Before Barack Obama's White House released what it says is an exact facsimile of Barack Obama's "long form" Birth Certificate, I had been writing that he needed to do that to shut the Birthers up (assuming he has a genuine certificate to release). I staked most of my own strong leanings on the subject upon the news that reported that archives exist showing the birth announcements as published in the Hawaiian newspapers shortly after Barack's reported birth there.
When he released what the White House reported was his long certificate, I was glad. However, over time, it has become clear that the manner in which that release occurred and what was released itself has only served to make matters worse.
Now, I am right back where I was before the release by saying again that Barack Obama needs to now force (which he has the power to do due to the critical Constitutional and high-crime issue that this is, whether Barack Obama backers think so or not) the State of Hawaii to show the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and at least one other Supreme Court justice along with several independent experts the original Certificate and all back-up documentation necessary to exhaust an investigation and to once and for all determine and announce whether or not the document is authentic.
There is not one good reason that Barack Obama has not put this to rest if an authentic Certificate exists. When he learned that people had raised all sorts of questions based upon the thinking shown in the videos below, he should have demanded the highest review of the documents to settle the matter.
Now that Chief Justice Roberts has voted for Obamacare being constitutional, no doubt even an investigation headed by him would be subjected to suspicion. That's why an investigative body must include people from both sides of the political aisle and independent experts widely acceptable and determined as such before the investigation begins and any formal, official report is issued.
Barack Obama, do it. If you won't or can't, then those newspaper archives need to be examined. They probably should be anyway now that you've allowed this to drag on and on and on when you could have put it to bed (if you have an authentic Certificate) almost immediately after the Birthers started hollering about it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)