Hoping Obama's place of birth truly was in Hawaii

I hope for the sake of our country that I and many other concerned citizens across the country are looked upon as well-intentioned but ultimately misguided individuals who chased a bad rumor based on lies and distortions.

The reason I hope to be thought wrong (although well-intentioned) is because the price of being right about the constitutional requirements to be president not being met by the current occupant of the Oval Office is too disturbing to be imagined.

If, in fact, Barack Obama does not meet the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section I, it would throw this country into a constitutional crisis. Vice President Joe Biden would, obviously, become President Biden. The harrowing part of this taking place is that every appointment made, every piece of legislation signed, and every executive order issued by Barack Obama could, and should, be considered invalid.

Full-moon time? I know, I know; I sound like a raving lunatic. So where do I draw my conclusions that this is even a valid issue to entertain?

Let's review what's been accepted as "fact" by the mainstream press and the vast majority of Americans: Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham, 18, and Barack Obama Sr., 25.

Concerned citizens across the United States since well before the November election have questioned Barack Obama's "natural born" qualification for the presidency. From sea to shining sea, at least 18 lawsuits with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, state legislators and retired and active duty members of the military, are attempting to compel him to verify his citizenship.

Candidate Obama's own Web site, fightthesmears.com, posted a "Certification of Live Birth," which, according to the Web site, proves that Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen. What the Web site won't tell you, however, is that a "Certification of Live Birth" is not a birth certificate, and that at the time, the state of Hawaii allowed foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (Stanley Ann Dunham) to have their births registered with this document based on a statement of only one relative. The obvious question must be asked: If Obama has an original "long form" birth certificate issued on the day of his birth by the state of Hawaii, why would he also have a "Certification of Live Birth"? It would not be necessary. Critics have called upon President Obama to just give the state of Hawaii his permission to release his original "long form" birth certificate. The "long form" birth certificate would include all the pertinent information about his birth: name of the hospital, name and signature of the attending physician and a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department. This simple action by President Obama would immediately end all speculation about his citizenship and the reasons for the various lawsuits. Instead, President Obama is spending time and money hiring lawyers to fight these lawsuits. Why?

Why doesn't the mainstream press cover these lawsuits? I mean, in 2004, Dan Rather did a bang up job covering something a lot less important. Rather had "authentic" memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record. Yet there are some legitimate questions about the constitutional eligibility of our president, and yet not one single major press outlet is covering it. Part of the reason is that this issue has supposedly settled by the independent authority on Obama's birth certificate, FactCheck.org. Yet on their Web site, FactCheck.org states:

"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."

So the independent authority on this question has admitted that they have not seen the original long-form birth certificate. And the questions remain.

I sincerely hope that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1961 and therefore meets the constitutional requirements to be president. If not, our Constitution must be followed and procedures put in place for future elections wherein all candidates on the ballot must prove they meet the requirements set forth by the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Peter Aparicio is a resident of Victoria and a government teacher at Memorial High School.

Linda Lingle suggested that Obama is an impostor:
“Senator Obama likes to say he’s from Hawaii. But, the truth is, I’ve never met him in my life. He’s never called me on the phone. Ninety-five percent of the people in my state had never heard of him before he ran for president.”
Perhaps reacting to this comment, Barry set up a meet.

**********************************************

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“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.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
###
For more information, contact: Janice Okubo http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

***************************

This is what the Hawaiian Health Department said about Obama's CoLB (not a birth cewrtificate, a certification of live birth which is something even a man born in China can obtain for asking):
Janice Okubo: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

No, I say “stick with him” as if he were a tainted choice made by Obama, and assented to by the delegates...and I deliberately leave as an open question whether they would continue to support him, and rest the imprimatur of their approval upon him in the event of Obama’s legal “viability” being properly and successfully challenged.

That is a political consideration of no legal importance. The 25th amendment is clear.

As concerns the US Constitution, it is certainly NOT a technicality, but rather the basis for all these objections and challenges. Our precious Constitution should be considered immutable, and applied fully.

Our precious Constitution establishes impeachment as the sole process for removing a president from office. It has no provision for the wholesale replacement of the executive branch, nor the blanket voiding of all laws passed by Congress in a given span of time.

Looking beyond the black-letter law, it is unquestionably the intent of the Founders and a core principle of the American republic that no branch of government has the power to run roughshod over the other two. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist leaves no doubt on that score.

Biden’s stature as V.P. rests too strongly upon his place on the ticket with Obama

Biden's stature as VP rests solely on his winning a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The rest is politics, not law.

Arguing otherwise opens the door to allowing any/all of his Cabinet Secretaries, the Attorney General, press secretary, or various White House Staff to retain their positions.

Yes. There is no one with the legal authority to fire the whole executive branch at a stroke. The idea is repugnant to a Constitutional democracy. All officials appointed by Obama were either subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, or can be fired outright by the new president.

He chose Biden after a winning a series of primary elections he should have been legally ineligible to stand for

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Biden is legally eligible and was voted into office by the Electoral College. If the members of the EC feel that they were fooled, well, no one said life was fair.

If I may use an analogy, it is like a citizen being arrested, indicted and accused of a felony crime, being defended (unknowingly) by a public defender who was not a legally recognized attorney at law. Even if the citizen is found guilty convicted and sentenced, the subsequent discovery of the ineligibility of his “attorney” will invalidate the entire process.

The criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence, and as such gives every advantage to the defendant. There is no such presumption in favor of any one branch of government in the separation of powers -- they are coequal branches designed to limit each other's power.

The Attorney General is considered the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the USA, right? He is, therefore, an officer of the court charged with upholding the law - and the Const., so what would his responsibilities be in that scenario?

To present his findings to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. To present his findings to his fellow Cabinet officials, who under the 25th amendment have the lawful authority to temporarily declare the president unfit to serve. To go public with the facts that support his conclusion.

We have a three branch system of checks and balances, therefore how could rightfully subjecting Obama to the law be considered a coup d’etat?

It is a change of power outside of established legal means. Pretty much the definition of a coup d'etat.

If he is an imposter, a fraud, a poseur - then it surely cannot only fall to Congress and the political process of impeachment (could we safely assume that a Democrat majority in control would NOT act against him, any more than they did against Sen. Barney Frank?) to hold him to account, could it?

Yes. That is the system in place. A Democratic majority would be unlikely to vote for impeachment unless under compelling political pressure. That's what elections are for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.