Does it Really Matter if Obama isn't American?

I spent my time on July Fourth in several different places. I was at a farmer's market in the morning and left from there to my office to finish up some bookkeeping. I rode my motorcycle up to Lake George and put in an appearance at a gathering in Usher's Park that my friend Dave had invited me to. There were about twenty people there eating and talking and I hung out for a while.

At one point, I walked over to another gazebo to catch up with a hockey friend spending the day with his family. When I returned, there was a vaguely familiar gentleman holding court with a small group who seemed attuned to his every word. It hit me that this was, "tax protester" and "Obama citizenship guy", Bob Schultz. I had read stories about him and seen his picture in the papers before. I had also seen more than a few interviews with him, most notably the one in Aaron Russo's brave film, "From Freedom to Fascism". I have no problem with the taxing of my income to aid the collective but I share many of Mr. Schultz's assertions that the way in which it is done is unconstitutional (at best).

Lately, I see much convergence between Libertarian and Green ideals; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, Ballot Access. We sound so much alike on so many issues of which Schultz has clearly been a fighter and a spearhead. His efforts to dump the Patriot Act, end foreign wars entirely and provide a proper audit of the Federal Reserve are legend.

Many Americans do not realize that the "Federal Reserve" is actually a privately-owned bank from which our government borrows its money (with interest) to pay for 100% of our federal programs. So, every cent of your federal tax dollar is actually paying off debt to bankers, not funding programs. Also, during the Bush/Obama nightmare, roughly 2 trillion dollars has gone missing and is totally unaccounted for. I know plenty of people from all sides of the political spectrum who want to know where the hell it went!

Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich have sponsored a bill (HR 1207) demanding a proper audit of the Fed and 55% of congresspeople have signed on. Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (S 6o4), as well. I recently got to ask my district's new Congressman, Scott Murphy, whether he would support HR 1207. He maintained that he felt the GAO (General Accounting Office) was taking care of it and that the Fed was already being audited by an "independent firm like Price-Waterhouse" but he also said that he would not be against more oversight.

I have kept abreast of some of Bob Schultz's many activities since he ran for Governor on the Libertarian ticket in 1994 and while I may not agree with everything he does, I have always thought him someone who seems dreadfully misunderstood (and vilified) by the corporate media. They are so quick to ridicule him for his legal challenges against the IRS and other entities that have so obviously taken on powers which most Americans agree are beyond their right. Many would agree with Schultz that these entities are, in fact, unconstitutional. I wanted to speak with him and measure him up for myself. He, and his wife, Judy, were very gracious with their time. We spoke for about two hours. I learned a lot.

Bob explained that most of his activities through his foundations (We The People Foundation, We The People Congress) are geared toward preserving a person's right to petition for redress of grievances. This right was first conveyed by King John as outlined in the Magna Carta and (more recently) in the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, what good would a "petition for redress of grievances" be if it was to go unanswered? Schultz explained that he has, for over 20 years, been documenting all of the "unanswered petitions" he and others have made to members of our government asking them to explain behaviors, procedures, institutions and decisions that are clearly not constitutional. It should be noted that, in the Magna Carta, the King only had 40 days to respond to such a petition before he was assumed a tyrant and could be stripped of all his belongings (with the noted exception of his life). If our government has not responded to literally 100's of Bob's requests over two decades what should they have to give up?

He told me about the Constitutional Congress he has planned for this fall. Delegates from around the country will meet to decide what to do about our tyrants and their lack of response. I'm considering going.

Unfortunately, I enjoyed my conversation with Schultz so much that I forgot to talk to him about the whole embarrassing issue of the Obama "citizenship campaign". I couldn't believe that he was really the guy behind what was so obviously a frivolous (maybe even a racist) campaign. As I was riding home, I thought to myself that there had to be more to it.

I remember speaking with Ralph Nader after the Democrats took over the house in 2006. He was on the warpath at the time, pushing for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their war crimes. Pelosi and Conyers had just, insanely, stated that impeachment was "off the table". I asked Ralph if he really thought that the Democrats would show any stomach for prosecuting these war criminals when their party was so on board with both resource wars and all the lies that led to them?

I remember his reply well. He said that this went far beyond the sad farce of corporate politics. "We, as citizens cannot let this go unanswered. It is of vital importance that we set an example of Bush and Cheney so that their predecessors will not continue degrading the rule of law. They have to know that there will be very severe consequences for violating our Constitution and that we, the citizenry, will hold them accountable!"

I understood where Ralph was coming from then (and I still await some substantive action from the Democrats - ha ha ha). On my motorcycle ride home, I began to see this whole Obama citizenship thing as important for exactly the same reason (constitutional precedent).

Now, there is no question that I am not personally a fan of Mr. Obama's. In fact, I see him as nothing more than the newest "Sales Rep" for the military-industrial-congressional complex and I think his cowardly stance on most majoritarian issues proves me correct in this. He is quite obviously beholden to a different set of corporate vultures than his predecessor but it seems this set wants basically the same things the previous one did.

In my heart of hearts, I probably don't agree with our constitution's "natural born" citizen requirement. I think the country of one's birth should be irrelevant in judging who is best to govern (it wouldn't even be on a list of things that matter to me) but Schultz, like Nader, seems pretty concerned about this casual setting of an unconstitutional precedent and I can agree fully with that thought process. I decided, based on my face-to-face assessment of Schultz, that he must have some reasonably solid basis for this citizenship accusation and decided to spend some time reading his propaganda on the matter upon my return home.

Now, I would ask that you be as open-minded as you can about this question I will ask.

Would it be all right if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President even though we all KNOW that he is not a "natural born citizen"?

I can see the lines splitting along the fake ideological divide already.

I like to think that most independently-minded folk would say that he obviously could not run for president because he is not a natural-born citizen.

Some Republicans might find a way to rationalize a YES answer but I think that most would say the answer is NO.

Democrats will have likely have a tougher job with their answer. To say, "NO, of course Arnold can't run", is to legitimize a discussion of whether or not Obama is actually a citizen by birth and if he's not ... well, he has no business being President, right?

I can only say that our Constitution is not a popularity poll. It is our law and there is a mechanism to amend or alter it. Unless it is actually properly changed, my opinion about it, and yours, are totally irrelevant. We are simply to observe the law as it is written until it is amended.

Having read what Bob has posted about Obama's birthplace and what Salon has to say and Snopes and the Washington Post and the NY Times and Keith Olbermann and too many others to mention, I would say there are legitimate grounds for concern. The law, as it currently stands, says very clearly that you must be a "natural-born citizen" to become president and it does seem that Obama (who has consistently refused to release the same documentation any American would need to secure something as routine as a passport or a driver's license) may not be a "natural-born" citizen.

The most compelling evidence is that he would only allow Hawaii to release a copy of a "Certification of Live Birth" (which is a computer-generated piece of paper and not an original document). He has refused to release a copy of his actual "Birth Certificate" that would clear up this whole mess instantly. Is that because it is easy to forge a document that is merely printed out of a computer database today, but would be much harder to forge a document, like a proper Birth Certificate, that experts could easily look at and test the age and authenticity of? Is it not being "released" because it does not, in fact, exist at all? I mean, let face it. If the man was born in Hawaii, where is the birth certificate to back it up and why is he being sketchy about it?

A "Birth Certificate" is what you or I would need to use as proof of identification in any practical application. It has hospital name, full information about parents, occupations, addresses, a raised seal from the state in question and the attending physician's signature, among others.

The "Certification of Birth" Obama has released is a whole different animal. It would not be usable as an original piece of ID by any of us. Anyone who has traveled between even just the US and Canada knows the difference between these two documents. How is it possible that our standards of ID are so much lower than for someone who has access to the "big red phone"?

An American parent may certainly confer status to his or her child but immigration law at that time makes it clear that there is a gray area where Obama's mother was concerned. She was 18 when he was born and may not have lived there long enough to qualify as someone able to confer "natural-born" status to Barack.

Anecdotally, to compound all of this, there is a transcript of an interview with Obama's paternal grandmother which has her saying that she was present when Barack was born ... in Kenya. The woman is apparently still alive and I have to wonder if we, in fact, live in a free country, where the corporate media interview is in which they follow up with her to clarify her misstatement? Have you seen that interview? Neither have I.

So, maybe, Bob Schultz isn't just some crazy, xenophobic, white guy trying to implement a racist (or Republican) agenda. Maybe he is, instead, an uber-concerned citizen incensed at the constant degradation of our Constitution.

Read through his arguments for yourself. Most of those I read label Schultz a "conspiracy theorist" because the courts have all been very quick to dismiss the many cases brought before them concerning Obama's citizenship. What I find very interesting is that I did not come across a single case that was dismissed for lack of merit or evidence. They were all dismissed because the citizen bringing the suit was not seen as being "personally injured" by Obama's natural-born status (or lack thereof). That throws up some red flags for me as well.

It reminded me of all those crazy conspiracy theorists back in 2000 who were so enraged when the Supreme Court decided not to allow a recount and anointed King George. Should we be any more trusting of the judges who so casually dismiss the discussion of Obama's citizenship? Let me know what you think.

When you're done checking out the Obama situation, you might want to check this out for balance. John McCain was more definitely unqualified to run as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone a full year before the law that would allow his parents to confer "natural-born" status to him.

Does this mean that Ralph Nader was actually the winner? He did come in third. ;-) That would certainly be cool! Man, I would sleep so much better at night knowing that we were really getting out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, that we were burning the Patriot Act, ending extraordinary rendition and torture, re-instituting Habeus Corpus, asking the world to forgive us for letting everything get so damn crazy after WWII, ending corporate personhood, instituting fair federal ballot access rules and public campaign finance for ALL candidates, proportional representation, an end to the electoral college, funding of real clean energy and the incentivizing of electric cars, solar panels, wind and hydro power, setting up single-payer health care just like our veterans have ... I could go on all day but that's all just a dream.

We would have to actually want those things to vote for them. Eugene V. Debs was once asked if he had any regrets and he answered thusly; "The Constitution of this country pretty much guarantees the people that they can have almost anything that they want. But they don't seem to really want much of anything at all, do they?"

Who Should The Next Supreme Court Justice Be?

Intellectuals seem to view each national horse race as important for many reasons but the one most often cited would have to be the possibility that a new president will be in a position to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!

Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.

The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.

This should tell us at least two things.

One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.

Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.

Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?

I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.

Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.

Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.

There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.

President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.

One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.

In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.

Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.

The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.

Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.

Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.

Justice R. Nader

Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …

Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.

Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.

Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.

What, if any, are the negatives?