Update On The Obamessiah's Birth Certificate

If you've been following this blog, you know that there's been an effort for months to get Barack Obama to provide his actual long-form birth certificate to prove that he is a 'natural born citizen', as the Constitution requires. See previous posts here, here, here, and here.

This argument started out as a bit of a joke, but has steadily gotten more credibility as higher profile people have gotten involved. There's now another substantial update that needs to be passed along, but before we get to that, here's an article at American Thinker showing why it's a legitimate issue. It's a bit long, but there's a ton of good information that dispels some big-time misconceptions floating around out there. Read the whole thing:

...Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.

Given the circumstances, 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 document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.

A. Associated Press reported 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 document 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 citizenship 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. citizenship, 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 documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."

3. It has been reported 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 supporters. 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 supporters, 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. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" 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. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." 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.

Now for the most current update. I received an e-mail from Newsmax recently with the following information:

Team Obama:"All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage." According to the WorldNetDaily headline above, that was the retort of an Obama campaign spokesperson when asked about complaints requesting that Senator Obama produce a valid Birth Certificate to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

The Constitution of the United States is NOT "garbage" and furthermore, securing the rights of the people under the Constitution is NOT "garbage"!

The Obama campaign's response is an elitist, condescending slap in the face to patriotic Americans. No one is above the law and Team Obama cannot make the question of Obama's eligibility go away by disrespecting the American people - and, by inference, the Constitution of the United States.

You probably already know that Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg filed a suit in U.S. District Court several months back contending that Senator Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen.

And you probably already know that the court dismissed the suit claiming that Berg, as a private citizen, "lacked standing to bring the case."

Of course, Berg is not the only one who has filed an action and the "Berg Case" is not the only one in which the courts have relied upon the lack-of-standing technicality.

Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied an action saying to the plaintiff Rev. Tom Terry, "I don't think you have standing to bring this suit."

Washington State Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed yet another suit ruling that even the Secretary of State did not have authority to inquire about Senator Obama's birth certificate.

Can you believe it? What's going on? Well, perhaps Berg said it best:

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States - the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

Of course, Berg's statement also illustrates why the "Berg Case" and some of these other actions are doomed to fail and why we believe our action WILL succeed!

Simply stated, the lack-of-standing argument is already out there. Yes, it's egregious but the all too sad reality is that judges will continue to grab onto it like a life-preserver now that it has been put into play... the die has been cast!

That's why [the United States Justice Foundation] is taking a different approach. Our petitioners are Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr. and Markham Robinson!

We state in the Petition we just filed with the court:
"The parties in this case have standing to bring this litigation, due to the fact that Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake, Sr., are candidates on the California ballot for President and Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Robinson is an Elector for the Keyes-Drake ticket, and Vice Chairman of America's Independent Party, of Fenton, Michigan, which nominated Dr. Keyes for President. He is also a Chairman of the American Independent Party (California), which nominated Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake for President and Vice President, respectively. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative for SOS to be provided proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen."

Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake were actually on the ballot in California and Markham Robinson is an Elector for Keyes-Drake. If they don't have standing, one would be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who has standing and if the court attempts to use the lack-of-standing argument, it's an implied admission that NO ONE has standing to enforce the Constitution!

I'm no lawyer, but this is probably the best shot anyone's going to have at forcing Obama to provide the unquestionable proof of his citizenship. I have no idea what is going to happen, but apparently the USJF is gearing up for a long fight, committing to legally contest literally every executive order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork done by the Obama administration until this legal challenge is answered.

If you believe the American people are entitled to some answers -- and let's be clear, this is not a witch-hunt, simply a search for a truth we all deserve to know -- then you can sign a petition demanding those answers here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obama's documentation truly was legitimate and proper, why doesn't he provide it? And no (as indicated above), the scanned document he pushed out through DailyKos months ago does NOT meet the criteria.

I'll keep you up to date, but it looks like this isn't going away. The Left loved to claim (incorrectly) that Bush was an illegitimate President, but it looks like now we may get the real thing. Time will tell.

There's my two cents.