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.”

[Osage Orange]

You said it much better than I..............

[Kevmo]

In your case, the name calling just jumped right out at me. If that makes you sick, you are entirely too thin-skinned to have such a login name, poser.

[Kevmo]

Been here a long time. Been called that before when I didn’t buy into various illusions.
***Been here longer than you. Been called that before when I didn’t buy into various illusions myself. Sometimes if someone gives you a hard time on a constitutionalist website over a constitutional issue, maybe you should just listen.

[Arkinsaw]

Been here longer than you. Been called that before when I didn’t buy into various illusions myself. Sometimes if someone gives you a hard time on a constitutionalist website over a constitutional issue, maybe you should just listen.

I listen when it makes sense. The idea that a narrowly divided USSC is going to prevent the 1st African-American President from taking office is fairly ludicrous.

You are assuming that our system still adheres to Constitutionalism. It does not.

Its probably best to focus most and first on getting an oven instead of just counting on biscuits to appear.

Relevent Article

[Kevmo]

Its probably best to focus most and first on getting an oven instead of just counting on biscuits to appear.
***I can identify with your cynicism but I still hold out hope that there are 4 members of the Supreme Court who still uphold the constitution, as flawed as it is. We already have an oven, it’s just being used as a storage bin. It works if you turn it on. There’s plenty of fire to supply the heat.

[Poser]

I think I’m glad I don’t know you. I’m not sure yet.

[RegulatorCountry]

This crumb slipped through because of our utter inability to believe even the Dems would stoop so low.

Oh, BS. You may be so naive, but few of us here are. There have been questions about this man's eligibility since well before he became the Democrat nominee.

Tell you what, you "move on," believe what you want to believe, and stop trying to dissuade others from pursuing the truth in this matter, OK?

[mick]

Unlike you, friend, in my world I have to deal in hard facts. The “questions” you talk about are just that..”questions”. Not hard evidence. And that's what they will remain because the Dems have out smarted us, I guess, if in fact BO is not eligible. But nobody really knows, do they ?? Or are you holding back secret data that only you know about. The stakes are pretty high. Where I come from a man either puts up or shuts up.

But maybe you're the kind of guy who likes to sit around and feel sorry for himself because he possesses superior wisdom that the rest of us are too “naive” to understand. What a load of crap.

But you are correct about one thing. It is time to “move on” and confront the enemy we have to deal with come Jan 20th.

This is a real war we are in. Shape up and stop trying to divert us with bogus dreams that Keyes has the silver bullet that will save us. That kind of thinking is unworthy of this site. And very, very stupid.

[RegulatorCountry]

Shape up and stop trying to divert us with bogus dreams that Keyes has the silver bullet that will save us. That kind of thinking is unworthy of this site. And very, very stupid.

Who is this "us" you accuse me of diverting? Who are you to call anyone stupid, when you're advocating blowing this whole thing off, and you've belonged to a site, Free Republic, that is dedicated to protecting the Constitution, for a decade or more? Where have you ever seen me say anything, pro or con, about Alan Keyes? He is associated with but one of the seventeen ... seventeen lawsuits across the country.

You're the one with the problem, here. And a very, very vivid imagination that seems to be leading you to some very stupid conclusions. Disassociate yourself, if you find it so bothersome. I'm sure there are sites that are thoroughly avoiding this topic. Not many of them are conservative, though. Good luck with that.

[mo]

IMHO, we’ve been Trojan Horsed. We have, as the “leader” of the country, a very probable non-citizen, elected with almost 600-700 million, poorly accountable,quite probably foreign dollars.

In which case, somebody just got themselves 12 Carrier Battle
Groups for a steal.....and the liberal Washington Establishment was completely snookered in their Ivy league naivete.

[mick]

With friends like you our constitution is in real danger.

And I say that not to insult you but to educate you.

Listen up, pardner. In the final analysis the constitution is only as good as the people themselves wish it to be. To bring forth a constitutional challenge at this late date about the eligibility of a person who has already received a majority of the popular and electoral votes is destructive of the very thing you wish to preserve. The people and the media will see this as an attempt to steal the election. And we will lose in the Supreme Court. There is no upside. I don't know how old you are but I am old enough to remember the 1960 election when there was massive vote fraud in Chicago and Texas that gave the election to Kennedy. Many people urged Nixon to go to court because there was much evidence to prove the case that the Dems stole the election. But Nixon refused because he said that the election by the people, however flawed, must trump everything, even if there where legal and constitutional reasons to overturn the election. Nixon, to his credit , put love of country before party or himself. That is what we must do now. Shut up and show the world we love our country enough to swallow hard and accept these results even if tainted. Probably like many elections over the years.

In the final analysis we must act like CONSERVATIVES, and choose ORDER over the chaos that would result if we followed your prescription.

[RegulatorCountry]

With friends like you our constitution is in real danger.

With "Constitutionalists" like you, it's a wonder we still have one.

And I say that not to insult you but to educate you.

You're a fine example of our educational system, so have at it.

Listen up, pardner. In the final analysis the constitution is only as good as the people themselves wish it to be.

You seem to think yourself in a position to lecture anyone? I've got news for you, but I'll play along, since you seem to find "playing along" to be among the highest virtues. But, alas, with too many of such as yourself, the Constitution isn't much good at all. If wishes were horses, and all that.

To bring forth a constitutional challenge at this late date about the eligibility of a person who has already received a majority of the popular and electoral votes is destructive of the very thing you wish to preserve.

What was the "sell by" date on mounting a Constitutional challenge, mick? Before he won the election? There were lawsuits prior, with a response from Obama due on a writ of certiorari December 1. You apparently advocate that the Supreme Court punt on an issue of grave importance, because there might be riots. In case you hadn't noticed, there have been threats of rioting if Obama didn't win the election. Would you advocate calling the election and pronouncing him the winner, to avoid violence? I'm beginning to suspect you would. Those who would give up their freedom for a little security will have neither, and all that.

The people and the media will see this as an attempt to steal the election.

The "people?" How egalitarian of you. Never mind that 57 million of those people who voted, didn't vote for this candidate. As far as the media, they've been claiming that the election has been stolen every presidential election from 2000 onward. Where have you been hiding?

And we will lose in the Supreme Court.

Oh, so we're psychic now, are we? Maybe you should have foreseen the potential Constitutional crisis far enough ahead of time to head it all off, before your magical "sell by" date.

There is no upside.

Upholding the Constitution has its own upside, to some of us. What's that old Latin saying about justice, even if the heavens themselves may fall?

I don't know how old you are but I am old enough to remember the 1960 election when there was massive vote fraud in Chicago and Texas that gave the election to Kennedy.

That was certainly gracious of Nixon. And, as we all know by now, the media just love gracious losers, when they're Republican. But, he certainly did the country no favors, long term. You tell me, how that decade might have turned out differently, had Nixon stood his ground.

Many people urged Nixon to go to court because there was much evidence to prove the case that the Dems stole the election.

What lovely precedent in case law we would have now, had Nixon gone ahead and done the hard, but right thing then. ACORN? Would they have even come into existence as the force for electoral fraud we all know them to be?

But Nixon refused because he said that the election by the people, however flawed, must trump everything, even if there where legal and constitutional reasons to overturn the election.

When the margin of victory is provided by fraud, when the candidate himself may very well be ineligible, there is nothing to "trump" the very basis of the law of the land. Nixon was a flawed man. His decision was driven more by a desire for approval, and a desire to continue his own political career. That sort of behavior has come to be derided as RINO, devoid of principle. What's that old quote about "government of the people, by the people and for the people?" You'd rather be popular, and allow it to perish from the earth.

Nixon, to his credit , put love of country before party or himself.

Nixon remained politically viable, at great expense to the country. The political debacle that was the decade of the 60's could plausibly be laid at his feet. You're the exact sort of altruist as Nixon.

That is what we must do now.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. The legal process will play out, and we will see. Should these cases be dismissed on questionable grounds, the presidency of Barack Obama will forever be suspect, and legitimately so. But, even worse, the legitimacy of our own courts will be severely damaged. You advocate that, merely out of fear of rioting. And, you advocate mob justice by default, when you do.

Shut up

Heed your own counsel, psychic.

and show the world we love our country enough to swallow hard and accept these results even if tainted.

Yes, we're all so beholden to world opinion over the Constitutionality of our own election process. John Kerry would be proud. You've passed the global test.

Probably like many elections over the years.

Ah, yes, if we ignore it, it'll all go away. How's that working out for you?

In the final analysis we must act like CONSERVATIVES, and choose ORDER over the chaos that would result if we followed your prescription.

If we follow your prescription, we'll be just following ORDERS, with our legal system in chaos, and there will ultimately be nothing left to CONSERVE.

And now, I'm going to bid you goodnight and goodbye. But, you already knew that, right?

[mick]

I agree, time for bed.

But I can't leave the debate without clarifying one misconception you hold about my position about CONSERVATIVES choosing ORDER over CHAOS.

The ORDER I am talking about is the authority and unitary command of the presidency. I don't fear riots in the streets. I fear the very thing you seem to want to encourage...and that is to question the legitimacy of Obama as president after Jan 20th. That is the CHAOS I fear. That was Nixon's point and why he decided not to challenge the results. There can be no question in this dangerous world that we have one president and he commands the absolute loyalty of the armed forces.

It is our DUTY as citizens to make sure the world knows that all of us support our president....as vile a man as he may be. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't want our fighting men and women to hesitate when a lawful order is given, that puts their lives in jeopardy, because they believe the president is illegitimate. That is dangerous and could destroy not just our constitution but the nation itself.

Well, I've said my piece. Goodnight, friend and fellow freeeper.

[FlashBack]

I hear ya, we need an FR version of Round-Up for sure...very interesting threads and thoughts on both sides of the issue. And the ever present “why won’t he just release the dang thing??” keeps popping up in my mind....