Thursday, July 30, 2009

Obama Eligibility: An Update

“Facts are stubborn things,” said John Adams.

Article II Section 1 (Presidential Clause) of the Constitution provides that “no person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”.

As the issue of Obama’s eligibility percolates and pundits stammer and fume, readers should clearly understand that, to date, the courts have refused to hear or judge the evidence/facts of the Obama eligibility suits, opting instead to routinely dismiss cases for strictly procedural and jurisdictional reasons. Why? Because there are currently no federal or state-level statutes which clearly define eligibility vetting rerquirements for presidential candidates. Incredibly, political parties only require that candidates sign a self-ascribing document in which they declare themselves to be eligible with no other substantiation. Most certainly, a yawning loophole in our legal system.

Recently, CNN's Lou Dobbs reasonably asked why Obama had not released his original birth certificate in order to settle the issue of his citizenship. In turn, and for whatever reason, Mr. Dobb’s boss, Jon Klein, ordered Dobbs to desist, erroneously asserting that since Hawaii had destroyed all paper documents when Hawaii moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001 that there was no point in asking for the original birth certificate any longer. Shortly after Mr. Klein’s assertion, Janice Okubo of the Hawaiian State Dept. of Health (HSDH) reported that “any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still on file within the department. We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.” Strange.

Upshot: Lou Dobbs says he is “not backing off” and, presumably, will continue asking about Obama's original birth certificate.

Hiding behind his legal dream team of LA lawyers, Obama has steadfastly refused 1) to divulge the original long form birth certificate or a certified “vault copy” of his birth certificate, 2) to release his college records from Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard in order to determine if he was enrolled as a US Citizen, or 3) to disclose his passport data to better determine his citizenship status when he returned to the United States following his earlier move to Indonesia. (Note: if, through adoption by Lolo Soetoro, his Indonesian stepfather, Obama lost his US citizenship, he must then have affirmatively re-applied for naturalization upon his return to the US. If he had not re-applied, to this day he would be an Indonesian citizen. Indonesian authorities have blocked any attempts to sort this out from that end.)

A Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is not a birth certificate. On the strength of one parent's attestation, a COLB merely verifies that a child was born, but does not name the hospital or attending physician. On the other hand, a Birth Certificate indicates the birth hospital, the name and signature of the attending physician and the name and signature of the mother. A COLB does not.

To this day, any inspection of Obama’s birth documentation in Hawaii and any documentation which may exist about his possible birth in Mombassa, Kenya have been blocked by respective government authorities.

When questions were initially raised about Obama’s citizenship, in October 2008 Dr. Fukino, the Director of Hawaiian Dept of Health (HSDH), issued this ambiguous statement: “I, as Dir of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Dept of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (Notably absent in this statement is an affirmation that the document seen reflects a Hawaiian birth. Also worthy of note is the fact that, to date, the HSDH has not explained that the COLB which the Obama Team had long ago posted on the internet in an attempt to verify Obama’s Hawaiian birth may be issued on behalf of children not born in the state. Further, why would a person with an original birth certificate also have need for a Certification of Live Birth (COLB)? Why wouldn’t the Obama Team merely display a certified vault copy of the original BC or the BC itself? A Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, is not even acceptable proof of Hawaiian birth in Hawaiian courts!)

To further complicate the issue, on July 27, 2009 and on the heels of the CNN imbroglio, Dr. Fukino allegedly released the following statement: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Dept of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Dept of Health verifying Barrack (misspelled) Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued on October 2008.”

The inconsistencies are glaring and merely add to the confusion and suspicion. First, what would compel Dr. Fukino in her second statement to violate state confidentiality rules by confirming Obama’s Hawaiian birth. But, more importantly, what would have influenced her to suddenly and gratuitously distinguish between” US citizen” and “natural-born citizen”--a distinction which isn't exactly on the tip of a Health Department bureaucrat's tongue. What Dept of Health official anywhere renders that sort of legal distinction? Whether or not a person is a natural born citizen is strictly a constitutional question which should not concern a HSDH statistician. If anything, rendering such a distinction falls within the purview of a state’s Sec. of State when determining a candidate’s presidential eligibility. So, this most recent HSDH statement is certainly bizarre.

From a legal and constitutional standpoint, a person may be a “natural born citizen” if 1) s/he is born of two US citizen parents and 2) s/he is born in the United States. However, Obama’s father was Kenyan and, as such, was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. (Note: on his campaign website and in his books, Obama has readily admitted his father and, by extention, Obama were British citizens.) Thus, from a constitutional standpoint, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, which still remains unproven, there is still left what is very likely the insurmountable hurdle of proving his natural born citizenship status. (Note: the intent of the Founders, particularly George Washington and John Jay who are responsible for inserting the words “natural born” in the Presidential Clause, was to specifically prevent any “divided loyalties” resulting from familial “foreign allegiances, affinities, or influences”upon the Commander-in-Chief. Further, there is overwhelming historical evidence that the Framers firmly held that a person’s citizenship is, by natural law, derived from the father.)

Very importantly, this: Minor vs Hapersett unequivocally states that the definition of “natural born citizen” is not specifically defined in the Constitution--inclusive of the 14th Amendment which is so often and erroneously credited for defining that term. In short, this case negates the contention that “native born” and “natural born citizen” are eqiuivalent. To wit, the ruling states that “the Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be a natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Thus, given the evidence currently available to us, neither Dr. Fukino’s July 2009 assertion above or even the long form birth certificate itself can possibly prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen. What Minor maintains is that if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen. It also maintains that if a child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are legitimate doubts as to the child’s natural-born status. (Note: interestingly, only 6 hours after Atty Leo Donofrio posted this cite, Dr. Fukino offered up her amended and more detailed statement on July 27th. Coincidence or a rush to legitimize Obama claims of natural born citizenship?)

There is also the lingering and nagging problem of Obama’s paternal grandmother’s statements affirming that she was present during Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya in 1961. (Note: The Kenyan government has denied investigators access to hospital records and have severely restricted investigators’ and the media’s access to Obama’s extended family in Kenya. Why?)

And this: despite John McCain's having been born of two US citizen parents, since his father was serving on active duty in the US-controlled Canal Zone where John McCain was born, questions during the campaign arose from the left regarding his eligibility. McCain quickly produced documentation to prove his natural born citizenship by demonstrating that the hospital in which he was born was within US territorial jurisdiction. How each has handled questions regarding their birth certification has been profoundly different. Obama has never released his documentation despite intensive and persistent appeals to do so. Why? Do the “vital records” to which Dr. Fukino alludes in her second statement reflect an Indonesian citizenship, a Kenyan birth, or a surprise bigger than any of us could have ever imagined? Who knows? Only Obama and Dr. Fukino.

And then there’s the question of his college records. Was he attending as a US citizen after he returned from Indonesia? Access to those documents have also been vigorously blocked by Obama’s attorneys. Why? Was he attending as an Indonesian citizen?

So, call me a right-wing nut conspiracist if you will, but please understand that my interest in this subject is born of a steadfast desire to protect our Republic and what remains of its Constitution. Absolutely nothing more. So, I ask that you do your research and show where the justifiable concerns of us "birthers" are so dead wrong. Frankly, though I loathe Obama’s socialist and transnational dissembling of this Republic, I would welcome being proven wrong about his constitutional eligibility. One less matter to be concerned about. And, please, do us all a favor. Rather than the usual one-dimensional snide remarks and personal attacks on me and other "birthers", help us with the research in order to find the truth, wherever that truth may eventually lead us.

If nothing else, this matter should give us all plenty to think about.

("All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson)

("The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment." Robert M. Hutchins)