The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

BREAKING NEWS – OBAMA CAUGHT USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

with 6 comments

13 Votes

The problem of using the social security number as an identifier is the fact that a social security card contains no biometric identifiers of any sort, making it essentially impossible to tell whether a person using a certain SSN is truly the person to whom it was issued without relying on some other means of documentation (which may itself have been falsely procured through use of a fraudulent SSN).
SSN-042-68-4425 is the number that Obama has been using since 1979 when he was 18 yrs old.  A number that he acquired from CT while living in HI?  Below is the stolen SSN number that Obama is using and it has been broken down so we can understand how a social security number derived.
As a result of the June 1936 decision, the current SSN is composed of three parts:

• The first three digits are the area number  (042)
• The next two digits are the group number  (68)
• The final four digits are the serial number  (4425)

At the inception of the program, all SSNs were assigned and cards issued based solely on information provided by the applicant. However, in the 1970s, SSA began requiring proof of age, identity, and citizenship.

May 1978

All applicants are required to provide evidence of: Age, identity, and U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status for original SSNs; and Identity for replacement cards. In-person interviews are required for individuals aged 18 or older applying for original or new SSNs. An individual signing the SS-5 on behalf of another (for example, a parent for his or her child) must establish his or her own identity.

In 1979 when Obama was 18 yrs old and supposedly ran off to college for the first time, well he needed an identifier for his supposed identity.  It is now a known fact that Obama has never had a legitimate long form birth certificate to prove his identity.  Now let us reason this, if one does not have a valid birth certificate of any kind then there is one document that is virtually impossible to acquire with out a valid birth certificate and that is a social security card that is used as an identifier in our country.  Well, without a birth certificate to get a social security number he had to get one somehow.

Now the social security number that Obama was supposedly issued was 042-68-4425 which as stated by the prefix of (042) which were only issued in CT.  Since 1973 social security numbers have been issued by the SSA’s Central Office.  The first three numbers are based on the zip code for the applicants mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.  (040-049 Connecticut)

It is obvious that Obama had to have a SSN by the time he entered Occidental College in 1979 because he sure did not have any other form of legal documentation that he would have had to produce to enroll at Occidental College, or Columbia University, or Harvard Law School.
So in keeping with the above information now let us look at what has been discovered as it pertains to  Harry Bounel’s and Barack H Obama’s social security number.
Evidentiary finding #1:
In May of 2011 I completed my first database pull for SSN 042-68-4425 and here was the result.  Note the name at the top.  In this pull for SSN  shows the last name of Bounel listed first and Obama’s is listed below.  The same number was used to pull both names indicating that one SSN was being used by both individual identities.

Evidentiary finding #2:
In June of 2011 Susan Daniels sent me this PDF file:

New_Obama_documents[1]

When the above PDF file is opened, pay close attention to the first page for it is the most important.  The first image displays the date of 1890 which is the anomaly that opened the first investigation into the social security number that Obama stole in 1979 more than likely with the assistance of his loving family no doubt.
Evidentiary finding #3:
This was a SSN verification that was completed in 2008 using Obama’s name associated with the stolen 042-68-4425 with his name listed as the owner.  The result came back as a failure because naturally his name was never legally associated with that number.

Evidentiary finding #4:
My friend Linda Jordan completed an E-Verify form and the results were as expected.  What was searched was Obama’s name again associated with the stolen 042-68-4425 SSN and the results were labelled a Mismatch as shown below.

Evidentiary finding #5
This next image shows Michele Obama as Harrison J Bounel’s spouse.  WHY?  What was she doing that because she had to list herself as the spouse of Harrison J Bounel?  Could she have been needing to access certain files that Obama was trying to conceal nad/or delete and so she had to list herself as his spouse because she was using his stolen SSN to obtain access to a particular file so it could be deleted or altered?  The image below will describe what was just listed above.

Evidentiary finding #6
The following Image is the 1940 Census document discovered by Leslie Bishop a genealogy expert with over 25 years of experience showing the individual, Harry Bounel residing in  Bronx, NY.  At the time of this Census he was 50 yrs old making his birth year 1890 (get it?)  Refer to evidentiary finding #1 for the 1890 DOB anomaly.
The following image will prove that Harry Bounel did in fact exist and that he was in fact born in 1890, the same year as associated with the SSN that Obama stole.  This image details Harry Bounel with his DOB of 1890 as stated in the PDF that Susan Daniels sent me in June of 2011.  Harry Bounel’s listing is on line (48).  Refer to evidentiary finding #1

The above image does in fact prove that Obama’s alter ego Harry Bounel did in fact exist and was a resident of the Bronx in 1940 when this US Census was taken.  This discovery was in fact accomplished with the expertise of Leslie Bishop who has well over 25 years of geneology experience.  This discovery led Leslie to inquire about having a FOIA discovery of SSA records with Harry Bounel and the SSN of 042-68-4425 just to verify that the record could in fact exist and that the proof that Obama has been using a stolen social security number could in fact and finally be proven.
In September of 2012 Leslie did in fact complete her FOIA request from the Social Security Administration on the search for Harry Bounel’s social security number.  She completed the FOIA request.  Leslie specifically requested information for, Harry Bounel with the SSN 042-68-4425 and this is what she received:
Evidentiary finding #7
The following image is of the letter that Leslie received back from the SSA pertaining to her specific FOIA request for Harry Bounel’s SSN verification for the SSN of 042-68-4425.  Now, bear in mind that if he were still alive Harry Bounel would be well over 120 years old.

There is one Numident record for each SSN ever assigned.  A numident is the social security number itself.  It, the number is only assigned once and is never used again unless it is stolen.
Leslie received this letter in response to her specific search of Harry Bounel’s record using the SSN 042-64-4425 and the letter which she received was a letter protecting the information for a 120 year old man who is long since dead.
“They acknowledged my request for THAT numident and denied my request. In other words, that record exists and since there is only one Numident per SS# and that Numident for Harry Bounel with SS# 042-68-4425 apparently exists, then its not possible that O is using that number legally and it is apparent that Bounel is the original holder of that number.”  As stated by Leslie Bishop.
Based on the evidence provided in this article and by the individuals listed in this article that have supplied the evidentiary findings for this article, The Obama Hustle has determined that Barack H Obama has committed several counts of  social security fraud and should be brought to justice for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people.
The Obama Hustle also defies anyone to disprove these findings as stated within this article

“WE HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF TREASON COMMITTED”
Orly Taitz: Update on Hawaii Cases and Her Upcoming Visit to Washington, DC
by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.

Orly Taitz speaking with Dr. Robert Newman of Christian Coalition at the California Republican Convention on September 17, 2011. Photo credit: George Miller, Ventura County Tea Party

(Sep. 18, 2011) — While en route to the California Republican Convention, Dr. Orly Taitz contacted The Post & Email to provide an update on her two lawsuits filed in Hawaii. One is a state case with a hearing date scheduled for October 12, while the other is federal and has a hearing scheduled for November 21, 2011.

In the latter case, Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy had been under subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu to make available for inspection the original birth record of Barack Hussein Obama by August 8, 2011. Taitz has gathered evidence from several private investigators indicating that Obama is using a social security number issued in the state of Connecticut when he never worked nor lived there, resulting in her lawsuit, Taitz v. Astrue filed in February 2011.

Taitz and two document examiners flew to Honolulu in advance of the August 8 deadline to inspect the birth record. However, Fuddy did not appear, and instead, a letter was presented to Taitz explaining that Obama’s original birth record could not be produced for inspection due to “privacy concerns.” Taitz has stated that Fuddy “broke federal law” by refusing to produce the records under subpoena.

The image presented to the public on April 27, 2011 purported to be a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate has been called “a bad forgery.”

Last year, former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs failed to address a reporter’s question about Obama’s Connecticut social security number, but rather, laughed nervously, stuttered, and mocked “faithful readers” of WorldNetDaily who were still questioning “the president’s birth certificate.” Gibbs also claimed that he “put it [the birth certificate] on the internet.”

It is unknown where Fuddy was on August 8, and the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to release her work schedule to The Post & Email after we filed a request for it under Hawaii’s UIPA, or open records, law. After filing an appeal to the Office of Information Practices, Attorney Linden Joesting supported the DOH’s contention that Fuddy’s work schedule could be kept confidential because Fuddy “keeps her work and personal appointments in one place and shares it only as needed with her personal secretary.” The Post & Email will be publishing a full report on this development in the near future.

Taitz has submitted a reply to the government’s opposition to the subpoena commanding her to produce the birth certificate and is represented by Hawaii Assistant Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine. “They’re claiming privacy, and I provided information questioning ‘what privacy,’ as Obama has posted this document on whitehouse.gov, but he also posted it on mugs and T-shirts that are being sold by the Democratic National Committee. The man is a criminal. He’s using a forged document, and he’s bragging with the forgery; he is flaunting this forgery in front of the whole nation. It’s shocking that our federal judges, our congressmen and senators are allowing this to go on. This is criminal. There is no privacy; it was specifically made public. The interest of the country not to have a criminal in the White House supersedes all notion of privacy which was waived a long time ago.”

Obama’s campaign website is also selling the merchandise. In regard to the questions about Obama’s birthplace, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Julianna Smoot, reportedly said that “There’s really no way to make this stuff completely go away. The only thing we can do is laugh at it — and make sure as many other people as possible are in on the joke.”

Obama’s birthplace may be irrelevant to his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, as his father was a foreigner and never a U.S. citizen. Some researchers have contended that the citizenship of the father or both parents is a factor in whether or not a child is considered a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Taitz is seeking the original birth record, if there is one, because of “information showing that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulently obtained” and “We already have paperwork from SSA saying that this number was never assigned.”

After Judge Royce Lamberth granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement on August 30, Taitz filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Taitz included as new evidence Obama’s 2009 tax returns which show the social security number that he is using begins with the digits “042.” “They forgot to flatten the PDF files that they worked on in Adobe Illustrator, and Obama’s full social security number was right there. I provided that to the judge. They posted his whole social security number. It starts with ’042,’ which is the state of Connecticut where Obama was never a resident. That’s evidence of fraud right there,” Taitz said.

Lamberth had contended that Selective Service documents can be used to check only one’s own Selective Service registration. To that, Taitz said, “That’s not the case. I also showed that I used the same Social Security number in conjunction with Selective Service. You can check anyone’s Selective Service registration as long as you provide his name, date of birth and his social. I provided Obama’s name, date of birth and social that he himself signed for his tax return, and he showed that he’s been using this number on his Selective Service registration as well. I provided E-Verify, showing that this number was never assigned to him. This is a crime. It is outrageous criminal behavior for which he should have been handcuffed and moved from the White House to the Big House, and only because we have corrupt judges and congressmen is this going on.”

Taitz stated that if the federal case is dismissed, the unrelated state case will continue. The latter is based on the state UIPA statute, while the federal case is based on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

When The Post & Email asked Taitz if the attorneys for the Department of Health have any other strategy other than claiming “privacy,” she answered, “Their strategy is that all of our judges are equally corrupt. There is nothing else aside from utter corruption that is working in Obama’s favor. The only reason he is being protected and is able to get away with the crime of the century for two and a half years is because of corrupt judges.”

Taitz also said that the United States’ economic climate is deteriorating and that “there is serious discontent with his policies on both sides of the aisle.” Citing foreclosures and increasing numbers of people sinking into poverty, she stated she is hoping that one judge will say, “I’m not afraid of persecution; I’m not afraid that they’re going to go after me; I’m going to do the right thing; I will follow the law and the Constitution.”

Recently singer Pat Boone stated publicly that he believes that Obama was born in Kenya and that the image released on April 27 is “created.” Boone stated that he has visited Kenya “about a year and a half ago” and that “everybody there says, ‘You know, your president was born here.’” Boone described the birth certificate as “a photoshopped fraud.”

Taitz confirmed that she will be meeting with key people in Congress on Thursday, September 22, 2011, but was unable to give details at this time.

She is asking that people call their representatives in Congress to arrange meetings with them. “I’m trying to see as many congressmen and senators as possible. I’m asking supporters to call; don’t write. I’m looking for people to visit the Washington offices of their congressmen and senators if they happen to be in Washington, DC. If they’re not in Washington, DC, call and be persistent. Stay on the line and provide information that we have clear evidence of treason committed; we have a person with a stolen social security number sitting in the White House; we have his tax returns which he signed himself showing a Connecticut social security number even though he was never a resident of Connecticut. E-Verify shows that this number was never assigned to him. It is extremely important for people call and stay on the line until they can get me an appointment with their congressman or senator, and let those congressmen and senators know that if they refuse to cooperate and prosecute this crime of the century, this clear evidence of treason, social security fraud and election fraud, then sooner or later, they will be prosecuted together with Obama and others.”

Hawaii Official and Ex-Official Lie to Cover Their Tracks

DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN RAMPS UP IN RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP’S ASSERTIONS THAT OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

by Miki Booth

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission from The Post & Email.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino lied on national TV when she said that the "Certification of Live Birth" is all a person can obtain from the Health Department. And what gave her the right to "inspect" Obama's records if they are closed by state law?

(Apr. 10, 2011) — Donald Trump is really turning the heat up on Obama’s missing birth certificate and far-left zealots have found it necessary to drag ex-Hawai’i official, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, back to the podium to recite her tale of viewing the elusive document. This time, unlike her first obtuse and lawyered-up comments, Fukino has gotten bolder since Abercrombie slipped his Obama “born in Hawaii” sentence into the 50th anniversary commemorative bill.

But the latest attempt to put out the flames has backfired and exposed some naughty children huddled in a back room playing with matches. Michael Isikoff, MSNBC’s “so-called” national investigative correspondent, was caught with Joshua Wisch, former chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Hawaii. Now spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, Wisch apparently colluded with Fukino to validate Obama’s alleged “Certification of Live Birth.”

“What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”

Not true, Dr. Fukino. When my son, Alan, requested a copy of his birth certificate he got just that—a “Certificate of Live Birth,” not the same as Obama’s. Different titles and different information. Obama’s is sorely lacking information required for obtaining a passport—Mother’s State/Country of Birth and Father’s State/Country of Birth.



Short-Form Certificate of Live Birth obtained by Alan Booth, who was born in Hawaii. The document contains a raised seal, which Obama's Certification of Live Birth did not.

It appears specific people are lining up to take a bullet for Obama. Conspiracy to defraud the American people is a serious crime and MSNBC has become the epitome of yellow journalism, brashly covering-up for Obama and the entire anti-American agenda of the socialist left. This latest cover-up attempt is laughable and speaks volumes to the desperation of the Democrat Party.

Michael Isikoff writes, “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorized such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer-generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”

Not true, Mr. Wisch. A friend of mine filled out the appropriate state form and received back a “certificate of live birth” as shown below:



Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii received in March 2011 by the requester

Enough with the lies already. You will be held accountable.

As long as the debate over Obama’s birth records drag on, we will have that much more time to inform Americans that the birth certificate doesn’t even matter. We don’t care whether he has one or not; Obama is clearly illegally occupying the office of US President since he is not by any stretch of the imagination an Article II, Section I, clause 5 “natural born Citizen” born of two citizen parents on American soil. It becomes more evident every day that his allegiance is not to the United States of America.

Truth will out.

—————————-

Editor’s Note: The Post & Email will be calling Mr. Wisch tomorrow to confront him with his false statements about obtaining vital records in Hawaii. We will also be contacting for the third time the Health Department, Governor Neil Abercrombie, and Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz, all of whom have spokespersons who have failed to return our calls or answer our letters regarding the many contradictions evident in Obama’s birth story and documentation, or lack thereof. The Health Department registrar, Dr. Alvin Onaka, whose stamp appears on the long-form document above, is apparently squeamish about picking up the telephone and answering our questions.

How many people will be going to jail over this massive cover-up? And what else, other than Obama’s “records,” are they hiding? Perhaps 50 years of defrauding the federal government?

© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Once Upon a Crime
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email

AN OPEN LETTER TO AMERICA
by Robert Quinn

Tale of a “flawed” birth certificate now threatening our Constitution and Country

This image was originally posted at The Daily KOS and represented as Barack Obama's "birth certificate"(Jun. 2, 2010) — A long time ago, about one and one half years or so, I received an e-mail questioning the authenticity of a Hawaiian birth certificate which Barack Obama had posted on the “Daily Kos” website to silence claims that he might not be eligible to seek the Presidency of the United States. Was this the “transparency” he promised America? It seemed so until questioners pointed out that his posted document (which I’ve seen and copied), titled “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) had the birth certificate number blacked out, contained no birth hospital name, attending physician’s name, birth witnesses’ names, etc. All required information….and all missing! This was “transparency”?

Article II, Section 1 of The Constitution states: “no person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” The only Hawaiian document conferring natural-born status was a Certificate of Live Birth, which would have all the above missing information on it. A “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) only confers, at best, a naturalized citizenship status. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, was obviously aware of this and knew that he could not allow the Hawaii Department of Health’s original birth certificate to be seen for if it agreed (which he so claimed) with the COLB he had posted on Daily Kos, he was thereby ineligible to seek the Presidency; hence, a reason for his spending (to date) an estimated $2,000,000 in legal fees to prevent disclosure! Imagine – if it was a true “Certificate of Live Birth,” he would have posted it immediately, not substitute a false or limited document in its place, unless he was hiding something incriminating.
Seeking Truth: Are We Asking Too Much?

Copies of my letters which questioned Obama’s eligibility went to all on my e-mail list and to those specifically quoted or referred to in those letters. Below, following each quote or reference, are my comments and any response received.

A federal judge, James Robertson (U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C.), throwing out one lawsuit, stated Obama’s citizenship was “thoroughly vetted and massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during his two year Presidential campaign.” Nonsense! In truth, then-Senator Obama had his attorneys block the release of any documents which might have confirmed (or denied) his eligibility. The judge’s above statement was completely false since he and the rest of America never had access to these documents. Also, candidates are not vetted by “America’s vigilant citizens.” The Constitution spells out the requirements and procedure.

The Judge’s Response: SILENCE.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News told his national audience that Fox could have easily obtained a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate from the Health Department. Not true! I wrote to him that this was a completely false statement since the records were sealed from public access. He never retracted this falsehood….never advised his audience that he had misinformed them. Lawyers presently arguing cases on this issue could have enlightened him had he asked. He also refused to explain why Fox never attempted to secure or view a copy of the original birth certificate. That would have been the obvious action to expect from Fox.

O’Reilly’s response: SILENCE, both toward me and, more importantly, toward his viewers and listeners.

Glenn Beck of Fox News said “birthers believe Obama’s KGB Control may have put his birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a road map of getting an African man into office.” A funny but meaningless comment. I had written him that Hawaii automatically notified newspapers of reported new births and individuals could also place birth announcements. Remember, securing a U.S. naturalized citizenship status for one’s baby had many advantages for later on but eligibility to seek the Presidency was not one of them. Beck also considered anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility as “dumb.” Are the plaintiffs and lawyers “dumb”? Are the judges presently hearing legal challenges also “dumb” for so doing? I also advised him that “we are speaking about Presidential eligibility, an issue which our Founders felt important enough to become the second article in our Constitution, not a footnote or suggestion!

Beck’s response: SILENCE.

The U.S. Supreme Court received copies of all these letters, covering Obama’s refusal to allow release of his Hawaiian Hospital certificate of live birth, his 1981 Passport to Pakistan, Occidental College entrance records, his disdain for our Constitutional requirements and for the servicemen and women who risked their careers through lawsuits which simply asked Obama to confirm his eligibility. So serious is this issue that I sent five copies of each relevant letter to each of the nine members of the Court: 45 copies in all.

The Court’s response: SILENCE. Not one member even acknowledged receipt of my letters. How sad….earlier I had asked, “If the Supreme Court ignores this issue what need have we for a Supreme Court?” Has their silence answered that question?
Halt: Who Goes There?

If the above challenge was given by sentries to the three million members of the U.S. Military worldwide and required a true original birth certificate be produced, only one person, I repeat, one person would refuse to produce it, as he has refused every previous request….Barack Obama, the putative Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. How can anyone fail to realize the implication of such a refusal?
Reflections for Those Who Dismiss Challenges to Obama’s Eligibility

* Obama knowingly posted a limited or a false COLB on a website, claiming that the Hospital copy matched his. If so, that would have made both documents COLB’S and Obama a “naturalized” citizen at best. Once challenged, however, he realized the implication and immediately refused any access (to date) to the Hospital copy. Why? If it was a true “Certificate of Live Birth,” at worst it would make his initial claim of its being identical to his copy false but it would not make him ineligible for the Office. If, however, it was not a “Certificate of Live Birth”….need I continue?
* Whenever Obama’s attorneys appeared in court to defend him they never once offered a Certificate of Live Birth to prove his eligibility, instead claiming Plaintiffs or Courts had no “standing” on the issue. Would they use this defense if Iran agreed to discuss nuclear disarmament with Obama but insisted that he first provide a valid “Certificate of Live Birth” to confirm his right to speak for our divided Nation?
* When an active, decorated Army Officer went to court, refusing transfer to Afghanistan until Obama produced a valid “Certificate of Live Birth” to silence the many lawsuits challenging his eligibility, the officer risked a military trial and possible imprisonment, yet Obama, rather than resolving this issue, sent lawyers to court to prevent disclosure of his Birth Certificate. Think about it: any document which could and should corroborate his eligibility he keeps hidden from view! Do we really need the proverbial house to fall upon us?
* Just the other day, Fox News called itself “the most trusted name in News.” Many viewers and listeners ask Fox why it hasn’t reported on any of the previous or current eligibility lawsuits. Ignoring all mention of them is truly “unfair and unbalanced,” especially for a news organization. Incidentally, the rest of the news media is so quiet on this issue they make a “silent” movie film seem deafening by comparison.
* Millions are clamoring for Obama to produce a valid Certificate of Live Birth yet, at a recent meeting he asked that people stop asking for it. What a pathetic response to a burning issue.
* Obama has never, I repeat, never been “vetted.” Remember, the birth certificate which he put on a website was not a Certificate of Live Birth and was obviously a deliberate deception on his part since he knew it would not justify his eligibility.
* The passport he used to enter war-ridden Pakistan in 1981 was not a U.S. passport since U.S. passports were not issued in 1981 to regular American citizens. Also, his school and medical records, etc. were all blocked by him from public access.
* Who would spend over $2,000,000 in legal fees rather than simply produce a legitimate Certificate of Live Birth when seeking the office of President, unless the Certificate would confirm not his eligibility but his ineligibility?
* The U.S. Senate “vetted” John McCain yet later refused to “vet” Barack Obama when requested to by Republicans.
* Some argue that if the lawsuits presently in various courts force Obama to release documents confirming that he is not a “natural-born” American citizen there will be riots in the streets if he is removed from office. Why, I ask, if he obtained the office unlawfully by deception or fraud, should he be rewarded with the prize he unlawfully sought? Are Truth and Honesty no longer desired attributes in a candidate? In 1973 some members of the Supreme Court voted to permit the killing of innocent children in the womb while other members today are more concerned about riots in the streets. How ironic; the first group didn’t fear God’s anger while the second group fears Man’s!
* If the withheld documents would truly confirm Obama’s eligibility, as his supporters contend, why won’t any member of the Democratic Party suggest their release to the public? The answer is obvious.
* When Obama defenders claim eligibility arguments are racially-motivated, consider that Alan Keyes, a black man who is a former presidential candidate, instituted a lawsuit against Obama, charging he is not a “natural born” Citizen. Is Keyes racially motivated? Think about it.
* Other issues, such as Obama’s possible British, Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship, are being addressed by many others, adding to this list against someone who has given a new meaning to the word “TRANSPARENCY.”

Conclusion

I have been writing for 18 years regarding Catholic teaching. A few people have inquired if I have gone “political” recently by writing about Obama’s eligibility. As I responded to them, I now respond to present readers. My “eligibility” writing is driven by our Constitution, for without it, we will invite anarchy. Until Obama satisfactorily addresses all the unanswered issues, his legitimacy cannot be blindly presumed.
With respect to all, I remain
Yours in Truth,

R. Quinn

cc: Everyone I could think of

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

This site should clear up any question about our fearless "leader's" qualifications. You gotta see this. Be sure to check out the 5th way to get a Hawaiian birth certificate, where you can apply for one yourself as an adult. Now that would never happen would it??? He is a specialist in Constitution law and investigated how to avoid giving his birth certificate years before he ran for President. Do you think he just might have found the way around a real birth certificate and filed for one himself? Certainly an interesting thought if he had need for one to cover up his Nigerian birth.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697


Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.

June 10, 2009 Report, updated July 18, 2009

The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii

I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.

Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii‘s Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

Actual long form Birth Certificate similar to one Obama refuses to release
Actual long form Certificate of Live Birth similar to one Obama refuses to release

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama
Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.

It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.

Here are 2 of Polarik’s websites: http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/

http://bogusbithcertificate.blogspot.com/

Because the disputants know far more about this subject than I do, I am an agnostic about Polarik’s argument. However, the likelihood that this computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was forged, is, I believe, increased by the fact that it has been pretty clearly established that Obama “either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently. The documents indicate that it’s one or the other.” http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html The forgery of Obama’s selective service registration was necessary, because according to Federal law, “A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.” http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm)

It is also very strange that Dr Fukino’s statement in no way attested to (or even addressed the issue of) the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” (and the information that appears on it) that the Daily Kos blog and the Obama campaign posted on line. Dr Fukino merely stated that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

If there is no hospital or physician record in the vault birth certificate, then he wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then be ruled out for the following reason.

When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.

And if there is no hospital record in the original vault birth certificate, then he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii.

Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?

If you combine an awareness of what the Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet really is with 1) a knowledge of the relevant statutes in 1961 and 2) Obama’s stubborn refusal to permit the release of the real birth certificate and his determination to fight any legal actions that would compel him to do so, it becomes clear that there is no logical explanation for Obama’s refusal without taking into consideration the relevant statutes. Then his behavior becomes clear. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii is the missing piece of the puzzle.

Most people think of a birth certificate as a statement by a hospital or midwife with a footprint, etc. (That may be why some main-stream journalists have straight out lied about this. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, for example, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.

FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.)

Most people would not consider a mailed-in form by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or a sworn statement by one of his grandparents or by his mother or even a sworn statement by himself many years later to be sufficient evidence (when set next to the statements by his maternal grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador that he was born in another country). Unless the American people are shown the original birth certificate, all of these are possibilities. And if Obama refuses to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a Hawaii hospital or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife. A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of one of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section1 for the Office of President of the United States.

It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.

Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

1765

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]

The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.

Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any courts-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his vault birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.

It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’

“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.

“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”

“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html

The following may be relevant:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

Saturday, April 19, 2008

“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.

“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “

There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp. This certainly at least should be looked into.

July 11th Addendum to Report

1. Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt. has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy. Given the slipperiness that characterized the statements of Chiyome Fukino, the Dept’s Director, and Janice Okubo, the Dept’s spokesperson, to the media on this issue, it is, I think, also reasonable to regard these steps with suspicion.

A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii 6 months ago. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same abbreviated computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.

On June 12, 2008 the title for this abbreviated form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. There is no footprint etc. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the abbreviated “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

But whether it is called (as it was last year) a Certification or (as it is now) a Certificate of Live Birth this abbreviated document provides none of the probative information that was or wasn’t on Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Unlike the Certificate of Live Birth of the time when Barack Obama was born, this new Certificate of Live Birth provides no real evidence of where a child was born or indication of where such evidence might be found. It provides no information that would demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. (As is permitted under Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii.)

2. On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past”, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth:

“In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

Ms. Okubo’s statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or release “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, and that it was the DOH’s policy rather than his own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this Certificate. This was an obvious deception. The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

Only the information on the original birth certificate, “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, can demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat.

3. On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408

Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates and the recently renamed abbreviated computer printouts] and Certifications of Live Birth [as the abbreviated computer printouts were up till recently called] because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth… Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009. http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange

Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the State of Hawaii changed its rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove Hawaiian ancestry, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the abbreviated Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?

4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.
Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.
4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.
Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.

Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

wnd logo
Posts ‘vital records’ Web page saying responses ‘not’ required
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama.

The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not “require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.

The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a “legitimate” president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure. The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.

The Hawaiian records make up the core of the issue over challenges to Obama’s eligibility, since an original long-form birth certificate including the name of the doctor, the hospital and other details, presumably could document whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement the president be a “natural born citizen.”

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Hawaii’s new web page states state law requires government records to be open to public inspection “unless access is restricted or closed by law.”

“The [Uniform Information Practices Act] does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure … nor does it require to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

The Web page also issues several warnings. “Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH,” it states.

Further, “The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request,” it says.

State officials did not respond to WND questions about the information on the page.

But it appears unlikely a website statement will defuse the controversy.

At the time of the election, the state’s director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

Months later she added another comment:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

But even those statements have since been cited as a reason that state officials owe the public more information.

At one point, Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, said Hawaii’s laws require disclosure of information “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”

He and several other Obama critics raised the suggestion that if a birth certificate was used to support Fukino’s statements, the record itself should be public.

The Hawaiian web page primarily links to the rules and regulations the state is using in defense of its decision not to release definitive information.

Under the state’s law addressing records, exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.

But the page explains any disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”

Department spokesman Janice Okubo previously told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure. But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.

In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”

WND also has reported suggestions from Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, that legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records and satisfy critics.

Espero told WND at the time his idea would be aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records, including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.

“My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.

Espero told WND he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.

“My motivation is strictly to promote transparency,” he said. “When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain.”

Another major question remaining is why a birth location for the president hasn’t yet been celebrated.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has offered a $15,000 donation to the hospital listed on Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

“All he or the hospital or the state of Hawaii would have to do to claim the prize is show the American public the document that should have been produced long ago to claim the presidency as a natural born citizen,” he wrote earlier this month.

“Think about it. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof,” he continued.

Continue reading at WND

Important: Hawaii Petition Campaign Launched! - Thanks Kathy
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email

NOW YOU CAN DEMAND HI GOVT. TO RELEASE OBAMA’S “BIRTH CERTIFICATES”
PRESS RELEASE — FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION

(Jan. 4, 2009) — The Post & Email announces today that it has launched a Campaign to demand from the Hawaiian Government the release of the vital records of the man who goes by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II.”

This petition will be sent to Hawaii Governor Linga Lingle (R), to the HI Lt. Gov. James Aiona (R), to the HI Director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (R); and to each member of the HI State legislature: in all, more than 90 governmental officials.

To read the full text of the petition, *** see below.

This petition seeks the release of ALL VITAL RECORDS pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama II, which are in the possession of the Hawaii Government, or any office or agency thereof, and all government records pertaining to the public statements of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health, in regard to the original vital records of the same.

While the full text of the petition explains all the reasons justifying the release, these can be briefly summarized as follows:

1) The people of the United States have the right to know who their president is, and to see all government documents which pertain to his citizenship status and/or which are relevant to answer the question as to whether he is, or is not, eligible to hold the office of U.S. President.

2) There is a reasonable basis to doubt the citizenship status and eligibility status of Obama, on account of:

a) his claim of a British subject as his father: to wit, Barrack Hussein Obama, Senior;

b) his refusal to disclose his birth certificate;

c) the insistence of his political supporters on the sufficiency of an online electronic image of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth; which image was never recognized by Hawaii.

d) the equivocal statements of Dr. Fukino regarding Obama’s “birth certificate,” in the singular, and his “original vital records,” in the plural;

e) the nonsensical statement of Dr. Fukino, M.D., in declaring Obama a “natural-born American citizen,” since in U.S. law there is no such thing as an “American” citizen, and since according to the Supreme Court of the United States, unless Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen, he could not be a “natural-born” Citizen, in the legal sense of this term! (The medical sense means born by a natural birthing method).

3) There is reasonable basis to urge the disclosure of his vital records, on grounds that:

a) he has disclosed publicly an electronic image of his purported Hawaii Certification of Live Birth; therefore, he can have no reasonable basis to claim that his privacy would be violated by disclosure of his original vital records, UNLESS the electronic image does not faithfully reproduce the information on them;

b) there is a compelling State interest in the disclosure, since concealment in a matter in which the public is aware of the discrepancies of the claims of Obama regarding his origins and eligibility for office, co-involves the State of Hawaii in the appearance of impropriety and conspiracy against the People of the United States of America.

THEREFORE, if you would like to sign on to the petition, please do so by going over to the signup page.
************************************************************************************

*** Petition to the Hawaii Government to release Obama’s Vital Records

This Petition Campaign began on January 4, 2010.

Petition to the Hawaii Government to release Obama’s Vital Records

FULL TEXT OF PETITION

(To be included as a cover letter, with the consignment of every 1,000 petitions)

To sign and send this petition, click here!

Dear Esteemed Officials of the State of Hawai’i,

I am quite certain that you are aware that there is widespread public concern as to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to serve as President in accordance with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that the president-elect be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America.

You may not be aware, however, that 4 Supreme Court Decisions have authoritatively explained that those born of two U.S. Citizens, on U.S. soil, are “natural born Citizens” [cf. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).] In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States has never admitted the use of this term to describe the citizenship of any other category of citizen.

Barack Obama, however, claims as his father, Barrack Obama, Sr., a man who was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1961. He makes this claim in his book, Dreams from My Father, and via the release of an electronic image of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. If such is the case, he cannot legitimately hold the U.S. Presidency.

As I am sure you will readily admit, it is patently absurd for the United States of America and its citizens to rely upon electronic images of alleged government documents, while the general public is refused an opportunity to inspect such documents. Such a manner of acting violates all that America represents and everything which our Founding Fathers fought and died for in the American Revolution. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our government by nature must be open and transparent.

The State of Hawai’i echoes this long tradition of freedom when in its Uniform Information Practices Act it states (92F-2):

…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.

WHEREFORE, being that upon entering the office which you presently hold, you swore: “that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties…to best of my ability” (Hawai’i Constitution Article XVI, Section 4); and,

WHEREAS, the Hawai’i Constitution in its Preamble declares: “We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth”; and,

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America imposes in Article II, section i, paragraph 5, the absolute requirement of being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, in order to hold the Office of the U.S. Presidency; and,

WHEREAS, four Supreme Court decisions have defined that a “natural born” citizen is one born of two U.S. citizen parents, on U.S. soil (cf. see above), it having never defined or used the term to signify any another class of citizenship; and,

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama II, in releasing an electronic image of what purports to be a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007; has (1) claimed a British subject as a father, and (2) waived all right to oppose the disclosure of the originals on the grounds that such a disclosure would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”[92F-13(1)]; and,

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health, publicly admitted that said department has in its possession “the original vital records of Barack Hussein Obama” — even though for nearly all U.S. Citizens there is only one original vital record — and furthermore since at the same time she claimed that he was a “natural-born American citizen” — a statement which seemingly both contradicts his claim that his father was Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., and which does not specify his actual nationality, in a manner consistent with the terminology of 8 U.S. Code § 1401; and,

WHEREAS, the Hawai’i Uniform Information Practices Act specifies in 92-F-12 that “each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication … information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” (subsections 1 & 15), such as is the above mentioned press release of Dr. Fukino.

HENCE, as the above constitutes both a reasonable basis for doubt as to the citizenship status of Barack Hussein Obama II, in a matter touching the national security of these United States of America, and a reasonable basis to demand and allow for the disclosure of his vital records by the State;

And WHEREAS, inaction by Hawaii State officials in disclosing these original vital records contributes to the growth of suspicions, doubts, and a weakening of the legitimacy of the State and Federal government; and,

WHEREAS the defense of the legitimacy of these institutions is a sufficiently compelling State interest (cf. Hawai’i Constitution, Article I, Section 6) overriding Obama’s rights to privacy in this matter;

THEREFORE,

We, the undersigned, demand in the name of an open and transparent government, accountable to the people it serves, that the State of Hawaii release ALL VITAL RECORDS, which pertain to the individual known as “Barack Hussein Obama II,” and ALL government documents pertaining to the preparation of the public statements made by Dr. Fukino in regard to the same, which are in possession of any State government office or agency, registry, or held by any governmental officer (such as the State Attorney General) or representative, whether these be original, amended, modified, or otherwise, and that such a release,

(1) Be publicly announced,

(2) Provide the general public the opportunity to personally view the originals under conditions which would guarantee their safety and protection,

(3) Include an independent verification of the authenticity of the documents,

(4) Be done immediately, that is, within the next 30 days, or as soon as possible, and

(5) Be effected by whatever legal or administrative means are necessary, whether by order of the State Governor, the Director of the Department of Health, or by a special enactment of the State Legislature, or by whatever other effective means.

———————————

TEXT OF LETTER TO BE SENT TO STATE OFFICIALS