Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Hawaii's Cover Up.

The head of the Health and Human Services of Hawaii have now deemed that Obama's birth's certificate is indeed real. Good for them. Hoping that the birthers will now disappear, they're making this very same claim that they made 8 months ago. Like 8 months ago, it's going to do nothing to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii as claimed. The reason is simple. The certificate they're claiming is real isn't proof of the locale of his birth.

The certificate they're claiming is real I'm not going to dispute. I'm going assume that the certificate they're endorsing is indeed real. It's just simply isn't PROOF. The certificate is an announcement of live birth. You see, it's not proof of where nor when he was born. The facility is claiming that the man was born. Good, they've proven that Obama was born, something that wasn't even in dispute, and they're verifying it. However, proof of citizenship it isn't. I tried using mine when I applied for my passport which, obviously, requires proof of citizenship to obtain. To my disappointment, my certificate wasn't sufficient. I had to pay $15 to the county of Alemeda to go through the microfilm and find my actual documentation with all the details of where, when, whom, and by whom. Four weeks later I had my actual and long form proof of my citizenship and six weeks after that, I had my passport.

I find it interesting that what wasn't good enough to prove my own citizenship is good enough for Obama's. It wasn't good enough for me to get my passport but is good enough to qualify Obama for the Presidency. This again is making the man an exception to the rules that we all are required to follow. Birthers aren't the cooks that the media, no apologies to traitors like Coulter and O'Riley, makes them out to be. They're constitutionalists. Yes, they made claims about McCain's who was born on a military base in Panama, but by international laws, those bases are US soil, thus he qualified, end of story. He had his long form with the details, BO doesn't. They are just applying the constitution as stated in Article 2. The left, media, and those in government have viewed the constitution much as they view God's 10 commandments. They are the 10 suggestions or out and out wrong some have argued. Same with our constitution. They're just suggestions or out and out wrong. If you don't believe it, look at some of the rulings by Ginsburg, Scouter (good bye and good riddance) and Sotomayor. Frankly, this constitutional debate of the interpretation of powers, in this case the people to demand the enforcement of Article 2 and what does it mean to be natural born, isn't new. Teddy and Taft had a difference of options of the constitutional powers. Teddy though the executive branch had absolute powers only restrained by what was forbidden in the constitution while Taft thought the executive branch was only allowed the powers that were defined as being allowed in the constitution. And Taft was Teddy's VP, later becoming president.

This whole issue is over does Obama follow the definition of being born on US soil or not. One can still get a certificate of (live) birth in their home state, even though they're not actually born there. This is what the State has certified as being real. It doesn't prove that he was actually born in Hawaii. It would still allow Obama to be a US citizen if his parent of US citizenship is of legal age (which she wasn't at the time). Otherwise, this only proves that Obama was born to a US citizen. That's it. This determination does nothing to prove the legal fulfillment of the Article 2 provision. In fact, it doesn't even prove that he's even a US citizen because his mother was a minor, at the time, and his father was a British subject of the state of Kenya. If he was really born in Kenya, that would make him British and unqualified. In fact, it could make him an illegal alien. All of this could be resolved with a $20 long form which he refuses to do, has spend over a million dollars in suppressing and was the first executive order that nobody is ever to be given access to his long form or obtaining any information on getting his long form. Rather odd behavior if he's telling the truth and the media is accurate about his citizenship. After all, I'm all willing to pay a million to repress a $20 document to prove my citizenship. Perhaps I should had tried this with HSA when I applied for my passport. Somehow, though, I doubt I would had made my trip and would had drawn a great deal of unwanted attention. I don't understand why supporters of the president, that they claim is repairing the constitution that Bush ripped apart, criticize those that do likewise for BO. Talk about ripping the constitution to shreds. As far as I'm concern, Hawaii has proven nothing other than they're in his boat. If Hawaii wants to put this to rest, just pay the $20 for him or grant a waiver and just produce the form. However, this assumes something that's not in evidence and why this issue won't go away: that the long form exists in the first place.

To see if this issue is finally at rest, just watch over his reaction to those in the military that are refusing to follow his orders. This is a crime that's punishable by death if severe enough. Yet every one of those refusal has resulted in BO rescinding the order. Unheard of in military history. The argument that the military members are making is that since BO isn't legitimate, his orders are all illegal and thus aren't required to follow them. In fact, under the agreement that liberals beat us to death during Bush's terms, the Gevena Convention, our troops, if their claims are correct, are obeying illegal orders and thus won't be under the protections of the the Geneva Conventions (like it matters to those animals they're fighting). So they can cuts heads of our troops and civilians because we're under an illegitimate and illegal regime and it would be all legal under international law. That makes us the terrorists (which liberals all think of America anyways) and them the freedom fighters. So far, all challenges to BO's orders have resulted in rescinding which is unheard of in of itself. It does makes sense if the birthers are correct and he's covering his rear. If he is truly legit, then the court maritials would begin, but that will require him bringing the proof of his qualification under Article 2, his birth in the US, which still isn't available. I predict that the rescinding will continue.

Simply put, this doesn't prove, legally, anything and the challenges will continue. I find it interesting that such a cheap document is so vehemently being refused to be produced and the offender is obsequiously being protected. Never have I seen a refusal of doing so simple with the conviction and cover up on such a massive, and passionate, scale. Very odd behavior from a man that has nothing to hide. Not so strange from a man that has everything to lose.

2 comments:

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

You know, this may be the best "Birther" argument and post YET. I read a lot to put together mine, but this is much more succinct. I would like to post it on my blog in a day or two if you do not mind.

madmath1 said...

Be my guest. Emulation is the best form of flattery. Do note how Coulter and O'Riley, who I no longer consider as consitutionalist after there comments, made us out to be crazies or cooks, not constitutionalists. I don't pay attention to the wolves in sheeps clothing, but to protect this man who may be an illegal alien (O'Riley who claims to be libertarian, always protects illegal aliens claiming any actions against them is inhumane) usruping the constitution just made me sick.