Given the cir***stances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he
would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of
course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull,
and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:
1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally)
for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth
certificate on file in the Department of Health.
A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records
webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with
the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in
Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department
of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to
adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of
certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-
state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would
have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth,
and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth
certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system
is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of
certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a
certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its
homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your
application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the
original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green.
This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of
Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original
Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the
computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by
DHHL."
2. Contrary to what you may have read, no do***ent made available to
the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences
conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
A. Associated Press re****ted about a statement of Hawaii Health
Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth
certificate genuine."
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s]
personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of
Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does
not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained
above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible
that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.
Unlikely, but possible.
C. The do***ent that the Obama campaign released to the public is
a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best
evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is
the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether
his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know
that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of
laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United
States citizen****p on themselves and their children. Given the
structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a
birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within
the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state
could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S.
citizen****p, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or
later in the child's life.
1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the
Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of
Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with
post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of
fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about
multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to
issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual
who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating
the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to
receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation,
federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18,
2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect
Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named
individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born
outside the United States and were in the United States
illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates
for himself and his three foreign-born children."
3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the
"ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999
testimony by one Social Security Administration official:
"Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records
are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The
do***ents that a card applicant must present to establish age,
identity, and citizen****p, usually a birth certificate and immigration
do***ents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain
fraudulently."
3. It has been re****ted that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's
records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently,
the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep
that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove
nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in
the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.
4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth
certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has
established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or
federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified
that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility
standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him,
perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in
America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility
would be unnecessary.
A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit
(which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility
to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that
would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar
lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is
adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will
need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be
expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his
refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as
costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing,
he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside
in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could
speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:
1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be
President;
2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from
his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story
he has told (and sold);
3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best
evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw
criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This
would energize his sup****ters. This would also make other charges
about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill
Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic
would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to
manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his
sup****ters, it would convince those who believe him to be a
manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This
would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions
about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans
know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.
B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could
be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. Are we to expect yet
another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans
to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis
unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage,
however, could even result in criminal sanctions. Thus, he has motive
not to disclose if he were ineligible.
The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this
as a rightwing conspiracy, is: what's the downside of disclosing?
This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned
it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in
conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's
watchdogs aren't.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
|
