One member of Congress believes there are enough votes in the House to impeach President Obama, but he says such an effort might damage the country because of the Democratic Party grip on the Senate.
A House impeachment vote would mean nothing without a conviction in the Senate, points out Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas.
He, like others in Congress, is back in his home district facing constituents.
Buzzfeed reported he responded Saturday to a question from a constituent at an open house.
The Constitution requires a president to be a natural-born citizen, which the Founders apparently defined as the offspring of two citizens of the nation. Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen.
The issue got so much attention during Obama’s first term that he presented a document he claimed was his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.
WND has reported that members of Congress are expressing interest in the dispute.
Farenthold said at the open house Saturday that it’s probably too late to address the matter.
“I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue,” said the congressman. “The original Congress, when his eligibility came up, should have looked into it, and they didn’t. I’m not sure how we fix it.”
Farenthold told the audience in Luling, Texas: “You tie into a question I get a lot: ‘If everyone’s so unhappy with what the president’s done, why don’t you impeach him?’ I’ll give you a real frank answer about that: If we were to impeach the president tomorrow, you could probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it. But it would go to the Senate and he wouldn’t be convicted.”
He cited the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who was not convicted by the Senate.
That episode, he said, “redefined sex” for a lot of young people.
“What message do we sent to America if we impeach Obama and he gets away with what he’s impeached for and he is found innocent? What then do we say is OK?” Farenthold asked.
Other members of Congress are commenting on the eligibility issue.
On Think Progress was a report that Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., thinks Obama may not be eligible for the office, but it’s too late to do anything about it.
Mullin told a town hall meeting: “We had the opportunity to get another president in there. … We had four years to take care of that. Our country’s facing some serious issues. If the rest of the American people thought that was a big enough issue which, I thought it probably would’ve been. Who would’ve thought we would ever actually be questioning if we had a natural-born president being president? Who would’ve ever thought that we’d actually be there? … So when I say we lost the argument, we lost that argument. Now let’s move on to some other issues. I believe it’s still there, but my God if we didn’t prove it the first four years, what do you think the chances are now?”
And At Salon, Florida Republican Ted Yoho said he’ll support legislation to investigate, even though he thinks it’s a “distraction.”
He said he will support a plan by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, to look into Obama’s birth certification.
“If it is true [that Obama is ineligible], it’s illegal, he shouldn’t be there and we can get rid of everything he’s done, and I said I agree with that.”
WND reported only a few weeks ago that Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for the Cold Case Posse in Arizona, said interest on Capitol Hill in the birth certificate issue in rising.
A contingent of citizens in Maricopa County had asked Arpaio to look into the issue in 2011 because they were concerned an ineligible candidate would be on their 2012 presidential election ballot.
Zullo previously has contributed evidence to a court case – now pending before the state Supreme Court in Alabama – on the dispute. He has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained earlier. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”
Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
See some of Zullo’s evidence:
Most recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes had said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.
Zullo also recently made a public presentation at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in St. Charles, Mo. He then held a closed-door session for police officers, elected officials and others.
Zullo also has shared his information with a radio talk show host:
He elicited audible gasps and shock when he showed evidence that Obama’s document is fraudulent.
The argument over Obama’s eligibility first was raised by Hillary Clinton’s campaign when she ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Zullo said Obama has raised further questions by refusing to release the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.
Christopher Monckton, who writes a column for WND, said Zullo’s sworn affidavit in the case provides much information, and a mathematical analysis demonstrates the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.
Monckton also noted the recalcitrant attitude on the part of authorities in Hawaii to the official law enforcement questions about the document’s validity. And he cited the fact that in 1961, state law permitted Hawaiian parents of children born anywhere in the world to register them as Hawaiian-born, a legalized backdoor to U.S. citizenship.