No So Fast! How about that citizenship “President-elect” Obama?

The Independent View ^ | November 15, 2008 | By Matthew Weaver

[library user]

A new challenge to Senator Barack Obama’s citizenship was filed November 12th in California demanding that the court stop certification of the election results until the state’s secretary of state can ascertain from Senator Obama his legal qualification to be a candidate for President.  This 18 page petition is a quick read.  It offers a good summary of what is at stake and the questions that surround Senator Obama’s citizenship.

A few points:

• Petitioners Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., and Markham Robinson, establish their standing to file the petition as members of the American Independent Party, for which Drs. Keyes and Drake were presidential and vice-presidential candidates on California’s ballot, respectfully.  (This is a technical point that doomed some other lawsuits.)
  
  
• Petitioners note that Senator Obama has not provided proof of his citizenship eligibility despite repeated requests during the primary and general election campaigns.
  
  
• Petitioners note that action in at least 10 states is underway challenging Senator Obama’s eligibility.
   
• Petitioners note that the 2007 birth certificate offered by Senator Obama is of questionable credibility for several reasons, including that it is a copy of suspect authenticity and that it does not detail actual birth location.
  
  
• Petitioners note that the only person claiming witness to Senator Obama’s birth is his own paternal grandmother who claims he was actually born in Kenya, then the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar.  Other records and recollections of family members suggest either Queens Hospital or Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.  The disclosed Registry of Live Birth is a short-form of the birth certificate that does not state whether Obama was born in Hawaii or that his birth was subsequently registered there within the year following birth as then allowed by state law.
   
• Petitioners note that around 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia with his mother and new stepfather.  Records indicate that once in Indonesia he adopted his stepfather’s name and citizenship.  Since dual citizenship was not allowed by Indonesian law, and U.S. law and treaty obligations required respect of this, Mrs. Obama-Soetoro had to relinquish her minor son’s U.S. citizenship.  Elsewhere, they note that if he later recovered it, and no records apparently substantiate this, it would by law be as a “naturalized” citizen, not a “natural born” and, thus, ineligible for the office of President under the Constitution.
  
  
• Petitioners also note that in 1961 what is now known as Kenya was then the British Protectorate of Zanzibar which, if he was born there as his paternal grandmother claims, he would be a British citizen based on his father’s citizenship.
   
• Petitioners also note that in 1981 Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, which was then banned by the U.S.  Since he could not legally travel with a U.S. passport, they question whether he used  one of his other passports:  Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.  (Interesting point is that the petitioners state affirmatively that he had other passports.)

I am curious to see how this case fares in the courts.  The question of Senator Obama’s citizenship and constitutional eligibility have never been settled.  In fact, Senator Obama has resisted at every step to release his birth certificate and other relevant records that would resolve this matter.  That he has fought this suggests the information is at least embarrassing, if not disqualifying.

On August 14, 2008, I wrote a detailed article, What is Obama’s Citizenship?, where I explored some of the questions about Senator Obama’s citizenship.  I asked eight questions (seven pertinent to this discussion) that are still substantially unanswered today:

1. Are you now a U.S. citizen?
    
2. Have you ever held as a youth or adult, citizenship in another country?
    
3. Did you ever possess or travel using, at least in part, the passport of another country?  (E.g., while in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Kenya)
   
   
4. Did you renounce any foreign citizenship, and when, and do you now hold solely U.S. citizenship today?
    
5. Can you confirm or deny your name change as a youth from Barack Hussein Obama II to Barry Soetoro when you were adopted by your step-father?
    
6. Did you legally reclaim your birth name?  When and how?
    
7. Why did you not list your adopted name Barry Soetoro on any forms associated with your legal profession or others that ask for any other names you have ever used?  Have you now or will you update these records?

In regards to questions 1-4, Senator Obama’s own Web site says he was, through his father, a British citizen and that this British/Kenya citizenship “automatically expired August 4, 1982.”  That it “expired” doesn’t explain if he had passports and used them, nor does it address his potential Indonesian citizenship or how these were reconciled with his U.S. citizenship, especially where laws and treaties prohibited dual citizenship.

So, when will we see proof that Senator Obama is or is not a constitutionally eligible citizen?  Before or after he takes office?  As Keyes et al note, the latter will cause “irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

[mick]

Tough talk, friend. How about a solution?

Do you really think we could win anything in the courts these days after a national election has been decided? Well, DO YOU??

What part of “...now it’s too late” can’t you get through your head. How about focusing on the target and stop diverting attention away from our true enemy....the upcoming BO administration!

[DouglasKC]

It makes Republicans look like idiots.
Then why aren't the democrats and media using it?

You know, this is a great point. This is out there and has been out there for quite a while. Why aren't the news media ridiculing the Republicans for daring to bring this up?

[cripplecreek]

Seems to me that somebody doesn’t want to draw any attention too it. More people might start asking pesky questions.

[DMZFrank]

You are inverting the moral emphasis of this argument. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.

The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the submission of enough folks who think like you, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.

Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.

[DMZFrank]

I wish to know whether or not this lying bastid is a natural-born citizen!!! Let the chips fall after that has been established. (pro or con) If we determine that he is not natural born, and we do not remove him from office, than we do not deserve the constitutional republic that God and the founders gave us.

[Lexinom]

On the contrary, if there was nothing to find, PE Obama would have released the certificate by now to put this to bed and focus on the presidency.

[mick]

The Romans had an expression “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum,” (Let justice be done even though the heavens should fall). More simply—do what is right, regardless of the imagined consequences.

And that I believe is your position. I respect that view because it is true to our traditions. But a lot of us are not there yet. It is a hard call because I believe, as you do, that this man is an enemy of American Liberty and Traditions going back to the Founders.

But I say again, once he is elected by the Electoral College he will be the Lawful President. And the courts will never back us up. So what then? Armed resistance?

If we are to fight for our liberties I would much rather do it for reasons of usurpation of power, and other unlawful acts by the president than a dispute over place of birth. I feel like we are at a point similar to the 1770's in the American Colonies......the abuses are growing but Lexington/Concord is a few yrs away.

[SuperLuminal]

bttt

[Kevmo]

Best turn attention to that.
***No, it’s best to focus on the constitutional crisis before us.

[Poser]

“You posers make me sick.”

Hey! Watch it!

[Arkinsaw]

No, it’s best to focus on the constitutional crisis before us.

I wish you luck in your snark hunt.

[Chunga]

Petitioners Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., and Markham Robinson, establish their standing to file the petition as members of the American Independent Party, for which Drs. Keyes and Drake were presidential and vice-presidential candidates on California’s ballot, respectfully.

Matthew...the word you're looking for is "respectively."

If you're going to attempt to make points, don't be a klutz with words. Sheesh.

[justlurking]

Shouldn’t Allen Keyes be pursuing a lawsuit in EVERY STATE he was on the ballot?

There was much discussion on another thread about this.

California is a unique situation. State law essentially enables every citizen to challenge the state's actions (or lack of actions).

There's also precedent in California. A previous secretary of state removed a candidate from the Presidential ballot because he was underage, and was sustained on appeal to the CA Supreme Court.

[tomkat]

I simply cannot believe my freeping eyes. Free Republic was started as a CONSTITUTIONALIST website. You posers make me sick.

Well said, and I heartily concur !

[HighlyOpinionated]

http://racialreality.110mb.com/subraces.html

Well, well, well. Caucasoid is it? So the BIRTH CERT would not say “African” for Senior, would it? And they didn’t “do” color back then. So MOM, Stanley Ann, COULD HAVE written Caucasian for her baby Barry.

And if you’ve seen a child of mixed heritage, at birth they do tend to have lighter skin.

So, your post is extremely helpful to my inference that Obama-zoid is really a Caucasian and not a Black African.

The Media would have found this if they’d Vetted Obama the way they tried to destroy Palin.

URL is going to my blog. http://auntiecoosa.blogspot.com

Thank you very much!

[Poser]

What makes me sick is name calling when differences of opinion are manifest.

[RegulatorCountry]

better to turn a blind eye for now

There will be no "for now," once legal precedent has been set. What are you willing to open the door to, as far as future presidents? And all over worrying what the fifth-columnist MSM thinks. They already think the worst of you, merely for posting here.

[mick]

I am not a lawyer but I believe if no legal challenge is made about this and we don't lose a court fight the principle still stands. The "blind eye" refers to our pretending the scum bag followed the law even though we suspect he didn't to avoid a confrontation now when we are weak. And make no mistake, we will lose in the law courts and in the court of public opinion. There is a time to go down fighting but that time is not now.

So now our task in the future will be to be ever vigilant. This crumb slipped through because of our utter inability to believe even the Dems would stoop so low. Now we know better. And we now have confirmed for all to see that the MSM is the enemy of liberty and constitutional protections in this country. IMHO these are valuable psychological weapons to have for the next battle in 2010.

My whole point is to prepare for the real battles to come because these people are serious haters of our country and it's institutions and traditions.

We lost this fight in 2008. But it is one battle of a larger war. And sometimes the sting of defeat is worth it if it wakes up the slackers and the compromisers. Because in the long run there cannot be any compromise with these people. They are true Bolsheviks and must be destroyed.

[mick]

Well said. Now is the time for serious rational discourse. The danger is great and cool heads must chart the course. GO SARAH !!

[Arkinsaw]

Well said, and I heartily concur !

Been here a long time. Been called that before when I didn't buy into various illusions.

Sometimes people here are able to delude themselves as much as DU. Merry Fitzmas! Clinton will be convicted! Bush will be impeached! Saddam is dead, dead, dead! There is no way Kerry can lose! Rove will be frog-marched out of the White House! McCain WILL win! It's not Palin's kid! Controlled demolition! and now Alan Keyes will get the courts to prevent Obama from taking office!

We'll see on January 20th. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama can't take office then I'll apologize. Until then Unicorns!