Saturday, November 22, 2008

The issue of Obama's citizenship is bigger than a birth certificate

I stumbled onto this post explaining that once again the Supreme Court will decide the presidential election. Written by obsessive Obama supporters, it mocks in standard liberal fashion the current court battle regarding the issue of President-elect Obama's actual country of birth. Apparently an attorney filed suit a few weeks ago to delay the election until Obama produces his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally-required qualifications to become president. The case was initially rejected by Justice Souter, but a re-filed petition was accepted for review by the radical right's darling Justice Clarence Thomas.

Several weeks ago I remember a news article reporting that the appropriate authorities in Hawaii had verified the existence of Obama's original birth certificate, and for me the matter, scant that it was to begin with, was settled. After reading the comical indignant retorts in the comments on the above mentioned liberal blog, I tended to side with their assertion that the "wingnuts" will lose this one, mainly because it seems like such a trivial, inconsequential matter. But there's the rub. If it's so trivial, why would a Supreme Court justice agree to review it? Souter already rejected it once. So why would Thomas take it?

Then it occurred to me, on the issue of the citizenship requirement, "wingnuts" have been joking about electing Schwarzenegger as president ever since he got into politics, and liberals have been advocating for the elimination of the citizenship requirement for some time because of the multicultural diversity of our nation. So I thought it would be really funny if this whole Obama birth certificate suit backfires on the "wingnut" with Thomas ultimately doing a little legislating from the bench and deciding to rescind the natural-born requirement altogether*. This country's leadership has been pushing the globalization envelope so fervently over the last few decades that this would be the perfect opportunity to take down that tiny, insignificant, inconsequential little technicality. And who would argue? It's a silly requirement because naturalized citizens can be just as devoted to our constitution and founding principles as natural born citizens, and probably even moreso given that they're required to actually know the constitution in order to become a citizen.

So I decided to visit the wingnut's website to see what kind of evidence he has that would compel Supreme Court Justice Thomas to take this ridiculous case, and started watching the "wingnut's" press briefing video made about a week before the election. This "wingnut" claims to be a lifelong Democrat, and makes a rather compelling case that his motivation to bring this challenge rests entirely on constitutional grounds. And he's right, the constitution is very clear on the qualifications for our president: he must be 35 years old, lived in this country for the last 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. Cherishing the constitution as much as I do, I can't simply wave this natural born citizenship thing off as a minor triviality no matter how silly I think the requirement is. Nor can I condone the blatant alteration of the constitution via one single judge's ruling. I did however find myself wishing someone had this guy's fortitude to bring all kinds of other lawsuits to the Supreme Court to challenge the rest of the things our government does that violates the constitution... but I digress.

Berg also presents some compelling evidence that Obama may infact not be a natural born citizen, from remarks by his Kenyan relatives to his early travel history and legal requirements for such by all countries involved. But I'm most convinced something's awry by the simple fact that Obama absolutely refuses to provide a copy of his birth certificate, an act each of us regular citizens has had to do several times in our lives. And he also refuses to release his medical and postsecondary education records, reasons for which Berg believes are to protect Obama's citizenship status.

That's when the red flags started going off. The documents obviously exist otherwise Obama wouldn't have had an early passport and Hawaiian officials wouldn't have certified it. And being the Constitutional Scholar that he is, he wouldn't have dared run for president if he didn't qualify under the Constitution. So Obama's refusal to produce them must be based on principles alone. What principles though? It's looking more and more like Obstinence and Defiance rather than the privacy of the 4th Amendment. It's a birth certificate for Christ's sake, the only means available to prove compliance with 2 of the 3 Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the Presidency.

Senator Feingold, probably the most libertarian democrat in the Senate, has just professed his faith that Obama will be joyfully forthcoming with all the required information legislators need to do their oversight jobs, in stark contrast to the belligerent Bush administration. Feingold's remarks on the matter had instilled a little hope in this libertarian constitutionalist that Obama would regard our constitution a bit more respectfully than Bush, even if just a little. But after learning of the possibility Obama very well may become our first unconstitutional president, and his obstinate refusal to do something every other citizen of this country has been required to do multiple times in our lives, that hope is obliterated.

I'm now fully convinced Obama will conduct affairs in his administration with the same disregard for the constitution and outright stubbornness he exhibits in refusing to produce records we the citizens demand in the course of vetting our public servants. But worse than that, he will do so following in the same footsteps of the most horrendous president this country's ever had.

Now the issue is very unsettling, and much bigger than simply resolving Obama's citizenship.

* - The case before Thomas is solely to decide whether Berg has standing to sue, and has no bearing on the facts/evidence regarding Obama's citizenship.



Ted said...

You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:

edeldoug said...

Obama has put forth only a "Certification of live birth", which is NOT A Birth Certificate!

After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the Unted States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.

However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certificate of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth."

Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't. This part is important; - it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

Per the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site:

The "Certificate of Live Birth" provided by Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship. "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.

The form Obama posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program!


"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

THIS is a HI Birth Certificate:

And this is the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:

Notice any differences?

Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

What Obama has posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...)