Ryerson Continues Lies About Natural Born Citizenship Debate

It's no wonder reporters working for the Indianapolis Star can blatantly lie to their readers about what the debate over President Barack Obama's natural born citizenship fully encompasses. It seems the newspapers's executive editor can lie just as casually as his reporters on the issue. In the Sunday edition, Ryerson's Conversations column laments the fact that President Obama had to be compelled to produce a copy of his original birth certificate. As he describes the cause of the debate:

During the 2008 presidential campaign so-called "birthers" began circulating allegations that Obama wasn't legally entitled to be president because he wasn't born in the United States.
To be sure, there have always been some who have questioned Obama's place of birth, questions which persons could legitimately wonder about given how Obama himself put out a book, "Dreams From My Father," that contained more fiction than fact about his biographical narrative, and his stonewalling the past three years on efforts to get him to release his original birth certificate, which he admitted to possessing in his 1995 autobiography. Yet most of the lawsuits filed against Obama raised a legitimate legal issue: Can a person who is born a dual citizen as a result of the foreign citizenship status of one of his parents be considered a natural born citizen? Obama has always conceded he was a dual citizen at birth by virtue of his father's Kenyan citizenship, which made him a British citizen since Kenya was still a part of the dwindling British empire at the time of his birth. Obama's situation is further complicated by evidence that he later became an Indonesian citizen after he and his mother immigrated there and his Indonesian father adopted him and changed his name to "Barry Soetoro." His own half-sister, Maya, concedes her father, Lolo Soetoro, adopted him.

Ryerson, like virtually every other mainstream reporter in this country, continue to lie to the American public about this bona fide debate. Constitutional scholars disagree on the interpretation of the natural born citizen requirement found only once in the U.S. Constitution, but all constitutional scholars agree the issue has never been resolved by the federal courts. Contrary to what Ryerson may wish to believe, it is not a given that a person is a natural born citizen simply because of his or her birth in the U.S., even if deemed a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Mainstream media, including the Washington Post and New York Times, thought nothing of writing stories in 2008 questioning Sen. John McCain's eligibility because he was born in Panama while his father was stationed at a naval base there. McCain even produced his original birth certificate acknowledging his birth in a foreign land, further fueling the debate. A law professor in his home state published a law review article declaring he wasn't a natural born citizen. The issue concerned McCain enough that he asked his Senate colleagues to research the issue, which they did, and the Senate ultimately resolved the debate in his favor by a resolution adopted by the full body. The resolution declared McCain a natural born citizen, notably, because both of his parents were U.S. citizens.

As on any issue where persons have differing views from this President, anyone who raises the issue is automatically labeled a racist. Ryerson is no exception when it comes to playing the race card. "Yet the conspiracy theorists hung on, abetted by some individuals who never will accept a black president with a non-mainstream name, by some opposition politicians all too willing to let the issue simmer, and by attention-seekers using the Wild West platform of the Internet to feed those hungry for any information that would fuel their biases," Ryerson writes.

But for the "Wild West" Internet, as Ryerson dubs it, the American people would know nothing but a totally fabricated narrative fit for a "Tail Wagging The Dog" Hollywood-produced movie concerning this man. For an editor who has used his newspaper relentlessly to decry the sad state of our public education system, Ryerson does more to dumb down the people who read his newspaper than any failed public educator could accomplish with their best efforts. And he wonders why his readers are dropping their subscriptions to his newspaper in droves.