Why the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

As the questions about whether or not Barrack Hussein Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President of the United States begin to emerge from the shadows of conspiracy theory and into the mainstream arena of legitimate discussion, I wanted to make sure that my readers had the opportunity to review the relevant facts.

As such, the most complete overview of this topic can be found in a Blog posting titled "Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate" by Joe the Farmer (similar to Joe the Plumber) on November 26, 2008 on his blog http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/.

So, even if you believe that this issue is just the latest attempt by "right wing whacks" to undo the legitimate and legal 2008 Presidential election of Barrack Hussein Obama, you still owe it to yourself to become more informed regarding the details and to hold judgement until you have done so. On the surface, it does seem like a "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory. However, under the hood, the details transform it into a much more troubling question of how anyone was allowed to even run for President of the United without answering some of these very simple questions about where he was born and why no one in the mainstream media is following this story.

The full text of Joe the Farmers post is as follows:

Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?

Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?

Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?

Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?

Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?

Fear not! 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.

• 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).
• A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
• 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.
• Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
• Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
• 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.

• Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
• 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.
• 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."
• 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.

• 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:
  
• He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
• 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);
• 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.
  
• 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?
• 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.

The Voice of 57 Million is Being Heard on Shariah Law

As an example of how "The Voice of 57 Million Americans" will be heard and will influence the future of the United States of America, I wanted my readers to have the opportunity to read the article titled "Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah code" posted by Bob Unruh on November 28, 2008 on http://www.woldnetdaily.com/.

Many a foreign leader has indicated over the last 232 years that America would eventually fall through incremental cultural corruption without a single shot being fired. And, led by the ACLU, funded by The Communists and embraced by the 60's radicals, we have seem this "incremental cultural corruption" at work in our public educational systems through the NEA, governmental agencies, our legal system through appointment of liberal judges and the mainstream media.

However, I believe that the voices of the 57 million conservatives and maybe even some of less radical and more mainstream thinkers from "the other side", will draw the line at the rapidly accelerating attempts to enact Shariah Law in this Country.

Just Remember, who would have thought that God and the celebration of the birth of Christ would be gone from our public schools? And, who would have thought that these same public schools are actually accommodating Muslim religious practices?

If we don't want to loose this country without a single shot being fired, we need to say vigilant and keep up the good fight!!

The full text of Mr. Unruh's post is as follows:

Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn't going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee.

Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S. "SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA," warns the sign.

The UAC says it's "dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam" and works to "educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism."

The group's mission is to battle against "the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America."

"Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights," the organization stated.

Tom Trento, a spokesman, said, "Muslims are the biggest victims of Shariah law in the world. We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Shariah to stand up against it."

The organization's website, whose address is featured on the billboard, highlights a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped the Middle East and has become a fierce critic of Islam and Shariah.

"At times, it feels to me that Shariah is following me to the United States," Sultan says in the video, referring to radical Islamic charities and organizations operating in the U.S.

Sultan also points out that in Britain and France Shariah is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Britain recently sanctioned the establishment of Shariah courts for civil matters among Muslims, the UAC noted.

"Our Constitution is not compatible with Shariah," Sultan said. Under the religious rules, "Women and children are deprived of rights we in the West take for granted."

"Homeless in America is more attractive to me than living as a woman under Shariah," she added. "I don’t want to face again the hell that I had kicked off 20 years ago. My biggest obligation is to preserve the free spirit of this wonderful country and not allow destructive forces to ruin it."

The UAC billboard is in Luna Pier, 10 miles north of Toledo and 20 miles south of Detroit on Interstate 75, officials said.

The announcement about the sign comes as Islam expert Daniel Pipes warns in a report in the Jerusalem Post Shariah is advancing one step at a time into Western Europe and North America.

Pipes cited the recent case of a Scottish judge who "bent" the law to acknowledge a polygamous household, a status allowed under Shariah.

"The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one's driving license. The defendant's lawyer explained his client's need to speed: 'He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis,'" Pipes reported.

"Sympathetic to the polygamist's plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license," he said.

The report said the ruling suggests monogamy, "long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law."

Pipes reported at least six Western jurisdictions now accept harems, including Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia and Canada. Canada, for example, acknowledges "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid."

WND reported just days ago a Heritage Foundation expert's warning the U.S. also needs to maintain active opposition to plans for "religious anti-defamation" laws both within its borders and on an international scale or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation's website, Steven Groves said the U.S. "must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the 'defamation of religions' concept." The proposal primarily targets any criticism of Islam.

Proponents "will continue to push the 'defamation of religions' agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference," Groves warned.

Groves is the Heritage Foundation's Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

He also said within its own borders, the U.S. should refuse to recognize "a new legal cause of action that bans insults or criticism of religion," because it would provide no benefit whatsoever.

States already have laws to condemn religious discrimination and prosecute acts of incitement to violence, he argued. The federal government "should tread extremely lightly where disputes over religious doctrine are concerned. The U.S. does not need a national speech code that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans, no matter how offensive that speech may be to any particular religious denomination."

Groves cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with "dignity and respect."

"Any attempt to establish a criminal or civil 'defamation of religions' law in the United States … must be strongly opposed," Groves said. "Attempts to introduce such legislation may be incremental – notably, in May 2005, when a group of U.S. congressmen sponsored a resolution," he said. "Such piecemeal legislation must be closely guarded against."

WND previously reported the original U.N. plan that could turn ordinary Christians in America into international criminals.

WND also has reported the Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch.

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate its instructions.

Revealingly, a recent report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND, said Britain's MI6 intelligence service identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a Shariah death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim.

The report describes how the group recently imposed the brutal punishment on a child in the Somalian town of Kismayo.

A 13-year-old girl, described in an intelligence report as "little more than a pretty child," was sentenced to be stoned to death by the all-male court.

It imposed the sentence on Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow after she had complained to the local Shariah court that she had been gang-raped by, among others, her cousins.

But the court found her guilty of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning.

She was taken from the courthouse to a local sports stadium. There she was buried up to her neck in sand and then stoned in front of a 1,000-strong crowd.