Barack Obama: Born in the U.S.A.?

Just some notes to spread awareness of the fact that a Supreme Court case is challenging the citizenship of Barack Obama and thus his constitutional eligibility to even hold the office of President. Many people know of this already, but the mainstream news has not said much if anything about the issue. The case was brought by Philip Berg, a Philadelphia lawyer and a strong left-leaning Democrat who has held high positions in the State of Pennsylvania and the Democratic Party. The issue is introduced in this video, which has been out since October. Berg’s website on the matter is www.obamacrimes.com.

Why bring this up after the election? Because according to electoral college rules, the general election only designates who the electors are “pledged” vote for in their respective states on December 15. The electors are not bound to vote according to who “won” their state, though they rarely dissent, and in some cases such “faithless electors” can be penalized. The electors’ votes are gathered and brought to Congress and opened on January 6 at which time they are counted and the winner declared. In other words, no presidential candidate has actually won until January 6. In the mean time, an expedient answer to the court case-which currently awaits answer to an appeal to the Supreme Court for review-could greatly affect the outcome of the election. Does this small constitutional technicality really matter? Remember when there was a public outcry and several major media outlet articles after Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California? Here’s one example from the LA Times. The thought was that he had his eye on the White House for 2008, and a bill was introduced to allow naturalized (not just natural born) citizens to become president. Introduced by a liberal Republican, and backed by liberals, the bill would welcome immigrants to become president. Liberals pushed this under the guise of equal rights, calling the constitutional clause a “mistake,” a “double standard,” “un-American,” and arguing that the founders were short-sighted and out of touch.

In classic neglect of history and constitutional understanding, the liberals blame the founders and the constitution instead of their own un-American agenda. A conservative historian set them straight:

Historian Forrest McDonald, a professor at the University of Alabama, said the framers were very familiar with the example of 18th century Poland, where foreign powers had subverted the election of a monarch and installed their own puppet, allowing them to carve up the country. In America, rumors swirled that the Constitutional Convention intended to invite a relative of English King George III to reign over the just-liberated colonies.

Against this background, and without dissent or discussion, the Constitutional Convention adopted language stating that “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

So we should consider the case of Obama’s citizenship just as important as any other constitutional issue. Of course, this means the liberal courts will probably not consider it at all.

I am not convinced one way or another at the case, but there are some very fishy details. Conflicting reports have been given as to which Hawaiian hospital Obama claims to have been born in. Meanwhile, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother claims that she was present at his birth in a hospital in Kenya. This could all be solved with a viable birth certificate, but Obama will not submit. Why not? If the document is genuine there is no problem. However, if the document is a forgery as Berg and others accuse, and Obama submitted it to a court, then he would face perjury as well as ineligibility for office. But not only has Obama refused to release the document, he has refused to relase any document from his past that may reveal anything about citizenship.

In addition, WorldNetDaily has been tracking the story. On August 17 they ran one story, and others since. One of their most prominent writers and best-selling author, Jerome Corsi, traveled to Kenya to study the facts. The strongly pro-Obama, violent revolutionary, and quasi-communist Kenyan government arrested Corsi before a scheduled press conference and held him with no contact at the airport. The story is here and in many other places on the web. What was the Kenyan government afraid Corsi would reveal? Why the rough-up? Fishy to me.

In opposition, FactCheck.org has created a “truth about Obama’s birth certificate” page, and has concluded that the allegedly fake certificate produced on Obama’s campaign site is in fact genuine. But note a couple things. If this is the case, why has the document not been supplied to satisfy the subpoena? Good question. While FactCheck.org often upholds its reputation as “nonpartisan” by exposing journalistic lies and errors on both side of the political aisle, we can hardly rest assured in their neutrality. To begin with, neutrality is impossible, and when the website begins to play the “conspiracy theory” card, you know some bias has entered the game. That the organization is a project of the Annenberg Foundation says much: Annenberg made his millions as publisher of the well-left-leaning Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as the teen-girl-zine Seventeen (basically a teen version of Cosmopolitan). Annenberg used the Inquirer to affect politics in the city of Philadelphia. More interestingly, Obama sat on the board of an Annenberg project in Chicago in the 1990s. So much for nonpartisanship.

The issue needs to be strongly pursued, and spread via every media outlet. Perhaps it is false, but if so, let’s legally and clearly falsify and let everyone know. Obama and the liberals stand to lose nothing by doing this. If it is true the American people and our representatives need to have the fortitude to stand for the constitution and oust the imposter, even if he was popular. Either way, the public deserves a clear answer. We are merely asking the courts to clarify the facts and uphold the law.