This is what the state of Hawaii issues when a child is born in the state of Hawaii:
As should be readily apparent, the Certification (which Obama supplied) and the Certificate (which Obama has thus far refused to release) are very different documents. The Certification of Live Birth—also called a "short form"—contains limited information and is typically printed when an individual makes a requests it.It is not jumping to conclusions or smearing Mr. Obama to ask for proof that he is eligible to serve in the office to which he was elected. I personally don't care if he serves as President (we will survive, I'm sure), as long as he is legally eligible to serve. If he is not legally eligible and is inaugurated on January 20, the Constitutional crisis that follows will dwarf anything this country has faced in its 232 year history.
The Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth—on the other hand—contains information that can be easily and readily investigated—information that could immediately answer one of the main questions surrounding Obama's constitutional eligibility.
We would know the name of the hospital or facility (we presently do not), where Obama was born and the name of the attending physician or midwife. Following-up on that kind of clear-cut information could put the controversy to rest.
Then again, changes to the original certificate would also be apparent. And, if that were the case, it could be a problem for Obama. Reasonable people would first ask WHY changes were made and IF the changes were legitimate.
Discrepancies between an individual's original birth certificate and the certification of live birth could exist for a variety of reasons—legitimate, erroneous or even fraudulent.
If President-elect Obama is unwilling or unable to prove that he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States then every action he takes as President is open to legal challenge.--From WorldNet Daily and the United States Justice Foundation
Your comments?
Joe
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment