Keeping an open mind - is Barack Obama legally eligible to be U.S. president?

I post this message with some hesitation, because I understand many people want nothing to do with this issue. The mainstream media largely dismiss people who raise it as fringe conspiracy theorists, just as people seeking answers about 9/11 and people who don't believe that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem have been similarly dismissed. Yet in each case, questions persist. If those who go against the conventional wisdom are correct, perhaps a core of conspirators in each case is to blame -- the recent "Climategate" email revelations lend credence to such a theory -- but it seems to me that the main stumbling block here is less the existence of a conspiracy, let alone a massive one, as a mass reluctance to seriously entertain the possibility of Obama's presidency is illegitimate, just as there was a mass reluctance to look into vote fraud after Bush's widely accepted wins in 2000 and 2004. While some people would undoubtedly refuse, for simple reasons of partisan politics, to entertain the Obama birth certificate issue even if they knew beyond a doubt that Obama was born outside the United States, I think most people who reject the issue (including most libertarians) do so for other reasons. Perhaps the most common ones include:

• Taking it for granted that the issue has already been investigated and that it has been proved Obama was born in the United States

• Fearing they will be seen as kooks, right-wingers, or racists if they pursue the issue

• Feeling that Obama's presidency is a fait accompli which will never be legally overturned at this point and therefore seeing no point in contesting his eligibility

• Believing that the Constitution is being widely violated anyway, and that one more small violation is not a particularly big deal since there is no particular harm in someone born outside the United States becoming U.S. president anyway

  I understand these arguments, and each of them is quite compelling in its way. The first reason is understandable on a practical level -- we *have* to acknowledge "consensus reality" to *some* extent, and if Obama was born in Kenya, how likely is it that this could be so widely suppressed? The latter three reasons are understandable because they are for the most part probably correct assumptions. I think people who focus on the issue *do* tend to be seen as kooks, right-wingers, and/or racists who hate Obama. Obama's presidency probably *is* a fait accompli which will never be invalidated on such a legal technicality. And the Constitution obviously *is* being massively violated, on the one hand, and on the other hand the law ought *not* to discriminate on the basis of nationality or place of origin to begin with.

  So why not just ignore the issue of where Obama was born? Simply because the truth always matters. If we say it doesn't matter in one case, we undermine all commitment to truth. And in this case, the principle at stake is that the powerful be held to the same rules and laws as the rest of us. I have also heard that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and therefore was likewise ineligible to be U.S. president (which would, incidentally, help explain why Obama's birth wasn't made more of an issue during the campaign). In McCain's case, there would seem to be an argument there that a U.S. military base like an embassy is part of the United States, but the Constitution does not explicitly say so. The public should insist that all such questions be resolved at the time a person files to run for office or when they first arise, because if they are swept under the rug it simply invites an arbitrary resoluton later on based on political circumstances rather than equal treatment under the law. Ed Jew, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, was investigated and forced from office in 2007 when allegations and evidence arose that he had not been living in the district from which he was elected, as required by law. But unlike Obama or McCain, Jew, perhaps the most libertarian-leaning member of the Board, was a maverick without a lot of political support rather than a sitting president or the presidential nominee of one of the establishment political parties.

   It should not be so difficult to discover the truth about where a prominent, living person was actually born. To the extent that it *is* difficult, this either suggests that high-level conspiracies are perhaps more possible than many of us want to believe, or raises profound questions about how much we can reliably know about any topic that is filtered though the media and public opinion. I'm not personally convinced that Obama *was* born outside the United States, but as with 9/11, I find the question intriguing, because I have not heard enough to convince me that he wasn't, and the points raised in the message below do appear to suggest a coverup.

  Does anyone have any solid information on this issue, to refute the points made in Gary Kreep's letter? If you agree that the truth matters, please don't shoot the messenger.

Love & Liberty,

          ((( starchild )))

(Attachment USJF.jpg is missing)

(Attachment 5470_video.gif is missing)

(Attachment 5470_video_2.gif is missing)

(Attachment birthcert.gif is missing)

(Attachment wethepeople.gif is missing)

(Attachment sig_garykreep.jpg is missing)

Does anyone have any solid information on this issue, to refute the points made in Gary Kreep's letter?

Obama's birth was announced in Honolulu newspapers at the time he was born, and this was widely published

Also, according to Snopes, someone came forward in 2009, saying she had talked to the obstetrician who delivered him. She noted that bit of trivia because the mother's name was "Stanley" like that of her own father:

If we do assume that Obama is not really a citizen, as libertarians, we should take his side of the issue. The laws as constructed are clearly morally wrong. Consider what would have happened. A US citizen would have given birth to the child of her intended husband, while traveling in his country. She would have been denied the right to confer her citizenship on her own child because of arcane laws discriminating on her age and legal marital status. A man whole lived his whole life like a US citizen should not suddenly be denied his rights through no fault of his own.

However, even if Obama was not born a citizen, absolutely nothing should come of it. The Constitution provides no method to remove a President except impeachment. He cannot automatically be removed nor can his actions become invalid. A most basic principle of the rule of law is that nobody can be punished without a trial . The LP has gone through this absurdity of a presumption of "automatic removal from office" supposedly found in CA and National ByLaws. Bogus cases were made against Lee Wrights in LNC and Mark Seltzer as CA South VC. The JC decided, correctly, that criteria of eligibility must be interpreted by the appropriate body for impeachment.

Harland Harrison
LP of San Mateo County CA


  No question in my mind that the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement, and citizenship laws as constructed are morally wrong. And it does seem possible that Obama refuses to release his "long form" birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii for reasons other than its non-existence. The birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers are persuasive. I agree it's preposterous to imagine that Obama's parents were seeking to maintain his eligibility to run for president 46 years later. Yet I can't help wondering whether they might have had another motive for publishing those notices. I also wonder about the statement -- subsequently corrected -- by Obama's paternal grandmother that she was present at his birth in Kenya.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))