Search This Blog

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)

Sunday, July 26, 2009

AP Chicanery Strikes Again

AP does it again. Taking the "honors" this time is AP writer David Crary.

Appearing on page 7A in Friday’s issue of the D&C, an article innocuously entitled “Where Obama was born still in question by some” perfectly illustrates the liberal media’s ceaseless attempts to misrepresent, misinform and obfuscate.

Unabashedly asserting that questions regarding Obama’s birthplace have been “already debunked”, one must ask by what authority? Obama? His fawning press? His legal team? Liberal sycophants? By whom?

The cynical story goes on to suggest that the issue has become an embarrassment to the GOP which, reportedly, wants it “to go away” but fears a conservative backlash were the GOP to officially discredit those of us who believe Obama has failed to prove his presidential eligibility by failing to prove his natural-born US citizenship status. And just which GOPers have expressed such painful embarrassment and doubt, Mr. Crary? Shameless fantasy, Mr. Crary. This isn't a news story. It's editorial license and nothing more.

Despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, Mr. Crary went on to “report” (and I use that term loosely) that Obama’s birthplace had been settled “after an official Hawaiian birth certificate was produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Hawaiian newspapers.” Wow! Clearly intended to mislead and misinform, this fabrication of the facts had been exposed and refuted long ago. Does no one at AP understand how to research a story? Are playing fast and loose with the facts a way of life for AP? Or, in truth, has AP too abdicated its journalistic standards.

Thanks to the relentless stonewalling tactics of Obama’s $1 million dream team of LA attorneys, the original long form birth certifcate which could accurately identify the birthing hospital and the attending physician has NEVER EVER been disclosed. Thus, we are all left with a worthless “certificate of live birth” (COLB) which, by the way, could be issued on behalf of a person born outside Hawaii, and which tells us only that Obama was born–not where! As for the Hawaiian newspaper ads heralding the birth of Obama, anyone, anywhere, could have inserted a birth announcment in a Hawaiian newspaper. And, again, neither the attending physican nor the name of the birthing hospital are named in those ads. To this day, the birth hospital remains in dispute. Your assertion, Mr. Crary, is not proof. It is either sloppy or deliberate whitewashing on your part!

Mr. Crary then dismissively reports that 10 GOP congressmen have co-sponsored a bill that “would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their orignial birth certificate”. Horror of horrors! How could any reasonable person demand such an onerous requirement of a candidate seeking the highest and most powerful office in the world? How dare these congressmen! The unmitigated gall! Have these congressmen no shame?

As noted in a previous post on this subject, the unsettling truth is that the issue of Obama’s ineligibility has inadvertently revealed a gaping loophole in our laws. In short, there is currently no statute which definitively and comprehensively provides for an eligibility vetting process for presidential candidates. Hard to believe, but horribly true. And this is why so many eligibilty suits against Obama have been dismissed.–not dismissed, as is so often and erroneously reported by the press, on the merits of the case, but, incredibly, because there is no controlling legal authority upon which judges may act in these cases. What Rep. Posey (R-FL) and nine of his colleagues is proposing is to remedy that legal oversight by requiring that all future candidates disclose their original birth certificate. (See HR 1503). Not too much to ask, huh? But, of course, to Mr. Crary and his ilk, such legislative prudence is an indefensible perversion. Indeed.

It is abundantly clear that AP and Crary have no interest in seeking the unvarnished truth in such matters. Like other “news” outlets, protecting and apologizing for Obama has become their stock in trade. When the press abdicates its responsibility to objectively seek the truth, the threat to our Republic is more insidious than any alien threat could ever possibly be. And we let them get away with it at our own peril.

I won’t bother rehashing the well-established facts of this case here, but will merely invite readers to review some of my previous posts on this seminal issue: 12/7/08, 12/18/08, 12/22/08, 1/2/09, 5/20/09, 5/25/09. There are, of course, countless other reliable sources one can search as well.

Like me, those who harbor serious and well-founded doubts about Obama’s citizenship and, therefore, his eligibility for the Presidency, could easily be discredited and shut down once and for all were the Obama Team to divulge his original birth certificate, and not merely an unconvincing COLB and an assortment of unauthoritative newspaper ads which in no way prove Obama’s birth in Hawaii, or resolve the more nagging concern regarding his “natural born citizenship” status. Obama could put this to rest, but he has consistently refused to do so. Could "Mr. Transparency" be hiding something?

So, as they say, “we report, you decide”. I already have, and I sincerely fear for my country.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Nat'l Healthcare vs Common Sense and the Constitution

The draconian single-payer health care program the Administration is so fervently touting is, by any reasonable measure, unconstitutional. It is a power grab whose purpose is more to advance the President's socialist agenda than to either constructively address the healthcare needs of the mythical "46 million uninsured" or to responsibly reduce healthcare costs across the board. Worst of all, single-payer will be terribly costly, and will lead to rationing and a sharp diminishment in the quality of healthcare.

But, first, let's deconstruct that "46 million uninsured" figure which tugs at our collective heart strings and which provides the Administration's rationale, aka cover, for a punishing healthcare overhaul.

To keep it in perspective, this 46 million figure constitutes about 15% of the population. So, first off, why would anyone advocate undermining the healthcare of the 85% (255 million people) who, reportedly, are satisfied with their healthcare coverage?

Conservatively, of the 46 million without insurance...

...about 6 million are "medicaid undercounts" meaning that those who are on one or two gov't health insurance programs (Medicaid or S-Chip) but who mistakenly or intentionally tell census takers that they are uninsured. (Source: Dept. of Health & Human Services).

...about 6 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized gov't health insurance (Medicaid or SCHIP) but have not yet signed up.

...about 10+ million are non-citizens of whom an estimated 2 million are legal immigrants and more than 8+ million are most likely illegal aliens.

...approx. 8 million uninsured earn between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, and another 8 million make more than $75,000 a year and opt not to purchase health insurance

Thus, about 10 million of the 46 million figure above are American citizens/legal immigrants who for whatever reasons are uninsured.

Interestingly, even the Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit often quoted by the media, pegs the number of uninsured American citizens who do not qualify for government health care programs and who earn less than $50,000 year between 9 and 15 million--a FAR cry from the 46 million Americans who comprise the huddled domestic masses yearning for health care so fervently bandied about by the progressive elites.

By my liberally inflating the uninsured figure--NOT including illegal aliens--to 15,000,000, it would still be MUCH cheaper for the gov't to cut a $7,500 check for each family/individual in this group since the annual cost would be much less $100 billion/year. Costly, but a MUCH better deal than what single-payer promises. Better yet, wouldn't it be MUCH wiser if we sidelined ideology altogether and fashioned an efficient and affordable solution which would benefit all Americans? Probably too much to ask.

Obviously, misdiagnosing, whether intentionally or otherwise, the extent and the reasons for a person's being uninsured invites painful waste and needless ruin for the entire nation. To solve America's healthcare problems and concerns, elitists must put on the legislative breaks and embark on an honest, bipartisan, deliberate and objective analysis. Who among us would arrogantly deign to dispute that assertion. Single-minded progressives, of course.

Also, since the federal government, with printing presses in hand, will be both the referee and the 8000-lb healthcare gorilla in a single-payer system on that proverbial "level" playing field, there will be no consumer choice. The vast majority of Americans who are satisfied with their insurance will inevitably dump their coverage, and the private healthhcare industry will evaporate. So much for free enterprise and competition.

Clearly, there are better ways to effectively deal with the painful increases in healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care. Newt Gingrich asserts that fully 1/3 of all health spending, or $800 billion of a $2.5 trillion system, is wasted on "defensive medicine, red tape and outright fraud" which could be successfully addressed if a bipartisan discussion and solution were seriously sought by the Administration. Like most Americans, he believes that championing real competition, choice and individual control over one's healthcare is the path to a more effective solution to healthcare costs. Gee, who would have guessed.

Specifically, Mr. Gingrich proposes four common-sense principles which should guide any serious health reform discussion: "1) improve health by incentivizing prevention, wellness and early health; 2) give doctors and hospitals incentives to deliver highest-quality care through fair and proper payments; 3) reform public programs like Medicare and Medicaid to root out fraud, reduce waste and reward quality; 4) empower individuals with the information and financial resources needed to be better, more-informed consumers." Much too sensible an approach which, I fear, will never work in a progressive-dominated Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, engaging in a bipartisan debate to reduce healthcare costs while protecting consumer choice and quality care is not the goal of the socialists currently in power in DC. These elitists simply want centralized c-o-n-t-r-o-l. Never mind that the model they are pushing has failed everywhere else in the Western World where it has been tried.

The inevitable question is this: would you be comfortable with the federal government making your health care decisions for you? A preponderance of Americans have responded with a resounding NO! But, that won't stop the power elite in Washington. Why? Because "we the people" are pesky lowborns--annoyances unworthy of progressives' attention.

But, thanks to our insightful Founding Fathers and the mettle and courage of patriotic state legislators around the country, we may yet triumph.

Already, state legislatures are passing laws which would constitutionally nullify any federal or state law, rule or regulation which requires individuals or employers to participate in any health care system. In the forefront of this pushback is Arizona which plans to overrrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance within that state's jurisdiction. Indiana, New Mexico, Minnesota, N. Dakota and Wyoming are weighing similar initiatives for their 2010 ballot.

But, is nullification constitutional? Co-authored by none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 categorically asserts that states, as sovereign entities, can judge for themselves whether the federal government has overstepped its constitutional limitations. That may not sit well with the elitist thugs in DC, but the constitutional views of these Founding Fathers cannot be easily trifled with or dismissed by even the most ardent leftists among them. And it's up to us to make sure they don't.

And there's more constitutional pushback. Rep. Paul (R-TX) has introduced the Protect Patients" and Physicians" Privacy Act (HR2630) which allows "patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system", would repeal sections of federal law estabishing a "unique health identifier" and would require patient consent before any electronic medical records could be released to a third party.

In addition, Rep. Paul is introducing the Not Health Care Act (HR 2629) which would prohibit the feds from compelling Americans to purchase health insurance or conditioning participation in any federal healthcare program.

These initiatives supplement 10th amendment resolutions and laws which many states have already passed or are in the process of passing which reassert state sovereignty in matters relating to Real ID legislation, medical marijuana laws, control of state militias, firearms control and, now, health care. So, the constitutional battle has only begun.

Federal healthcare reform, cap-and-tax and other unconstitutional federal encroachments have, at long last, struck some very raw nerves in the heartland. This federal intrusiveness is beginning to run up against heretofore inviolable constitutional firewalls, but only "we the people" can ensure those firewalls are not breached.

State and individual pushback across the country has begun in earnest--and none too soon. So long as we do not opt to apathetically sit it out on the sidelines, we can turn the counter-revolutionary progressive tide.

Let's solve this serious problem intelligently and apolitically. Ideology should have no place at the table.

("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)