The biggest story NOT being reported in US media

I know you've heard of this one. Obama's birth certificate has been an issue for months and now it seems that the Supreme Court may get involved (don't hold your breath). Regardless of where you stand on this issue, every citizen should be outraged at the idea that even though the Constitution has a requirement that anyone elected President must be a natural born citizen, there does seem to be one single governmental institution willing to compel Obama to verify this. Have we gotten so lazy as a society that the government no longer feels obligated to carry out such a basic function? Have we become so lazy to not DEMAND that this be done?

I won't get into the theories...many of you are probably all too familiar with them. In fact, in researching some of them, there are reason to doubt some of them. For example, you can Google "Kenya seals Obama records" all day long...all you will find are BLOG sources...not one actual media report of such an event. If I'm wrong, post it in the comments and the link.

Anyway, the more important issue is that thanks to the mainstream media, most Americans do not even know that this controversy is going on right now. Some have a false understanding that Obama was required to respond to an inquiry by Supreme Court Justice David Souter on December 1. First of all, failure or refusal to respond to Writs of Certiorari are common, so there will not be any consequence for missing this deadline. Second of all, everyone must remember that Souter votes more often with the liberal side of arguments than the conservative ones, despite being appointed by Bush I (much to the dismay of conservatives afterward), so he knows all about being given office under false pretenses. Plus let's not forget that Souter was embittered by the 2000 recount challenge, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor or Bush II (below courtesy of Wikipedia)...

Bush v. Gore

In 2000, Souter voted and dissented along with the three other liberals in Bush vs. Gore to allow the presidential election recount to continue while the conservatives voted to end the recount, making Bush the president.

Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his 2007 book The Nine of Souter's reaction following Bush v. Gore:

"Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."[12]

...so it's safe to say that Souter may be doing a whole lot of nothing about the situation as payback for the 2000 election. Actually a better indicator is that Souter has rejected the applications of both Peter Berg and Leo Donofrio in their quest for Supreme Court action. The only reason why Donofrio was successful in getting today's conference heard is because while Souter said no, Donofrio reapplied to Justice Clarence Thomas, who said yes.

So for this reason, I'm not holding my breath for a majority of justices on the Supreme Court to compel Obama to prove anything later today...though it should be a standard practice for ALL candidates. I think the reason why this one has slipped so far through the cracks is because it is more common that the media makes this request during the campaigns and the candidates merely comply, as did John McCain without hesitation this last go around. But never before has any candidate NOT done this, so the importance of verification at this stage, and its NECESSITY in this case, appears lost by most. Yes, the liberals who happen to be black will complain that Obama is being "picked on" but they ignore the facts of the situation as I just described.

All I have to say is that the democrats would be wise to encourage Obama to put this to rest now by producing proof...because if it is found to be true later that he is in fact NOT a citizen eligible to be president, then all hell will break loose for everything he signed or performed in his duties as president become NULL and VOID. Maybe the Republicans are just sitting back and waiting because they know that if this web unravels a couple of years down the road, the democrats would probably not sniff the presidency or a Congressional majority for decades as it would be the most embarassing event in U.S. history that we would all unfortunately have to bear (and perhaps some Republicans think its worth it).

The big question that remains however is that if Obama has nothing to hide then why not produce the document? To not do so will continue to divide the country and is therefore irresponsible, making any claims to want to unite all as disingenuous.

Here is perhaps the best way to stay informed in light of the lack of coverage in the MSM: Peter Berg's Obamacrimes.com. Yes, the web address is a bit "conspiracy theorish" but you'll see when reading the content that the man is just truly passionate about Obama doing what he and many others feel is a requirement to officially become President...he even asks readers to not perform counter-productive activities such as call and harass the Supreme Court.

Oh, and one final note about the birth certificate above...the one that is being touted by Obama as proof of his U.S. citizenship...the document is merely a Certificate of Live Birth, which any foreign citizen can obtain by showing the original Birth Certificate, regardless of what country the child was born in. The reason why I have it going back and forth between his and a real one is because there are countless sites on the web that prove that Obama's is actually a forgery (again the question must be asked -- why?). My link takes you to one of the best ones.

Now here is a document that does not appear to be a forgery -- Obama's school registration record from Indonesia. First, here's the untranslated original:



Now here's the translated version:



What is established with this document:

1. That Barack had an alias, which he denied when he filled out his registration form to practice law in Illinois:



2. That he was considered Muslim, which in my view is inconsequential since he was a child and was spoken for by his father and his personal preference at the time can never be truly known except for Barry himself.

3. Most important -- this document claims that he is an Indonesian citizen.

Here's where I think the smoking gun lies (see my bold emphasis below):

TITLE 8. CHAPTER 12. SUBCHAPTER III. Part III. § 1481

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Why is Section 1 above relevant you ask? Obama has said that he traveled to Pakistan while in college in 1981, which puts him at 20 years old at the time. It is widely speculated that in order to travel into Pakistan, he had to have had an Indonesian passport because it would have been extremely difficult as an American, which would be perfectly fine except for the fact that Indonesian passports are only issued to citizens. Since Barry reached adult age, the only way for him to have a valid Indonesian passport would be if he had re-applied for citizenship upon becoming an adult...and he had to formally claim Indonesian citizenship to do so because while he was a child, he was considered a resident alien. This is known because in 2006 Indonesia changed this provision (curiously I might add). Notice also that in the second decree that was passed in 2006 that Indonesian citizens who did not reclaim their citizenship status to the Indonesian government after five years as was previously required, which presumably applies to Obama, now have a three-year window until 2009 to get reinstated. I'd be curious to see if Obama has or plans to have a valid Indonesian citizenship while being president...