Advertisement - story continues below
It is high time that legislative bodies and prosecutorial authorities investigate the citizenship status of Barack Hussein Obama II as it relates to his eligibility to the Office of President under Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution. This includes the determination of his actual identity, which requires genetic analysis. I started my investigation and analysis by deeming nearly every assertion as open to question, including the claimed identity of Mr. Obama’s parents. A certificate that a child was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu on 4 August 1961 might be true; but, assuming it’s true, it does not necessarily follow that Mr. Obama is that child. Whether he is or not requires genetic analysis.
Advertisement - story continues below
The federal government needs to determine whether fraud was committed in the electoral process, whether the Great Pretender is eligible under Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and whether he is posing as a federal officer.
Article II Section 1 also provides that the states elect the President. It states that each state shall appoint the presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . . .” Hence each state should have long ago brought its legislative and prosecutorial powers to bear to determine whether Mr. Obama was eligible to be on the ballot (including proof of his identity), whether state election officials performed their duties in allowing him on the ballot without confirming his eligibility, and what should be done to prevent a recurrence of such a constitutional violation, if any.
All government officials should cooperate in such efforts, as they are required by their respective oaths of office to support the Constitution.
Advertisement – story continues below
Disclosure of Obama’s vital records in Hawai’i will almost certainly show that he was born in Hawai’i to U.S. citizens, verifiable by genetic analysis. Hence at birth Mr. Obama would have been a natural born U.S. citizen. Official investigators should be prepared for this early result, and resist the pressure to consider it to be conclusive as to Mr. Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen when he ran for the Office of President.
The status of natural born U.S. citizen can be acquired – or not – only at birth. But it can be lost thereafter, by loss of citizenship. The term “natural born U.S. citizen” subsumes “citizen”. You can not be a natural born citizen if you are not a citizen at all.
Assume that Hawai’i’s certification of live birth is true and official as far as it goes. If Mr. Obama’s birth parents are indeed Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama the alien Luo tribesman, there is a prima facie case that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen, because Obama the Luo tribesman was an alien.
Advertisement - story continues below
But as to the birth parents, the certification of live birth is ambiguous. This ambiguity arises from its nature; it is an abstract of information from a document on file. However, the document on file could be an original birth certificate naming birth parents, or it could be an amended birth certificate reflecting adoptive parents.
When a child is adopted, an amended birth certificate is created naming the adoptive parents and creating an official fiction that they are the birth parents. Just the other day, Thursday 23 September 2010, a lady was in my law office whose close relative was adopted; she had seen both the original and amended birth certificate of the relative.
Hence Hawai’i’s certification of Mr. Obama’s live birth in Hawai’i is intentionally ambiguous. By design, it is impossible to tell from the certification whether the purported parents named therein are Mr. Obama’s birth parents or his adoptive parents. This is to keep adoptions confidential. Furnishing an amended certificate would tip the observer to an adoption. Hawai’i’s custodians of vital records are barred by law from divulging the adoption without the adoptee’s consent, or pursuant to legal process.
However, on 22 July 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, issued a statement by which she goes about as close to the brink as she can, without violating her legal obligation to keep the adoption confidential, to tell us that Mr. Obama was adopted. Her statement is quoted in the book “The Manchurian President” on page 76. (It’s amusing that the authors of that highly informative book fail to pick up on Dr. Fukino’s effort to disclose Mr. Obama’s adoption without violating legal restraints; they say on page 77 that her statement “told us nothing new.”)
Dr. Fukino’s statement refers to Mr. Obama’s “vital records” in the plural. He was not dead, so she must be referring to two birth certificates, the original that named birth parents and an amended certificate naming adoptive parents.
Moreover, data in the certification of live birth must have been taken from the amended certificate, for Dr. Fukino also says that the records verify that Mr. Obama is a “natural born American citizen.” If the original birth certificate showed Obama the Luo to be a birth parent, it would have proved the opposite.
Dr. Fukino is very clever. She has tipped us to an adoption without explicitly disclosing an adoption, which would be unlawful. She has also let us know that Mr. Obama’s birth parents were U.S. citizens, which makes baby Obama a natural born U.S. citizen at birth. This leaves open the possibility that he lost American citizenship thereafter.
Mr. Obama’s vital records must be disclosed and his DNA analyzed to confirm the birth parents of Barack Hussein Obama II, and to confirm that Mr. Obama, pretender to the Office of President, is actually the child whose birth was recorded, not a ringer.
But if, as seems highly probable, Mr. Obama’s production of DNA and his vital records would prove that, at birth, he was a natural born U.S. citizen, why would be refuse to confirm it? He might maintain that it would be to avoid family scandal and damage to the reputations of others, or to prevent the disclosure of his own illegitimate origins. In all probability, however, that there are two main reasons –
First, neither of Obama’s birth parents is of recent African origin. Mr. Obama’s whole political career has been based on being the son of a black Luo tribesman, with kith & kin in today’s Africa. Mr. Obama’s gross misrepresentation that he is black is arguably election fraud. An American black told Laura Ingraham the other day that a black will forgive one many a fault if he’s black. Wonder what they would think if he is, for example, the son of a Caucasian father and a predominantly Polynesian mother, with perhaps Portagee overtones, who just pretends to be black to get votes and denigrate opponents as racists.
Secondly, the Kenyan birth myth and other false notions about his birth and its constitutional consequences distract attention from his real citizenship problems, his probable loss of U.S. citizenship by forfeiture, disclaimer, renunciation, sedition, or some combination of the foregoing. He is trying to replicate the experience of Chester Alan Arthur, who was helped in distracting attention from the fact that his father William was not yet a U.S. citizen when Chester was born, by successfully rebutting false charges that Chester himself was born outside the U.S. By my hypothesis, Mr. Obama can prove eligibility at birth, but became ineligible by loss of citizenship thereafter.
This message only scratches the surface, but shows clearly what is likely needed to confirm Mr. Obama’s status as natural born citizen at the time of his birth: Hawai’i’s vital records of him and his DNA along with, perhaps, DNA analyses of others.
Proof of Mr. Obama’s status at birth will dispel false rumors, establish the bona fides of the investigators, and allow them to focus on events in Mr. Obama’s life history that probably cost him his American citizenship. If Mr. Obama proves he retained the status of natural born citizen, we will at least take comfort in knowing that we did not elect an ineligible anti-American communist; instead, we elected an eligible anti-American communist. Cold and clammy comfort, to be sure, but we take what solace we can.
Production of the Hawai’ian vital records and DNA samples will probably require official requests and possibly subpoenae. Will you and your Committee on Elections mount such an investigation? I would be glad to serve such an effort for expenses only.