Most people consider a birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a hospital and physician, or midwife, with a footprint or other unique identifiers.  But the Obama campaign and today, the White House, refuses to allow Hawaii’s Department of Health to release his original birth certificate. 

Yet another military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, has publicly questioned whether the Commander-in-Chief is legal or not, and faces imminent court-martial for refusing to obey military orders until assured of the President’s Constitutional eligibility.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, “mainstream” media confused the public over whether Obama ever released any real proof of his claim to being born in Hawaii. The confusion continues. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on February 20, 2009 that “The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” 

But Alter lied, since “the Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”  Remarkably, no hospital in Hawaii yet lays definitive claim to be the birthplace of the sitting President.

On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim dissembled when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no statement by a doctor or midwife and no reference to any hospital. There is no probative evidence on this Certification that can be verified to see whether it is valid. There were no computer-generated COLBs in 1961, Obama’s birth year. 

Obama’s original birth certificate (whether filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from this COLB on FactCheck.org. that Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Alter, and Olbermann waved around to try to quash the discussion.  On the FactCheck.org website, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” They only saw and touched the COLB. So FactCheck.org lied about this as well.

Why would Factcheck.org tell so obvious a lie and endanger the site’s reputation?  In August 21, 2008, when questions about the COLB began to reach critical mass and threatened to enter the public discourse, the mostly pro-Obama TV and newspaper/magazine media needed cover for their collective decision to ignore questions about whether Obama met qualifications for the Presidency set forth in Article II Section I of the Constitution. After Labor Day, swing voters would begin to pay attention to the campaign. With its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate,” FactCheck.org helped stifle the birth certificate debate.

Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by only one of Obama’s parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or grandparents, would be enough to set up a birth record at the Department of Vital Statistics. This meager birth record would then automatically generate newspaper announcements, and also, a computer-generated COLB in 2008. When juxtaposed with statements by Obama’s maternal grandmother, Kenya’s Ambassador to the U.S, and now a Kenyan cabinet minister and Parliamentarian, that Obama was born in Kenya, calls for Obama to release his original birth certificate are wholly justified. 

If Obama continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate, a reasonable person might assume he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital or at home with assistance of a doctor or midwife. This is especially true because if Obama was born in a foreign land, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it, given the prestige and benefits of American citizenship. 

In 1961, if a 17-year-old American female gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not a U.S. citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. In 1961, the year of Obama’s birth, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to her son.

If at birth, Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, he cannot be “natural-born.” If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the Presidency. 

LTC Lakin and other patriotic military officers should not face punishment or retribution for adhering to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and for seeking the truth about the President’s Constitutional eligibility.

*Mrs. Hemenway is a friend of LTC Lakin.  Her father-in-law filed one of the early eligibility lawsuits in federal court.  

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author