Not one to begrudge anyone a family tree, nonetheless your Ostrich Killer was surprised to hear, as a one-liner during an ABC newscast on the radio, that during Obama's visit to China he "...took time out to visit with his half-brother, who lives there."
Let's see now - that's a half-brother living in Kenya, I believe it is, in a grass hut, and a half-brother living in China. That's the ones I've heard about. Have you heard of any others?
This sort of 'oh by the way' method of dropping the news on us is sure to fuel more speculation among the group that many sneering lefties like to call the 'birthers'. You recall that 'birthers' want to see Obama's birth certificate, the one that he won't release, because they suspect that he is not a natural born American, and think that part of the vetting process for President should be a public review of birth records. After all, the Constitution requires such natural born status. What could be more routine than a release of those records? And why hide them? For that matter, the 'birthers' proclaim, how can he hide them? Those are PUBLIC records. How can any individual hide his birth certificate from anyone?
But back to the discussion: the 'birthers' are going to want to know where any other siblings might have been born, and where they are now. I would think that any American might want to have at least passing knowledge of his immediate family tree. Wouldn't you?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTough to argue either way about the evidence when it isn't released for review . . . if it's a Constitutional requirement, which it is, then clearly it ought to be reviewed as part of the vetting process.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was. Maybe even probably. So if it was, to whom was it produced and who 'certifies' that any Presidential candidate meets this basic Constitutional requirement? Note that my comments are aside from wondering how a public record can be shielded.