I read in yesterday's edition of WorldNetDaily that a second lawsuit has been filed demanding Barack Obama produce evidence that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen in the form of certified copies of birth documents. When I first heard that the birth certificate Obama had posted on his website was suspected of being a forgery, I didn't give it much credence.
I mean, who in their right mind would try and pull off something like running for president of the United States on forged documents? It's ridiculous. Surely he didn't live all his life in this country without ever having to produce birth records! I mean, it's ridiculous.
Everybody has a birth certificate. Even me (although my original is too heavy to carry, being chiseled into a rock slab). A birth certificate is the easiest and quickest (although not the only) form of identification to establish citizenship in order to get a passport...or a driver's license...or a Social Security card.
My birth certificate doesn't really contain that much private information apart from my "vital" statistics – "vital" in the sense that the information on my birth certificate is certified to be true and correct and establishes who I was born to and when.
The Constitution of the United States sets forth the necessary qualifications for the U.S. presidency. To qualify, a person must be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, aged at least 35, and having been a permanent resident of the United States for the last 14 years.
Since they are enumerated by the Constitution, they can only be changed by Constitutional amendment. An unqualified person cannot hold the office, even if elected by the majority of the people.
So it is ridiculous – let me repeat it – ridiculous to think that Barack Obama would try to capture the Oval Office if he knew his birth credentials couldn't stand up under scrutiny. Would he?
Besides, FactCheck.org says it examined the Obama birth certificate and claims it is genuine.
But FactCheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, which links to Bill Ayers, which links to Barack Obama, both of whom held seats on that board – which then calls FactCheck.org's objectivity into question.
But surely Barack Obama wouldn't try to run for president knowing he wasn't qualified? Like I said, its a tin-foil-hat question.
Still, why in the world would it be necessary for somebody to have to file a LAWSUIT to compel Obama to produce a birth certificate? What is the big deal about providing what millions of us provide on demand whenever the government asks for it? It's only a birth certificate. You should be proud of it. It says you are a natural-born citizen of the greatest country the world has ever known.
So, why would Barack Obama file a motion to block discovery on the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, when all Berg is trying to "discover" is whether or not the candidate running for the presidency is qualified to either run or serve?
Obama's campaign has tied up Berg's lawsuit in knots, so Steve Marquis filed the second lawsuit aimed at – this seems odd to even have to say out loud – getting a presidential candidate to produce his birth certificate.
Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo. It's a birth certificate. He's running for president of the United States! Didn't anybody check?
In both cases, Obama is challenging the standing of those who filed the lawsuits – in essence saying he believes it is none of their business.
But, not to belabor the point, Obama is running for president of the United States. Every U.S. citizen has "standing" when it comes to ensuring they are voting for a qualified candidate.
Both Berg and Marquis are asking only that Obama provide them with evidence of his qualifications for president in the form of certified birth documents.
All Obama has to do to make it all go away – especially this close to the election – is let the Hawaii registrar of birth records release one certified copy to be examined by a neutral party. That's all. But he won't. It's baffling.
I mean, what can there be to hide?