Born in the USA?

This issue is too important to be left on the back burner. Folks, it is time we stand up and demand that this man prove he is eligible, and not by some phony image that some loyal staffer put up on the internet. He needs to answer more than the question of where he was born, we need to see his passport(s), his college records (including financial aid), and his adoption records, if any. This article from World Net Daily has again renewed my hopes that perhaps we may find out just who this man is, versus what he claims to be.

Kentucky elections officer wants eligibility investigated
Refers matter to state attorney general for review

Posted: April 10, 2009
Time: 10:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An official in the office of Kentucky's elections chief has referred to state Attorney General Jack Conway for investigation the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

In a letter to Conway, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Leslie A. Fugate noted the issue of "President Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in Kentucky."

"Because our office does not have investigative powers … we are referring the matter to your office," she wrote."

The letter followed a visit to elections officials by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility.

A committee of concerned citizens accompanied Taitz to Fugate's office to ask that the eligibility issue be investigated.

There was no immediate word on the status of any investigative work that might be launched by investigators for Conway, the 49th attorney general for Kentucky, who was elected in 2007 and has made targeting cybercrimes a priority.

If a formal investigation actually is begun it apparently would be the first time the many lawsuit plaintiffs across the country would see a door opening to some answers about the murky circumstances surrounding Obama's eligibility to be president.

Among the typical responses to eligibility challenges WND has reported was a federal judge's dismissal of a case because the issue already had been "twittered."

Further, lawyers hired to defend against such cases also have begun threatening sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers unless they agree voluntarily to leave the issue of eligibility unquestioned.

Questions about Obama's birth place were being raised even before he was elected. He had reported he was born in Honolulu, but because he has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate, which would put such questions to rest, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause.

While many of the lawsuits have been dismissed, most have not been heard for reasons of jurisdiction and standing, rather than on the evidence and merit of the challenges.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on his eligibility, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, "All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage." [Editor's note: Boy, this settles it for me, how 'bout you? NOT!!]

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed the document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a "certification of live birth?" [Editor's Note: Why would someone who had found their birth certificate amongst his mothers things after her death (from Dreams From My Father) have to post a phony one when he ran for president 13 years later?]

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said.

It was in his autobiography that Obama reported he was born in Honolulu, and the online "Certification of Live Birth" states that.

But when WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi went to Hawaii, he was told any Obama records were sealed, and although they would be released if the person made the request, Obama simply has refused to do that.

Corsi also traveled to Kenya where he was also told records pertaining to Obama in Kenya were sealed.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

A woman who reportedly "remembered" Obama's birth and was quoted widely in support of his Hawaiian birth later explained to WND she had been told of the birth of a baby boy by an acquaintance who was a doctor who noted the mother's unusual name of Stanley, but she had no knowledge of the details.

According to much legal research, at the time of Obama's birth he could be a natural born citizen by being born in the United States, by being born to two U.S. citizen parents (not possible because of his father), or, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. [Editor's Note: My research into the Constitutional provision discussed here said that at the time of Obama's birth in 1967, 5 of those 10 years had to be after the age of 14, not 16. Either way, Ann Dunham was not old enough to confer citizenship, should the birth have happened in a foreign country.]

The problem is, Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth, so his only apparent route to "natural born" citizenship status would have been to be born in

Some of the lawsuits that have been filed question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan....(read more)

The article continues with a list of all the various lawsuits and their current status.

Folks, this is a real issue--it isn't just sour grapes. It has nothing to do with race, and nothing to do with the fact that he is a democrat and I'm an independent (who leans toward republican candidates many times as the "lesser of two evils").

It has everything to do with whether our Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Let me say that again...it has everything to do with whether the Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution is still the law of the land?