Ken Berwitz

Doesn't that title seem ridiculous?  Barack Obama is the President of the United States and he is running for re-election.  Of course he will be on the ballot in Georgia.  Right?

Well, incredibly, he may not be.  A state judge is currently considering whether or not to allow his inclusion. 

How is it possible that a sitting President may not be allowed on the ballot in Georgia (and in other states as well)? 

First let me summarize what has led up to this situation.  I apologize for the summary's length; this is as brief as I can make it.

For years, Mr. Obama's eligibility to be President has been challenged by people who dispute that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.  They have pointed to a number of reasons, including (but not limited to):

-The fact that is father was a Kenyan national,

 

-That his mother, based on her age and the length of time she was out of the country did not meet the qualifications to make Barack Obama a one-parent natural born citizen;

 

That he spent four years growing up in Indonesia where his mother and stepfather may have made him a citizen (Mr. Obama has declined to provide documentation to prove this untrue);

 

-That he received foreign aid while in college, which could only have been provided if he was a citizen of that foreign country (Mr. Obama has declined to provide documentation to prove this untrue);

 

-And, most contentiously of all, that his birth certificate either shows he is not legal, or has been doctored to falsely make it appear that he is. 

Regarding the birth certificate:  until last year, all that we had as evidence of his eligibility was a "certification of live birth" which - though many people have been conned into thinking otherwise - is not a birth certificate at all. 

Beyond that, we had the say-so of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, then Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health.  Ms. Fukino first claimed, in an artfully written statement (way too artfully written in my opinion), that his birth certificate was on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".  Read her entire statement below.  And please note that, clever wording aside, she does not address his eligibility to be President:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record"

 

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"  

Then, eight months later - after it had become evident she wasn't go to have to produce it - Dr. Fukino changed her statement to specifically say the birth certificate showed him to be eligible:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago ... “

What a difference!

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama and his lawyers were fighting down numerous lawsuits in states around the country in which plaintiffs demanded to see the actual birth certificate.

At this point you might ask why Mr. Obama did not simply request a copy of his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, at a cost of (if memory serves) under $20, which he could then show to us and end the issue right then and there.  Why did Mr. Obama, instead, spent all that money on all those lawyers to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day?  Isn't that exactly what he would do if the birth certificate did not establish his eligibility.  If so, you have asked an excellent question.

And you might argue that, since judges kept dismissing the suits, it was de facto proof that they were without merit.  But, in reality, almost all of the suits were dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to demand Mr. Obama provide a birth certificate, not that the certificate itself was valid.

Now let's fast-forward to April 27^th of last year. 

Suddenly, out of nowhere, Mr. Obama made available what he claimed to be a copy of his original birth certificate.  He pointed out that it showed he was perfectly eligible, and declared (along with virtually all of our mainstream media) that the matter was now closed. 

No explanation was offered of why he had not done so years ago.  And, with few exceptions, the media were perfectly happy to agree that the matter was settled, and immediately stopped reporting about it.

The problem, however, is that the so-called "original birth certificate" was apparently a photo-shopped fraud.

Numerous web sites have disputed its legitimacy and gone through painstaking detail to show how the document was "layered" to alter its information.  A small sampling of these analyses can be found here, and here, and here, and here. 

And that is before we get to the fact that the ID number on Mr. Obama's alleged birth certificate was out of sequence with what it should have been on the day he was born.

In answer, one expert - one - was dredged up to claim that the detractors were all wet and Mr. Obama's birth certificate was legitimate.  His name was Jean-Claude Tremblay (yes, this coincidentally is the same name as a former NHL hockey player) and he was interviewed, fascinatingly, by Fox News - the folks who are usually accused of being anti-Obama.

However, Mr. Tremblay subsequently claimed that Fox had it all wrong and he had never said the birth certificate was real - leaving, so far as I am aware, no expert to put him/herself on record as standing by the authenticity of Mr. Obama's alleged birth certificate. 

Whew!  Ok, that's the past.  Now let's talk about this week in Georgia.

On Monday, after all those dismissals of all those suits in all those states, it finally happened. 

Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi allowed a challenge of Mr. Obama's eligibility to go forward.  Over the strenuous objections of Mr. Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, Judge Malihi ordered President Obama to appear in court today and answer the complaint.

But Mr. Obama did not show up in court today.  Nor did lawyer Jablonski.

So how did it go in the courtroom? 

According to an article at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 

After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.

No ruling?  That could mean that he will be allowed on the ballot, right? 

Yep...but it also could mean that he will not be allowed on the ballot. 

And, though Judge Malihi disparaged Van Irion, the plaintiff's lawyer, when Irion argued for a contempt citation, that does not necessarily mean one will not be issued.  

No one knows how Judge Malihi will eventually rule.  But regardless of his decision, he will have a lot of explaining to do. 

And his opinion will almost certainly inform subsequent rulings in other states where Mr. Obama's eligibility also is being challenged.

This is a mess.  A huge one.  And one entirely of Mr. Obama's doing.  If he had simply made his birth certificate - the REAL birth certificate available years ago, we would not be going through this.