There isn’t affirmative evidence that he was born in Hawaii. The HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006, meaning that it is not legally valid. It has no probative value. If the HDOH has been accurate in their responses to me, that amendment was almost certainly to add a birth weight so the BC would be complete, which would also mean that his BC is about 45 years late - another reason for it to be legally invalid.
Neither Fukino, Okubo, nor ANYBODY has ever claimed that there even IS a legally-valid BC for Obama, much less that a legally-valid BC says he was born in Hawaii.
The HDOH’s official written responses to UIPA requests have revealed in at least 2 different ways that they knew the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. When asked if they would have a duty to report a known forgery to law enforcement, Okubo responded that she can’t disclose anything about a BC and OIP said (basically) maybe and maybe not.
So who knows what is the truth. Their statements don’t match the laws or each other. Discrepancies all over the place. Laws broken all over the place.
But if what the HDOH has said is true, they don’t have a legally-valid BC for Obama. And that should have resulted in a legal investigatio a long, long time ago.
But to do that would require breaking a fundamental fact. The politicians in DC are all more or less on the same team when it comes to security issues. They think they know better because they know the secrets. This is why they hold the teaparty in such low regard. They see the Tea Party as a threat to national security because they think that would mean buffoons were in charge instead of their highly pedigreed and in the know selves.
I would be grateful for your reaction to this reply I posted yesterday:
The situation as I see it in a nutshell is that there is no affirmative proof of birth anywhere except Hawaii. That is, there is affirmative proof of birth in Hawaii. Please note, I did not say there is conclusive proof of birth in Hawaii merely that there is evidence thereof. So whoever gets to decide this issue would have to say that the mere anomalous nature of Obama’s refusal to authorize disclosure of the birth certificate is somehow evidence that he was born elsewhere than in Hawaii merely because his refusal to release his birth certificate is strange and runs counter to human experience and suggests that the man has something to hide. I know of no forum that admits to substituting motive for evidence. I know of no forum which says that in the absence of any evidence we will overrule contrary evidence because of motive, in this case the presumed motive to hide ineligibility if he is in fact ineligible.
I use the expression “forum” because it is not at all clear to me that it is the federal courts alone who have jurisdiction to decide this issue. It might be that the matter is conclusively decided by the secretaries of every state certifying elections, or by the legislatures, or by the House of Representatives, where the president of the Senate, all of whom play some role in the election of United States presidents. It is the House and the Senate which have jurisdiction over impeachments (although the Chief Justice presides) and not the Supreme Court. This is no doubt partly because it was contemplated by the founders that the removal of the president for high crimes and misdemeanors was partially a political proceeding and not a justiciable one.
So we see that the nature of impeachment is somehow different from a proceeding based on in eligibility of a sitting president-or maybe not.
The Constitution does not provide explicitly for a body to adjudicate eligibility after the president was sworn in. Please see the 20th amendment quoted in part:
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Once the failure of the President-elect to qualify is determined, the Constitution creates a responsibility and power in the Congress to sort it out. One can draw intriguing inferences from this about the intent of the framers of this amendment in 1933, but nothing is clear or sure and it does not necessarily mean that one can extrapolate from this to an argument over eligibility after the president is sworn in and say that the Congress shall act as it sees fit. Furthermore, the amendment merely assumes the existence of a failure to qualify and not the test or the forum.
So when we ask the question, “what if,” about what we might find in the Hawaii vault and the implications of the existence or nonexistence of certain documents like a longform birth certificate, we have to think, are we asking a political question, a legal question, constitutional question? And if were asking any of these questions we must next ask, who is decide it, a judge, the electors, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the court of public opinion?
Once we determine all of these things, somebody can weigh the evidence or the absence of evidence and apply presumptions of law and decide whether motive should overcome proof.