Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Obama Citizenship Update


(Barack Obama is shown circled in yellow in a group photo during a graduation ceremony at the SDN Menteng 1 school in Jakarta, Indonesia.)

Here is an overview of where the Obama Citizenship lawsuits stand.

For those who are interested in the Certificate conspiracy, here is a detailed overview offered by Ron Polarik, PhD. I don't know if I buy into this aspect of the concerns, but you can review the information and decide for yourselves I suppose.

Justice Kennedy denied the application for an Injunction to Stay Electoral Vote Count by Congress on January 8, 2009. However, the Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2009. The other conference concerning the Application to Justice Antonin Scalia for an immediate injunction to Stay the Joint Session of Congress from Counting the Electoral College Votes is scheduled for January 16, 2009. Both of these can be verified on the supreme court's website:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm]http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

I'm still put off by this whole situation. What floors me about all of this is that American citizens simply do NOT understand or even care about this issue. We have a President Elect who may or may not be Constitutionally qualified to be the POTUS. To prove his qualifications, all he has to do is release his birth, adoption, travel, and school records. Obama has overtly refused to do so and the American people haven't batted an eye. THAT'S what bothers me. We have a clear subsuming of our Constitutional republic, an elected leader who has show us by his actions with this issue that only HE can decide to what issues he will be held accountable.

Look, I don't think it's world ending that Obama may or may not technically qualify to be President. It's important, but it's not the world's biggest issue. What gets me riled up is that this man was even put in the position to be elected BEFORE he released his records. Since when, in a democracy, is it not acceptable to ask our representatives to prove their qualifications?

Obama is not God. The President of the United States is NOT God. He is a representative of the people, for the people, and elected by the people. He is restricted and governed by the Constitution regardless of how "cool" people think he is.

I understand he's the first black president, and that's nifty. But black, white, yellow, orange, tan, green... whatever, he is to be held to the same standards as every other president of the US of A. So far, that has not happened. He has given our Constitution and our people the middle finger by refusing to make his records (birth, adoption, travel, and school) public and he's on the cusp of getting away with it.

In the very, very, very least, EVERY American citizen should want Obama to release his records so that we can be assured he is qualified to serve as our president. I want this conspiracy to go away, don't you? Only one man on the planet can make this all go away - Barack Obama.

If you'd like this matter to be laid to rest, sign THIS petition if you'd like to see Obama release his records.

5 comments:

jeninthecity said...

I tried to leave a comment just now that got eaten up by blogger which is frustrating...

In case it doesn't appear, the gist of it was that the reason people don't care is because the ONLY relevant issue is whether he was born in Hawaii. He has posted his birth certificate, over a year ago. The idea that this document was fake, exists only on the internet. So everyone else is satisfied that he has given the required documentation.

The other things you ask for: school records, please point me to where school records for Bill Clinton or George Bush can be found. Why would they be relevant?? Travel records--same deal. What travel records are you referring to and point me to where the same records can be found for Bush or Clinton. Adoption records? WHO other than people on the internet, believed him to have been adopted? What adoption records is he going to show if he wasn't even adopted? And how would that adoption be relevant in assessing his eligibility?

The point is that, he has provided all proper documentation. The only ones not satisfied are the ones who actually think he would post a fake birth certificate and that the Hawaiian government would aid his coverup. His birth was even announced in the local newspaper! There simply is no mystery here. People are swept up looking for conspiracies, when there are none.

Seth said...

Jen,

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my blog and comment. It's through educated discourse that I hope we can seek to resolve these issues.

However, I fear you do a disservice to these lawsuits. Clearly, some have more foundation than others. I explicitly said in my most recent post that I don't quite buy into the fraudulent birth certificate theory. But there IS a legitimate Constitutional concern here, regardless of whether or not he was born in Hawaii.

Perhaps there isn't enough proof to validate this concern, but there is enough meat here to warrant these lawsuits being heard and addressed by the courts. Or, in other words, Phillip Berg may or may not be correct in his suggestion that Obama is not Natural Born, but he DOES have enough merit to his case to warrant the courts ruling in his favor to force Obama to release ALL of his records.

There is nuance between a "legalized," "naturalized," and "natural born" citizenship. NOT every citizen born on US soil is a "natural born" (as your post seems to indicate) - there's no Supreme Court or Congressional precedent which says that. Precedent says that all citizens born in the US are "naturalized" citizens, or "native born." This language was established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.

That case was about:

Quote:
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court for this case (which is what sets precedence) did not explicitly comment on the definition of "natural born citizens." Instead, they simply said, "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ['citizen' and 'natural born citizen']." And they quite intentionally referred to Kim as "native born" instead of "natural born."

This precedent speaks nothing to the definition or application of "natural born status," especially as it pertains to the presidency. It does however, address "naturalized" citizenship.

Moreover, at the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a "natural born citizen" if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14 — in other words, 19. Remember now, there's a distinction between just being a US citizen and being a natural born citizen.

Dunham (Obama's mother) was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born and subsequent acts of Congress didn't relax the requirement for having "Natural Born" status until five years later.

Congress can't make someone retroactively a natural-born citizen under the principle of ex-post facto, and so even if Obama's Birth Certificate is legitimate - which it very well may be, he still may not qualify.

Another legitimate concern for American citizens relates to the 8th U.S.C. § 1401, which addressed:

Quote:
"a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States "

Where, before Nov. 14, 1986, a person is a natural-born citizen only if the citizen parent:

Quote:
"was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

Obama's mother does not meet this qualification.

The same rule that was in place in the early 1960s....

See also United States v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) Which takes the same view, concluding the change from ten years/five years to five years/two years only applied to people born after 1986 - which obviously does not include Barack Obama.

This ruling was affirmed in
536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008) Rico-Ibarra v. Mukasey, and 281 Fed. Appx. 694, 695 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (not precedential)

Ergo, no amount of documentation could verify his Natural Born Status if the Supreme Courts rules in favor of precedent (which it is supposed to do). Keep in mind that the supreme court has NOT thrown out Berg's cases because of a lack of merit. They simply refused to stay the electoral college vote. That's an important distinction.

To summarize, for my part, there are only three parts of this issue that concern me.

1) Foremost, why doesn't Obama just make enough records public to make this go away? As you can now see, The birth certificate he provided from Hawaii only shoots down a portion of the theory (the portion that's the least damning – that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii), and that certificate was a re-issue which did not have the proper seal on it, I believe, and he only let the democratic party and factcheck.org (a site ran by the Annenberg Foundation - whose Chicago chapter he Chaired with Bill Ayers if you'll recall) actually look at the physical document.

2) I don't think he was born in Kenya. There's certainly enough evidence to make you wonder, but I don't think this conspiracy goes that far. I do think, however, that he was adopted by his Indonesian step father when he moved to Indonesia (he admits in his book that he changed his name to Barry Sorento [taking his step-father's last name] and that he attended an Indonesian school which, at the time, would only accept Indonesian citizens). If in fact he was adopted by his Indonesian father, the Indonesian and American laws of the time would have required that his US Citizenship would have been nulled as a result, and he would have become a citizen of Indonesia because neither America nor Indonesia recognized dual-citizenship at the time. When he came back to America, he would have had to re-apply for American citizenship and/ or reclaim his US Citizenship when he turned 18. In which case, he would become a "naturalized" American Citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen (because that would have been revoked the instant he became a citizen of Indonesia).

3) Because only one of his parents was American, and she was a young teenager when he was born, he does not meet the Constitutional Requirements of a "natural born citizen" and is therefore not qualified to be president.

And, I cannot stress this enough, there are three main classifications of US Citizenship: Natural Born, Naturalized, and Legalized. Legalized are legal immigrants, Naturalized are US via a legal technicality (often crudely called “anchor babies”), and Natural Born meet a certain set of requirements set forth by Congress and the Supreme Court (typically second generation American, born on soil deemed by the US congress to be American, having never revoked one's US citizenship, and having lived in this country for over a dozen consecutive years). The US constitution requires that any President of this Country be a Natural Born Citizen, so the concerns about Obama's Natural Born status are a Constitutional concern.

The question isn't so much whether he is an American citizen; because he is (I believe so at least because I don't buy into the Kenyan-born conspiracy – there just isn’t enough concrete evidence, at least not that I’ve seen). The question is whether he's a natural-born citizen, which is a Constitutional requirement to be POTUS and therefore a valid concern.

That said, he's already been elected. If this were going to be addressed, it should have been addressed by the US Congress before the vote. I think that, at this stage, Congress would just seek to amend the constitution or to redefine what it means to be "natural born," the odds of Obama being kicked out of his position are slim to none at this stage and even if that did happen, this country would be turned on its head and the entire democratic process would be discredited world-wide.

Now, the strongest argument I've seen in response to the suits is to suggest that natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship are the same thing. There are previous supreme court cases where the justices have used the terms loosely in their ruling (though no explicit definition of "natural born" was ever really provided), but there are also cases where it's clear that the justices viewed them as distinct terms.

In either case, there's certainly enough merit to hear these lawsuits against Obama. And are you even aware what the lawsuits are for? Most are simply lawsuits seeking to force Obama to make all of his birth, adoption, and school records public. He'd refused to do so for so long that these lawyers are now at the supreme court and no judge wants to touch this case with a ten foot poll.

But let’s not pretend that there’s no merit to ALL of these lawsuits. Some of them make very good points and, in the very least, we should make certain, as American citizens, that our President meets the requirements for being our president. I don’t see why so many people get so ruffled over this. What’s the big deal? All he has to do is release his records. Yet Obama supporters want to cross their arms and stomp their feet, as they always tend to do, and say this concern is “unfounded” and so Obama doesn’t have to address it.

At what point can we expect Obama to actually start addressing the claims against him? Or are we always going to continue to give him a free pass because the claims laid against him are “unfounded.” If these claims are unfounded, then he should prove it and put these conspiracy theories to rest. When John McCain’s natural-born status was brought into question, he made ALL of his records immediately available. He didn’t just ignore the concerns because they were “unfounded.” What’s Obama hiding that would prevent him from being open and honest?

It’s real simple. Regardless of whether or not you think these claims are legitimate, Obama can make it all go away by releasing his records. He has refused to do so and, instead, has let these rumors and conspiracies persist. Why? Why would he not just release his records and make this all go away?

His School records would show both his citizenship, guardianship, and would likely include other vital clues as to if/when he was adopted. As would his travel records. Obviously, if he's claiming to have never been adopted, he wouldn't present adoption papers. But then he'd have to explain how he attended an Indonesian school which only accepted Indonesian citizens - and why he changed his name to that of his step father's.

And in regards to the certificate (which, again, is the least of Obama's citizenship concerns), if he was truly born in Hawaii, the state would have the original document in a vault and the supreme court could force the state to release it. Doing so would put the birth certificate conspiracy to rest - which would be a good thing, regardless of the outcome, wouldn't you say?

Moreover, I think it is important to comment that we seem to be moving in a direction in this country where the Constitution seems to get ignored more and more when it comes to matters of convenience. I think that the biggest issue Americans will have to wrestle with in the next 50 years is whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed at the whims of the people or if it is a document that should be left alone and only amended to in cases of human rights by elected officials and not subject to interpretation by an activist judicial system. To this point, the Constitution is meant to serve as the “supreme law of the land.” I don’t think the founding fathers intended for this document to be subsumed by America’s infatuation with Barack Obama… or anyone else for that matter.

American citizens have a right to require Obama to prove his natural born status, and he has an obligation to prove it. He has not done so - the birth certificate he temporarily posted on his website was not only suspicious, it only addressed about 1/4th of the claims laid against his natural born status. Therefore, it is necessary for him to release ALL of his birth, adoption, citizenship, passport, travel, and school records so that we can be assured, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he meets to Constitutional requirement to be POTUS. Bush and Clinton's natural born status was never in question, and so there would have been no reason for them to release their school records. Though, McCain, when his natural born status came under fire, immediately released ALL of his records (including a less than stellar academic record at the Naval Academy). Obama, when put under the same pressure as McCain, has not been nearly as transparent. Even their medical records were paradigmatic in the sense that McCain released ALL of his medical records, and Obama released a one page note from his doctor saying he was physically healthy.

There's two ways of looking at this. You can just blindly assume that Obama is "natural born." Or you can support the idea that whether he is or isn't natural born, forcing him to make ALL of his records public will put an end to this debate and further unify America. It seems to me that the second option makes the most sense.

jeninthecity said...

Seth, a few comments:

--The law you cite about Obama’s mother needing to be a certain age when he was born is one of those fallacies that spread throughout the internet early on in the process, again not based on fact. That law was referring to anyone born OUTSIDE of the United States. Even Phil Berg has assented that that law does not apply to Obama. You can read more about that here on Snopes.com—http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp--scroll towards the end for the discussion of that law. So using that law as the foundation for questioning Obama’s legitimacy is misguided, to say the least.

--Your comments about Factcheck….sigh.... Annenberg Foundation is the work of the Annenbergs, two former diplomats, both of whom endorsed John Mccain and have worked in the White House. When they gave their endorsement, Mccain actually announced it in a press release—they are very respected REPUBLICAN philanthropists.

They gave generous donations to a variety of groups, including to Factcheck which is a group that has earned bipartisan support. Factcheck has nothing to do with the educational board that Obama and William Ayers sat on, other than both being funded by these two Republican philanthropists. So the paranoia that Factcheck is involved in some cover-up is so far-fetched and not at all realistic.

--Regarding the Indonesian issue. It’s all so convoluted that I will just make the most basic points. My first point is that all the flat assertions that he needed to be a citizen to be at the school are not backed up by any facts that I have seen--and it's likely that he was enrolled with his father's last name for the sake of family unity. My brother's step-children use his name, not because their legal name is different, but because they want to be a family unit all with one last name. But their LEGAL name has never changed. I imagine that an enrollment card for a Third World school is not subject to the most strict requirements of accuracy in terms of the legal name. No doubt he was called Barry Soetoro by his teachers and that is what they wrote on the card. My second point would be far more concrete if I could find the statement from the Hawaii officials who commented on this theory. I know that I read it on the website Yestodemocracy.com but I could not find the specific page from a few months ago. But the gist was that it is not possible for Obama to lose citizenship due to the machinations of his parents when he was a kid to enroll him in school. In a case where two countries do not allow dual-citizenship, the citizenship reverts to where he was natural born. That is US POLICY, not theory. The only way to lose citizenship is to renounce it, as an adult. In general, Yestodemocracy.com is the very best site I have seen for FACTUAL and not hysterical information on the birth certificate issue. I highly recommend it—for the Indonesia issue and others.

--This statement: “Because only one of his parents was American, and she was a young teenager when he was born, he does not meet the Constitutional Requirements of a "natural born citizen" and is therefore not qualified to be president.”

That is entirely false. That is not an assertion of American law. I cannot emphasize enough how completely bogus it is. You would think that since Obama wrote in his own autobiography that his father was Kenyan, that his campaign for the White House would have ended long ago!! Years ago, in fact! Too bad neither Hillary nor Mccain ever thought of it! But seriously, that is not how American law works. You can ask any lawyer, legal expert, etc that you know. It is a flat-out incorrect interpretation of the law.

--Most people, myself and the majority of legal experts in the country included, do not think American law is at all ambiguous. Debates about naturalized versus natural born and etc do not compute into a simple formula—are you born in the United States? Then you are eligible to president. If you approach the average person on the street, that is what they will tell you. AND if you approach the average legal scholar, they will say the same. The reason that Obama has an approval rating of 80% despite the fact virtually EVERYONE is aware of these lawsuits, is that he has satisfied that basic requirement by providing his birth certificate and showing he was born in Honolulu.

--As for John Mccain, he showed his birth certificate to ONE reporter. Obama posted his on the internet! Which is better? Mccain's Panamanian birth certificate was leaked by Panamanian officials, I believe. And it's interesting that his citizenship is so readily accepted despite being born in another country, while Obama, born in the US, is considered so suspect. As for Mccain's medical records…he allowed a handful of reporters to sit with his medical records for TWO hours! This is someone who has had extensive medical problems, including cancer, and who is of advanced age. Obama released a statement from his doctor that expressed he has not had any medical problems. The guy is in peak health, so it’s not really the same thing. Also, we will get yearly updates on his health now that he is president. But ay, ay, ay…what’s the point of relitigating the campaign all over again?

I cannot really continue to argue the rest of your points since I have already spent FAR too much time writing this. It’s hard because we are working on two basic premises. You want his school records because you think it will list his citizenship—I think we already know it. You want to know who his guardians were? Well, for most of his life, it was his grandparents. As for travel records, I still don’t know what this means. You mean his passport? Or what else?

To me, it seems clear that he has given all the information necessary to show his eligibility. To you, there are always more questions, more documents to be released, and the idea that he is entitled to privacy doesn’t resonate. There is not really any end in sight. And for some people, they will see all of his actions in the most sinister light. Unfortunately, on the internet, any claim that is made will spread like a virus and he is guilty until proven innocent. After Obama posted his birth certificate, the internet hysteria began—it’s a fake! Even after Hawaii had corroborated his status and even to this day. I think Obama decided that there was nothing he could offer that would satisfy the fringe. And I agree with him.

Anyway, thank you for reading this if you actually got to the end! (you can imagine my pain earlier today since the comment eaten by blogger was almost as long).

It’s important to always have healthy debates. I think I have spent so much time debunking the more insane conspiracies of this whole issue that it’s hard for me to even see it from the other side. But you are a very sane person and I hope that someday (maybe by Jan 20th?) you will be satisfied that he really is eligible to become President—since of course, he will have become President! It seems that the question of what the law is will be resolved once and for all on the day he gets sworn in by the highest possible authority on the law--Namely the Supreme Court.

jeninthecity said...

By the way, I just saw in your profile that you're at BU. I am your neighbor! I live in Allston, just a few blocks down Comm Av, near Packard's Corner. :)

Seth said...

--To your first point, I explicitly said:

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States "

However, I referenced these cases because they still set precedent regarding the definition of “natural born.” There is NO Congressional or Supreme Court precedent, whatsoever, that says natural born = being born on US soil. Naturalized, native born and legalized American citizenship can all be established simply by being born on American soil – according to precedent. Natural born status, however, cannot. The closest precedent we have to defining “Natural born” are the cases I cited which also just happen to focus on children born outside of the US; hence the ambiguity on the issue. I’m sure if this issue was cut and dry there wouldn’t be over 200,000 names signed to a petition for Obama to release his records.

--To your second point about the Annenberg Foundation... The Obama campaign tried this same talking points as you when people got upset that Obama worked with Ayers.

“But the Annenberg Foundation was created by Walter Annenberg and he was a Republican.”

While Walter did create the foundation, and he was a Republican, he created the foundation in 1989 (two decades ago), and he passed away six years ago. His wife, Leonore Cohn Rosenstiel Annenberg, is still technically the chair of the foundation but she is a philanthropist NOT a politician. So her being a Republican does absolutely NOTHING to discredit the fact that the only organization allowed to view the hard copy of Obama’s birth certificate was FactCheck.org – run and owned by the Annenberg Foundation, whose Chicago chapter Obama chaired with Ayers. That’s a clear conflict of interest and no amount of pointing to the political party of the organization’s money horse is going to change that.

The main concern isn’t necessarily that FactCheck.org is involved in a super secret cover up, but that a totally independent, unattached party should have access to his certificate for verification purposes.

--To your third point: Your argument is that Obama changed his name just for family unity and the schools, who were VERY strict at that time regarding whom they let in because Indonesia was at war, just failed to verify his Indonesian citizenship? … I suppose it’s possible. But, just as possible, and probably more likely, is the idea that he was adopted and his citizenship changed. Hence why he refuses to make any record public except a questionable internet version of a re-issued birth certificate which the Hawaiian government did not verify until after he visited the state and had a behind closed doors meeting with Hawaiian officials…

And it was US POLICY, as the time of his alleged adoption to NOT recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia (and vice versa). The actions of the parent cannot affect the citizenship of the child only insofar as dual citizenship is in play. Because of Indonesia’s circumstances at the time, dual citizenship was NOT in play for Obama and so he would have become a citizen of Indonesia if he were adopted.

Even if we were to take your argument that the actions of the parent cannot affect the citizenship status of the child, Obama would have had to redeclare his US citizenship when he returned to America through his legal Guardians at the time, or when he turned 18. If this is the case, he would have the paperwork to document this and it should be released. Phillip Berg’s suggestion, I believe, is that Obama didn’t redeclare his US citizenship at any point, and so he is not an American citizen. I guess you can take that with a grain of salt, but it’s indisputable that if Obama released these records, we would know for certain.

--To your 4th point about the age of the one US parent needing to be over 19 to qualify him as natural born, again, I’m well aware the cases I referenced were regarding citizens born outside of America. The reason I referenced them, and the reason Berg references them, are because these cases are the ONLY times the Supreme Court and/ or congress made any sort of ruling on the meaning of “natural born.” With regards to precedent, we have to work with what’s available. You’re assuming natural born = being born on American soil with absolutely no term-specific precedent to back you. I’m assuming it’s more convoluted based on relevant, albeit not pitch perfect, precedent. So, no, the concerns about his mother’s age not entirely false.



--To your 5th point about the law not being ambiguous… I must disagree. You seem to have what Jeremy Bentham would label as “the simple view of the law.” Bentham, of course, went on to label this view as “nonsense on stilts.” The law is very convoluted and open to interpretation in many ways. If it weren’t, we’d have no use for lawyers now would we? The simple fact of the matter is there are THREE classifications of American citizenship. Legalized, Naturalized, and Natural Born. Being born on American soil automatically makes you a naturalized American citizen; it does NOT automatically make you a natural born citizen. We must look to precedent, as I have, to determine the qualifications of a “natural born citizen,” because the Constitution does not explicitly define the term for us.

And Obama doesn’t have an 80% approval rating because everyone knows about this issue and still adores him in spite of it. In fact, nearly everyone I’ve spoken with about this issue had no idea there were even three classifications of American citizenship – and those same people didn’t even know about these lawsuits and those that did were given pitiful reports from the media about them. The media has been reporting these lawsuits as some sort of outlandish conspiracy theory set to unseat Obama when, in reality, these suits are aimed at forcing him to make his records public – he could only be unseated if his records showed him to be unqualified. And so it is no wonder the liberal media reports on these cases such as they do. I’ve made several posts about liberal media bias – you should check them out. But suffice it to say that a very small percentage of Americans have ever met with Obama personally and even fewer have a full understanding of his policies, record, and personality. A VAST majority of Americans rely on the media (hence the term “media”) to relay the “reality” of Obama to them. And so, the 80% approval rating of Obama says a lot more about the media’s love fest with Obama than any inherent ideological agreement between Obama and a right of Center American population.

--As to your points about McCain… I don’t really agree with most of them but to fully argue with you about them would be tangential. McCain’s natural born status was reviewed by the courts and a congressional committee (not “just one reporter”) and he was far more transparent than Obama was regarding his medical records and all of his other records. For as many complaints as you seem to have about McCain’s subjectively limited transparency, I’m a little confused as to why you’re appeased with Obama’s utter lack of transparency.

--I want his school records because they may indicate his citizenship and guardianship and both of those are relevant to the claims laid against his natural born status. I want his travel records (passport records specifically), because there are claims that he traveled to Pakistan during a time when US Citizens were not allowed in Pakistan and it’s been suggested that he used an Indonesian passport – which would be relevant to his natural born status because he traveled to Pakistan after he turned 18 and if he had an Indonesian passport that might indicate that, as Berg suggests, Obama never re-claimed his US citizenship after leaving Indonesia.

--To me, it seems clear that he MUST release ALL of his birth, adoption/ guardianship, school, and travel records so that we, as Americans, can be assured that our president is qualified to be our president. There is absolutely NO harm in requiring this of Obama. If he is a legitimate natural born citizen he has absolutely nothing to fear from releasing his information. Which is why so very many people, including a great many Constitutional lawyers (those of whom are not infatuated with the novelty of his election of course) are concerned that he hasn’t done so yet… it indicates that he has something to fear. And that’s problematic. McCain was able to release his records because he knew he would qualify as Natural Born. Obama’s no idiot. He’s not releasing these records for a reason, and I doubt the thinly veiled defense of “he values his privacy” has anything to do with the actions of a man who wrote two memoirs before ever writing a major national bill into law.

Supporters of Obama have done everything they can to take every single concern about his presidency and brush it under the rug. Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansur, Michelle Obama’s salary increase when Obama got elected senator, Obama’s breaking Illinois state law by accepting payment for speeches delivered while serving as a US Senator from that state, his abortion voting record… etc… all got brushed under the rug just as quickly as possible. Obama and his supporters swatted all of these issues away with a flick of the wrist, disregarding them (as you are doing with this issue) as unfounded, and we now have a president elect who was NOT properly vetted. This is ever more apparent with this citizenship issue.

And as I’ve said, too many times to count now, I fully expect every court which is confronted by these citizenship lawsuits to do everything they can NOT to rule on them. And sure enough, not a SINGLE court has ruled on the merit of Berg’s lawsuits. Each time his petition’s have been thrown out, it has been because of a technicality relating to “standing” (meaning they would only hear the case if it were brought to them by someone who could prove they were being uniquely damaged by Obama’s actions). Obama being sworn in on the 20th doesn’t mean he’s a natural born citizen, or even that Americans are aware that his natural born status is an issue. It’s just means that he’s been sworn in and we’ll probably never know for sure if he is Constitutionally qualified.

As I posted in my blog post, Berg appears before the Supreme Court on January 9th and the 16th. I don’t expect the courts to do much/ anything. My main concern is that the American people don’t fully understand these lawsuits (or even know of them), and that the media is perpetuating this ignorance by reporting the story inaccurately. It all boils down to what I said at the end of my last reply:

There's two ways of looking at this. You can just blindly assume that Obama is "natural born." Or you can support the idea that whether he is or isn't natural born, forcing him to make ALL of his records public will put an end to this debate and further unify America. It seems to me that the second option makes the most sense.

There’s no reason to assume that Obama will be expected to produce an infinite amount of documentation because, clearly, there’s a limit on the amount of documentation he could provide. That’s not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue is that he ought to be as forthright and transparent with every document which speaks to his citizenship status as possible. He has done just the opposite. THAT’s the issue. Simply releasing a questionable online scan of a re-issued birth certificate which, even if valid, only addresses a fourth of the claims lain against his natural born status is NOT sufficient. That’s why these lawsuits matter, that’s why Obama should be forced to release his records.

Conservative Brawler's Archive

Brawler's Search