Obama Birth Certificate – “Never Existed in Hawaii”

Tim Adams agreed to a telephone interview and we spoke on February 3, 2011.  Within the first couple of minutes of the interview I tossed my questions that I had formulated before speaking with him. Listen to your gut is sometimes hard advice to follow and this time I’m glad I listened to my instincts.

I think there was some apprehension as I spoke with Tim.  The saying that first initial impressions count and they do –I think Tim is a standup guy and I felt he’s a man with honest intentions not out to hurt anyone or to push some political bent. Our phone interview lasted approximately 59 minutes followed up by email.

Tim served in the US Army briefly for about two years and ended up in Korea working in the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). He held a Top Secret/Crypto clearance and was discharged from the Army after serving over 21 months on active duty. Tim has experienced a seasoned life pursuing an education using the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), scholarships and student loans for the past seven years.  Currently Tim has a graduate assistantship (GA) and a half tuition stipend allowing him to work and complete his education. Tim has worked while in school to keep his costs down and his debt manageable. He expects to graduate in May 2011, with a Masters Degree in English from Western Kentucky University.

My first email to Tim after the phone interview was to establish baseline credibility and then to determine what might the mainstream media (MSM) use to discredit Tim personally. Make no mistake my intentions are not to discredit Tim but to validate himself, his story and to understand whether or not his credibility fits within the goal of publishing this post in a series about Americans, who like Tim, have a truthful story to tell. Referring this as a test and it is not, but if it was, Tim passed with flying colors.

David Weigel, a blogger hired by the Washington Post wrote in Honolulu city clerk debunks new 'birther' theory, “The internal contradictions of Adams's story haven't stopped him from expanding his media presence this week, most recently with a local TV interview in which he repeated his claims (some of them based on popular "birther" rumors from the Web) while, confusingly, stating that he didn't think Obama's eligibility was an issue.” Weigel resigned shortly after the article and “leaked online messages showed him disparaging some Republicans and commentators in highly personal terms.”  Weigel did not interview Tim Adams nor did he offer Adams an opportunity to respond to his claim about “internal contradictions.” My view is the “internal contradictions” Weigel wrote of is the internal struggle visible while watching and listening to the audio and videos of Tim Adams. I don’t feel that Tim is seeking harm or discourse but just trying to do the right thing.  It’s my opinion and at least I did interview Tim Adams unlike Weigel.

Read: What are the qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate?

The above reference Memorandum dated April 3, 2009 gives on pause after reading the second paragraph (with my label):

Hole #1

Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.

The Memorandum also states (with my label):

Hole #2

The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms for ballot placement and ballot access.

On page 3 of the Memorandum (with my label):

Hole #3

With respect to presidential candidates, this political process includes running the gauntlet of numerous political party primaries, caucuses, or conventions in the states; being the subject of intense “opposition research” by political opponents in one’s own party in the nomination process, and by the opposition party in the general election campaign, scrutiny in the primaries and the general election by an independent press; and the necessity of convincing the majority of voters in enough states of one’s abilities as well as qualifications. For candidates of major political parties, there is an inherent self-interest of the party to thoroughly “vet” a candidate to whom it is considering giving its nomination so that the party will not waste opportunity and time, and deplete resources, on a candidate who in not eligible for office.

Then immediately following (with my label):

Hole #4

Finally concerning official oversight of “eligibility,” it may be noted that the issue of qualifications of elected federal officials might be considered to have been delegated, at least in part, to one of the political branches of government, that is, the United States Congress. With respect to the qualifications for Congress, for example, each house of Congress is expressly granted within the Constitution the specific authority to “be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”  This authority has been described by the Supreme Court as “an unconditional and final judgment” over the seating of its own Members, which is not reviewable by the courts because it is a “non-justiciable political question.”

Later in the Memorandum, It appears from the record that no Member of the House or of the Senate of the 111^th Congress, in joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral vote, raised or forwarded any objection to the electoral votes of (then) President-elect Obama on the grounds of qualifications, or otherwise.

In summary of the Holes within our system:

Hole #1 – Congressional Research Service (author) Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney (American Law Division) states candidates for President are not held accountable to the U.S. Constitutions requirement to hold that office to produce an original birth certificate or a certified copy of the record of live birth.

Hole #2 – Infers that the States and the District of Columbia are responsible for federal elections and the administration of them.

Hole #3 – The political process is presumably “vetting” candidates as is an “independent press” and then the acceptance of the voters as qualified.

Hole #4 –It is up to Congress to be the final and authoritative Judge not review able by the courts since it is a “non-justiciable political question.”

According to Professor Evan Tse Lee of UC Hastings College of Law, "Nonjusticiable political questions" is redundant; what Court means is "nonjusticiable on account of being a political question." Then according to Professor Karl Manheim, “A political question is an issue, even a Constitutional one, which the Court feels is best resolved by one of the other branches of government may denied judicial review under the Political Question Doctrine. These issues are generally political in nature, and the court feels that the political system of accountability is the best mechanism to resolve the issues, as opposed to a mandate from the courts. Often, these issues are either given wholly to another branch of government in the Constitution, or there is a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving it, or for a number of other reasons.  See Baker v. Carr, 396 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). These principals have been applied in such areas as the republican form of government clause in Article IV, §4, foreign relations, and Congress' control of its own internal processes.

According to CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) (Protect Our Liberty) and Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al: “The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It theoretically works for the Congressional Committees, which means IT WORKS FOR THE PARTY THAT CONTROLS CONGRESS (in this case the Progressive controlled Democratic Party). Every report they issue (on the request of COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN who want them), it slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisans. 90% of them on this project are liberal. They are the lawyers the White House used to research their legal position in the fight to kill the Citizens United lawsuit when they fought McCain Feingold.”

The legislative lawyers working in the Congressional Research Service were: 


• L. Paige Whitaker

 
• Erika K. Lunder

 
• Kate M. Manuel

 
• Jack Maskell

 
• Michael V. Seitzinge

The Key Questions

• Why was the Congressional Research Service report intentionally withheld from the American public from April 2009 until it was uncovered and published in a Blog by Mario Apuzzo in November 2010?
• Is Obama eligible to serve as U.S. President?
• Is the seating of Obama as President of the United States a criminal, impeachable or treasonous act?
• Did Obama or the Democratic National Convention break any law in his candidacy pursuit of President of the United States?
• Do the States including the District of Columbia fail to uphold the U.S. Constitutional requirements for candidates seeking office for the House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency?
• Does our present system enforce the U.S. Constitutional requirements for federal candidates seeking office for the House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency?
• How can the American public hold accountable State and Federal government that seemingly fails to uphold the U.S. Constitution?
• What recourse does the American public have against an apparent massive government breakdown?
• Can the American public trust the scrutiny of the “independent press?”
• What can be done to prevent an apparent hijacking of power as is noted between the Congressional Research Service and the party that controls Congress?

Getting back to my interview with Tim Adams, I said, “Tim –I want to take you back in time to Hawaii.” Tim worked as a Senior Elections Clerk and the controversy over the election came up in September of that year (2008). While working in that position Tim said, “the joke went around the office we had a ghost because we’d come in –in the mornings and documents that were supposed to be secure were gone. Then they’d turn up in other places.” Tim also stated that, “10 really sensitive documents are still missing.”

Tim was responsible to verify the identification of people on the ballot. Tim stated, “they had no record” (for Obama) and “there just isn’t one.” Tim called both hospitals in an attempt to locate Obama records and both hospitals stated, “There is no record.” As previously reported by WorldNetDaily, and in Tim’s notarized and sworn statement, “Neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.” The other option was Tripler Army Medical Center and other hospitals.

Tim said, “I think it’s kind of arrogant that President Obama doesn’t have to answer to the American people.” While the mainstream media fails to report on this, other Blogs and independent media outlets have. It appears that the Supreme Court of the United States refuses to hear and comment on this because of it is “nonjusticiable on account of being a political question.” Congress or the Senate hasn’t acted past or present in vetting Obama and then the States including the District of Columbia haven’t concerned themselves with upholding the Constitutional qualifications of federal candidates seeking office. The “independent media” being mainstream media are closely owned by a few and there was no fair discernment to Obama’s eligibility let alone an open vetting process to settle these long contested and egregious claims against the President of the United States. It appears Tim, that everyone is pointing the finger to everyone else and no one is listening or acting in the best interests for the people of the United States. Go figure.

Why Tim?

I read about Tim’s background and after speaking with him I knew we both had similar beginnings. We are both veterans, working and in school (I’m done) and taking what I call the hard road to success. Thank you Tim for your time, openness and honesty.

READER OPPORTUNITY

What questions do you have for me, or Tim Adams?

Who do you think is a good candidate for First American?