after the man and his agenda himself. If we intend to defeat Obama, we must work to neuter him and his policies directly -- not focus on a piece of paper.

The cry for Obama's birth certificate has been a diversion from other essential issues -- a diversion which I believe Obama exploited as long as he could. As Rush Limbaugh said yesterday,
We need to put this in perspective: Barack Obama never had a birth certificate problem. He has a spending problem. He has a redistribution-of-wealth problem. He has a socialism problem.
and, Mark Steyn today:
I don't want this presidency to end on the technicality of whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or on the Planet Krypton. I want the ideas on which he got elected to die. These ideas are killing your country.
I agree. "We the people" must focus on enforcing the Constitution to bring our ever more tyrannical and expensive government under control. Vote principles! Demand your representatives do likewise!

No comments:

Post a Comment