Obama : ça ne s'arrange pas

Sceau figurant sur le certificat de naissance de BHO.

Sceau figurant sur un authentique certificat de naissance de 2007.

Voici quelque temps que les informations concernant le lieu de naissance du président élu des Etats-Unis, Barack Hussei Obama (BHO), se font rares. Il semble que la polémique s'atténue et que tout le monde finisse par se résigner devant le fait, quand même un peu fort de café, que l'on ne puisse pas connaître le lieu de naissance précis de l'homme appelé à devenir le chef de l'exécutif de l'Etat le plus puissant au monde.

Pour faire taire les mauvais coucheurs, les partisans du nouveau messie de la Maison blanche rappellent à qui veut l'entendre que le candidat avait en son temps rendu public une image de son certificat de naissance. Les esprits chagrins ont été obligés d'accepter l'authenticité de ce document tout en faisant remarquer qu'il ne renseigne sur lieu exact de naissance de BHO.

Bref : BOH est né à Honolulu et puis c'est tout. Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir.

Visiblement, il aurait pourtant beaucoup à voir dans ce certificat (qui n'est en rien un extrait de naissance). Ron Polarik, PhD vient de rendre publique une très longue étude sur ce fameux document qui met en lumière une série d'anomalies suscitant de sérieux doutes quant à l'authenticité de ce certificat.

N'étant pas un spécialiste, je ne peux que renvoyer les visiteurs à l'article d'origine.

Voici l'introduction et le résumé de cette étude où l'auteur prouverait que le certificat de naissance (et non extrait de naissance, rappelons-le une fois de plus) ne ressemble pas à un authentique certificat de 2007. En revanche, il ressemble beaucoup à un certificat de 2006 en raison de son sceau et de sa bordure.

Dans son étude, l'auteur compare longuement les bordures des certificats de naissance publiés par l'Etat de Hawaï au cours des six dernières années.

Polarik's final report:
Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy
Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
By Ron Polarik, PhD

AUTHOR'S NOTE: If you have any problems viewing this report, copies of it are also posted at: The Free Republic, Obama Crimes, and Obama's Bogus Birth Certificate (which also has my rebuttal to Neal Krawetz, someone who fraudulently claims to have "debunked" this report -- but who never read it!


The following report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research whose sole purpose has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate. The idea for the research actually began from the time when the first image was posted on June 12 to the Daily Kos blog. I don't recall on which website I actually saw the story (most likely World Net Daily), but the news had gone viral basically from the moment that it hit the Internet.

Before seeing the image, I had no idea that Barack Obama's birthplace was in question, or that his status as a natural-born US citizen had never been proven. Like millions of other Americans, I believed the story he told about being born in Hawaii to an American Mother (and a U.S. citizen) and an African Father (a Kenyan national attending college on a student visa). I had no idea that this issue would mushroom and take on a life of its own. What I did know, however, was that from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim.

From that point onward, I had no inkling of what was to come. I had no idea that I would wind up being the only person on the Planet (at that time) to have spotted the anomalies that I knew were the by-products of intentional, graphic alteration, and to go on record as stating that the Daily Kos image was a fake. I was also not prepared for what came along with this knowledge, for what I had to endure for making it public. Basically, I had painted a big bullseye on my chest and my research findings, and the critics were now coming out of the virtual woodwork taking shots at me personally, and my research, secondly. I had started a new online game called, "Let's pile on Polarik," and every little error I made was magnified into a major transgression. Yet, the crux of my contention was never successfully refuted.

Now, if I had to do it all over again, I probably would not have done it at all, knowing that I'd be spending the next four months conducting further research and compiling evidence on not just the COLB image, but also the digital photographs that were to follow two months later. The personal costs to me were enormous, and I will not elucidate on them (but for those who know me, they also know what were those costs). What began as sort of a curiosity turned into my personal quest for the "Holy Grail," so to speak. I was guided only by the need to uncover the truth, and by the constant harassment by my critics. Had they left me alone from the beginning, I probably would not be writing this report today.

I debated, long and hard, about the title of my report. Aside from it being catchy, I ran the danger of being lumped into a group of false conspiracy theorists, and brushed aside as an idiot wearing a "tinfoil hat." (Actually, that's already happened, many times over). Perhaps there are a lot of false conspiracies, including some really outlandish ones, but there would not be laws on the books, both at a state level and a federal level, that specifically mention the act of conspiracy when the purpose of that conspiracy is to either engage in illegal activity, engage in a cover-up of that illegal activity, or interfering with the investigation of that illegal activity. Conspiracy can involve all of these. Yet, somehow, the word, "Conspiracy," has become a pejorative for "nutty theories from the fringe," as if there has never been a real "conspiracy."

Do you remember, or ever hear about, the "Watergate Conspiracy?" Do you remember, or ever hear about, what happened to President Richard Nixon as a result?

I would tell all of you who think that "conspiracies" are a joke and that the people who claim to have found them are "idiots wearing tinfoil hats," to just ask an FBI agent what he or she thinks about "conspiracy." Or, go ahead and ask a federal judge what he or she thinks about "conspiracy."

"Conspiracy" is no laughing matter, ladies and gentlemen, and neither is "document fraud," as in creating and passing a counterfeit birth certificate.

I should now alert you to the fact that I have been using the phrase, "Bogus birth certificate," as a euphemism for "Counterfeit birth certificate," which is defined as, "A copy or imitation of a state-issued birth certificate that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another."

Sound familiar? According to Authenticate-360:

Birth certificates are generally used as “breeder” documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver’s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents.

There are current Federal laws in place that prohibit the use of false identity documents, such as a birth certificate, and they are spelled out in Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. In particular, there are specific paragraphs that relate to the use of a false identification document:

The term "false identification document" means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that - (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization.

What you are about to read in this report are well-documented facts arising from evidence collected over a period of four months and subjected to intense scrutiny and empirical evaluation. Given the overriding fact that the individual whose identity document is in question, has repeatedly failed to provide a genuine identity document, the charge that this individual, along with other individuals, did conspire to proffer in its place, a false identification document, is hereby levied by the American people, by way of one of its citizens. To summarize the seriousness of these actions and this charge, and to the importance of what is contained within this report:

There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.

I never imagined that my studies would amount to this. I thought, like most Americans, that maybe the information was accurate even though the document image was fake. I thought, like most Americans, that Obama would simply present a copy of his real, original birth certificate, and that would be that. Yet, here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!

Sadly, mainstream media have totally ignored this inconvenient truth and are not even been willing to even look at this birth certificate issue. They are all still in-the-tank with Obama, but even more so now that he is in line to be President. They all bought into the lies and fraudulent documents proffered up as evidence on Obama's qualifications. They have been too quick to label as "trash" or "garbage" any legitimate questions asked about Obama's real birth certificate. Even thigh-ranking governmental officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was allegedly born, won't reveal what's on Obama's original birth certificate. All they have said is that they have it. They have not said (1) where Obama was born. (2) when Obama was born, or (30 even to whom Obama was born.

The answer to "What's on Barack Obama's real, original birth certificate" ranks right up there with some of the great mysteries of our time -- and that is really hard to swallow. That a man, with a dubious background, has been elected to the highest office of the greatest superpower in the world without ever having to prove who he says he is! That is not "nutty," that's just plain insane!

With all that said, and without further ado, I present to you my final and complete report on Barack Obama's bogus birth certificate, The Born Conspiracy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since the beginning of Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign on February 11, 2007, there had been numerous rumors regarding Obama’s citizenship status. Several reporters had asked for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, however, all requests were subsequently denied.

On or about June 12, 2008, the Daily Kos blog, a pro-Obama website, received an image from the Obama Campaign that they claimed was a scanned copy of Obama’s “original birth certificate,”. Before this document image was cropped to 2427 x 2369 pixels, it measured 2550 x 3300 pixels, or 8 1/2” x 11” when printed.

Also, on or about June 12, 2008, the Obama Campaign posted a smaller copy of the same cropped image, measuring 1000 x 1024 pixels:

“You may have recently heard right-wing smears questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate and citizenship. These assertions are completely false and designed to play into the worst kind of stereotypes. You can see Barack Obama's birth certificate for yourself and help push back with the truth...”

The very next day, which was on or about June 13, 2008, Obama’s Campaign replaced the first document image they posted with a smaller copy which they posted to a new website, “Fight The Smears” (fightthesmears.com). The smaller image was disproportionately reduced to 585 x 575 pixels, which was almost half the size of the original posted image, and one-third of its quality.

Also, on or about June 13, Politifact.org, a supposedly nonpartisan, fact checking website that is unquestionably pro-Obama, published a copy of the same image as that posted on the Daily Kos, but was also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.

On or about June 16, 2008, Factcheck.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website ,posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos. Factcheck’s image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy before that image was cropped. Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; a center run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Factcheck.org made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:

"Bloggers raised questions based on the absence of evidence, specifically the lack of a publicly available copy of a birth certificate and the supposed secrecy surrounding it". According to FactCheck, Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to them and "other reporters" saying, "I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate."

I first noticed that the image posted to the Daily Kos and purported to be the “original birth certificate” of Barack H. Obama, did not look like a regular birth certificate. This image was made only from the front side of a COLB: no copy of the reverse side of this COLB has ever been made, :birth certificate” document was ever scanned, a side that contains all of the official certification instruments, such as the official Hawaiian Seal, State Registrar’s signature, and date stamp of when the document was printed.


To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”

From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.

All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report

On August 21, slightly more than two months after the publication of the image on the Daily Kos and Obama's website, Factcheck published their story about nine photos they claimed were allegedly taken of Obama's "real" COLB at his campaign headquarters – the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16.

There was no longer any question in my mind that the COLB image Factcheck posted is a forgery and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. However, Factcheck created a conundrum for me: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document image, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the image and the photos were forgeries.

I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures.

FactCheck’s photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on genuine COLBs along with the presence of illogical and impossible features that would never be found on a real 2007 COLB. Specifically, on the COLB objects photographed, the security border closely matches the border found on a real 2007 COLB. However, both the embossed Seal and the State Registrar’s Signature stamp do not match the same elements found on a real 2007 COLB, but perfectly match those found on a real 2008 COLB; or, in other words, something that would never happen in real life.

Hawaii made three important changes to their COLBs from 2007 to 2008, including the use of a larger certificate layout, a new security border, and, much to the chagrin of Factcheck and the Obama Campaign, a new Seal and Signature stamp that can now be stamped on a COLB by a machine.

With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

En défense d'Obama

La page de publicité payée par la fondation We The People dans le Chicago Tribune afin de mettre en doute la capacité juridique du président élu Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) à devenir le prochain président des Etats-Unis asuscité une belle défense du politicien démocrate dans les colonnes du même quotidien.

Sans entrer dans le détail, les journalistes n'ont pas de mal à prouver que l'argumentaire des adversaires de BOH est bien souvent partial et partiel. Néanmoins, ils ne répondent pas à cette simple et bête question, pourquoi BHO ne rend pas public son extrait de naissance complet, là où figure le lieu précis où il est né ?

Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office

The Tribune examines allegations about president-elect's 'natural born citizen' status


The Obama campaign provided this birth certificate, showing Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
An anti-tax activist from upstate New York who is questioning whether President-elect Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the nation's top job said Tuesday that his non-profit group spent "tens of thousands of dollars" to get his message across in ads in the Chicago Tribune this week.

Robert L. Schulz, 69, chairman of We The People Foundation, took out ads Monday and Wednesday to raise questions about whether Obama's Hawaii certificate of live birth is authentic.

The ads echo accusations circulated online by some Obama opponents before the election. Cases challenging Obama's citizenship have been tossed out of courts in several states, and Hawaiian officials have vouched for the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, which is locked in a state vault. The Obama campaign likewise has always dismissed the accusations.

Nevertheless, some critics remain dubious.


Related links
Group's founder on WGN-AM: It's not about Obama Audio
See the group's ad

Here are the allegations raised in Schulz's ad, and some relevant facts:

•The birth form released by Obama was "an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited" live birth form, Schulz says.

Last summer, Obama's campaign presented a digital copy of his certificate of live birth. After critics questioned its authenticity, staff at FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said they had seen, held and examined the actual birth certificate.

•"Hawaiian officials will not confirm" that Obama was born in their state, Schulz says.

Initially, Hawaiian officials said that privacy laws prevented them from releasing a copy or confirming that Obama's copy was authentic. But in late October as questions persisted, Hawaii's health director and head of vital statistics reviewed Obama's birth certificate in the department's vault and vouched for its authenticity.

•Schulz says that legal affidavits state Obama was born in Kenya.

The affidavits that Schulz refers to are filings by the Obama critics themselves in the court cases challenging Obama's citizenship.

•Obama's paternal grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended Obama's birth in Kenya, Schulz says.

The group's Web site posted what it says is a transcript of a long-distance phone conversation in Swahili and English from late October between a questioner in the United States and Sarah Hussein Obama, in her Kenyan home. The translator said he was one of two interpreters conducting the interview in a crowded hut during a celebration, over a speaker phone that dropped the call three times. A copy of the recording was not provided by Schulz.

• Schulz says that "U.S. law in effect in 1961 [the year of Obama's birth] denied citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age."

If a child is born in the United States—as Hawaiian officials state that Obama was—that child is a U.S. citizen regardless of his or her parents' nationalities. If born to an American parent outside the U.S., the law at the time would require the U.S. citizen parent to be at least 19, which Obama's mother was not. The provisions of this law were subsequently loosened and made retroactive for government employees serving abroad and their families. It appears that this would not apply to Obama's mother. The matter would seem to be academic: Hawaiian officials vouch for Obama's birth certificate.

•Schulz says that in 1965, Obama's mother relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and Obama had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

U.S. law lists the specific acts and formal procedures necessary to relinquish U.S. nationality. The statute requires the acts be performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing one's nationality. In many instances, one must be 18 to renounce one's citizenship. Obama moved to Indonesia in 1968 and moved back to Hawaii while still in grade school. There is no indication that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Schulz supports his argument with a reproduced Indonesian school document that states Obama's citizenship at that time as "Indonesian." But the same document also lists Obama's birthplace as " Honolulu, Hawaii."

Schulz, interviewed by the Tribune on Tuesday, said his concern about Obama's citizenship is not partisan.

"We never get involved in politics," he said of We The People. "We avoid it like the plague."

Tax debate is fair game, however. The Queensbury, N.Y., man has been active on tax issues for nearly 30 years. Last year, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York ordered Schulz to shut down a Web site that sold advice on avoiding taxes.

Asked about the case, Schulz said the government has tried to silence him.

He hopes the Tribune ads bring his group prominence.

Schulz said his group also considered a similar ad in USA Today, but said the cost was prohibitive. He said his group considered both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune, but said his group settled on the Tribune because of the size of its pages and its larger circulation. He would not specify how much his group spent on two days of full-page ads except to say they cost tens of thousands of dollars and were paid for by donations from supporters.

A Tribune advertising spokesman said the newspaper has standards for what ads it will accept and that the ad met those standards.

Barack Obama, ça se complique

La blogosphère étatsunienne bruisse de mille rumeurs en attendant la réunion de la conférence des juges à la Cour suprême le 5 décembre prochain qui doit accepter ou non d'examiner la requête de Leo C. Donofrio. La question de la citoyenneté du président élu reste l'objet de nombreuses polémiques alors que la grande presse commence à publier quelques articles à ce sujet, même si c'est pour défendre la position officielle : Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) est né à Hawaï et donc il a tous les droits pour se présenter à la présidence des Etats-Unis.

Des bloggeurs un peu fouineurs ont découvert que l'«extrait de naissance» présenté à la presse au printemps dernier n'est rien d'autre qu'un certificat de naissance viable que l'état de Hawaï (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8) accorde à tout enfant né d'un couple déclarant avoir habité dans l'Etat depuis un an au moins. Ce document permet à l'enfant d'un couple résidant dans l'Etat insulaire de bénéficier des prestations sociales.

Selon les accusateurs de BOH, ce document ne prouverait donc pas à lui seul que BHO soit né à Hawaï ou ailleurs aux Etats-Unis.

Dans l'hypothèse où BOH rendrait public l'extrait de naissance complet, où figurent les renseignements concernant le lieu géographique précis de sa naissance, pour être plus précis, le nom de l'hôpital ou de la clinique d'Honolulu où il est né, cette mise au point résoudrait-elle la question ? BOH deviendrait-il pour autant a « natural born citizen » ?

Selon certains mauvais coucheurs, la naissance de BOH sur le sol américain ne suffit pas à faire de lui un « natural born citizen » car il serait de citoyenneté britannique.

Et oui, Barack c'est rien qu'un roastbeef !

Selon le British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) tout enfant dont le père est au moment de la naissance un sujet britannique ou des colonies de Sa Majesté devient par ce fait même citoyen britannique ou des colonies. Or, le « natural born citizen » doit être un citoyen américain sans aucune attache étrangère. C'est le cas des citoyens naturalisés comme le gouverneur de Californie. C'est aussi le cas de citoyens américains nés aux Etats-Unis de parents étrangers. Par exemple, un couple de mexicains en séjour irrégulier aux Etats-Unis donnent naissance à un enfant celui-ci devient automatiquement citoyen des Etats-Unis mais, en théorie, il n'est pas un « natural born citizen » car il peut aussi prétendre à la citoyenneté mexicaine.

Ce point de droit est très bien présenté dans la vidéo ci-après.




Je ne suis pas assez fin juriste pour trancher, mais je fais confiance à la bloggosphère américaine pour aller jusqu'au bout de l'enquête et pour forcer les grands médias à traiter de la question.

Toutefois, il existe un moyen de faire de BOH un « natural born citizen ». Que son père ne soit pas M. Obama, mais un citoyen américain pur jus. Des bloggeurs un peu plus téméraires que les autres explorent cette piste en traquant les mouvements de la mère de BOH. Nous risquons quelques belles surprises. Les jours prochains jours seront passionnants. A condition de ne pas lire les journaux, de ne pas écouter France Inter et de ne pas regarder la télévision mais de suivre les blogs peu convenables, ceux que l'on n'ose pas avouer lire dans les dîners en ville.

Mur du silence sur la naissance de Barack Hussein Obama

Il suffit de parcourir la presse francophone pour se rendre compte qu'au sujet des polémiques entourant les circonstances précises de la naissance du président élu Barack Hussein Obama (BHO), elle est n'est pas plus locace que son homologue d'outre-Atlantique.

Pourtant, l'affaire est plus sérieuse qu'il n'y paraît.

Rappelons les faits. Pour être élu à la présidence des Etats-Unis il faut être un « natural born citizen », une notion floue qui dans l'esprit des fondateurs mettait l'exécutif du pays à l'abri d'immigrants dont la loyauté pouvait être douteuse. Ainsi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, le gouverneur de l'Etat de Californie ne peut être élu à la présidence car il est un citoyen naturalisé, né en Autriche.

Les législateurs n'avaient pas envisagé le cas des Américains nés à l'étranger en raison de la présence de leurs parents (citoyens américains) hors du térritoire américain. Toutefois, l'usage considère que ces Américains nés hors des frontières de l'Union, par exemple ceux qui naissent dans les familles de militaires américains stationnés hors de la Métropole, comme des « natural born citizens ».

C'est le cas, par exemple, du sénateur McCain qui est né au Panama dans une famille de marins en garnison dans ce territoire.

L'affaire se complique quand un des deux parents est un étranger. La loi est très restrictive et l'obtention de la nationalité américains par les enfants n'est pas automatique. Ainsi, si BOH était né au Kenya, il ne pourrait pas bénéficier de la nationalité étatsunienne car sa mère ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour que son fils hérite de sa nationalité.

Pourtant, dans le cas de BOH, tout est résolu par le fait qu'il est né aux Etats-Unis, à Honolulu. Du moins telle est la version officielle. Dans un premier temps des partisans de Hillary Clinton ont mis en doute la nationalité américaine de son adversaire puis ils ont été rejoints par une petite armée de bloggeurs et de juristes républicains. Pendant ce temps, la grande presse, y compris les journalistes républicains les pus agressifs, s'est contentée de reproduire l'extrait de certificat de naissance mis en ligne par le candidat démocrate lui-même.

Au début, les adversaires les plus rabbiques de BOH ont mis en doute la véracité de cet extrait mais ils ont été contredits par des journalistes d'investigation qui l'ont eu entre les mains et ont pu en vérifier la validité.

Affaire close ?

Pas le moins du monde. L'extrait se contente de constater une naissance viable mais ne livre pas les renseignements qui pourraient mettre un terme définitif à la polémique. Par exemple, le lieu précis de la naissance de BOH, dans quel hôpital ou dans quelle clinique ou même encore au domicile de ses grands-parents. Le fait que le candidat puis le président élu ne l'ait pas fait reste inexplicable.

Pourtant, l'affaire risque de prendre un tournant judiciaire dans quelques jours.

Le 3 novembre 2008, Leo C. Donofrio, un avocat du New Jersey à la retraite, a demandé aux autorités de son Etat d'interdire aux sénateurs Obama et McCain, tout comme à Roger Calero, candidat du Socialist Worker’s Party, de participer aux élections présidentielles pour l'état du New Jersey arguant du fait qu'ils ne seraient pas des « natural born citizens ». Sa requête a été rejetée par l'Etat et le 6 novembre suivant, le juge à la Cour suprême David Souter mettait au panier une demande similaire. Sans se décourager, le requérant a renouvelé sa demande auprès d'un autre juge et Clarence Thomas a décidé que l'affaire serait présentée aux neuf juges de la Court quand ils se réuniront le 5 décembre prochain en conférence pour décider le sort des affaires qui leur sont soumises. Si quatre magistrats au moins acceptent l'affaire, elle sera inscrite au programme et commenceront les auditions orales pour connaître les arguments des parties.

Une enquête rapide révèle qu'il existe pour le moment dix-sept procédures judiciaires ouvertes qui ont pour seul objet l'invalidation de l'élection sur la base des zones d'ombres entourant la naissance du président élu. Connaissant le juridisme américain, on peut s'attendre à de nouveaux développements, à moins que le président élu ne rende public son extrait de naissance complet.