Dear Rep. Inslee:
Recently one of your constituents shared a letter he received from you in response to his concerns over Barack Obama’s continued evasions to prove he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
I must say I was surprised and rather disturbed to see you cite my news organization’s work as evidence of your belief that Obama has fulfilled his obligations to the Constitution and that you have fulfilled yours.
This letter is to serve notice on you that you have been completely misinformed about what my news organization has reported, what it believes and what it has found in investigating this matter aggressively over the last year.
You write, in a June 30, 2009, letter to a constituent: “As you may know, President Obama has indeed provided his actual paper Certification of Live Birth to several media organizations, as well as the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan ‘Factcheck.org’ website and the conservative news website WorldNetDaily, which reported that a ‘WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.’ In fact, all of these groups have recognized that the President’s actual birth certificate document is real and genuine.”
First of all, sir, I’m gravely disappointed in you as a constitutional officer if you would take the word of any news organization or other group on a matter of such grave constitutional sensitivity as the eligibility of the president of the United States. The Congress held hearings to determine the eligibility of Sen. John McCain to serve as president. Why did you deem it appropriate to give a pass to Sen. Obama?
Are you not aware that the only living person in the world claiming to be present at his birth swears it took place in Mombasa, Kenya? Are you aware that no U.S. hospital claims his birth? Are you aware that the document you claim as persuasive, which you have never seen with your own eyes, was a Hawaiian document frequently issued for foreign births, requiring no physician signature, no midwife signature, no witness signature and no independent or government validation whatsoever?
Yes, it is true that I do not believe that document to be a forgery and WND has reported that. But that “certification of live birth” proves nothing about Obama’s eligibility, because it was issued for births that took place outside the country.
By the way, a paper copy of this document was never offered to WND, as you insist. We haven’t even asked for it because it proves nothing about Obama’s eligibility any more than a copy of his driver’s license or Social Security card would.
Then you go on to tell a bigger whopper!
“Furthermore, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Oct. 31, 2008, that, based on a review of the long-form birth records which the state has on file, Obama was born in Honolulu and that he is therefore eligible to hold the office of President,” you wrote.
Actually, that is a complete misrepresentation of what Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in his press release of that date.
He made no mention of any “long-form birth records.”
He made no assurance Obama was born in Honolulu or Hawaii.
And he made no determination as to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency. That’s not his job. That is the job of 50 secretaries of state and other election officials, the Federal Elections Commission, the Congress of the United States, the Electoral College and any other constitutional official with a conscience.
Here’s what he actually reported: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”
In other words, the Congress could have subpoenaed that record, because the Congress has a “tangible interest” in observing and enforcing the Constitution.
I truly hope, sir, you do a more thorough job of investigating legislation in the House of Representatives before voting on it than you have done with this most critical public issue.