Key Arguments – Talking Points

1. The government agencies that should be assuring the veracity of our electoral process have failed to do so in regards to an outstanding question of Mr. Obama’s Citizenship.
• The FEC has not responded to petitioners requests for an evaluation and certification of Mr. Obama’s claim to being a “natural born citizen.”
• The WA State Secretary of States office has not responded to petitioners requests for an evaluation and certification of Mr. Obama’s claim to being a Native born Citizen.
• FOI requests to Hawaii Department of Health for a certified copy of his birth certificate or hospital birthing records have gone unheeded.

2. Demands for access to or certified copies of those salient documents in a Federal court case were rejected in court arguments by Mr. Obama. Rather than diffuse the question by delivering the documents, he instead argued for dismissal based on “standing” or “right to know”. This stalling and obfuscation only adds weight to the speculation that he does not posses the documents that would prove status as a “natural born citizen” as the constitution demands of a presidential candidate.

3. The Secretary of State is responsible for executing an election process that lends confidence to the veracity and fairness of the process and the ballot. While there are specific statutory responsibilities, this general responsibility is established by the constitution and is overarching.
• This involves verifying the status of voters through a proper verifiable registration process, certifying the candidates and the tally.
• His office is responsible for the ballots themselves. Even though we have some federal candidates listed on the ballot, it is not a federal ballot, but a state ballot executed under the secretary of States prevue and sanction.

4. The presidential office is unique in that we do not vote specifically for the president in a nation wide plebiscite, rather we vote to send state representatives called electors pledged for a particular presidential candidate. The WA State Secretary of State is clearly responsible for the state electors and by extension the name on the ballot they are pledged to represent.
• The electors, depending on a particular states constitution, may be “winner take all, proportionally represented or even uncommitted altogether - on the honor system. This underscores the point that we are voting for state electors in a state election so that these state representatives can project the state i.e. regional power to the electoral college.

5. If we waited for “after the election” to challenge a candidate’s basic qualifications in court rather than ahead of time in an orderly manner through application which demands minimal documentation by the candidates or at least in the case of particular candidates that have been challenged by citizen complains, such an after the fact challenge would most certainly create a constitutional crisis an likely civil unrest. Which civil unrest would be due to wholesale loss of confidence in the veracity of the electoral process. In particular the FEC and the respective Offices of the States Secretaries of State would be impugned for their dereliction of their constitutional duties, which duties are commonly expected by the people to be carried out transparently.