By Selwyn Duke
Many people think it's crazy that some Americans are questioning whether Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen. For instance, ST writes:
the U.S. The idea that he was born anywhere else has been debunked six
ways to Sunday.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Dear ST,
I will answer your question.
There is a simple reason why I suggest that Obama might have been born
in Kenya:
It may be true.
Great evidence to that effect has been uncovered, and I find
it compelling because I'm fair and open-minded.
The question is, are you? Let's
find out.
First, it isn't just people like me who suspect that Obama
is not a natural-born citizen. In fact,
the first one to file a lawsuit on this basis was Phillip J. Berg, a lifelong
Democrat who no doubt would consider me a radical. Second, the only thing I can plainly see in
the link you provided is what is claimed by a website.
Now, let me be clear and reiterate that I don't know what
Obama's status is one way or the other; however, the facts of the situation
give me great pause. Let's review them.
1. Maya Soetoro, Obama's half-sister, has named two
different Hawaiian hospitals where the senator might have been born.
2. Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah, claims to have
witnessed his birth in Kenya.
3. Kenyan ambassador Peter Ogego said in a radio interview that Obama's birthplace in Kenya was "well-known."
4. Obama refuses to release his college records, and it has been surmised that this is because they would show that he applied as a foreign student.
5. Obama attended school in Indonesia, and it is said that to do this he had to be a citizen of that nation. Furthermore, it is said that since the country did not allow dual citizenship, Obama's mother must have had him relinquish his American citizenship.
6. Obama will not release his birth certificate to the relevant parties.
Now, ST, since I'm fair and open-minded, I'll be the first to say that there could be explanations for all these things. Perhaps the Kenyan ambassador misunderstood the question and thought the interviewer was referring to Obama's father, maybe Obama's grandmother was just weaving a proud grandma's tale, maybe his half-sister was confused, and perhaps the other points don't amount to much, either. But if you're also fair an open-minded, you'll have to admit that they at least raise suspicion.
This suspicion is not allayed by the findings of a website such as FactCheck.org, which is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, an organization that had received a $3.5 million earmark from Obama. This does not mean I completely dismiss what the site says; I will consider it along with the other evidence. But I certainly won't take it as definitive and let it be the sole factor in my determination.
More importantly, a website is not the proper arbiter of such a legal matter — a court is. And any implication otherwise is preposterous. After all, imagine the following scenario: You file suit against me, alleging that I have no legal right to occupy a position and request legal documentation proving my qualifications. I then say, "Hey, what's the big deal? This or that website — WorldNetDaily.com, MichaelSavage.com, etc. — has examined the documents and found them legitimate. Why are you so hung-up?" I think you'd look at me as if I'd taken leave of my senses. Such things are hashed out in a court of law, not the court of Internet public opinion.
Now, the question is, should this go to court? Is there enough evidence to bring an "indictment," so to speak? Well, I think that upon considering the six points enumerated above, a fair and open-minded person would have to conclude that there is cause for investigation. What say you?
Lastly, I must emphasize that what is most suspicious is Obama's behavior. If he really has a legitimate birth certificate, why not just release it and put the issue to bed? I would have done this a long time ago and then just stuck out my tongue at my accusers. Why the secrecy? What reason could he have for not taking this logical action?
I can think of one.
If the most he can provide is a forgery, then he would have committed the further crime of presenting fraudulent documents in a court of law.
Of course, if you're an ideologue, this will mean nothing to you; for then the end will justify the means in your mind. But I want to know the truth, and I will accept it whatever it may be. Can you honestly say the same?
© 2008 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved
selwynduke.com 
Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!