From the readers and supporters
Of The Daily Pen
Dear Mr. Issa,
Of course, you know the challenging economic conditions in America are unprecedented. Certainly, we shall engage a national debate with our Democratic counterparts as to the causes of these conditions and argue over legislation intended to improve matters.
However, we have come to the conclusion that, until some fundamental questions are answered to the satisfaction of the American electorate, these debates have little meaning as to their purposed intent. Simply, under the guise of establishing legitimacy, no argument over policy can take place until it is established that the policy itself is even validly submitted for review. Rule-makers must have the authority and legal right to make rules.
As a fellow conservative, we agree about many things. However, we may have a fundamental, and a very significant ideological disparity with regard to the issue of upholding national sovereignty and, thereby, holding our executive leadership to a standard worthy of that sovereignty. I am confident we agree in the preeminent importance of America's right to sovereign governance established by the standard of legitimacy for officials appointed to that governance, and that the legitimacy of any official is prescribed by the mandates of the Constitution of the U.S.
As you know, the office of the president is not only representative of executive powers. The individual holding this office bears command over our military and, therefore, holds great responsibility to ensure the security of the American people. As such, it is essential that members of our military are afforded the opportunity to serve their duty with the fullest possible confidence in the command structure which begins with the President of the United States.
Undoubtedly, you have been provided with information regarding the questions by a majority of Americans about Barack Obama's eligibility to uphold this standard of sovereignty given his lack of vettable biographical information.
Many have said, "Let there be no declaration about his eligibility because we lack the information necessary for such a declaration."
Others have said, "We have adequate documentation by adequate authority to conclude his eligibility."
Still others proclaim, "By default, without standard proof, he is ineligible."
Our cause, however, has followed a different course. We believe there are more questions than answers to the eligibility equation of Barack Obama. We proceed to resolve this matter with logic and reason, without respect for any individual's party affiliation, ideology or social position. We seek the truth, not preconceptions.
For more than three years, we have engaged research to study the factual metrics of Barack Obama's biographical history in an effort to clarify his highest available level of eligibility to serve as president as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution and federal judicial and administrative authority.
As you know, much conjecture and erroneous information has circulated the media and internet regarding this subject. Rather than rely on the testimony of politically biased sources and financially corrupted media, we engaged a world-wide investigation taking us to Hawaii, Africa, Australia, Europe, Great Britain and the pacific northwest U.S.
We are confident that our conclusions are based on sound scientific investigation and are an accurate review of available evidence. As such, we have concluded the following:
A. The Obama administration has failed to provide adequate, federally approved documentation required to determine that his eligibility to hold the office the presidency is conclusive. As long as this matter remains ambiguous, the office of the president remains vulnerable to influence and external leverage.
B. Based on the guidelines and rules set forth in the "1961 U.S. Report on Vital Statistics: Volume 1", which is a federal publication most relevant to the alleged birth date of Obama and created in close collaboration with the National Conference on Vital Records & Statistics, Barack Obama has failed to provide federally approved documentation of his natal history which would provide a full roster of metrics describing his natural-born status.
C. In 2008, an erroneous image of an independently published, state-level, municipal, "surrogate" document bearing the header title, "Certification of Live Birth", attesting to Obama's Hawaiian natal metrics suddenly appeared on the internet. This image was posted in lieu of the official paper version of a 1961 U.S. "Certificate of Live Birth" issued to natural-born citizens of the U.S.
D. The U.S. "Certificate of Live Birth" is a vital record template document issued for native births in the U.S. since the late 1890's. Its form and content has its origins in specifications set by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division and was employed for the two primary purposes of improving census accuracy and improving the Natality Report data for births in the U.S. during the era of immigration from 1850 through 1911. In the decades since, the standard "Certificate of Live Birth" has undergone revisions which enable the U.S. and state governments the opportunity to record the most complete natal information for births as possible. At no time in the 110 year history of the document has it ever undergone a reduction in data provision. Barack Obama has refused to provide his "Certificate of Live Birth" as proof that he is a natural born citizen of the U.S.
E. A natural-born citizen is one who is a.) born in a geographical location served under the protections of the U.S. Constitution and is b.) born to two U.S. citizen parents not owing allegiance or duty to any other foreign power or interests.
F. "Natural born" indicates that one is a citizen by no other means than those determined by biological, geographic and demographic nature. A natural-born citizen is one without need for any legal or administrative process to be considered a citizen from birth, solely and only, of the United States. Dual or naturalized citizens are not Natural-born citizens. Citizens of one or both parents who lack U.S. citizenship are not Natural-born citizens. Since we know that Barack Obama's alleged father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. citizen, there is substantial propriety for the argument that Obama is not a Natural born citizen.
G. These definitives have legal precedence in previous judicial decisions and in the intentioned purposes written by our founders that the President be a natural-born citizen for the purpose of upholding presidential sovereignty without owing allegiance to any foreign power or interests. It was determined that a geographic location serving under the protection of the U.S. Constitution was necessary for concluding Natural born status in order to, not only, protect the physical well-being and legal rights of the birth subject, but also protect the legal rights and welfare of the witnesses present at the birth. Otherwise, the geographical location under foreign jurisdiction mandated the doctor was not liable to American jurisdictions in cases of malpractice or criminal action when delivering a native, American child.
H. Therefore, there is no other document available, to date, which can be used to affirm one’s federally defined, natural-born identity and thereby, confirm one’s eligibility to serve the federal office of the President of the U.S. The U.S., standard “Certificate of Live Birth” is the only document with authority to affirm the most complete natural-born status of an individual as possible because it contains seven vital pieces of information which endow natural-born status to the bearer. They are:
1.) It contains the geographic location of the birth subject associated with the name and address of a specific regional location or attested location.
2.) It contains the birth place, residence, citizenship and nationality of the parents of the birth subject.
3.) It contains the birth date of the birth subject.
4.) It contains the minimum federal standard of 40 data entry spaces available for the input of information about the birth.
5.) It contains the signature of a federally recognized, state registered medical professional qualified to determine the biological characteristics of a “live birth” under the legal definitions set forth by state and federal statutes.
6.) It is signed by witnesses to the vital event or declarations thereof.
7.) It contains a seal of the state authority overseeing the municipal agency assigned to record, file, verify and report the information from the vital record to federal authorities.
I. Also, based on the specifications prescribed by the U.S. Report on Vital Statistics, we have determined the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has gone astray of the federal reporting standards for vital statistics by creating a fallow version of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" now used to record births for its residents. Prior to 2010, this Hawaiian cover document contained the header-title of "Certification of Live Birth" which was the title of the document image alleged by Obama supporters to have been issued by the state of Hawaii to Obama. By changing the header title of its independently published short-form document to match the federal (long-form) template, it has now become necessary for us to refer to it as a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth because it does not meet the content standards of the federal version. The state of Hawaii intentionally altered the header-title of the "Certification of Live Birth", now commonly associated with Obama, to match the federal version of a "Certificate of Live Birth" so it can further obscure the identity of the documentation process and its content in the minds of the American public. This was done in order to allow the employees of the State of Hawaii to refer to a "Certificate of Live Birth" as the short-form document available for Obama, which is the same title of the long-form version also called a Certificate of Live Birth, but which is void of any information about Natural-born status. The identity of this document was also intentionally altered by the State of Hawaii in the event there are ever legal investigations into the matter of Obama's eligibility. This will allow the State of Hawaii to deny knowledge of Obama's federal vital records while testifying to the legal jurisdiction of a Hawaiian document. Based on these facts, we have concluded the state of Hawaii has engaged a premeditated effort to conceal, abet and obscure information about Barack Obama's vital records in order to promote his covert ascendance to the office of the Presidency.
J. The State of Hawaii refused to acknowledge or provide documentation that it had issued a "Certification of Live Birth" to Barack Obama. No official working for the State of Hawaii has ever testified to having created or issued this document for Barack Obama. In fact, the only verifiable testimony regarding the status of Obama's vital records has come from Timothy Adams, a former Senior Elections Supervisor with the Hawaiian Elections Commission, and registered Democrat, who had access to the 2008 Presidential candidates' vital records. In July, 2010, Mr. Adams stated that the State of Hawaii does not possess an official, original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama and therefore he cannot possibly be a Natural-born citizen.
K. Birth announcements are published in Hawaiian newspapers based only on information provided by the Hawaiian Department of Health weekly "Birth Lists" created from birth registration information, not medical attestment of birth locations. Birth announcements do not contain birth location. They contain default marital status of the parents as being married regardless of actual status. In Obama's case, they occur in the two major newspapers of Hawaii in the same order, same context and same dates based on registration numbers assigned through the respective regional vital statistics offices. This indicates that the birth announcement information comes from the same source in the same order at the same time. There are four regional vital statistics offices in the state of Hawaii.
Based on the absence of these metrics about Barack Obama, we must conclude that his status as a Natural-born citizen remains ambiguous and inconclusive. Unfortunately, it is unnacceptable that these questions remain unanswered in light of his current propriety and influence. Therefore, due to the lack of this standard, federally approved documentation, we are unable to verify and endow Barack Obama with full propriety to his office. We have concluded that we simply do not have the evidence required to be confident in the identity he represents. We, therefore, must consider his legitimacy to be, at least, in question. At most, he is ineligible. However, what is certain is that we are forbidden from knowing, with full confidence, that he is eligible to be President of the United States.
Upon concluding our extensive research about this matter, we are writing you with this caution; As long as these questions about the sovereignty and eligibility of the identity of the individual inhabiting the office of the presidency remain unanswered, we, as the citizens of the U.S. are unable to endow the fullest possible legitimacy and legal confirmation to his elected status.
This lack of our fullest possible strength, due to unnecessary administrative failures, leaves us with two dire consequences. First, we are vulnerable to foreign influences and social pathologies because the identity of our leadership has not been verified in concert with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Second, and most tragic, the blood ransom paid for American freedom throughout history is now diminished in the absence of a fully honorable representative bearing command jurisdiction over military structure, whose members sacrifice themselves for that very freedom and right to serve securely under sovereign leadership, preeminently. This is a massive crisis of unprecedented proportions. In this, we are all injured by its affect in diminishing the structure of national security.
The current failure of our government to act with dutiful urgency in enforcing these standards of eligibility, and thereby, suffering the consequential failure to conduct a thorough review of an individual in meeting this standard, have compromised the confidence of the American electorate and placed undue vulnerabilities against the Constitutional sovereignty of our leadership, our borders and our national social structure.
This is not a party-specific matter. This is a dangerous divergence from a standard of sovereignty our founders established long, long ago. Have we lost our understanding of this importance? If so, we have lost our right to self-governance.
You have stated, "Mine is not the committee that asks where the president was born. It doesn't ask what ministers that which we want to think. All that stuff is a distraction. I'm not the overseer of the president."
Quite frankly, your statement is shockingly shortsighted and we completely disagree with it. Your committee is indeed an exact measure of the authority against any executive lapse in administrative procedure, especially, lapses leading to a failure in Constitutional indemnity. Suffer this one essential cause, sir. Your committee is the overseer of the executive branch in such matters, wholly and completely.
We would humbly ask that you employ the responsibility of your current office to weigh these matters more seriously and with an attitude to merely determine ramifications on the welfare of the Constitution. Your previous comments regarding your perceived lack of responsibility in determining the "legitimacy" of a particular individual are utterly irrelevant to this cause.
This matter is not to be considered with respect for party or individual. It is to be taken in your conscientious regard for the blood-ransomed freedom under which we now reside...lest we fall to fatal plurality and complete loss of provenance.
Certainly, you are aware a highly decorated, respected officer with more than two decades of unblemished service was recently convicted of crimes related to actions he was compelled by duty and conscience to commit in seeking the truth about the integrity of his chain of command.
Dr. Terry Lakin is an unprecedented icon of American hope and courage against these frightening ambiguities and exploitations. Please think of his selflessness in your considerations. His trial was simply a foul and detestable demonstration of misconceived adjudication against his nobility and legal duty to disobey orders from an authority he has determined, in his capacity as an officer, to be acting without qualification or in subversion of the U.S. Constitution .
Lakin's sentence is a travesty against his profession not for any assessment against his violations, but for the deprivation of his rights to obtain proper defense on his own behalf. Simply put, the imprisonment of this man, without a doubt, shall indicate the beginning of the end of our fathers' nation. A course change toward ruination, indeed.
Overall, please reconsider your thoughts on this matter for the sake of America's identity, rather than the identity of any one citizen.