Dear Mr. President:

First, happy birthday. I do hope Aug. 4 is an enjoyable day for you and your family. Coincidentally, I also will be celebrating this week the birth of someone dear to me, my beloved wife, Gena, whose birthday is on Aug. 9.

Speaking of birthdays, I couldn’t help but hear and read all over the news last week about the fresh attention to your constitutional eligibility and natural born citizen status. I can hardly believe that individuals are now offering bounty – one for $100,000 – for any personal witness or sufficient evidence to your American birth.

For nearly two years, this debate continues to grow despite all your administration’s attempts to diffuse it. And those who are raising concerns aren’t just those on the right, but moderate law-abiding citizens like a retired CIA officer who commissioned an investigator to look into the issue.

Still, your press secretary, Robert Gibbs, continues to glibly brush aside the issue by calling it "fictional nonsense." But, in so doing, he devalues the grievance passage of the First Amendment and insults those who are genuinely concerned and inquisitive by categorizing them all as political quacks. He needs to learn that you can’t model tolerance for certain minorities while belittling and quarantining those who don’t blindly follow your lead.

Believe it or not, I’m not writing you to challenge whether you were born in America, though I see nothing wrong with the American public voicing that constitutionally based grievance with someone in your esteemed position. As one blogger wrote, after all, "We aren’t talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here." Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust but verify."

Personally, I must admit that I find it a bit of a groundless stretch not to believe in the birth announcements in two major Hawaiian newspapers in August of 1961, in which the Hawaiian Health Department would have been required to post information they received directly from hospitals: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." Nevertheless, that proof still doesn’t answer why you refuse to reveal your original birth certificate and end the growing tides of controversy.

I’m writing you because this is no longer a matter merely about proving a presidential prerequisite in the Constitution. Refusing to post a copy of your original birth certificate is an unwise political and leadership decision that is enabling the birther controversy. The nation you are called to lead is experiencing a growing swell of conspirators who are convinced that you are covering up something. So why not just prove them wrong and shut them up?

If the birther movement is truly full of a bunch of conspiracy-fringed kooks or "zombies," as the Los Angeles Times proclaims, then prove once and for all that you are a naturally born citizen by posting your original birth certificate. And all the controversy will fade away like the pains of childbirth.

I agree with CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who was chastised by his own media outlet for demanding the release of your original birth certificate. So why is that such a bad request? We certainly know why CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein thought it was a bad idea: because he previously declared that CNN researchers determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer existed.

But Hawaii’s officials confirmed again last week that they indeed have your original birth certificate on file. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaiian State Department of Health, repeated her October 2008 statement that she had personally seen with her own eyes the "original vital records."

Some claim that even you cannot see or request your own personal birth certificate, because Hawai’i's disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … "

But the law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record." (Italics mine)

Isn’t categorically satisfying constitutional requirements for a president, or answering the First Amendment grievances of hundreds of thousands of Americans, or ending a national debate or healing a country’s divisions enough "direct and tangible interest"?

Mr. President, as more and more people realize that you are refusing to release your original birth certificate, further questions will fuel the fires of debate or at least hinder the embers from ever being snuffed out. Questions like, "Does it really contain the Hawaiian physician’s name?" Or "Does it disclose something other than his birth place that he wishes others not to see?"

In fact, last week copies of the 1961 birth certificates from twin girls, who were born a day after you in the same Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, give examples of those typical of the time. They include much more information than certificates today, like the baby’s parents’ ages, occupations, birthplaces, race, etc., as well as specifics of the medical personnel presiding over the baby’s birth and the hospital in which he or she was born.

Of course not every U.S. citizen has access to their original birth certificate, but you do, and that’s the only one under debate. As valuable as copies can be, textual critics know that nothing outweighs an original, especially when only it contains the information under question.

So again I ask, why don’t you simply request, release and give permission to make public your original birth certificate?

Mr. President, you promised the American people that you are "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." In fact, on July 23 in your prime time press conference, you said that your administration was more transparent than those of previous presidencies: "I think that we have provided much greater transparency than existed prior to our administration coming in."

So again I ask, why not live out that transparency promise by posting your original birth certificate and end the division and debate?

Well, I have a birthday to plan, so I better get going.

Again, happy birthday Mr. President.

Yours truly,

Chuck Norris

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate — or lack of one.

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.

“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.

Campbell is not a “birther” and has never claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president.

On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama has never released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it.

But Matthews made a false claim. Obama has never released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, often provided by state authorities in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certificate of live birth.

Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."

Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate.

Case closed?

The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there.

Instead, his campaign has only released his certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

Obama could likewise put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certificate of live birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

Among the key documents that continue to be shielded from the public by Obama:

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.’"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grab” as president may have been his very first – being elected to the highest office in the land while steadfastly refusing to offer proof he is a “natural born citizen,” as required of all presidents by the U.S. Constitution.

That explosive story is the focus of the April 2009 edition of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine. It’s called “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president.”

This issue of Whistleblower “is not only the most complete and thorough exposé of the eligibility questions surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency,” says WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah, “it is an indictment of the process that put him in the White House Jan. 20 of this year.”

Although Article II section 1 of the Constitution clearly requires that all presidents be “natural born citizens,” the 2008 election proved, Farah points out, “that no controlling legal authority bothered to establish” that Obama was qualified for the Oval Office. “Everybody dropped the ball,” said Farah.

The biggest reason interest in the Obama eligibility issue continues to mount, with ever more legal actions being filed and more Americans demanding answers, says WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, is simple: “Barack Obama is hiding something. About that statement, there is no dispute. Despite dozens of lawsuits, with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, many legislators, active-duty U.S. military and other serious people, Obama simply refuses to release his original, long-form birth certificate. That’s the one that could actually prove he was born in Hawaii. What is posted on Obama’s ‘Stop the Smears’ website as well as the FactCheck.org website is the abbreviated short-form ‘certification of live birth’ that could have been issued for a child born overseas, and thus does not prove he was born in Hawaii. What is so difficult about this to understand?”

And while some of the many lawsuits challenging Obama on this issue have reached the eyes of U.S. Supreme Court justices, at least one former state Supreme Court chief justice – Alabama’s Roy Moore – now says the Obama eligibility issue should be adjudicated: “Why doesn’t the president have to show that he’s a natural born citizen? … We’ve had all kinds of suits filed, and the press doesn’t mention them and the courts continually reject them. … It’s troubling to me because we’ll suffer the consequences if we ignore our Constitution."

Highlights of “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE?” include:

• "The question of eligibility" by Joseph Farah
• "Why I care about the Obama eligibility issue" by David Kupelian
• "Why questions persist regarding Obama’s qualifications" by Bob Unruh, on why the president’s defenders never actually address the merits of eligibility challenges
• "The 20th Amendment: What if the president-elect fails to qualify?"
• "U.S. military officers demanding eligibility proof" by Bob Unruh, regarding which one plaintiff said, "In the worst case … it’s going to be revolution in the streets"
• "What is ‘quo warranto’"
• "Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case"
• "Ex-chief justice: ‘If he’s not a natural born citizen, he’s not qualified’" in which former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore weighs in on the issue
• "Was Obama born in Hawaii – or Kenya?" by Jerome R. Corsi, who interviews the private detective who investigated Honolulu hospitals claimed as Obama birthplace; also a report on eyewitnesses to Obama’s grandmother saying she witnessed his birth in Mombasa, Kenya
• "Kenyan ambassador: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama was born in U.S." by Chelsea Schilling – a revealing follow-up to the on-air "gaffe" by African official about president’s birth
• "What congressmen say about Obama’s eligibility," an extensive sampling of what lawmakers are telling constituents about where the president was born
• "Eligibility bill hits Congress" by Drew Zahn, detailing U.S. Rep. Bill Posey’s proposed law requiring candidates to show birth certificate – which would apply to Obama’s re-election
• "Congressman scorned for suggesting eligibility proof," documenting media reaction to Rep. Bill Posey’s eligibility bill, including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann who advises the congressman to "take the Reynolds Wrap off your head"
• "States reviewing ‘eligibility’ challenges," detailing how Montana has tabled its plan while Oklahoma’s gets committee approval
• "California used to check presidential candidates’ qualifications"
• "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility" by Aaron Klein, who documents how the very mention of citizenship issues is deleted in minutes and "offending" users banned
• "Judge ripped for using blog hearsay" by Bob Unruh, on the eligibility case lawyer who says he’s entitled to see Obama’s birth certificate during "discovery" process
• "Resolving Obama birth issue ‘once and for all’" by Leo C. Donofrio, in which the attorney proposes a solution to what he calls the "bottomless pit of pending litigation"
• "Does dual citizenship disqualify a candidate from being president?"
• "Chief justice accepts lawsuit docs, WND petition" by Drew Zahn, in which John Roberts agrees to read Obama filings and consider WorldNetDaily’s 330,000 online petition signers
• "Obama team threatens plaintiffs" by Alan Keyes, the former Reagan diplomat and presidential candidate who rallies all involved in the eligibility battle to stand firm

“To me, this is a historic issue of Whistleblower magazine,” says Farah. “I do not pretend to know where the information you are about to read will lead. But I do know that it is explosive, profoundly important and represents much more than the future of the Barack Obama administration. No less than our Constitution – the foundation of our national liberties and the rule of law in America – is at stake.”