http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111412022



*National Review Online: Suborned In the U.S.A.*

by Andrew C. McCarthy



Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a "smear"
to refer to him as "Barack Hussein Obama." The candidate had initially
rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed's
grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim
world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic
heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about
political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, *Obama did what Obama
always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.*

Suddenly, it was "just making stuff up," as Obama put it, for questioners
"to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections." "The only
connection I've had to Islam," the candidate insisted, "is that my
grandfather on my father's side came from [Kenya]. But I've never practiced
Islam." Forget about "Hussein"; the mere mention of Obama's middle initial
"H" riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that
"shadowy attackers" were "lying about Barack's religion, claiming he is a
Muslim." The Obamedia division at *USA Today*, in a report subtly titled
"Obama's grandma slams 'untruths,'" went so far as to claim that Obama's
Kenyan grandmother is a Christian even though a year earlier, when Obama's
"flaunt Muslim ties" script was still operative, the *New York Times *had
described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a "lifelong
Muslim" who proclaimed, "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith."

Such was the ardor of Obama's denials that jaws dropped when, once safely
elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. "The
president himself experienced Islam on three continents," an administration
spokesman announced. "You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim
father . . ." The "Muslim father" theme was an interesting touch: During the
campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s Islamic faith
reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of
what's-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: "My father was basically agnostic,
as far as I can tell, and I didn't know him." And, it turns out, the
spokesman's fleeting bit about "growing up in Indonesia" wasn't the half of
it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia or, at least
that's what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).

These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider
*National Review's *leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with
Tuesday's editorial, "Born in the U.S.A."

The editorial desire to put to rest the "Obama was born in Kenya" canard is
justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American
citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally
eligible to hold his office*. I say "almost certainly" because Obama, as we
shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let's just
stick with what's indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In
theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a "natural
born" American an uncharted constitutional concept.*

The mission of *National Review *has always included keeping the Right
honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory
that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that
his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying
his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff. Even Obama's dual Kenyan citizenship is
of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action
on his part (to think otherwise, you'd have to conclude that if Yemen passed
a law tomorrow saying, "All Americans except, of course, Jews are hereby
awarded Yemeni citizenship," only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for
president). In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the
Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is
there any chance on God's green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to
be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information
out?

CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to
the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our
44th president. On this issue, *NRO*'s editorial has come in for some
blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his "real"
birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made
available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are
asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in
darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth
certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add
that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to
comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly
clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at *NRO*) post from Dave
Jeffers, who runs a blog called "Salt and Light."

To summarize: *What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian "certification of
live birth" (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state
calls a "certificate of live birth")*. The certification form provides a
short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person's birth:
name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth,
along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother's
maiden name and race; the father's name and race; and the date the
certification was filed. *This certification is not the same thing as the
certificate*, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial
as "the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic]
when they are requested."

To the contrary, "the state records" are the certificate. They are used to
generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers
post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for
example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the
birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each
parent; the mother's residential address (and whether that address is within
the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or
"informant") attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the
identity and signature of an attending physician (or other "attendant") who
certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified;
and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth
record.

Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in
the certification. Yet, our editorial says that "several state officials
have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical
to that on the president's birth certificate [by which we clearly meant
'certification']," and that the "director of Hawaii's health department and
the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information
on Obama's birth certificate [i.e., certification] is *identical* to that in
the state's records, the so-called vault copy." (Italics mine.)

That misses the point. *The information in the certification may be
identical as far as it goes to what's in the complete state records, but
there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set
forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors' description, those who
want to see the full state record the certificate or the so-called "vault
copy" are not on a wild-goose chase for a "secondary document cloaked in
darkness."* That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they've
actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people
may want to see the vault copy, what's been requested is a primary document
that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

Now, let's address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the
full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S.
citizen? Are they on what the editors call "the hunt for a magic bullet that
will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama's] election and
presidency disappear"? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the
full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different
reasons for being curious.

*WHO IS THIS GUY?*

Before January 20 of this year, Barack Obama had a negligible public record.
He burst onto the national scene what seemed like five minutes before his
election to the presidency: a first-term U.S. senator who actually served
less than four years in that post after a short time as a state legislator,
some shadowy years as a "community organizer," and scholastic terms at
Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard that remain shrouded in mystery. The
primary qualification supporters offered for Obama's candidacy was his
compelling life story, as packaged in 850 pages' worth of the not one but
two autobiographies this seemingly unaccomplished candidate had written by
the age of 45.

*Yet we now know that this life story is chock full of fiction.* Typical and
disturbing, to take just one example, is the entirely fabricated account in
*Dreams from My Father *of Obama's first job after college:

*"Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire
me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every
day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the
Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe.
As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of
shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company's
secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told
me how they expected me to run the company one day. . . . The company
promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own
secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with
Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in
the elevator doors see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand and
for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking
out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told
myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve. . . ."
*

* *

As the website *Sweetness & Light *details, this is bunk. Obama did not work
at "a consulting house to multinational corporations"; it was, a
then-colleague of his has related, "a small company that published
newsletters on international business." He wasn't the only black man in the
company, and he didn't have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie
on the job, or conduct "interviews" with "Japanese financiers or German bond
traders" he was a junior copyeditor.

What's unnerving about this is that it is so gratuitous. It would have made
no difference to anyone curious about Obama's life that he, like most of us,
took a ho-hum entry-level job to establish himself. But Obama lies about the
small things, the inconsequential things, just as he does about the
important ones depending on what he is trying to accomplish at any given
time.

In the above fairy tale, he sought to frame his life as a morality play: the
hero giving up the cushy life of the capitalist "enemy" for the virtues of
community organizing. But we've seen this dance a hundred times. If Obama
wants to strike a connection with graduating students in Moscow, he makes up
a story about meeting his "future wife . . . in class" (Barack and Michelle
Obama met at work). If he wants to posture about his poverty and struggle in
America, he waxes eloquent about his single mother's surviving on "food
stamps" so she could use every cent to send him "to the best schools in the
country" (Obama was raised by his maternal grandparents, who had good jobs
and were able to pull strings to get him into an elite Hawaiian prep
school). If he wants to tie himself to the civil-rights struggle of African
Americans, he tells an audience in Selma, "There was something stirring
across the country because of what happened in Selma . . . *so [my parents]
got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born" (Obama was born in 1961, four
years before the civil-rights march in Selma by which time his parents had
divorced and his mother was planning a move to Indonesia with the second of
her two non-African-American husbands). I*f he wants to buy a home he can't
afford, he "unwittingly" collaborates with a key fundraiser (who had been
publicly reported to be under federal investigation for fraud and political
corruption). If he wants to sell a phony stimulus as a job-creator, he tells
the country that Caterpillar has told him the stimulus will enable the
company "to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off" (Caterpillar's
CEO actually said no, "we're going to have more layoffs before we start
hiring again").

The fact is that Obama's account of his background is increasingly revealed
as a fabrication, not his life as lived; his utterances reflect the
expediencies of the moment, not the truth. What is supposed to save the
country from fraudulence of this sort is the media. Here, though, the
establishment press is deep in Obama's tank so much so that they can't even
accurately report his flub of a ceremonial opening pitch lest he come off as
something less than Sandy Koufax. Astonishingly, reporters see their job not
as reporting Obama news but as debunking Obama news, or flat-out suppressing
it. How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in
2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent
government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and
barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made
a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose
supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem,
displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos?

A MUSLIM CITIZEN OF INDONESIA

The aforementioned Indonesian interval in Obama's childhood is instructive.
*Obama and the media worked in tireless harmony to refute any indication
that he had ever been a Muslim.* It's now apparent, however, not only that *he
was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world's most
populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized
citizen of Indonesia. *

Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama's mother, Stanley Ann
Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met
just as she had met Barack Sr. when both were students at the University of
Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who
became known as "Barry Soetoro." Obama's lengthy, deeply introspective
autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather
whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did
happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.

Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male
qualified a child for citizenship. According to *Dreams from My Father*,
Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly
thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his
mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and
liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five.
Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto's police
state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to
carry identity cards that matched student registration information). *The
records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years
identify him as a citizen of Indonesia*. Thus Obama probably obtained
Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That
inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo
Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said "the parties" (Ann and Lolo)
had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the
time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for
the couple to refer to Obama as their child he'd have been only Ann Dunham's
child.

*In any event, the records of the Catholic school and the public school
Obama attended during his last year in Indonesia identify him as a
Muslim.*As Obama relates in Dreams from My Father, he took Koran
classes. As Obama
doesn't relate in Dreams from My Father, children in Indonesia attended
religious instruction in accordance with their family's chosen faith.
Moreover, acquaintances recall that young Barry occasionally attended Friday
prayers at the local mosque, and Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister (born
after Lolo and Ann moved the family to Jakarta), told the New York Times in
a 2008 interview, "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew
were Muslim." In fact, back in March 2007 i.e., during the early "Islamic
ties are good" phase of Obama's campaign the candidate wistfully shared with
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof his memories of the muezzin's
Arabic call to prayer: "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset."
Kristof marveled at the "first-rate accent" with which Obama was able to
repeat its opening lines.

The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the "Obama as
Muslim Manchurian Candidate" canard. Obama was only ten years old when he
left Indonesia; there is no known evidence of his having made an adult
choice to practice Islam, and he is a professed Christian. The point is that
he lies elaborately about himself and plainly doesn't believe it's important
to be straight with the American people to whom he is constantly making bold
promises. And it makes a difference whether he was ever a Muslim. He knows
that it's exactly why, as a candidate, he originally suggested his name and
heritage would be a selling point. Obama's religious background matters in
terms of how he is perceived by Muslims (Islam rejects the notion of
renouncing the faith; some Muslims, like Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi,
make no bones about regarding Obama as a Muslim; and as the mainstream media
took pains not to report during the campaign it is suspected that
significant illegal donations poured into the Obama campaign from Islamic
countries and territories). Obama's religious background also matters in
terms of how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world.

*WHEN DID INFORMATION SUDDENLY BECOME A BAD THING?*

*While it is all well and good to belittle the birth-certificate
controversy, without it we'd know only what the media and Obama himself
would tell us about his multiple citizenships, which is nothing. *As noted
above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a
citizen of Kenya (a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That's
something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama's shocking 2006
conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don't know about his Kenyan
citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only
because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the
allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt
compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.

By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is
still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign
citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an
Indonesian passport for example, during *a mysterious trip to Pakistan he
took in 1981, after Zia's coup, when advisories warned Americans against
traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain
unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of
autobiography, even though the 20-year-old's adventure included a stay at
the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.*

There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question
is: Why don't the media the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin's
Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so
desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records
want to dig into Obama's background?

Who cares that Hawaii's full state records would doubtless confirm what we
already know about Obama's birthplace? They would also reveal interesting
facts about Obama's life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described
themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn't
the press once in the business of interesting and even not-so-interesting
news?

And *why would Obama not welcome Hawaii's release of any record in its
possession about the facts and circumstances of his birth? Isn't that kind
of weird? It would, after all, make the whole issue go away and, if there's
nothing there, make those who've obsessed over it look like fools. Why
should I need any better reason to be curious than Obama's odd resistance to
so obvious a resolution?*

There's speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson who
is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii that
the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the
Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as "Barry Soetoro."
Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about
his citizenship, questions about his name (it's been claimed that Obama
represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been
known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his
(false) claim of remoteness from Islam*. Is that true? I don't know and
neither do you. *

*But we should know.* The point has little to do with whether Obama was born
in Hawaii. I'm quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true
personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his
personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an
unreliable source and, sadly, we can't trust the media to get to the bottom
of it. What's wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented
"transparency": Give us all the raw data and we'll figure it out for
ourselves.

__,_._,___

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to