Monte Kuligowski
Romney's been given a great gift
By Monte Kuligowski
September 21, 2012

In the classic movie It's a Wonderful Life, the angel Clarence tells George Bailey: "You've been given a great gift, George."

Well, Mitt Romney has been given a wonderful gift from the Obama campaign. It is truly a wonder that Obama would have the audacity to make the production of documents a 2012 campaign issue.

Mitt's old tax records are a genuine "distraction" and are irrelevant at every substantive level. But the documents Barack Obama has under lock and key go to the heart of whether the sitting president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of high trust.

Most of us who live in "Realville," as Rush Limbaugh would say, realize that no authoritative body or individual magistrate is going to force Obama to produce anything. Mr. Obama will not be providing interested state election officials with certified paper copies (the legal standard for the production of state documents) of his birth certificate. No one in the establishment news media is going to ask Obama to explain why he is using a Social Security number issued on application from Connecticut, a state in which he never lived. No one is going ask whether the Selective Service agency can produce Obama's blatantly forged draft registration for inspection. No one is going to force the production of Mr. Obama's 1981 passport records. No one in the one-voice press is going to demand that Obama turn over his college applications and records. No one is going to investigate whether Mr. Obama's adoption in Islamic Indonesia to Lolo Soetoro affected his citizenship status. Congress will issue no subpoenas and the free press will continue to look the other way while ridiculing anyone who dares to ask reasonable questions.

The time for vetting Obama is long over. We are supposed to now live in Make-Believe-Land. We are supposed to pretend that there are no problems with Barack Obama and his bizarre secrecy.

It would have been a stroll in the park for the states to have forced Obama into the light of transparency. But for whatever reasons, that didn't happen. The states fumbled and dropped the ball. No new eligibility election laws requiring the production of documents were signed into law. The individual ballot challenges were too little too late. The efforts of Arizona's secretary of state, Ken Bennett, were weak and misguided. Instead of citing a Hawaii code section that didn't apply and requesting that Hawaii's Department of Health send him a copy of Obama's birth certificate (which it refused to do), Bennett could have simply made a conditional request directly to the Obama campaign: either produce a certified paper copy of Obama's birth certificate or his name remains off the Arizona 2012 presidential ballot. Of course, that didn't happen and Bennett quickly folded.

Decisions were made early on by the conservative establishment to avoid all "birther" questions at all costs. The Sal Alinsky tactic of constant ridicule silenced debate and ended normative inquiry. Those wanting complete transparency were lumped with the conspiracy theorists. No one wanted to be viewed as an Orly Taitz.

Obama and his media successfully painted all eligibility opponents with a broad brush. Nothing was wrong with Obama. But anyone who ventured to question his staunch secrecy had to be racist or crazy or both.

But, now, Mitt Romney has been given a great gift.

Romney has the privilege of informing the American people of Obama's manifold oddities and remarkable secrecy.

The general public doesn't know that Barack Obama lived in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, let alone that his alleged Selective Service registration form is a pathetic forgery (and failing to register for the draft, alone, prevents Mr. Obama from legally holding federal office).

The general public knows very little; but has a right to be informed. And in context of the demands on Romney to produce records, the Alinsky paint of ridicule and demonization doesn't have to stick.

Romney has permission to mention any of the forbidden issues while responding to the ongoing witch-hunt for his old tax documents.

Why not clarify that he "believes" Obama was born in Hawaii, while noting that Obama nevertheless has major transparency and potential forgery problems? Or as Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: "I do not know where Mr. Obama was born. ... However, I do know beyond reasonable doubt that the document on the White House website that purports to be his birth certificate is a forgery."

Why not mention that millions of American citizens want Obama to produce the records he keeps concealed?

Why not state that there are real problems with the authenticity of Obama's three-year-delayed posting of a computer image presented as "proof positive" of his birth certificate?

Why not inform the public of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's control-test findings?

Why not inform the public that Sheriff Joe's law enforcement team's findings are consistent with the opinions of countless forensic and computer software experts and, notably with Israel Science and Technology. Israel's national database homepage of science and technology recently published an article which asserts that Obama's "blatantly fake document about something so basic as the birthplace of Mr. Obama, should raise great concern about the suitability of the person who is holding the reigns on the most powerful country of the World."

Why not ask Obama why he refuses to release his named birth hospital to simply say: the 44th president of the United States was born here?

Why not ask Obama to explain why certified paper copies of his birth certificate have not been provided to interested state election officials?

Why not ask Obama: what are you hiding?

Why not ask Obama to explain why his Selective Service registration is stamped "80" instead of "1980," as all others from that year?

Why not ask Obama to explain why he is using a Social Security number issued on application from Connecticut?

Why not ask Obama to state whether his adoption in Indonesia affected his citizenship status?

Why not ask Obama to explain why he is guarding his college applications and records?

Why not ask Obama to reveal which passport he used when visiting Islamic Pakistan in 1981?

Why not ask Obama to explain why he would go to Pakistan as a college student during a semester break in the first place.

In response to one of my articles on Obama's unacceptable secrecy, I received a response from a reader that strikes a powerful chord.

The tone of his message is frustration and amazement with the Republicans. He says he expects the mass media to ignore the findings of Sheriff Arpaio's team. But to him the real issue is, "Why the hell won't the Republicans pick it up." He says it's the one issue that's beyond refutation that couldn't help but bury Obama. "What are they afraid of?" he asks with astonishment.

The reader ends his message with the perfect image: "it's like the enemy is charging at you and you have a cannon in your hand but you're hitting him with a pea shooter."

The issues of Obama's bizarre secrecy coupled with the alleged criminal forgeries are not side issues by any means, and I agree that this information would bury Obama if brought to the public's attention.

One thing is for certain. If Obama somehow pulls off another win this November, the Republicans will interminably regret not firing back with the cannon.

The great gift given to Romney from Obama is free access to the cannon.

© Monte Kuligowski


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Monte Kuligowski

Monte Kuligowski is an attorney and writer whose legal scholarship, including "Does the Declaration of Independence Pass the Lemon Test?" (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy), has been published in several law journals... (more)

More by this author