Obama Campaign's Curious Behavior Excites NO Curiosity in the Mainstream Media
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate:
Still Missing in Action in Federal Court
Birth Certificate Only One Piece to Puzzle
DBKP Talks to Phillip J. Berg about the Obama Campaign
Making a Federal Case out of a Federal Case
"We Got Him"
--Phillip J. Berg,
On the Lawsuit in Federal Court Demanding that Barack Obama provide the court with a valid U.S. Birth Certificate. Berg is Former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General, Head of the Montgomery Co. (PA) Democratic Party and twice a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania
Quiz time for DBKP readers.
Let's say you're a Democrat and let's say you're running for president of the United States.
You're a likable guy and are doing well--the New York Times and AP think you're peachy--but there have been whispers of whether or not you are constitutionally qualified.
A prominent Democrat files suit in Federal court asking you to provide proof, to settle the matter once and for all. The judge then orders you to provide the court with the documents.
What do you do?
- A. Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras.
- B. Provide images of one of the documents to a friendly website to post, but not to the judge.
- C. Ignore the judge, then make a motion to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof.
- D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya.
- E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case.
- F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until--hopefully--after the election.
Time's up. What do you do? Most readers sensibly chose A.
But, if you're Barack Obama, you chose answers B, C, D, E and F.
A curious response for a campaign interested in "fighting the smears".
What's the big deal? Regular folks provide their birth certificates every day for any number of reasons: obtaining a driver's license or marriage license come to mind. Heck, even kids have to provide a certified copy of their birth certificates to register for kindergarten in many locales.
Most people do it--if they're able--without much grumbling.
And they're not even running for President.
As DBKP kept asking for ten long months during the John Edwards' scandal:
"If there is nothing to hide, why is everyone involved going to such lengths to hide it?"
The Lawsuit of Phillip J. Berg
On August 22, we reported that attorney Phillip Berg had filed a suit in Federal court. [Denver Dem Convention: Clinton Supporter Files to Disqualify Obama]
The suit was against Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee. It asked the court to force Obama to prove he was an American citizen.
Do what thousands of Americans each day do--especially after 9-11: provide a birth certificate or proof of U.S. citizenship. It's a minor inconvenience, but they do it.
Saw this at Atlas Shrugged (via Memeorandum):
This just in from Hannity's blog (hat tip Rise Up) from here: Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency
A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.
Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.
"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".
The suit asked for three documents:
- 1. a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate;
- 2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and
- 3. a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority.
To date, attorneys for Barack Obama have filed almost as many motions fighting the lawsuit(2), as the number of documents the suit is asking for(3).
Again, that seems like curious behavior for a candidate anxious to dispel rumors about his qualifications and citizenship.
Why would that be?
We asked Phillip Berg.
"It's my belief that he [Barack Obama] can't produce the documents.
"If Obama cannot produce a certificate of citizenship, that would make him an illegal alien. In that case, he should be arrested, tried and deported."
Senator Obama could put this whole thing to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate. The fact that he's fighting it shows me that he can't produce the documents."
Again, that sounds reasonable to us.
On September 24, the day before Obama posted his dual citizenship admission on FighttheSmears.com, his legal team filed (with the DNC's lawyers) a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss.
Berg's been quoted as saying that this action "outraged" him.
"[T]his is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President.”
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President.
We asked Berg: Why would Obama do this? Why not just produce the documents? Why delay discovery--effectively ensuring that the documents will not have to be produced until after the election?
"I can only assume that if Obama wins, they will then claim that you cannot sue a sitting president."
Two weeks ago, the Obama campaign did another curious thing.
On September 25, at Obama's FighttheSmears.com, the campaign admitted that Barack Obama had had dual citizenship: that he was a citizen of both the United States and Kenya.
The Obama website cites the Anneberg Political Fact Check/FactCheck.org statement--which is the position of the Obama campaign, by the way.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
For someone involved in a lawsuit over citizenship, admitting that Obama had had dual citizenship at this juncture didn't seem particularly helpful--or likely to quiet those asking questions.
We asked Berg about this.
"The dual citizenship with Kenya--that's a smokescreen. Kenya allows dual citizenship. Kenya is not the issue.
The Obama campaign never mentions Indonesia--and won't. That's a problem. When Obama moved to Indonesia and attended school, he was adopted or acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro; Indonesia didn't allow dual citizenship."
As Berg wrote in his court filing, Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia.
Hmmm. And what does the Obama campaign have to say about all of this?
One begins to understand why Obama's lawyers chose to file motions instead of producing the documents in question.
Berg: "We got him. The fact that he's not produced any of the documents settles it."
The Elusive Birth Certificate of Barack Obama
Questions come to mind and to us, at least, they seem reasonable.
1. Why won't the Obama campaign provide Obama's birth certificate to a federal judge--who has ordered Obama to do so? Instead, the campaign and the DNC have filed a motion to dismiss that has yet to be ruled upon.
2. Why did the Obama campaign provide digital images of a birth certificate to FactCheck.org that had been altered--either by the campaign or FactCheck.org--and why did FactCheck.org state that the images had never been altered? It was quickly proved that they had been.
3. Why did FactCheck.org have to fact check their own June 12 2008 fact check post on the Obama birth certificate? That is curious behavior for a site that is supposedly a neutral referee on political questions.
4. Why has the Obama campaign fought every attempt--except those carefully controlled by campaign operatives during their interaction with Anneberg Political Fact Check/FactCheck.org--to produce a valid original birth certificate?
5. The document provided FactCheck.org by the Obama campaign very clearly has the following at the bottom: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." Yet, rather than produce that document so it can be examined in a federal court, why has the Barack Obama hired the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) top "hit man" lawyer to prevent this from happening?
6. Why is it that the document the Obama campaign has shown to FactCheck.org NOT been shown to others in the media--outside a few digital images to friendly MSM papers? There certainly are enough Mainstream Media organizations which double as Obama campaign PR shills--they would be more than happy to pronounce their satisfaction with it.
Our Adversarial Press at Work Once Again
The L.A. Times served the function in #6 in June.
Barack Obama's birth certificate revealed here
The Obama campaign has provided at The Ticket's request what it says is a copy of the Illinois senator's official birth certificate, reproduced here, showing he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m., which means he was late for dinner, just like a politician. Click on the photo to enlarge for reading.
In reaction to some of the comments left below challenging the veracity of the document, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, sent the following reaction to The Ticket: "I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
See how easy that was to do?
But, apparently, there was too much grumbling among the peasants, so the LA Times had to revisit the issue in August.
In Obama's case, there has been rampant online speculation that his birth certificate is forged or altered somehow. Well, the folks at FactCheck.org say they have seen the certificate, touched and vouched it -- Obama is as American as baseball, apple pie and, these days, burritos, pasta and kung pao chicken.
So that should settle it ... unless ... wait ... the people at FactCheck.org use computers, with keypads, that have the letters r-e-z-k-o on them, which just happened to spell the name of one of Obama's disgraced former backers ... and they were in Chicago to see the birth certificate at ... Obama headquarters ... CONNECT THE DOTS, PEOPLE!
Just as FactCheck.org and Politicheck would do in their pieces, anyone with further questions would be labeled as "conspiracy theorists".
Where had we heard that term before?
"Conspiracy theorist" was one of the charges Edwards' supporter leveled at DBKP when we kept writing about the curious facts of the John Edwards affair. Since the National Enquirer hasn't had any stories about Obama's citizenship, "tabloid trash" hasn't been used yet.
Readers may suspect that the traditional Mainstream Media would be no help in all of this--and readers would be right. Just as they did in the John Edwards Scandal, the MSM refuses to fulfill their duties as an adversarial press--unless the candidate is named "Sarah Palin".
Just as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of Big Media refused to investigate the John Edwards affair--no one MSM reporters asked presidential candidate one question for over 10 months about the curious set of circumstances surround him and his mistress, Rielle Hunter--there has been no serious investigation into he growing controversy of the citizenship of Barack Obama.
Other than report what the Obama campaign has given them, the MSM has conducted no investigations. As in the Edwards affair, catch phrases are substituted for investigation.
Two of the favorites must be:
"That's what the campaign is saying? Works for me."
Fact Checking Anneberg Political Fact Check/FactCheck.org
From FactCheck.org "Has Obama's birth certificate been disclosed?" - June 16, 2008
We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign. It is too large to display full size on this page, but you may click on this link to see a copy of the document just as we received it.
FactCheck.org further stated at the time, in a post that could have been written by the Obama campaign itself, "But the document should put to rest groundless speculation raised on some conservative Web sites that Obama might not have been born in the U.S. and therefore might not qualify under the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen" to be president."
The speculation was not based on any evidence. Bloggers raised questions based on the absence of evidence, specifically the lack of a publicly available copy of a birth certificate and the supposed "secrecy" surrounding it. For example, the conservative World Net Daily posted a June 10 article with the headline, "Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?; Secrecy over birth certificate, demand for 'natural-born' citizenship cited." Soon after, some of our readers began asking us the same thing.
The "secrecy" ended when Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to us and other reporters saying, "I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate." A digital image was attached.
Hawaii state law forbids the release of birth or marriage certificates to anyone but the persons named in the documents or their immediate relatives. This copy carries a date stamp of "Jun 6 - 2007" (which has bled through from the reverse side), and is, therefore, probably a copy obtained by Obama himself at that time.
In early June, various PUMA members contacted DBKP and asked us to look into the Obama birth certificate charges. We had just finished debunking Larry Sinclair, the man who had accused Barack Obama of sharing sex and cocaine in the back of a rented limo. [DBKP Library of Larry Sinclair stories]
On June 12, DailyKOS released its now-infamous forgery of what it claimed was Obama's birth certificate.
The KOS document was not only was a forgery, it was a bad one.
On June 16 the FactCheck.org piece appeared. At that time, we hastily concluded that the Obama Birth Certificate story should be assigned to the "rumor" category. Several conservative sites that we trust made the same judgment.
As was stated, we were hasty.
But others were not.
Particularly, Atlas Shrugged's Pam Geller and Yid with Lid.
Geller contacted a document fraud expert who ran a variety of tests on the FactCheck images. The Atlas piece raised so many valid questions about the digital image that the Obama campaign had initially provided, FactCheck fact checked itself--almost immediately after Obama returned from his vacation to Hawaii--and posted other images of the elusive birth certificate at FactCheck.org on August 21.
FactCheck.org began the strangely-worded post (which was updated on August 26):
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
"Meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship".
Odd choice of wording, but maybe not.
[ABOVE: FactCheck.org's posted this picture as "evidence" that Obama's birth certificate was the real deal.]
The FactCheck.org post continued in an unusual vein--for a site in the business of checking facts. The post was one part fact, one part sleight-of-hand, one part folksy pablum and one part hurling names at those who has raised reasonable questions on this matter.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport..."
There's that passport thing again.
Is this going to be the line of argument the Obama campaign takes in the future?
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
Fair enough, so far.
But, all of that bowing and scraping to Obama camapign officials took its toll. Time for a little FactCheck.org sneer for any who had the brass to question FactCheck.org's original "fact check"
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
Phillip Berg seemed reasonable to us. What did he have to say about this?
"There's nothing in our system that requires that a candidate must prove his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law.
"That's one of the reasons why I filed the lawsuit."
"It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies."
Although the good folks at Politifact might think the scenario played out that way, we're not much given to conspiracy theories.
Anyone who's spent much time trying to prove their identity after having their driver's license stolen or lost these days, knows that government bureaucrats rarely exhibit the ambition or initiative such a conspiracy would entail.
A much more likely explanation is that most folks do not have a Kenyan father, or an adoptive Indonesian father. Combine that fact with the fact that most bureaucrats are more skilled at looking at checklists than performing document investigation, and it seems very possible mistakes were made.
It only had to happen once; most license renewals are automatic--long as the applicant can show their previous license.
It seemed strange that two organizations--supposedly interested in checking facts-- would show such contempt toward people asking to, well, check some facts. After all, FactCheck.org didn't exactly set the world on fire in its initial fact check.
FactCheck's post then displayed an image of a birth announcement from the August 13 1961 Honolulu Advertiser.
Again, that's nice. But, FactCheck.org knows that the birth announcement, in and of itself, isn't much more than window-dressing.
The following claim was also posted at FactCheck.org: "You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes."
However, it didn't take long to prove that this was one "fact" that wasn't, in fact, a fact.
From FactCheck.org's Credibility in Question:
Shown below is a spreadsheet that lists, for each of FactCheck's photo files, the original file name and size, the current file size, the dates that I downloaded each of them, and the percentage of file compression applied to each of the original files.
(Click image for larger version)
By subjecting the original set of COLB photos to these extreme percentages of file compression, without also reducing the image sizes, what you get are photos that look as large as the original ones, but are blurry, fuzzy, and totally useless for detecting any detail in them, detail, that someone like myself, just might use to prove that FactCheck intentionally altered their photos and scan image to perpetuate a fraud on the American public.
That seems like curious behavior for a site dedicated to "fact checking", doesn't it?
Others thought so too. It didn't take long until FactCheck.org was again fact checked--and, once again, their facts were found wanting.
Atlas Shrugged: ANNENBERG COLB FOTO FORENSICS: BIRTH DOCS ALTERED -MORE CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN
Much the same way Obama & DNC filed a motion to delay discovery until after their motion to dismiss is decided, back on August 22nd, the Annenberg foundation kicked into high gear when my analysis of Obama's COLB proved to have been altered: ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN July 20.
Obama & DNC Hide Again Behind Legal Issues as their attorney files a Motion for Protective Order to “not” Answer Admissions & Production of Documents while Betraying Public in not Producing Documents proving Obama is “qualified” to be a candidate for President.
It is believed Obama is an “illegal alien”
Remember my post on the defacto debunking of the Obama's forged COLB (certificate of live birth) from the leftist Ayer's funding Annenberg foundation?Here's the post Annenberg Fact Checkers, check your ....dates (and your motives) where I revealed this interesting factoid:
Strange and peculiar tidbit from the Annenberg Fact Checkers on their birth certificate docs....Exif info from Digital Photos ....Check the DateTime data. I guess they should have done what most clear thinking people would have done and taken a picture of a current newspaper to prove the date was the day they claim it was. Does the Obama camp own a time machine? I would really love to borrow it for a weekend. File 1 example - http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
Go here for the original foto forensics
Well check this out THE EXIF INFO HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE ATLAS CAUGHT THESE SCOUNDRALS IN THEIR SKULDUGGERY.
More Questions, No Answers
Texas Darlin's concerns was not so breezily dismissed by the FactCheck post. The FactCheck.org image of the newspaper birth announcement came from her site.
FactCheck.org Has New Birth Certificate Story [Update x2] - August 21, 2008.
Interesting, indeed. I have the following questions for Factcheck. Since they are so on-top of this story, I’m sure they have answers:
1. What took the campaign so long to show an actual document to the media?
2. What other media did the campaign offer to show the COLB to, and have any others seen it and touched it, handled and photographed it? Or only Annenberg-owned Factcheck?
3. Why did the campaign go to such trouble to digitally black out the certificate number when it could have stuck a piece of solid black tape over the number, especially since, as Factcheck reported, they were in such a hurry?
4. Why did Janice Okubo tell a reporter that the COLB was ordered “this month” (June 2008 ) if it was ordered in June 2007?
5. Since Factcheck is seemingly in the business of helping the Obama campaign fight smears, did Factcheck ask the campaign about the rumor that Republicans are holding Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate? If so, what was the campaign’s response? If not, why not?
6. How did end up getting this access? Did they ask the campaign, or did the campaign offer to show it to Factcheck? The article is mysteriously vague on that point: “FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate.”
Questions a reasonable person might ask, especially 1,2,4 and 6.
DBKP's LBG had a few reasonable observations, "Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation:
Again, regardless of whether the certificate is authentic or not, DBKP finds the fact that Obama’s attorney chose to file a motion to dismiss rather than just handing over a certified copy of the birth certificate to the judge puzzling. Everyday ordinary citizens have to prove citizenship by providing a certified copy of their birth certificate in order to obtain a driver’s license or an ID card.
We cannot fathom why the Obama camp chose the motion to dismiss instead of complying with a Federal judge’s order to provide a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
The Obama campaign handed over a copy to Factcheck.org, why the “stall” with handing a copy over to the Federal Judge handling the Berg lawsuit?
If the Obama birth certificate is on the “up and up” then releasing it to a Federal Judge should be a “priority” of the Obama campaign instead of filing “motions to dismiss”. After all, the rest of us ordinary Average Joe’s have to fork over a copy of our birth certificates every now and then to prove we’re citizens in order to get something as mundane as a driver’s license.
We imagine most citizens would comply with a judge’s order to supply a copy of our birth certificate without too much fuss. Obama, an attorney himself, must surely realize the consequences of disobeying a judge’s order.
So why all of the curious behavior: by Barack Obama, the Obama campaign, FactCheck.org and a compliant MSM?
Produce the documents and make the case go away.
Then, Barack Obama can go back promising a chicken in every pot and health care in every garage and less taxes--on the house--for everyone except the evil rich.
DBKP can go back to asking questions about "Just Who Exactly is Barack Obama and why are so many of his past associations shrouded in secrecy and his past documents so difficult to obtain?"
We didn't weigh in on the citizenship issue earlier: we erroneously thought that FactCheck.org was a neutral fact checker.
Sure, we know that we'll get swarmed by the usual suspects in the comments section calling us names for noticing these curious behaviors.
We're used to it.
The Edwards minions attacked us from the Left during the months it took the John Edwards story to come out.
During our investigation of Larry Sinclair, we were labeled "Obamabots" (Stop it, you're killing me!) and worse by some on the right.
We're glad that others, like Atlas, Texas Darlin and Yid with Lid, pursued this while we were busy with other stories. But now, we consider these questions of Obama's citizenship--as well as the little-publicized past associations, statements and actions of Barack Obama--to be the story to which we should devote our small resources.
We hope our readers will assist us, as they did with the John Edwards' story: with tips and places for us to look and facts to check.
Is Barack Obama constitutionally qualified to be the President of the United States of America?
We don't know.
But we're going to be asking some questions in the next four weeks.
Beginning with: "Why is Barack Obama not doing what thousands of Americans have to do every day?"
Produce proof of citizenship.
by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file; FactCheck.org; Atlas Shrugged; Texas Darlin; FighttheSmears