Friday, August 28, 2009


Good morning...the article you are about to read is...well, scary to say the least...when I first saw the headline I figured that it must be Germany or some other country that is hostile to home-schoolers...boy was I shocked to see that the story has taken place right here in the good 'ole the state of New shocked, amazed and outraged that something like this could happen here...a harbinger of what is to come:

Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge

Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.
The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."
The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.
The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.
In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.
But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."
"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.
"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.
The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.
"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.
"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."
"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.
"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.
The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.
"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Maybe They should Re-Think That Decision!

Good Evening...

During this week, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has held a national convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. During this convention, the ELCA voted to accept practicing homosexual ministers as clergy. The ELCA has already allowed celebate homosexual ministers as clergy and now practicing homosexuals...I wonder what God might be thinking about this practice that He has labeled as an "abomination" and its acceptance by more and more denominations across this country...maybe this report provided by Dr.John Piper can provide an answer:

The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality
August 20, 2009 | By: John Piper | Category: Commentary

I saw the fast-moving, misshapen, unusually-wide funnel over downtown Minneapolis from Seven Corners. I said to Kevin Dau, “That looks serious.”

It was. Serious in more ways than one. A friend who drove down to see the damage wrote,

On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts—most saying they’ve never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis.

The tornado happens on a Wednesday...during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's national convention in the Minneapolis Convention Center. The convention is using Central Lutheran across the street as its church. The church has set up tents around it’s building for this purpose.

According to the ELCA’s printed convention schedule, at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, the 5th session of the convention was to begin. The main item of the session: “Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality.” The issue is whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry.

The eyewitness of the damage continues:

This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.

The time: 2PM.

The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what’s left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.

Central Lutheran's broken steeple

Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant.

1. The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God.

The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

3. Therefore, official church pronouncements that condone the very sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, are evil. They dishonor God, contradict Scripture, and implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered.

4. Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados.

Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? (Mark 4:41)

5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God’s message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God’s judgment.

Jesus: “Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:4-5)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Do Not Be Afraid! God Is On The Throne!

Good afternoon...the current events in the news might have some people in a quandary and filled with fear, but the wonderful news is God is still in control and has everything going according to His plan...that should bring great comfort to all believers in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! Jack Kinsella has a great piece that tells us just that:

The Mean Spirit
Commentary on the News
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

When I was a kid growing up, my father had a policy that he expressed thusly: "The first time you do something wrong, it might be an accident. The second time, it's deliberate."
There was always room for leniency on Count One. For Count Two for the same offense, you got the chair. The one thing for which the penalty was always something just short of death was for lying.
My Dad hated a liar worse than anything. Another of his sayings was, "Anybody who would lie would cheat. And anybody who would cheat would steal."
To my Dad a liar was automatically a cheat and a thief. "It's a matter of character. If you lie, it doesn't matter. You have no character."
Over the course of my lifetime, I've seen my Dad's opinion of liars vindicated many times over.
One excellent example is America's 42nd president.
That he is a proven liar is beyond doubt -- he was even convicted of lying under oath, resulting in the revocation of his law license.
Was he also a cheat? Ask Monica Lewinsky. Paula Jones. Juanita Broderick. Kathleen Willy. Or ask Hillary.
Was he proved a thief? The General Accounting Office said so, sending out teams to recover vanloads of misappropriated (stolen) White House furniture, etc., when the couple left the Oval Office.
Whether or not America's 44th president is a thief and a cheat is as yet unproved. That he is a liar is now beyond debate. That is proved by my father's other adage, 'the second time is deliberate'.
We discussed the presidential town hall meeting in Portsmouth in Wednesday's OL and the series of what Press Secretary Gibbs called 'misstatements' about the plan.
In Friday's OL, we discussed the presidential contention that AARP had endorsed his health care plan. AARP promptly issued a statement denying the endorsement. At the daily press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed it by saying the president 'misspoke.'
Then Obama went to another town hall meeting, this time, in Montana. Once again, the White House insisted that the crowd was not cherry-picked and that Obama was expecting a rough time.
Once again, the crowd was polite and respectful and in the main, supportive of both his administration and universal health care. There was none of the anger that has typified most town hall meetings; no 'angry mobs' of senior citizens carrying oxygen tanks, or cancer patients demanding to be heard.
According to a report from Newsmax, "The Montana crowd“ which unlike the one in New Hampshire reportedly was not hand-picked by the White House“ appeared no less Obama-friendly.
"Something's a little fishy here," Jim Walters, eastern coordinator for Resistnet, a grass-roots organization affiliated with the Alliance, told Newsmax prior to the event. "They weren't supposed to start handing out tickets until 9 o'clock. I had people up here at 8, and the tickets were already gone."
(Later, Gibbs suggested that Obama's crowds were representative of real America and therefore the 'angry mobs' at the Congressional town hall meetings were all Republican operatives.)
While in Bozeman, Obama repeated his assertion that AARP had endorsed his health care plan. He also repeated his statement that "if the AARP is onboard, then seniors have nothing to worry about."
That was just one of five provable whoppers Obama repeated after he had been corrected by the parties involved.
Rich Noyes, director of research for the conservative Media Research Center, was quoted by Newsmax saying the Obama administration is betting the mainstream media will continue echoing its talking points, without giving them the same sharp perusal they direct toward factual assertions from conservatives.
"We've seen fact-check after fact-check on NBC, ABC, and CBS, trying to debunk the conservative talking points," Noyes says. "And yet there's been no equal effort to scrutinize the claims put forth by Congress or the president, which is a very unbalanced playing field."
Obama is trying to cast himself in a role similar to the fact-checkers employed by the networks, to give voters "the impression it is Obama and the fact-checkers versus a bunch of liars on the right," says Noyes.That strategy requires the mainstream media to stay in the tank for Obama without breaking ranks to tell the truth. Think about that for a minute. The entire strategy is one based on being able to tell provable, known and deliberately repeated lies without worrying about being exposed by a pet White House press corps.
These are not accidental lies; nor are they inconsequential lies. To a senior who only gets their news from one of the network nightly news broadcasts, (old habits die hard) the fact that the health care plan is endorsed by AARP is sufficient to get their support for it.
Obama knows it isn't a fact -- but they don't --AND he knows that Katie Couric or Brian Williams aren't going to correct him. So he repeats the lie, even after being corrected, betting that only those paying close attention will know -- and they've already been marginalized as a 'mob'.
Obama knows that claiming he 'misspoke' twice on the same topic wouldn't fool my father. Or very many of his generation. The first time might be an accident. The second time is deliberate. So the only alternative understanding is that he doesn't care. And he doesn't.
The disrespect that Obama has for the American people borders on open contempt. Those who disagree with him are demonized and marginalized and insulted and disrespected as unAmerican, dishonest partisans who are all card-carrying Republicans or right wing conservatives.
I caught part of the O'Reilly Factor last night when Laura Ingraham was guest-hosting. One of her guests attempted to misdirect the conversation away from the facts about the opposition by gratuitously insulting Sarah Palin, predicting one day she'll be dating some hip hop artist on VH1 when Igraham called him on it.
Ingraham made the point that the Left has "nothing left" except personal attacks and insults to throw at its opponents. I believe it may be even deeper than that.
There is a viciousness to it that goes beyond politics. Some secular pundits call it 'mean-spirited' without ever knowing what they are saying or how right they are in saying it. There is clearly some kind of spiritual influence at work here beyond anything we've ever witnessed.
Obama exhibits an almost demonic ability to manipulate his supporters -- and some of them, in turn, seem to be almost demonically devoted to their master.
They appear willing to believe and defend pretty much anything he says, despite his obvious penchant for dissembling the facts and his open contempt for them and their petty little problems.
The moment one of his supporters becomes a liability . . . well, he's done it so often we have a phrase for it -- "throwing them under the bus."
Yet those not yet crushed under its wheels remain fanatically devoted to him. Let someone dare question his citizenship and they'll report them to the White House.
Do they wonder why he is paying lawyers to hide his history? No. Would it matter to them if he were an illegal alien? Probably not.
There is a spirit at work here, and the secular pundits are right when they say it is a mean spirit. It is also a spirit on a mission. I believe an argument can be made to the effect that spirit has been given his marching orders as part of a wider battle plan.
According to Scripture, when the antichrist comes on the scene, he takes control of an existing economic, political and religious government infrastructure that encompasses what we know as the West.
Revelation 13:17-18 says that his control of that infrastructure is so centralized that he will be able to enforce his will by excluding dissidents from normal society.
No man will be able to buy or sell, John says, unless they are part of his system. Even today, that is only partly possible.
One could be rendered socially 'dead' by the simple expedient of retiring one's Social Security number. Without a valid Social Security number, you can't get a job. You can't have a bank account. You can't get a car loan. You can't buy a house. You can't get a credit card and you can't even board an airplane.
But there remain ways around some of the restrictions -- illegal aliens do it all the time. Cash is anonymous, and where there is cash, there are ways. But remove anonymous cash and make everything an electronic transaction and ALL the holes a plugged.
If you aren't part of the system, you can't buy your way around the rules -- what will you use to pay someone off?
This is where we're heading . . . the stimulus bill, cap and trade, the government takeover of key industries, the monetizing of the debt, the trillion dollar printing press and now control over one sixth of the nation's economy -- health care -- clearly the intent is to destroy the dollar.
The only logical reason is so that a new currency can be imposed to replace the dollar, which is already transparently worthless. It's been over-collateralized to the point where nobody wants to risk holding anymore US debt.
And since the majority of US debt is held by countries like China and Russia, nobody can afford a US default.
That only leaves one alternative to total, global economic collapse. A new currency backed by more than the old one is. The Amero would have been backed by the inclusion of the Mexican and Canadian economies, plus their abundant natural resources, but public opposition has put that plan on hold, if it hasn't killed it altogether.
If we are as far along the Bible's timeline for the last days as the Bible appears to suggest, then what we are witnessing is the start of an effort to remake the West into a single economic and political entity under a single authority.
Everything Obama is doing seems to point in exactly that direction. It is hard to see how things can turn out differently.
This is the right time. This is the right place. The Bible says the seat of government in the last days is in Rome, not Washington. So something has to happen to shift power in that direction, and it looks like that 'something' may well be happening right before our eyes.
Don't let it scare you. The fact that these things are taking place according to a set schedule is evidence that there is a Scheduler. And how He accomplishes His will remains up to Him.
The Church is still here and the Holy Spirit is still hard at work restraining evil. Unless the Rapture happens first, Obama should lose control of the Congress in 2010. That could put everything on hold while the Lord waits until the last possible moment before recalling His Spirit and His Bride along with Him.
So it isn't ALL doom and gloom. The Lord knows what He is doing, and He wanted us to be sure that we would know what He has in mind. That's why He gave us prophecy. So we wouldn't be surprised. So we wouldn't fear. So we would trust Him instead of trusting to our own devices.
"Behold, I have told you before." (Matthew 24:25)
"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." (John 14:29)
"Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken." (Proverbs 3:25-26)

Everything is going according to Plan.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Scientific or Biblical Truth?

Good evening...

In today's edition of the Ledger & Enquirer, on the editorial pages, the coulmn of leftist pastor James Evans (First Baptist Church, Auburn, Alabama) can be found...Mr. Evans and I have had profound disagreements over the years of his writings...for instance, he has admitted to me through personal correspondance that he preaches from "The Red Words of Jesus" out of the Bible...that most of the Bible is just a book of good stories and that there are errors throughout I have stated to him in the past, either all of the Bible is true or none of it is can I be sure that Jesus is the Son of God, died for my sin, rose from the dead and is coming again if Jonah was not swallowed by the great fish and spit back out onto dry land three days later? In today's story, Mr. Evans prints in full a "letter" signed by a number of "clergy" who state that evolution is a scientific truth that is fully compatible with Biblical truth and if we reject it would be the same as treating this truth as a theory among other theories and that rejecting this truth is to fully embrace scientific ignorance and then to pass that along to our children...I, for one, and even if I am the only one, will stand for Biblical truth and Biblical Truth only! The Word of God says that God is the creator of all life, this universe and the earth that it contains! The Bible tells us this in Colossians 1:16, "For by Him (meaning Jesus)all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
In other words Mr. Evans, Jesus, as God Almighty, created all there didn't just happen by chance as evolutionists would proclaim...Mr. Evans and all those "clergy" who signed this document are all HERETICS of the highest many people have been have been driven away from the love that God has to offer by these lies from the father of all lies that evolution is true? I shudder to think of those who will stand before God one day and have to answer for that...
Mr. Evans says that nearly every credible scientist knows that the evolutionary theory is true...another lie...The Bible is a book about a relationship that God wanys to have with us...It is not a science book, but what it says about science is true; It is not a history book but what it says about history is true...I am sick and tired of men and women who place themselves in the guise of Christianity but spout off every heresy and anti-God argument that is out there...again, one day God will reach His tolerance level and then judgment will fall...may God have mercy...

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Constitution

Good morning...

The foundational document of our country (aside from the Declaration of Independence)is the Constitution of the United States of America...this document lays the groundwork for our government, who is eligible to serve in what capacity and for how is a document that allows for amending through a process that must be ratified by 38 states of the is a docuemnt that has served us well for over 230 years...some in our land take this document for granted and simply want it to disappear...while others hold it to be a document that our founding fathers envisioned for a country to have true freedom of thought, speech, religious views and to pursue life, liberty and happiness without the big foot of government telling us how to do those things and insisting that "it" knows best...
Since the election of 2008, there have been questions concerning the place of birth of the President, Barrack Hussein Obama, and there is a growing chorus of demands to release his original birth certificate to show that he was really born in enumerate all the questions here would take too much time and there is always the internet to search this out but the fact remains that the "certificate of live birth" placed on the President's campaign website during the campaign and the one that his press secretary continues to insist is legitimate, is NOT legitimate...the fact is that any foreign national could obtain one in 1961 when Obama was born by the simple word of one parent...The problem is that Americans simply want to see the evidence...Americans want to know for certain that the man who holds the most powerful office in the world is legally in that I join multitudes of others who say, "Just release the original long form and get it over with" The following article is from Joseph Fararh and is an excellant piece, I encourage you to read it:

Not the last word on Obama's birth

Posted: August 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

About one thing you can be certain: Any time someone has the audacity to write a column proclaiming it is the "last word" about a subject, it's sure to prompt rebuttals.
On July 30, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal tried his best to put the final nail in the coffin of the "birther" corpse. But rumors of the death of the Barack Obama eligibility story were, as Mark Twain would say, greatly exaggerated.
From his comfortable perch on the south side of Manhattan, Taranto apparently holds the view that so-called "birthers" – a name derisively slapped on all those who believe Obama should simply release his long-form birth certificate for the good of the country and to settle growing doubts about his status as a legal president – are part of a cohesive movement, a monolithic entity, some kind organized conspiracy, if you will.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
"Birthers" are simply people demanding Obama release the only evidence that could possibly provide even a basis for determining whether he was a "natural born citizen" and thus constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.
Taranto simply can't see the forest for the trees – or, worse, refuses to do so in his desire to ridicule "birthers." For instance, he ignores the fact that Hawaiian laws have permitted foreigners to obtain "certifications of live birth," the document Obama has called his birth certificate. Of course, he must ignore that central fact because it is terribly inconvenient if you are attempting the make the case that the document somehow proves Obama is a legitimate president.
Hawaii's shockingly poor record-keeping also made it possible for babies to be issued "certifications of live birth" with the wrong parents listed and the wrong date of birth. No hospital or physician would need to be listed. No independent witnesses needed to be involved. All that was required by Hawaii to obtain this document was an affidavit by one person claiming to be a parent.
Yet, on that faulty foundation, Taranto is quick to label as lunatics those who dare demand better evidence to meet the critical constitutional test of natural born citizenship.
Please tell me how Americans could ever establish Obama's eligibility without a genuine, long-form birth certificate – the product of meticulous, first-hand eyewitness reporting by a certified physician and hospital staff? How would that be possible, knowing how extremely lax and compromised the Hawaiian state health rules were and are today?
Taranto is satisfied to accept Hawaii's obvious ineptitude in this area and impose its mistakes on the entire country.
He claims the "certification of live birth" is a legal birth certificate and, in fact, "the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues."
That is simply not true.
It may be the only kind of birth certificate Hawaii routinely issues today. But it was not the only kind issued when Obama was born.
The Honolulu Advertiser last week published photographs of two long-form birth certificates issued to twins born in Kapi'olani Medical Center the day after Obama was supposedly born in that hospital. The mother kept them. She wasn't issued "certifications of live birth," a digital document which didn't become the norm in Hawaii until 2001.
And neither is the need for Obama's original long-form birth certificate a matter of routine. This is an extraordinary case. The document, I repeat, is the only basis for determining the eligibility of the president of the United States, since the short form was subject to abuse and error and offered, at the very least, the potential for documenting foreign births as domestic births.
Taranto, like many others determined, for whatever reason, not to know the truth about Obama's birth, never questions the wisdom of the public policy decisions Hawaii has made in concealing vital records even when they represent matters of national security and grave public interest.
Taranto concedes Obama can still retrieve his long-form birth certificate if he cared to do so. But, in his autobiography, Obama strongly suggests he already has one – citing its discovery among personal papers as a critical and defining moment of self-reflection in his life. So, it would be an easy matter for Obama to quell the national debate about his eligibility if, indeed, the long-form document verifies the details found in the short-form document.
"But the real question is: Why should he?" asks Taranto. "The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit."
No basis in principle and no practical benefit?
We're talking about the Constitution here.
We're talking about the legitimacy and integrity of the presidency.
We're talking about the rule of law and the will of the people.
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii," writes Taranto. "No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof."
It's important to understand Obama is not being accused of a crime. He is not being asked to incriminate himself. He is being asked by millions of Americans to offer up a simple document he claims to possess that could verify his legitimate hold on the presidency. Why won't he do that? And why wouldn't every American, including Taranto, being joining the call for openness and transparency – promises Obama made for his presidency?
Instead, Taranto calls for a witch hunt against "birthers."
There is not a doubt in my mind that if the American people press hard enough and long enough for the release of Obama's birth certificate – not to mention the dozens of other personal papers he is secreting from the public – that we will see it. Obama will either be forced by public pressure to release the document or there will arise a political will to extract it from him.
I want you to try to imagine a similar scenario eight years ago at this same point in George W. Bush's first term. Imagine there was broad concern about whether he was constitutionally eligible to serve. If Bush refused to offer up the critical document that could settle the matter, is there any doubt congressional hearings would have been held? Do you have any doubts many of the same people so incensed about these questions would be organizing marches of protest? Do you have any doubts there would be calls for congressional hearings?
Just recall the uproar over his National Guard duty, if you have any doubts.
This is the nature of an open society – one that encourages free-wheeling debate and public scrutiny of public affairs.
It's worth reminding the world that Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for the presidency, faced a Senate inquiry over his own eligibility issue. His colleagues found he was constitutionally qualified because he had two parents who were U.S. citizens. Barack Obama didn't. If – and it's admittedly a big if – he wasn't born in Hawaii as he claims and as that deeply flawed evidentiary document suggests, then he is not, by the standards applied to McCain, a legitimate president.
I know that's a scary thought for many Americans. But, as long as that possibility exists, this public concern, this skepticism, this distrust is going to linger and grow. That is not healthy for our country.
I believe most "birthers" only want to know the truth about their president. They want to be sure the Constitution is upheld and honored. Why are those such annoying and antagonizing objectives for so many in the media? I read supposedly objective news accounts claiming that "birthers" insist Obama was born in Kenya. I don't know anyone who insists Obama was born in Kenya. But I do believe that many, if not most, Americans are now uncertain he was born in Hawaii. They are uncertain he is legally, morally and constitutionally qualified for the most important job in the United States.
It's time to remove the uncertainty. It's time to lift the cloud of doubt. It's time to stop the stonewalling. It's time to release the real birth certificate.