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?

The Trip to Pakistan in 1981 outs Obama

Based upon Dr. Orly Taitz's blog: http://defendourfreedoms.us/
March 9, 2009

Well is He or Isn't He?

Paul Hollrah

It is a popular topic of discussion in political circles these days, and as the weeks pass more and more people are asking, “Is Barack Obama really a natural born citizen of the United States? Is he eligible to serve as President, or isn’t he?” If he is, then so be it. We’ll just have to grit our teeth until this long dark nightmare comes to an end…one way or another.

But what if he is not eligible? What then? Well, in that case we have a problem…a very large problem, the solution to which could tear asunder the fabric of American society.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen…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.”

That’s pretty straightforward, yet, when confronted with the possibility that the man who sits in the Oval Office may be a usurper, a great many otherwise patriotic Americans can be heard to say, “What difference does it make? The election’s over; the people have spoken. Get over it!”

Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that, and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous. Every new law and every executive order he had signed, every political appointment, every judicial appointment, every order he had given to the military, and every act and every decision of all of his appointees would immediately become null and void. How could we ever undo all of that? The American people would quickly learn that it is not much easier to undo two or three years of history than it is to undo a decade or a century. Obama must end his stubborn refusal to produce his birth certificate, his passports, his visas, and his college records. We must continue to recruit more and more Americans to insist that he do so.

To do that it is not necessary to prove that he was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii…as his paternal grandmother, a Kenyan half-brother, and a Kenyan half-sister insist…or who his natural father may have been. The proof of Obama’s failure to meet the “natural born citizen” standard is much simpler than that.

To convert a non-believer…one who insists that the Constitutional requirements must be met, but who believes that questions about Obama’s citizenship status are nothing more than sour grapes…it is only necessary to establish the facts surrounding Obama’s travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981.

Although Obama fails to mention that trip in either of his memoirs…not in Dreams from My Father and not in The Audacity of Hope…he made a potentially fatal error when he mentioned the Pakistan trip during an April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco…the same speech in which he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion…” In that speech, Obama explained in an offhand manner the value of that trip, vis-à-vis his knowledge of foreign affairs, saying, “I knew what Sunni and Shia was (sic) before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

When questioned about that trip, Obama’s campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, confirmed to the New York Times, and others, that Obama had visited Pakistan in 1981 on his return from Indonesia, traveling there with a Pakistani friend from Occidental College, Wahid Hamid. According to Burton, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of another Pakistani friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Obama has never mentioned the Pakistan trip again.

So it is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. What is not established, and what is critically important, is what passport he used during that trip. There are only three possibilities: Obama could have traveled under a U.S. passport…a passport first issued when he and his mother moved from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967; he could have traveled under an Indonesian passport, issued following his adoption by his Indonesian stepfather; and it is conceivable that, if he was, in fact, born in Kenya in 1961, he could still have been a British subject, traveling with a British passport. So which is it?

Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables…Christians, Jews, and Americans…were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry.

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities:

1. He traveled with a U.S. passport;
2. He traveled with a British passport; or
3. He traveled with an Indonesian passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, when adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people deserve to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. The sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

Is he a “natural born” citizen, or isn’t he? It seems pretty clear from currently available evidence that he is not. If this proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.