Addicted to Crisis
Primer C. Pagunuran – some guy from UP – wrote in ‘An Anti-Climactic Presidency‘ that:
Nothing alters the fact that as soon as votes have been counted, the Americans have spoken – catapulting to power – one Democrat Barack Obama as the 44th US president. And few more days before Obama should assume office come January 20, 2009, a looming question on whether or not he is a natural born citizen to be an eligible president is gathering adherents in the internet by every tick of the hour to the point it is seen to end in a constitutional crisis.
Three things about this seemingly inocuous statement stand out:
First, that we are so addicted to crisis that even the supposedly smart guys among us tend to quickly jump on any ‘crisis bandwagon’ even if it involves other countries. And if it happens to be a ‘constitutional crisis’ as well, oboy. Yummy.
Second, that even the supposedly smart guys among us tend to be swept up unthinkingly into the latest internet fads. I’m surprised this Primer fellow hasn’t written about how George W. is a reptilian.
And third, since he’s basing his claim on what he’s read on the intartubes, shouldn’t Primer have bothered to exit his echo chamber and see what else is on?
Apart from the fact that Federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington state have already rejected challenges against Obama’s citizenship, Primer may want to consider:
First, that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, as claimed by a lot of conservative bloggers – echoing the ramblings of Jerome Corsi who has “been accused by the American press “of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic, and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to ‘scare white America.’”
Second, the the claim that for a person with mixed nationality parents have to have a parent who has been a US citizen who has resided in the US for at least 10 years, 5 of which had to have been over the age of 16, does not apply to Obama.
To clarify: the claim being circulated is that Obama’s mama was 18 when he was born. This means that although she was an American citizen who had lived in America for more than 10 years, only two of those years had been after she turned 16. Therefore, so the claim goes, Obama doesn’t meet the requirements for being considered natural born.
The thing is, that requirement only applies to people born OUTSIDE the US. And since Obama was born (1961) in Hawaii (which became a State in 1959), then he is – under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution – definitely a natural-born citizen. This jus soli regime is, in fact, the reason why heavily pregnant women have lower chance of getting US visas than single women and why Pacquiao’s wife will be giving birth in the US altho she can very easily make it home before she’s due to pop.
Now, me, I cannot believe that Primer – apparently a lawyer – could have possibly ignored the fundamental doctrine of jus soli simply on the strength of how many people on the intartubes have parroted this ridiculous claim. This fellow can’t be that dumb or gullible, eh?
The idea that confronts every average American is the simple requirement that the truth be revealed since the issue has been thrown in the intellectual landscape. And it does not have to be mired in the realm of pure legalese as when it must compel the Supreme Court to rule over the case. In the end, the internet that is largely responsible for making sure Obama wins in this presidential election might be the same vehicle that could in fact, unmake Obama. But this is full of implications in the higher scheme of things.
Ah. There you go. The reference to Obama’s citizenship troubles is apparently a tortuous way of driving home the message that the Americans might choose not to be ‘mired in the realm of pure legalese’ in pursuit of some ‘higher truth’ that has to be revealed. In other words, let’s reduce the entire question to a yes or no proposition, without regard to how the LAW draws distinctions and qualifications. Now where have we heard that before?
So, if Primer isn’t dumb (I don’t think so) or gullible (god help him if he is), then he must think the rest of us are gullible or dumb. Or both.
That’s the way it is with people like him, see? People who seek the microphone on every issue and frame the discussion for the rest of us as loudly as they can. They trickle out the information necessary to foster a certain point of view, while ignoring all other information to the contrary. And if anyone stands up to contest them, well, often it’s too late because the die has been cast and people think that the contrarians are just covering up.
Posts like the one Primer put up on this page take advantage of the general public’s relative ignorance of the issues involved and offer up a custom made conclusion: one that supports their agenda and can be trumpeted high and low to great effect.
Caveat lector.
[December 21, 2008]
