If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
FAILURE FOR THREE MONTHS TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR “VERIFIABLE INFORMATION” MEANS ONLY ONE THING
Legal analysis by John Charlton
(Feb. 11, 2010) — After nearly three months waiting for a response to his letter, U.S. Representative for Georgia, Nathan Deal, has yet to receive any reliable information from Barack Hussein Obama regarding the latter’s citizenship status.
The non-response can mean only one thing: there is no reliable information!
Carl Swensson recently interviewed the U.S. Representative on video, during which time Deal affirmed that he believe his request was reasonable and that it demanded a response. Deal had originally announced on Nov. 5th that he would seek such information as the release of Obama’s birth certificate. The Post & Email editorialized on this letter on Dec. 5th.
Deal’s interest in the requirements for obtaining citizenship at birth for children of foreigners is not something recent. In 2007 he signed on as a co-sponsor to a bill which would end the “anchor-baby” loop-hole in current immigration law, which allows any child born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, to claim U.S. citizenship. Deal proposed that at least one parent had to be a citizen.
For those who believe Obama’s undocumented claim to be born in Hawaii, even that is insufficient, if proven true, to silence his critics, and this for two reasons.
Obama has claimed a foreigner as his legal father; and his claim to Hawaiian birth appears not to have prima facie evidentiary value (that is, one which would be assumed to be true at first sight).
While it is true that all those born in Hawaii are accorded U.S. Citizenship status at birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. 12, § 1405, the State of Hawaii does not claim to authenticate the information on birth records issued by their Department of Health, but remands such verification to the court to which the document might be submitted as evidence (cf. H.R.S. 338-17).
And there is the rub.
While some, such as Jack Cashill and other concerned citizens, have speculated extensively on Obama’s actual parentage, this seems an unlikely possibility, for surely if Obama could claim all the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court definition of a “natural born citizen,” he would present the evidence posthaste.
Nor is it likely that Dr. Chiyome Fukino has lied about the “existence” of original vital records in the possession of the Hawaii Department of Health, even if her interpretation of what she saw is suspect, as long as her department refuses to disclose the originals.
It’s the evidentiary value of what she alleges to have seen. If the original filing was amended within the first month so as to change the name of the father or place of birth, there would be major problems for Obama in disclosing the originals: major problems because the information currently accepted by the State of Hawaii might have no evidentiary value whatsoever, beyond the bald, undocumented claim of whomsoever petitioned for the change.
If Obama’s alleged COLB, released by his campaign, was sought from Hawaii in 2007, it could also be that Obama himself petitioned a change on the document as early as that. Furthermore, his rather bizarre visit to Hawaii just days before the Presidential Election in 2008 seems to coincide more with regularizing the details of his candidacy than any interest in visiting his allegedly sick grandmother, who died apparently from the shock of their encounter just days afterwards.
This has led to speculation that Obama visited her to obtain an affidavit in support of his petition to amend his place of birth or his parentage on his original Birth Certificate. In fact, Dr. Fukino’s original statement that her department has such on file was made just days after Obama’s visit to Honolulu in October 2008.
It seems more likely, thus, that Obama’s lawyers are forestalling disclosure, and that his political stormtroopers are thrashing at any who question this non-disclosure simply because the evidentiary value of whatever documents might exist in Hawaii are the crux of the issue.
And that is, I believe, why Obama won’t answer Nathan Deal’s letter requesting reliable information.
Because there just ain’t any! — In this, Obama’s silence drowns out all the growling protests and criticisms of his supporters, who try to make it impossible to hear him say, nothing.
If only one reporter in the White House Press Corps would ask this question, we might get to the bottom of this mystery:
“Does the President have an original vital record, of prima facie evidentiary value, establishing his claim to be eligible to hold that office?”
And Obama, I repeat what I said back in October: your goose is now double-cooked!
Show ’em or fold, man!