Loyal To LibertyBeta

According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?

Her new and more substantive statement comes in the context of passage by the US Congress of a unanimous resolution commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Hawaii's admission as a state of the United States which declares "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961…." Sadly, this Congressional action only serves as further proof that all the members of Congress from both parties now irresponsibility vote to affirm what they have never read.

This flurry of activity is meant to distract public attention from the palpable contradictions that have emerged in the cover story the Obama faction has used on account of his unwillingness to produce a birth record that actually contains the information needed to lay the controversy to rest. Until recently no one in the manipulated media has been willing to address this failure factually. Despite this repression, more and more people have become aware of the fact that the "certification of live birth" published on the internet during the Presidential campaign last fall did not establish Obama's eligibility for two reasons: a) such certifications were issued at the time to people not born on US soil. Therefore, the published document did nothing to overcome the objection (raised because of the testimony of Obama's African relatives) that he was born in Kenya at a time when his mother, who was married to a foreign national, was not of age to transmit US citizenship; and b) the internet published certification contained no details as to the hospital at which the birth took place, or the doctor who delivered the child, details that could be used to establish what must otherwise be treated as uncorroborated testimony.

Given the lack of such details, the fact that at various times the media and elements of the Obama faction made conflicting statements about the hospital of his birth (was it Queens Medical Center, or Kapiolani?), further aggravated the need to substantiate the true facts.

Then Lou Dobbs acknowledged on his CNN program that there is a factual doubt about Obama's birth that has not been addressed. In response CNN president Jon Klein reportedly claimed in an e-mail that "CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, Klein said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists. A computer generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on the Internet is the official record."

But Hawaiian officials rebutted this story. "I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records….Any records we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital records that we have."

This Hawaii official flatly declared that the Obama's actual long-form birth certificate is in the possession of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii Health Director Fukino now belatedly declares that it contains the information needed to lay the eligibility question to rest once and for all. The AP story now disingenuously admits that the Constitution's eligibility provisions are "a key constitutional requirement for being president." So with respect to this key requirement, why are the American people being asked to accept less than the best evidence available? All along people like me have simply asked that the facts be fairly proven so as to preserve the integrity of the Constitution's authority. In this regard the issue is not whether Obama remains in office or is declared ineligible to serve, but whether the issue is resolved in accordance with the Constitution's provisions.

Sadly, pundits like Ann Coulter have unfairly characterized this simple concern for Constitutional integrity as some kind of "conspiracy theory." Actually, it's just a refusal to declare a fact not in evidence. There was a time when good journalists, like good lawyers, refused to be manipulated into doing so. A fair and proper hearing requires that evidence be produced and subjected to careful examination (by experts if need be.) It requires that witnesses be confronted and cross examined. Though the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency involves the integrity of the Supreme law of the land (not to mention the right to occupy the key governmental office it establishes), there has been no such fair and proper hearing to ascertain the facts and make clear the principles on which it can be decided. This failure is not so much a conspiracy as a massive dereliction of duty on the part of officials oath bound to preserve the Constitution of the United States. How can we be satisfied until such a hearing takes place, openly televised, with both sides to the controversy fairly represented and fairly treated? Only then will the American people have reason to be confident that the conclusion reached is based on carefully gathering and fairly examining all the available evidence.

Such a hearing would exemplify the solemn respect we ought to have for our Constitution. It would therefore serve the common good of our nation. But it would not serve the unbounded ambition of the Obama faction, or comfort the reprehensible cowardice of their supposed opponents. If we wait upon them to serve fairness, truth and constitutional integrity, we may as well whistle for a wind.