Was Obama born in Kenya? And a conversation about Ann Dunham

(Note: further down in this entry is the full story of the federal suit filed by Philip Berg, a Democrat and a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating Obama for the presidency, on the basis that he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.)

(Also see, below, further information and reflections on Barack’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham, the hippie avant la lettre.)

Posted at Free Republic is the first plausible case I’ve seen that Barack Obama may not be a natural-born U.S. citizen, which under the Constitution would make him ineligible for the presidency. The charge consists of two elements: (1) He was not born in Hawaii, as he has claimed, but in Kenya. His mother and father were visiting Kenya, and she was unable to fly back to Hawaii for his birth because she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. (2) U.S. law at the time said that a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and a non-citizen parent was a natural born U.S. citizen only if the citizen parent was at least 19 years of age. Ann Dunham Obama was 18 when her son was born. The article also says that Obama’s Kenyan relatives, his paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister, have claimed that he was born in Kenya.

If Barack was born in Kenya, that would explain the mystery of why his campaign has not published his birth certificate That’s why I find this story plausible. (Or, rather, the birth certificate that has been presented as his has been said to be fraudulent—I have not followed the birth certificate story before today, except for hearing that there was a problem with his birth certificate that had not been satisfactorily resolved.).

Unfortunately, the article lacks an original and an author. There is an address given, www.usafricaonline.com/news.html, but I do not find the story on the main page of that site. The FR article refers to a Philip Berg who is suing in federal court, but doesn’t say what he is suing about.

I hope the story of the Kenyan birth turns out to be true, and that the Democratic party accordingly withdraws the nomination from Obama and gives it to Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary would have a better chance than Obama of beating McCain and removing the Bush-McCain Republicans and neocons from positions of national power and influence, thus giving genuine conservatives a chance to regain control of the Republican party; and I also think she would be less harmful to the country than Obama.

But, as I’ve said before, since all my hopes during this presidential year have been systematically dashed, the fact that I’m hoping for this outcome is a strong indication that it will not happen.

- end of initial entry -

Jens L. writes from Denmark:

I am one of your regular readers, and even though I might quibble with you here and there, I really have to say that I hold you in great respect.

For what it’s worth, I have stumbled upon a link that describes a law suit filed in U.S. District Court (Philadelphia) seeking an injunction preventing Obama from continuing his candidacy and a court order to prevent his nomination at the upcoming Democratic Convention.

I don’t know who Mr. Jeff Schreiber is and can’t vouch for the veracity of the information I am merely passing to you, as you have taken an interest in this issue.

It will be interesting to see whether this issue is a red herring or something genuine. Having said that I am somewhat doubtful about whether anything untoward will turn up. My reasoning is that were Obama actually ineligible to be elected President as alleged by the alleged law suit, we are looking, at the very least, at an incredible case of negligence on the part of the Democratic National Committee: the reality being that the Democratic leadership were willing, ready and able to present to the American people a complete fraud of a candidate, even at the risk of causing an unprecedented Constitutional crisis if the truth were ever to emerge during Obama’s term as President.

Whether the DNC, with its army of lawyers, and Obama, who is himself a lawyer, would conspire in such a brazen act of electoral fraud on the American people is really hard to imagine, which is why I have my doubts. On the other hand given the almost universal lack of moral rectitude amongst modern politicians, in Europe as well as the U.S., fact might well turn out to be stranger than fiction.

In any case, I hope the truth will come out, for the sake of the country.

LA replies:

Thank you for this. I personally have not at all followed the various charges regarding Obama’s birth, beyond reading that a birth certificate posted at this campaign website had been taken down and not replaced. If it weren’t for that long-standing complaint about the absence of a birth certificate, I would be paying no attention to this current story. But given that complaint, this current story makes sense.

The Editrix (Nora Brinker) writes from Germany:

It seems that the original article was taken down, hence the screen shot and no link at Freepers.

Here is Philip Berg’s website with additional information.

* * *

Here is the text of the story sent by Jens L, from America’s Right.com:

Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency

by Jeff Schreiber
America’s Right.com

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, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. 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.

Philip 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.”.

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator’s background, and in today’s lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls “dual loyalties” due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of “multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries” remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, “apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.” As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham—Obama’s mother—gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama’s birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals—Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital—in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple “registry of birth” records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a “natural born” citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama’s registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name “Barry Soetoro” and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama’s half-sister.

“Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama’s lies and obfuscations,” Berg stated. “If the DNC officers … had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws.”

“It is unfair to the country,” he continued, “for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected.”

* * *

Below, sent by the Editrix, from Philip Berg’s website, is his own press release describing the federal suit he has filed. However, even though he is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and ought to know his business, I must say that my first impression from reading through the document is that it is written in a careless, overheated, and tendentious manner (including several gratuitous spelling errors) not appropriate to a federal lawsuit. For example, Berg writes:

All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because this man lied and cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination…. This relief is predicated upon one of the most basic premises of practicing law which states no lawyer can allow themselves to be used in furthering a criminal enterprise.

The use of the phrase, “criminal enterprise,” when Berg has not shown any criminal enterprise, and all that’s really needed to be demonstrated is that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, suggests someone writing under the influence of strong emotion rather than someone presenting a strong legal case.

Further, Berg makes an obvious error that makes me question whether he knows what he is talking about. Early in the document, he says that the problem is that Obama “[i]s not a naturalized citizen.” But of course, whether a person is a naturalized citizen or not is besides the point. A person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for the presidency. A person can be born elsewhere, and then become naturalized, but is still not eligible for the presidency because he must be a natural-born citizen, not merely a naturalized citizen. The way Berg’s document is worded raises the question whether he understands this distinction. Again, I realize this is an odd thing for me to say given Berg’s legal background, but I am responding to what he has written, not to his credentials.

Here is his document:

Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit Requesting Obama Be Removed as a Candidate as he does not meet the Qualifications for President

Thursday, 21 August 2008 22:09 administrator

For Immediate Release:—08/21/08

Suit filed 08/21/08, No. 08-cv-4083

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania—08/21/08)—Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:

1. Is not a naturalized citizen; and/or

2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or

3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.

There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:

1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?

2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?

3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?

4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.

5. Illinois Bar Application—Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.

If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.

Berg continued:

“Eighteen million Democratic Primary voters donated money, volunteered their time and energy, worked very hard and then not only supported Senator Clinton, but voted for her and often recruited other supporters as well. All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because this man lied and cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination.

Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama’s lies and obfuscations. He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he’s told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he does know, supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen. We would also show he proclaims himself a Constitutional scholar and lecturer, but did not learn he had no eligibility to become President except by means of lying, obfuscations and deceptions. His very acts proves he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?

Americans lost money, goods and services donated in their support of a candidate who supposedly was a natural born citizen simply because the DNC officers and party leaders looked the other way and did not demand credentials to answer the questions and prove whether or not Senator Obama was a legitimately natural born citizen, even in light of recent information that has surfaced on websites on the Internet suggesting Senator Obama may not be eligible to become President and questioning his status of multiple citizenships and questionable loyalties! If the DNC officers and.or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws!

The injunctrive relief must be granted because failing to do so, this inaction defrauds everyone who voted in the Democratic Primary for a nominee that is a fair representation of the voters. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a corrupted, fraudulent nomination process to continue. It not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected! It is unfair to the country for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of their ability to serve if elected.

All judges are lawyers and held to a higher standard of practice than a regular lawyer. It is this Judicial standard that demands injunctive relief prayed for here. This relief is predicated upon one of the most basic premises of practicing law which states no lawyer can allow themselves to be used in furthering a criminal enterprise. And by that gauge alone, failing to give injunctive relief to the 18 million supporters of the other candidate, a true natural born citizen eligible to serve if elected, this court must not allow itself to be used to further the criminal and fraudulent acts to continue and be rewarded by becoming the Democratic Nominee. Failure to give the injunctive relief prayed for will insure that a corrupted Presidential election process will only guarantee a show of unfair preference of one group of people over another group by not demanding the same rules be applied to all groups equally and fairly, especially in light of the fact that both candidates are each considered a minority.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

* * *

Here is an article at Israel Insider suggesting that the copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth that posted at the Daily KOS is a forgery.

This doesn’t interest me. Who cares about the Daily Kos? Since when is a left-wing blog the source of legal documents about a presidential candidate’s citizenship? The birth certificate that counts would be the one presented by Obama’s campaign or by the state of Hawaii.

WorldNetDaily has an article about the Israel Insider article.

An article in the Canada Free Press raises questions about Obama’s citizenship:

Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen
Obama running in violation of US election law

This article presents a different argument, having nothing to do with the place of Barack’s birth, but only with his parentage. It says that under U.S. law at the time, if only one of his parents was a U.S. citizens, that parent would have had to be 21 years old at the time of the child’s birth to make the child a natural born citizen.

And here is a follow-up from the same writer presenting an entirely different argument, namely that because Barack Obama Sr. was already married to another woman at the time he married Ann Dunham, their marriage is not valid and Barack was out of wedlock, which means that a different and easier set of rules determine whether he is a natural born citizen. If he was born abroad to an unmarried U.S. citizen mother, the only requirement for him to be a natural born citizen is that his mother lived in the U.S. for one year continuously prior to his birth. If this is true, then, ironically, Barack’s illegitimate status makes him a natural born citizen. Here is the article.

Does polygamy secure Obama’s citizenship?
By Steve Miller Monday, August 11, 2008

The Saturday, Aug. 9, Canada Free Press front page story I authored generated a firestorm of letters to the Toronto newspaper.

One particular Letter to the Editor makes some vital points, and asks an important question not before asked: Does polygamy protect Barack Obama’s status as a natural born US citizen?

According to the writer, “Obama Is a Natural Born US citizen, regardless of place of birth, because his parent’s marriage was invalid. The problem comes down to the validity of Obama’s parent’s marriage. When he was 18, Barack Obama Sr. married a woman named Kezia and had four children with her. Two of them later returned to Kenya from the United States. He never divorced her. In the US, polygamy is illegal. If you are already married, regardless of where you got married, all subsequent marriages are invalid. This is the case with the marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. in February 1961. Barak Obama Jr. was born out of wedlock. As a child born out of wedlock, a different citizenship law is applied.”

The writer went on to explain: “The U.S. citizen parent, and the foreign parent must be married. The actual law pertaining to this issue can be found here .”

The writer then provided this US law:

7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. Section 309 (c) INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S. citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the child’s birth.

If the writer is correct, the above law may supercede the law that was in effect at the time of Barak Obama’s birth in 1961 to an 18 year old mother (below), and he is legally qualified to hold the office of President.

Here is the law per FindLaw.com that applied at the time of his birth—if his parents were legally married:

4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986: If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. If the above law is found to be the correct law applying at the time of the birth of Barak Obama, he is legally not qualified to hold the office of President.

Which of the two laws applied at the time of his birth?

If his parents were not married at the time of his birth, then Barak is qualified under then-current law to hold the office of President.

If his parents were married at the time of his birth, then Barak is not quantified under then-current law to hold the office of President. Also, according to all research so far tendered, the law at the time of his birth is the only law that applies in this case.

Citizenship laws enacted after November 13, 1986 are much more liberal, and have spurred the coining of the title “anchor baby.” However, it is not believed that newer laws supercede the much stronger citizenship law in effect at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, and his ability to be a natural born citizen of the United States, nor does it matter that he was born in Hawaii that gained statehood in 1959.

This important matter has caused much discussion and confusion. It deserves a more complete investigation. American voters deserve a thorough explanation and clarification before election day.

* * *

So, we not only have a case being made that Obama is not a natural born citizen, we have two different cases being made that he is not a natural born citizen, plus another case that he is a natural born citizen based on his being born out of wedlock, with each case being based on different fact patterns and appealing to different underlying laws. The sheer confusion produced by all this will make it much harder to get at the truth, and will likely result in people throwing up their hands at the whole problem.

For me, I just want to get at one thing to start with. I want to see Obama’s birth certificate from the state of Hawii.

* * *

LA wrote to Paul K., who had sent some of the above articles:

When I saw from the Canadian Free Press writer that there was a second theory, and then a third theory, my heart sank. With three different theories floating out there, it will be too confusing, and nothing will be resolved.

Paul K. replies:

I agree. This is all too technical and nit-picking. If the Republicans raised this issue, they’d be pilloried. For anything to come of this, the Constitutional issue would have to be crystal clear.

LA to Paul K.:
The birth certificate that counts would be the one presented by Obama’s own campaign or the state of Hawaii.

Paul K. replies:

Which the Obama campaign has not released, and the state of Hawaii has refused requests to release, citing confidentiality.

I have no idea if this leads anywhere, but it’s an interesting trail.

Some have speculated that the embarrassment may be that Ann Dunham was under-age (17) when impregnated by Obama Sr.

LA replies:

“Impregnated” implies an unmarried relationship. They were married.

Paul K. replies:

She was pregnant when they married. This from the Chicago Tribune article:

“Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961.”

LA replies:

Right, of course. They married Feb. ‘61, and he was born Aug. ‘61.

So, she’s 17, she’s just left her parents’ home to go to college, and she sleeps with a black African, gets pregnant, and marries him. In 1961! She’s the original hippie dippy.

Further, it appears her parents chose her education to make her into the kind of girl who would do things like that. Here’s some background on her from Wikipedia I hadn’t seen before:

The family moved to Mercer Island, Washington, in 1956 so that 13-year old Ann could attend the high school that had just opened,[6] where teachers Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman taught the importance of challenging societal norms and questioning authority. Dunham took the lessons to heart; “She felt she didn’t need to date or marry or have children”. A classmate remembers her as “intellectually way more mature than we were and a little bit ahead of her time, in an off-center way.”[6]. One high school friend described her as: “If you were concerned about something going wrong in the world, Stanley [Ann] would know about it first,… We were liberals before we knew what liberals were”. Another called her, “the original feminist”.[6]

She was born Nov. 29, 1942. She married Obama Sr. on February 2, 1961—when she was 18, not when she was 17. Little Barack was born August 4, 1961. If he was conceived nine months before he was born, that would be in early November 1961, when she was still 17.

To repeat, she’s just left her parents’ home, she’s been at college a grand total of two months, she’s probably never been around people of other races in her life, and has an affair with a black African, who also is not exactly a prize, being already married with children, and who later becomes a serious alcoholic, getting himself crippled and finally killed driving drunk in Africa.

A female friend of mine said today that given how odd, marginal and messed up his origins were, Obama is in impressively good shape. Unlike his parents, he has his life together. However, it must also be said that no sensible society would ever choose as its leader a man of such questionable origins, particularly given the absense of any notable achievement in his life other than being a successful demagogue.

Paul K. replies:

I agree that Barack seems to be in remarkable good shape psychologically considering what a mess both his parents were. I wonder, though, if there’s unseen damage that we may become apparent when the pressure is on. Bill Clinton, too, had an alcoholic, philandering father, and during his administration we learned that children who grow up in such an environment thrive on chaos. Hence, Bill liked to create it around him.

My impression of Obama is that he seeks recognition, even adulation, but has no patience for the day-to-day work required to get things done. He didn’t write anything for the Harvard Law Review when he was editor, he seems to have become bored and discouraged with his work as community organizer, and once he entered politics he never stuck with an elected position long enough to accomplish anything, but immediately focused on the next step upward.

Recently CNN had lengthy back-to-back profiles of McCain and Obama, each two hours long (IIRC). Obama said he first became interested in politics when he spoke at an anti-apartheid rally while at Occidental College. With an almost indecent self-regard, he told how exhilarating it was to speak and hear the crowd roar in approbation of his words. When his speech was over, he said he didn’t want to leave the stage—“I had so much more to say.”

I don’t like McCain—I really don’t—but when he talks about his most difficult personal decision, turning down the offer of early release from a North Vietnamese prison, and is followed by Obama talking about his difficult teenaged years, trying to find his identity without a black role model, you feel like you’ve heard a man speak, followed by a boy.

Unfortunately, the man is a wacky old geezer. As the T-shirt says, “We’re Screwed ‘08.” (And I love the name of the company selling it: “Mommy Needs a Cocktail.”)

LA replies:

Here’s the first photo I’ve seen of Ann Dunham (taken around 1971) in which her features are clearly shown. You can see, especially around the mouth, her resemblance to her son. It’s touching to see that.


James P. writes:

Seems to me that if convincing evidence existed that Obama is not a natural-born American, Hillary would have used it already.

LA replies:

But why would you expect that of her? Did her campaign do anything to expose Trinity United Church? There seems to be some weird psycho-dynamic within the left, beyond our ken, whereby certain things about one’s fellow leftists are fair targets (“Obama doesn’t represent white working class, I do”), and certain things aren’t.

Robert B. writes:

“Again, I realize this is an odd thing for me to say given Berg’s legal background, but I am responding to what he has written, not to his credentials”

My take on that is that he is referring to his adoptive father and the renunciation of US citizenship which could have been legally set aside when he became the age of majority—i.e. his mother renounced his citizenship, but as an adult he could have changed it back, thus remaining a natural born citizen—if he was in the first place.

If that is true, he is not even eligible to be a US senator—and that is criminal. It is also criminal to know you are not eligible for a public office and to run anyway. It is fraud.

LA replies:

The only evidence we’ve seen of his “giving up U.S. citizenship” is a form at the Indonesian school listing his citizenship as Indonesian. That means nothing. In the absence of an official Indonesian government document showing that he was an Indonesian citizen, there is no basis to believe that he became an Indonesian citizen or ceased being a U.S. citizen.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 22, 2008 03:14 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):