Before It's News | People Powered News

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Is the State of Hawaii Covering Up Birth Registration Fraud in the Case of Obama? Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There. A Catalog of Evidence for and Against Obama’s Physically Being Born in Hawaii and Not Just Falsely Registered There After the Fact. - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers Published

The State of Hawaii is contemplating passing a law allowing its officials not to answer the requests of concerned Americans who are looking for proof from that State that putative President Barack Obama was born there as he claims. Officials there contend that many of the open records requests are repetitive and vexatious and they cause them to lose time and money in providing a response to others.

We hope that the State of Hawaii will consider the state of affairs as they exist today regarding the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is probably these circumstances which causes concerned Americans to continue to pursue the State for a definitive answer. Let us review what we know.

Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);

(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB] computer form, which is a computer generated and easily forged form that was posted online in 2008 which is not a true Birth Certificate and is not a typed contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would have the name and signature of the delivering doctor or witnesses to the birth. No witnesses or hospitals have ever attested to Obama being born in Hawaii.);

(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can legally even raise the question and who among them would);

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born);

(8) Congress confirmed his election (although political party politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue);

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that defacto status is not proof of where he was born);

(10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);

(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not ever publicly produced one);

(12 The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive and they have never confirmed the online COLB computer form image is genuine);

(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu. See No. 20 below).

Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:

(1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;

(3) Ms. Odhiambo a Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in session and recorded in the official record of the Kenyan National Assembly on 5 Nov 2008 on page 3275 that Obama was a son of the soil of their country;

(4) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. Also see this more recent one in Ghana. Africa’s press knows what the American media refuses to investigate. There have also been other reports in the media that Obama was born in Kenya. A good list of these reports may be found at where actual screen shots of the stories may be viewed;

(5) Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama stated in a video taped speech she made a couple years ago that Kenya is Obama’s home country. During a speech that Michelle gave to an audience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) delegates at the 2008 Democrat Party Convention on the topic of getting tested for HIV and in showing that Obama leads by example, Michelle Obama told them: “He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know–a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, he took a public HIV test for the very point of showing the folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” “Home country” is defined as “the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.” It is highly suspicious that Obama’s transcripts of Michelle’s speech now do not contain the reference by Michelle to Kenya being his “home country.” Obama’s facebook page has a transcript of her “home country” speech. The transcript omits the “home country” wording and says this instead: “He has supported full funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and has pledged to implement a national HIV/AIDS strategy to combat the continuing epidemic in the United States. He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, a stigma tied all too often to homophobia. And he’s led by example: On our trip to Kenya, (omission) we both took a public HIV test.” The words “Barack’s home country” are omitted;

(6) NPR public radio archived story says Obama in Kenyan-born;

(7) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;

(8) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters that her half-brother, then Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children which is also located in Honolulu. Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center;

(9) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

(10) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;

(11) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;

(12) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);

(13) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;

(14) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;

(15) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated June 6, 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate). web site has this to say about the COLB: “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.” FactCheck did provide an “Update,” on August 26, when they stated: “We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health.” They go on to explain they did get some clarification from them to “some” of their questions. But they do not address why DOH did not answer their question as to why DOH “only offer the short form” COLB. It is unbelievable that a fact-checking organization such a FactCheck (actually a reading of their “objective” information on this issue shows that they are quite biased and prejudiced on the issue in favor of Obama) would allow such an important matter to just die with the excuse that the DOH did not provide a response to their request for information. Would any reasonable person call that responsible and thorough fact investigation? Hawaii Department of Heath has “affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.” For an explanation as to who at the FactCheck organization allegedly handled and photographed the COLB and ”authenticated” the document (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) go to;

(16) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document later pictured on the internet is a forgery;

(17) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;

(18) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root “evidence” is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. At no time during the ongoing public debate about whether Obama was born in Hawaii has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama’s alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was “completed and filed” with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi’olani Medical Center to confirm Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.

We will know what the underlying evidence is about Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii only if we can examine Obama’s contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii’s or anybody else’s bare statement as to the place and time of Obama’s birth.

Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence which would at least give the public greater assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine;

(19) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

(20) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confim that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the “son.” The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at Note the heading of both of the ads says “Health Bureau Statistics” which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;

(21) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field. See these examples compared to Obama’s COLB. This implies the birth registration was never finally accepted and that additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never “Accepted;”

(22) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people have questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama’s supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the “birthers”) could be put in their place once and for all;

(23) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu;

(24) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital;

(25) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke (”the Nordyke twins”) were born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes’ certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins’ birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins’ certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama’s and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama’s birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama’s purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state’s procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at;

(26) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo. Ironically, he expressed that “[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance….” He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the “unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years….” He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the “Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people….” He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: “The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.” Mr. Erengo’s statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a “native American.” It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at The speech of Mr. Erengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;

(27) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama’s origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. “What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?” Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson’s Rebels

None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting a computer image of an alleged 2008 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.

Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.

It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns.

We hope that Hawaii can understand the frustrations that these concerned Americans feel when they turn to that state for confirmation regarding Obama’s place of birth which Obama himself could easily provide. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 17, 2010
Update: April 25, 2010
No Proof - Thanks Redd
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Also read An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy


Northeast Intelligence Network full report

UsurperPart II of an investigative series

In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.

As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?

Despite assertions by politicians, media pundits and others, this issue is far from having been resolved. Investigation found that those who will not discuss this issue or mock the questions and those asking the questions either do not fully understand the issue, or have agendas that conflict with the truth being disclosed. This part of the investigation will provide detailed information outlining how that conclusion has been reached, and will offer additional information of relevance pertaining to the narrow scope of the issue of eligibility itself. Additional investigative results in the form of supplemental reports will address the methods being presently employed – and identify those who are employing them – to keep the truth from being made known to the American people.

It is the conclusion of this investigator that Barack Hussein OBAMA II has not only failed to provide proof of eligibility, but has and continues to fight efforts to release the proof necessary to confirm that he is legally eligible to occupy his current position as the president of the United States.

To be clear, it is important to understand that there is a vast and significant difference between the meaning of the words evidence and proof, although most people use the terms synonymously. While Black’s Law Dictionary offers the legal definition of both terms, they can be easily summarized for the purpose of this investigation as follows: Evidence is something that offers the basis for belief or disbelief, or knowledge on which to base belief, while proof is the establishment of facts by evidence.

Clearly, the United States Constitution requires the higher standard of proof and not merely evidence of eligibility to hold the office of President. Contrary to the assertions of representatives speaking on behalf of OBAMA, media accounts and numerous reports on various Internet sites, OBAMA has provided absolutely no proof that he meets the eligibility requirements as of the date of this investigation.

Before proceeding, it’s important to understand that the distinction between evidence of proof is neither petty nor is it “mere semantics,” as the legal definitions between evidence and proof are exceptionally clear, especially in a court of law and especially when considering someone to assume the highest position in U.S. government. In fact, it is this distinction that is being methodically exploited to misrepresent the facts of this case, and to pejoratively label anyone who continues to demand proof as a “birther.”
“Certification of Live Birth” as proof

Clearly, the image of the Certification of Live Birth is a large part of the eligibility question. Much debate and discussion has taken place over the image’s authenticity and provenance. As noted, that document first appeared in JPEG image format on or about 12 July 2008 on the political website DailyKos, and was subsequently published on the OBAMA-backed website “Fight the Smears” and also on

Controversy became rampant as numerous analyses of the image at each site suggested that in certain cases, alterations to the image were made. The controversy became exacerbated by the obvious revisions made to that image that appeared on various web sites to such an extent that the accusations distracted from the most basic of issues: The Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied.

The release of the authenticated “long form” of OBAMA’s birth certificate will identify the parents, the exact location of birth, as well as the source of the information provided on that form. By virtue of the legal definition and standards of proof, it is the only document suitable to meet the legal definition of proof, and the only document that will contain all of the necessary information to prove or disprove his eligibility to hold office.

While investigation of possible alterations of the JPEG of the COLB posted and presented as “genuine” on a site sanctioned by OBAMA or those representing him could become relevant in a separate criminal investigation, the topic is subordinate to and detracts from the primary issue of OBAMA’s eligibility. Analysis of the JPEG image purported to be that of OBAMA’s Certification of Live Birth is beyond the scope of this investigation, especially since the document itself (and not a JPEG image of the document) has not been made accessible for review. Nonetheless, allegations of alteration must be properly investigated as any evidence of alterations with the intent to deceive, done by an individual or group acting in an official capacity, can be used to illustrate a course of conduct that might later prove useful in the venue of a criminal investigation.

The authenticity of the Certification of Live Birth notwithstanding, it is the conclusion of this investigator that OBAMA has not only failed to produce the appropriate form necessary to prove eligibility (the vault copy or long form birth certificate), but has gone to significant lengths to keep that form from being released.

Investigation into this area has produced sufficient evidence to indicate that representatives of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, either at his direction or with his knowledge and consent, posted or caused to be posted the Certification of Live Birth at the Fight the Smears website, claiming the document is incontrovertible proof of his citizenship status and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President. At that site, the Certification of Live Birth is improperly labeled and presented to the visitors as “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” It is, in fact and reality, no such document.

When one considers the text above the image as shown above, it is reasonable to question the intent of the site operators with regard to improperly representing that the document is something it is not, and to allege that those “claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.” It would appear that the actual manipulation is not originating from anyone asking reasonable, fact-based questions, but by those who deceitfully represent that the image of the COLB is an actual birth certificate.
Arguments used to deflect the truth

To be sure, there are numerous individuals and groups who claim that the presentation of the Certification of Live Birth is sufficient to prove Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. In January 2009, Janice OKUBO, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, stated that the COLB provides sufficient information to answer all of the questions surrounding OBAMA’s eligibility. To illustrate her assertion, she noted that the COLB lists OBAMA’s location of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii:

“If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

As noted in the previous section of this report, it is important to understand that the COLB does not provide the critical information pertaining to OBAMA’s parents, the exact location of birth, or the source of information provided. Only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

In an article titled “Born in the U.S.A originally published on 21 August 2008 and updated on 1 November 2008, also attempted to quell further questions of OBAMA’s eligibility by commenting on the Certification of Live Birth:

“ staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

This assertion is a bit more misleading, as the author refers to the Certification of Live Birth as a “birth certificate.” In other words, the “staffers” examined the COLB, not the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. The affirmation that the COLB is genuine notwithstanding, only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

In summary, arguments over the authenticity of the COLB are nothing more than a distraction from the primary issue: the Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied. And THAT is the document that Barack Hussein OBAMA II continues to fight against being released.
Nomination without proof

It is reasonable to ask how any individual could successfully secure the nomination of their respective party if they did not furnish the necessary proof of eligibility as required by the U.S. Constitution. This question is especially relevant considering the intense examination of Senator John McCAIN as candidate for the Republican Party. A follow-up and equally reasonable question is who would allow such an event to occur absent of such proof, and who would have had to know about the potential controversy in advance? A prevailing, yet erroneous, theory is that for one to believe that Barack Hussein OBAMA II is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, there must be a massive conspiracy that involves numerous individuals and multiple levels of government.

Although one would reasonably suspect that there had to have been a large number of “co-conspirators” involved in such an act, the opposite is actually true.

An investigation into this issue found that only the chairperson of each party (the party’s national convention that nominates the candidate) has to sign an “Official Certification of Nomination,” which is the recognized legal instrument that affirms that the party’s candidate meets all of the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President. In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, that responsibility fell with Ms. Nancy PELOSI. It is a surprisingly simple process that is completed following the official nomination of the candidate for office, and is usually filed immediately after the close of the party’s convention.

In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA, PELOSI signed the affirmation of eligibility in her capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention along with Alice GERMOND, the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Her signature, affixed and notarized to this legal instrument, was viewed as “sufficient documentation” by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) “that both OBAMA and BIDEN were duly nominated and met the Constitutional eligibility requirements,” according to an official interviewed by this investigator at the FEC in Washington, DC. According to this FEC official, “no further verification was required or performed at any level [within the FEC].”

Unsurprisingly, repeated attempts by this investigator to secure information from Ms. PELOSI’s Washington, DC office for information about the eligibility and background verification process were not answered as of the date of this report. Meanwhile, one Washington insider with ties to the FEC told this investigator that the process of filing the Official Certification of Nomination is “easier than getting a DC driver’s license. No one asks any questions and the process is nothing more than a mere formality,” stated this source.
Oddities surrounding the “Official Certification of Nomination” affidavits

One very suspicious circumstance verified during the course of this investigation involves the production and filing of the “Official Certification of Nomination” forms. Numerous web sites and open sources have furnished two images of the same affidavit as best illustrated at the web site operated by Reverend James David MANNING (at this link). Under the heading of “Exhibit 6” at this location are two nomination documents, each with different wording as to the certification of the candidates.

This investigator took steps to verify the authenticity of the original documents and not the Internet copies. Using a federal index system of certified election documents, the authenticity of both documents was established and it was verified that both exist on file. Additionally, this investigator and Judi McLeod, founder and editor of Canada Free Press, interviewed Reverend MANNING in February 2010 about this and other matters, in a further attempt to secure bona fide documentation about OBAMA’s background and the authentication of documents. Reverend MANNING noted the discrepancies in the wording, and has since conducted his own inquiries of these documents.

Interestingly, the wording within the certifications is significantly different; one contains the Constitutional certification clause within the body of the document, while the other does not. The different wording of these two separate documents is detailed as follows:
Document “with” Constitutional certification clause:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Document “without” Constitutional certification clause:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”

During the course of this investigation, attempts were made by this investigator to have the differences between documents explained by various government officials within the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Despite numerous attempts, no explanations were obtained. The absence of the “constitutionality clause” remains of significant concern to this investigator and is an area that requires further exploration.

This discrepancy was also addressed in an article written by Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams on 24 April 2010. In that article, Mr. Williams accurately described the difference in documents:

“Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.”

“Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii.”
Prior knowledge of eligibility problems

That the process of filing the “Official Certification of Nomination” is indeed a simple one and rests on the sworn statements of two individuals, it is not intended to mean that others did not possess prior knowledge of OBAMA’s failure to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. In fact, as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.

A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S. She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.

The “HERLIHY BRIEF,” as I have labeled it, is interesting on several levels, but relevant on one level in particular: HERLIHY was employed as an associate by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, a Chicago, Illinois based law firm with offices worldwide. Further investigation found that a senior partner of that same firm, Bruce I. ETTELSON, was a former member on the finance committee of Barack Hussein OBAMA II when he was a Senator in Illinois. Could this be a mere coincidence, or perhaps an attempt to break psychological barriers while grooming a future President?

That, combined with legislative efforts during the 2008 campaign involving McCAIN’s eligibility (as documented in Part I of this report), appear to suggest a broader level of knowledge among individuals that the issue of eligibility as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, might present a future problem.
A mission gone wrong?

John O. BRENNAN is currently the assistant to President OBAMA and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Until he began working for OBAMA, BRENNAN was the CEO of a firm called the Analysis Corporation, a government subcontractor whose work involved providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies. In 2008, a contract employee of BRENNAN’s firm was caught inappropriately accessing certain passport files in the State Department’s passport office. BRENNAN’s firm was “cited” in March, 2008 for breaching sensitive files, including the passport files of Hillary Rodham CLINTON, John McCAIN and Barack Hussein OBAMA.

On 21 March 2008, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the contractor from BRENNAN’s company had accessed the passport files of the presidential candidates that included OBAMA. It is significant to note that the passport files include a virtual treasure trove of personal information, including an applicant’s name, social security number, date and place of birth. The files would likely contain additional information including original or authenticated copies of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

It should be noted that at the time of the incident, BRENNAN was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign and was said to have virtually unfettered access to the candidate. BRENNAN, of course, denounced the actions of the employee.

The nature of the “breach,” according to intelligence sources close to this investigator, confirmed that the target of the unlawful access was the file containing documents related to Barack Hussein OBAMA (a fact that was originally reported in an article written by Ken Timmerman for This is significant, of course, as OBAMA has not permitted the release of his passport records or the documentation contained in that file.

It is important to note that this was not the first breach, nor the only one. At least two other incidents that resulted in the termination or other disciplinary action took place in the several months around this same time period. This breach, however, was different, and the difference between this incident and the others must not be dismissed as it is directly related to the potential disclosure of personal information of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, including his original, “long form” birth certificate. This incident involved more than a curious subcontractor worker; it involved other co-conspirators, including an unidentified contact within the U.S. State Department itself.

Research into the three separate incidents was performed, noting that two of those incidents were somewhat limited in terms of what was accessed. The breach that involved HARRIS, however, as often happens with “the use of unmanageable criminal assets,” went dangerously awry.

Following this incident, federal investigators identified a cooperative witness with direct information about the breach of the passport records – allegedly by accident. That individual, identified as Lieutenant Harris Junior, 24, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction on 25 March 2008, and was found to be in possession of stolen credit cards and documents that were traced back to the breach of the passport records. (Copy of arrest record here in PDF format) HARRIS, known to DC police, began working with federal authorities to strike a deal as they expanded their investigation into the passport incident. According to a review of the arrest record, HARRIS admitted to investigating officers that he obtained the documents from (an unnamed) co-conspirator “who works for the U.S. Department of State” [emphasis added by this author].

Less than a month later, HARRIS was found with a single bullet wound to his head on Thursday, 17 April 2008, inside of his car that was parked in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Washington, DC. HARRIS was described as “an important witness in the breach of the passport records.” While his death was attributed to an increase in violence in the city, at least one detective interviewed by this investigator is not too sure. “It’s an awfully big coincidence, and you know how I feel about coincidences,” stated this homicide detective. “I’ve considered that it was someone tying up loose ends,” he added. The murder of HARRIS remains unsolved.
Legal stonewalls

From an investigative perspective, the reluctance of Barack Hussein OBAMA to release an authenticated copy of his actual long form birth certificate is as revealing as it is troubling. The exact number of lawsuits filed within the last two years to legally compel Barack Hussein OBAMA to release a copy of his authenticated, long form birth certificate is unknown. According to Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams in an article he wrote on 24 April 2010 discloses that OBAMA has spent “in excess of $2 million in legal fees” [to prevent the release of that document]. Mr. Williams stated “nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. At least no one who is not hell bent on hiding information of significance.”

Mr. Williams also notes that “[I]n every instance, the lawsuits were dismissed prior to discovery, or the legal process that in these cases, permit the petitioning party to review evidence relevant to the lawsuit.”

From an investigative perspective, the most obvious and nagging question is why Barack Hussein OBAMA II has refused and continues to refuse to authorize the release of that document for review. Consistent with the background investigations I have conducted on behalf of Fortune 500 and 100 companies, such a refusal would be sufficient cause to automatically dismiss the individual seeking the high-level executive position from such consideration. By comparison to the 150 or so investigations of this type I have performed over the last 25 years, I have yet to find anyone under consideration for such a position to refuse this most routine and basic request. Moreover, I have never experienced anyone who has not only refused to do so, but spent extraordinary sums of money in legal fees to fight against such disclosure.

The authenticated long form birth certificate is not the only document of interest that OBAMA refused to provide, but it is the most salient and direct method of furnishing proof to answer the eligibility issue once and for all.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II promised transparency to the American people during his campaign and if elected, during his time in office of President. Yet, that promise of transparency has been replaced with walls of lawyers and an administration of individuals who have mounted an unprecedented campaign of opacity. In addition to his actual birth certificate, OBAMA has refused to release the following records that would provide insight into the individual currently occupying the highest office in the United States:

* Official U.S. passport records
* Medical records
* Occidental College records & transcripts
* Columbia College records & transcripts
* Harvard College records
* State of Illinois Bar Records
* Private practice law client list

Each of the above records would be considered relevant to his position as President, and most previous presidents have themselves authorized the release of such information for public review. Requesting the release of the above records is certainly reasonable, and is consistent with the requests of previous administrations.

Of course, cursory research of various web sites will provide lists of other documents undisclosed by OBAMA, including but not limited to his natural parent’s marriage license, records from overseas primary schools, and even his Baptismal certificate, if one even exists. Also included by some sites are his adoption records, various grade school and high school transcripts, and published articles that he would have authored while enrolled in college. While the release of such records would indeed prove enlightening, they are not necessarily intrinsic to the issue of his Constitutional eligibility.

The production of a single document could put this entire controversy to rest: the long form birth certificate. As noted in this investigative segment, it is that single document that OBAMA has not only refused to release or authorize to be released, but has spent an estimated $2 million to keep under wraps