There have been billboards, posters, questions at White House press briefings, "jokes" about it by the mainstream media and a ton of lawsuits and other challenges – including several pending.
But, come on, is there really the possibility that Barack Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to occupy the hallowed Oval Office?
That question and many others surrounding the constitutional issue of presidential eligibility are addressed in a new, free special report by WND.
"The citizens of the United States have a right to know if their president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office," says the report, now available from WND.
"Obama's hospital of birth, birth documents, passport and Social Security number are all in question, and his legal defense never addresses the merits of the eligibility challenges. Instead, Obama relies on procedural objections and compliant judges to get the cases thrown out of court," says the report.
"President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims," it concludes.
So why hasn't he?
The dispute over Obama's eligibility arose even before the 2008 election. Several legal challenges questioned just exactly who is supposed to make sure that a political party's candidate – no matter how charismatic – actually qualifies.
WND has reported on the multitude of cases and continues to report on pending disputes.
The report suggests the issue will have to be resolved in a public fashion sooner or later.
"Despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media, Obama's eligibility troubles have spread across America, and public opinion has gradually turned against the president. … More than a dozen U.S. House Republicans co-sponsored a bill … [to] require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility by providing a copy of their birth certificates," the report says.
Similar moves are developing at the state level. And a recent poll showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed Obama's own explanation of his birth and growing up years.
On the legal front is the dramatic case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged Obama's eligibility as an Army officer and could face prison for his decision. The goal of his case, like others, is to reach the level of discovery, so that Obama's documentation becomes public.
Another pending case by attorney Mario Apuzzo alleges Congress failed its constitutional duties to make sure the president is qualified. Other cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked that the California Electoral College votes for Obama be thrown out.
The report includes:
An explanation of how the issue developed around Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
A review of the possible scenarios regarding Obama's birth, including his father's status as a British subject at the time of his birth and British law calling for Obama to be governed by that nation's provisions at the time.
A discussion of "natural born citizen."
An explanation of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof.
What those Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser "announcements" about Obama's birth in 1961 really mean.
Why has no doctor or hospital come forward to speak of Obama's birth?
Should state officials who claim to have "seen" Obama's "original birth certificate" be believed?
What about those African newspapers that during his campaign called Obama "Kenyan-born?"
Were they "slips of the tongue" when Michelle Obama called Kenya the land of her husband?
Obama's "official account of his identity and background is riddled with inaccuracy and unanswered questions," the report says. "Even Obama's Social Security number may very well be fraudulent. He has literally spent a fortune in legal efforts to avoid producing the documents that would verify his eligibility."
Lending credibility to the concerns being raised is the intense war fought by attorneys trying to keep information about Obama secret. Besides his original birth certificate, still concealed are his kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, client list from his time in private practice, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, his baptism records and his adoption records.
The report notes Obama "has gone to great efforts to sell the public on his own version of his life, but his story has been inconsistent. For example, according to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, he stated he did not have any former names. In fact, he had been known for several years as Barry Soetoro."
Just the facts that are not in dispute would create issues, the report notes:
"Assuming Obama's parents were Barack Obama Sr., a British subject of Kenyan origin, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an eighteen-year-old American woman, neither of his parents were qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship to him. Barack Obama Sr.'s foreign allegiance disqualified Dunham's mother from conferring U.S. citizenship under the law prevailing at the time. The law required any U.S. citizen having a child with a non-citizen to have been physically present in the United States for at least five years after the age of sixteen to automatically transmit American citizenship. Because neither parent could confer American citizenship to their son, Obama can only be a U.S. citizen if he were actually born in the United States."
It documents how at the time of the Constitution's writing, "natural born citizen" was understood to mean a person whose parents were both American citizens.
So has Obama proved he was born in the U.S?
Obama was born in the USA, as his OFFICIAL birth certificate from Hawaii shows. Yes, it is a short-form birth certificate, but many states have adopted the short-form birth certificate as their official birth certificate, and Hawaii is one of them. Hawaii's official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth is used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year. In Obama's case the facts on his birth certificate were confirmed by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. The Kenya story is absurd given the ENORMOUS expense of such a trip in 1961 and the huge risk of making it late in pregnancy. Moreover, if a child were born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA) she or he would need either a US visa or to be added to her mother's US passport. If there were applications for such documents, they would be in the files of the US State Department under the Kenya category, and they would be easy to file--but none have been found.
Finally, ALL US citizens who were born in the USA (as Obama was, in Hawaii) are Natural Born US citizens. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US citizens.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Re: "kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, client list from his time in private practice.."
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Obama has shown his official birth certificate. He has every right not to show his kindergarten records (and birthers are stupid to think that the exist anymore). All his scholarly papers are published and available to everyone in the public (in libraries). That is what a scholarly article is. The reason that they have not been discussed by the press is, wait for it, Obama didn't write any. And he didn't write any articles for the Harvard Law Review either. This may indicate that he was lazy or focused on other things--but it is not illegal not to write articles.
The Wall Street Journal said this about the "why is he spending millions?" myth:
"'Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?'” X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from “thousands” to “almost a million”; one reader set the amount at “$950,000.” As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.
In any case, while this question sounds eminently reasonable, in fact it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the legal process. The “defense” against these frivolous lawsuits has consisted of filing a motion for summary judgment, which in every case has been granted.
In a motion for summary judgment, a defendant in a lawsuit asks the judge to dismiss the case as meritless before trial. In considering whether to grant such a motion, the judge is obliged to treat all facts in dispute as if they were resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. He may dismiss the case only if he finds it is without merit as a matter of law. The defendant’s introduction of additional factual evidence into the record would make the process more costly and time-consuming, not less."
As I said, Obama actually has shown his official birth certificate, and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the officials in Hawaii. There was NEVER a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate. If there had been, Obama would have shown his Certification of Live Birth to the court and the court would have accepted it because it is the official and only birth certificate of Hawaii.