Congressional hearings were held to determine John McCain's eligibility to run for president, yet no such hearing was held regarding Barack Obama, despite his well-known international upbringing. Myriad questions remain unanswered and the American public has the right to see the same kind of documented proof that was required of Obama's opponent--and which would be required of any other person running for president, let alone now serving as president. Was Obama born in Kenya or in Hawaii? If he was born outside the U.S., was his mother old enough (under laws existing at the time) to confer U.S. citizenship on him? What citizenship was required of young Obama when he attended school in Indonesia? What citizenship was identified on any passport issued to him as a child? What citizenship is identified on Obama's undergraduate records, which he also refuses to release? The short-form "certification of birth" issued for Obama by the State of Hawaii (in 2006) is NOT the same as the original long-form birth certificate, which provides objectively verifiable information, such as the hospital of birth and the delivering physician. Without the actual long-form birth certificate to establish Obama's American citizenship, the American people are forced to rely on the assurances of just two people: (1) Barack Obama himself, and (2) the Hawaiian government official who stated that she has "seen" Obama's original birth certificate in order to issue the Hawaii short-form. This "evidence" would fail in a court of law. Barring a claim that the document had been lost or destroyed, the "best evidence rule" would require that the actual document be produced for examination. Of course, Obama knows this. And speaking of being in court, multiple lawsuits around the country are currently being prosecuted, all with the single goal of simply requiring Obama to produce his birth certificate. This has already cost the plaintiffs hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees and, unless Obama is paying his attorneys' bills out of his private funds, the U.S. taxpayer is now footing the expensive bill for Obama's lawyers continue the unwarranted secrecy over his birth records (and school records, for that matter). Why? Why did Obama not lay all this to rest a long time ago, and silence his critics, by simply producing the document? Does he think the American people do not deserve to know the most basic eligibility requirement to be the leader of the free world? Obama's own insistence on personal secrecy gives rise to the inference that he has something to hide. Thus his repeated calls for "transparency" in his administration ring very hollow. If he won't be transparent himself, how can we expect his administration to be? Finally, to those who cite snopes.com and other internet "fact-checkers" as proof of Obama's eligibility, I say this: why do you find it sufficient to rely on third-party internet sites, run by people who have no greater access to the critical document than anyone else, to establish this critical question? And to the people who claim this is a "crackpot" campaign: since when is establishing someone's basic eligibility to serve as president of this nation a "crackpot" idea?
Idea No. 1453