By
JOHN F. GASKI Posted 04/26/2011 05:24 PM ET
Second Of Two Parts
So what of the cumulative evidence against our maybe-president's
citizenship? Let the reader judge the balance and weight of a
summary appraisal. (Curious machinations over a crucial piece of
evidence, a birth certificate of all things, changed the balance for
me.)
1. If B.H. Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen, those who flack for him
should be able to do better than the unpersuasive defense they have
offered.
More specifically damning, haven't you noticed how Obama apologists
rarely offer a substantive argument for his citizenship at all, but
instead use personal attack, invective, sophistry, demagogy and ridicule?
The bottom line: If you believe that the artist formerly known as Barry
Soetoro really is a natural U.S. citizen, prove it. If the subject
of the controversy cannot, others are not likely to be able to
either.
(When this writer uses attack, ridicule, etc., it is not gratuitous but
grows from the substance, such as the appearance of an insidious
political provocation and national existential emergency, as
here.)
2. A rhetorical question: If B.H. Obama is not hiding something
terrible in his birth records, why has he spent millions covering them
up? Maybe it is something else entirely, but maybe not and ultimately
it may not matter, for this deductive reason: Obama knows the
cover-up only creates grave public suspicion about his constitutional
eligibility, at least in responsible quarters, so if something else is
the real secret, it must be something as bad or worse.
3. An attempted exculpatory answer has actually come from Obama's
fiercest opponents. Conservative radio hosts sometimes mention the
insider belief that they are being sandbagged or
"rope-a-doped," that the birth certificate would reveal valid
Hawaiian origin, and Obama is saving it to discredit them or Republicans
if they raise the issue.
This amounts to pure, bald speculation, however, because those radio
talkers do not disclose any basis. By way of rebuttal, the speculation
does not seem to add up for the following reason. The 2008 election
against John McCain was very close until nearly the end, and the primary
campaign against Hillary Clinton even closer. A late, unforeseen turn of
events, and either race could have gone the other way.
Even liberal political campaign organizations are very conservative
tactically. If the Obama side had such a master-stroke
ace-in-the-hole, it would have been beyond imprudent not to play it in or
near the endgame. Barack Obama, or whatever his real name is, may be a
radical, but he is not crazy and far from stupid.
In fact, evidence mounts that he has executed the most brilliant coup in
world history. (This argument also rules out any likelihood that
Obama is covering up just to be obstinate.)
4. Alternatively, Obama may in fact be a natural-born American, but then
took dual citizenship during his Indonesian years, which he never
relinquished. If so, a cover-up on Obama's part now would still be
necessary because he knows U.S. voters would never abide a clandestine
dual citizen as President. In that event, a monumental scandal
would still prevail.
In fact, when Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, that nation's
government required Indonesian citizenship for school attendance. Obama's
early school records do confirm his Indonesian citizenship. This
information may be the closest thing to a smoking gun, as it clinches at
least dual citizenship in the strange case of Barack Obama's
background.
(Yes, Obama is already established to be a citizen of Kenya as well, per
a technical quirk of that country's law even if born in Hawaii to one
Kenyan parent, that is but two foreign citizenships out of three may be
too much for the U.S. electorate to digest. Obama probably sees it that
way, too; hence, the cover-up of other records, including collegiate,
that would impinge on contemporary citizenship.)
Therefore, the Hawaiian birth issue may ultimately and ironically be an
immaterial red herring. The critical condition necessitating the gross
political deception may have eventuated later and elsewhere. Even if
those old Honolulu birth clippings are genuine, it would not matter. If
not constitutionally disqualified from office, Obama might be
pragmatically. Would that not be the supreme irony?
5. Perhaps the most plausible scenario is that the presumed Mr. Obama
never had his legal name changed from Barry Soetoro, and therefore has
committed a form of fraud by signing official documents with a false
alias, as well as perjury by falsely swearing to that effect on many
occasions (as in legal application questions about past use of an alias).
That would be in addition to a massive deception of the American voters
about his true identity. If this is so, no wonder the so-called Barack
Obama feels he must cover it up.
More bald speculation, but on my part this time? Actually, some
basic analytic support is at hand: It is fact that Mr. Obama is hiding
not only birth records but virtually all vital history, including medical
and academic. Yet he and his allies bleat that it is not about
citizenship. Well, then accepting that what else of comparable
magnitude could there be?
It must be something of similar gravity to justify such a full-court
press and stonewall defense including the legal expenditures. The
possibility of a lesser motive was disposed of previously.
6. If and when Obama and his political handlers play the race card
on this matter, that will confirm the absolute worst because that is what
they do when they have nothing else. Sadly, we are beginning to
witness this tactic already on TV talk shows. Case closed.
In sum, we must ask, what does the balance of evidence seem to be
now? Inescapably, that evidence is primarily analytic and indirect
because the empirical has been so skillfully and aggressively suppressed.
Questions, both old and new, and a different, open perspective have been
proffered here because the elephant in the room can no longer be sensibly
ignored despite the wishes of the Obama-handmaiden media. (And thank
you, Donald Trump.)
The politico-media environment actually resembles a case of mass
hysteria. Irrational perceptions, actually non-perceptions of the
"emperor-has-no-clothes" look-away variety, drive out the
natural and healthy skepticism.
To confirm, ponder how the liberal Democrats and liberal Democrat media
(and it is long overdue to apply that locution) would react if George W.
Bush had had a missing birth certificate. To doubly confirm, recall how
the partisan Democrats obsessively tried to disqualify John McCain's
presidential eligibility although there was nothing to the issue,
self-evidently. Then, a different segment, naive people of good will,
just cannot bring themselves to believe the monstrous prospect of a
usurper in our White House, so they look the other way, too.
Think about it. There is major and obvious doubt about the President's
most fundamental personal information and qualification for office,
including skepticism by a large fraction of the citizenry (per poll
results), and Mr. Obama refuses to prove something readily provable by
mere release of his birth record! What is wrong with this picture? What
is Obama hiding? Incredible.
Given the magnitude of the stakes, though, we cannot indulge our
preference to pretend that all is well, that nothing is as it appears,
that we are not in a "Twilight Zone" episode or "Through
the Looking Glass" after all, and anyway we don't care. The question
we cannot escape, no matter how much we want to avoid it, is: What
if the worst is true? Proving citizenship is totally routine and simple
for any U.S. citizen except for Barack Obama, apparently.
The (presumed) president of the United States not only has not met that
test but does not even try to in his in-your-face, preternatural
arrogance and audacity. Why not? What is really going on here? What game
is being played? What ruse is being played on our country?
If the truth is as horrible as the extant evidence makes it appear, the
implications are without limit. National hysteria and national insanity?
More like national suicide. Even more accurately, for the nation that
casually allows such a coup d'etat to be imposed, national assisted
suicide may be the analogue.
We actually have been here before, sort of. The public could not bring
itself to believe the numerous accusations against Bill Clinton. How
could a U.S. president be not only a serial adulterer, liar and
philanderer, but one that, for good measure, exposes himself to women who
are near-total strangers?
Then we learned that the worst was indeed true. Clinton finally admitted
to perjury and obstruction of justice in his plea deal (but without using
those words explicitly). And even now, some cannot believe that John F.
Kennedy regularly cavorted around the White House with Mafia call girls,
but that has been verified. Then there is Richard Nixon.
We have been here before more recently. Barack Obama has had a long and
close association with an anti-American terrorist involved in the bombing
of the Pentagon and multiple police stations. The associate's name is
Bill Ayers, of course. No, Ayers was not just "a guy in the
neighborhood," as Obama tried to pretend. Moreover, and maybe worse,
there were those 20 years as an even closer acolyte of the manifest
anti-American, Marxist, racist preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah
Wright.
So lying about citizenship (or one of the reviewed possibilities that are
nearly as bad) is junior varsity compared with Obama's sordid personal
history. Therefore, the preceding analysis is rendered mild and moderate,
which makes it all the more plausible and troubling.
The conclusion: Barack Obama's covered-up background is very likely
sufficient to disqualify him from the presidency, perhaps or perhaps not
constitutionally through noncitizenship, or more practically because of
multiple acts of fraud and deceit over legal name and multiple
citizenships. Full public knowledge would surely induce prompt
impeachment or electoral pariah status, that is.
Again, poignantly, and finally, if one disagrees: Prove it. You are
welcome to try. It should be easy. So why is it so hard? Yes, that
question is rhetorical.
• Gaski is a professor at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College
of Business. His primary research field is the nature of social and
political power. He is author of "Frugal Cool" (Corby,
2009) and "The Language of Branding" (Nova Science, 2010) and
is a longtime, but former, registered Democrat.