White House slams latest ‘birther’ move
CNN, by Ed Henry
This story just will not go away. Lt. Colonel Lakin, an Army MD, is facing court-martial because he has demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate before he will accept an order to deploy to Afghanistan. He is either very stupid, or very brave. Perhaps he is a little of both. The State of Arizona has passed a law requiring future candidates to prove citizenship before running for President. The White House is upset. How unfair is that! How dare we demand someone prove they are qualified before running for President of the United States. The next thing you know we will be requiring people to prove their citizenship just to vote!
We are being told by a lot of people, including Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck that this “birther” stuff is just nonsense. We are told that this issue has been resolved and this is just silliness by a group of die hards who don’t know when to quit. And, of course, CNN pompously declares that everyone knows that this was all settled long ago when Obama released his birth certificate.
But, the story is just not that simple. It could be. It should be. But it isn’t. The problem is that if one pays close attention it is clear that Obama has never actually produced an authenticated copy of his birth certificate. I suspect that everyone reading this has had to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate at some point in time. What’s the big deal? But Obama simply has not done that.
To the best of my knowledge, every other major candidate has produced a certified copy of their birth certificate with little complaint. McCain did that even though he was born in the Panama Canal zone. But, when it comes to Obama’s birth certificate, we get sleight of hand tricks similar to what one would expect from a professional magician. It is the illusion of revealing everything, while not really showing anything at all.
When the Obama campaign was challenged to prove that he had disclosed a true copy of his birth certificate the response was the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii issuing the following statement in October, 2008.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, 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 Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.
Notice that no one was allowed to look at the actual document or even a verified copy of that document because Barack Obama will not sign a release. This statement only says that the State of Hawaii has the original document.
According to the townhall.com blog, which is pretty reputable, the following explains the type of birth certificates available in Hawaii in 1961: (I cannot locate the actual statute, but this certainly looks authentic)
1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
Let me summarize. Suppose one of Obama’s parents gave testimony or a written statement, as required by statue, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The state would accept that as proof of Hawaiian birth, even if no physician or mid wife had ever filed certification of live birth with the Department of Health. A state official, say the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, upon review of such a document would say something like this, a statement released in July of 2009:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
In other words, like the magician, this is designed to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, but if you read this carefully, it really verifies nothing. Everything in that statement could be true, but it does not answer the real question. Does the State of Hawaii have documented proof of exactly where and when Barack Obama was born? If yes; then what is that proof? If the only evidence is a statement signed by one of Barack Obama’s parents, is that really proof of where he was born? Based upon the statute in existence in Hawaii at that time, it would be considered sufficient proof. But, in other states, that would not be adequate. Obviously the potential for fraud under such a system would be enormous.
Just recently it was announced that Puerto Rico is cancelling every birth certificate issued because of widespread fraud.
Obama’s parents would hardly be the first people to want to make sure their child was registered as a U.S. citizen, regardless of when or where he was born.
The Obama campaign has allegedly spent millions in preventing anyone from obtaining the official documents. Why go to all the time and expense if there is nothing to hide? What, exactly, would be the point? Is Obama too superior to bother providing the most basic legal document of all? Is this really an unreasonable request? I have a hard time believing that he was born in Kenya, but I also have a hard time coming up with an explanation for the obvious sleight of hand routine. At best it shows an incredible level of contempt for the American public. At worst, it is covering up something so dangerous that the people protecting Obama will go to any length to keep this hidden.
There are a lot of bizarre documents and theories about this, but the most bizarre is the following. The first is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in Hawaii:
Next is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in every state other than Hawaii:
These documents are courtesy of Canadian Free Press. To the best of my knowledge, no one is disputing that these documents are authentic. The signatures are obviously made by the same people, but they are not identical. It certainly looks like these are two different, signed and notarized versions of the same document. One version, the one filed in Hawaii includes the following wording: “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:” The other version, filed in every other state, does not include this wording.
The McCain campaign allegedly contained the same wording used by the DNC in Hawaii in every state.
I do not know why the DNC would do this. Apparently they claim it was an innocent mistake. But, this is a notarized document. It seems possible, a least to me, that according to Hawaii law, Barack Obama has proven his date and place of birth, but, not necessarily according to the laws in other states. Perhaps this is just a clerical error, or just maybe Nancy Pelosi was afraid to sign a document representing that Obama was legally qualified under the United States Constitution in any state other than Hawaii. (If that is the logic, it is really dumb, because it would still represent a material misrepresentation, with or without the wording)
I do not know what is true about this situation, but I certainly know when someone is working very hard to prevent a peek behind the magician’s curtain. I frankly find this whole situation alarming and I remain astonished that the main stream media, including Fox is so willing to tolerate this nonsense. Isn’t it about time that someone stands up and says enough is enough. Yes, acknowledge that the people leading the “birther” charge are pretty pathetic and they personally have little credibility. But, what we do know, from undisputed sources, raises very serious questions.
One thing is sure. This is a lot more murky than the main stream media is willing to admit.