DONALD TRUMP OFFERS FIVE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD FOR OBAMA’S RECORDS   by Penbrook One

PUTTING HIS MONEY WHERE OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY IS:  The billionaire showman has long suspected that Obama is lying about his past and that he is not eligible to hold the office of president.  Now, Donald Trump is offering a monstrous reward for disclosure of Obama’s educational and travel records from the 1980’s which may show who, what, when, where and how the democratic presidential candidate was able to afford, enroll in and graduate from two of America’s prestigious institutions while traveling to foreign countries unfriendly to U.S. citizens at the same time.

By Dan Crosby

Of the Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – A recent internet video by Donald Trump in which the billionaire real-estate magnate says he will give $5 million to charity if Barack Obama will release his college and passport records from the 1980s may have also been intended as a veiled message to would-be whistle-blowers and Obama supporters alike to come forth with documented information they may have about Obama’s past and to apply pressure on Obama to submit to the ongoing requests for his biographical information.

Given the state of the American economy under Obama, Trump feels there are many who would be happy to take the risk for five million dollars if Obama fails to meet the offer.

Moreover, in the wake of what appears to be a calculated plot on the part of the Obama administration to hide the truth about a recent terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which it now appears U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens was murdered by terrorists in retaliation for the death of Osama Bin Laden, Trump is betting the mainstream media are beginning to follow the lead of independent citizen-media websites and finally acknowledging the depth of Obama’s capacity to lie about anything when the truth does not serve his political interests, including his own eligibility to hold the office.

For more than a year and a half, so-called journalists in the mainstream media have accepted at face value the presentation by Barack Obama of a digital image of his alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth as evidence proving his legitimacy to hold the office of president.  However, now that same media is selectively refusing to believe the claims by the same fraudulently installed  administration that an internet video incited riots by offended Muslims resulting in the murder of four Americans in Libya.

In July, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case law enforcement team presented compelling evidence discovered throughout a 10-month investigation showing that the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 long form Certificate of Live Birth was a counterfeited fraud bearing no legal merit to prove Obama’s citizenship or identity.  They also proved the image of Obama’s selective service registration was a fraud based on inconsistencies in the alleged date received stamp and the conflicting date which the document was allegedly signed by Obama.

Following the investigation, Trump began questioning the credibility of Obama’s records once again. 

Then, former libertarian vice presidential candidate and former Columbia alum, Wayne Allen Root, said he never saw Obama in any of the Political Science classes he would have attended with Root if he had actually been there at that time.  Root says he had interview hundreds of his classmates and found no one who could remember seeing Obama in their classes from January 1982 until March of 1983.  

Despite the Obama administration’s insidious capacity to lie about the circumstances involving the murder of four Americans, some in the mainstream media remain irrationally and stubbornly reluctant to accept that it could possibly lie about Obama’s identity.

“The media has looked ridiculous for five years,” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson, “because they are only willing to see the lies in the events which they ignorantly consider as ‘above ground’ in their business model.”

Johannson blames the lack of diligence on the part of the media on a lack of moral decency.  He says the media has resigned itself to a set of moral standards which make criminal activity permissible when it protects political interests and voter favorability.

He continued, “The issue of Obama’s eligibility was libelously ridiculed by a few degenerates of the pro-Obama horde, then as the sentiment infected a complicit social architecture in the media, major networks and cable news soon capitulated when they realized that investigating Obama’s eligibility might reveal apocalyptic and destructive evidence to their own business model.  They realized they couldn’t make money off it so they shoved it ‘under-ground’ where sites like WND and us took it over.”

Johannson concludes, “Unfortunately, it's going to require a collective effort on the part of powerful men like Trump to rid this nation of liars and despots in our government.  The willful circumvention of the Constitution’s eligibility mandate by an intentionally deceptive candidate will eventually have the most destructive consequences greater than any terrorist attack or war in American history.  Our sovereignty has now been revealed as vulnerable throughout the world and it has been advertised to all corners of the globe that America is open to despotism and tyranny from all-comers.  All they have to do is apply as a Democrat party candidate and accuse anyone who challenges their candidacy of being racists…and the propaganda agents of the liberal mainstream press will use its power not to protect the people but actually help the caliphate take over this nation from within.  Eventually, a point of no return will be crossed where the patriots of God will once again bear arms under their Constitution and, as our blood ransomed history has persistently proven, will violently prevail over those liars and tyrants.”

Donald Trump understands a complicit American media establishment is willing to embrace the conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration would engage a massive deception to cover-up evidence in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi but, yet refuse to look into evidence discovered through a 10-month law enforcement investigation that Obama has engaged an even larger deception to hide evidence about his eligibility to hold the office of president.  He took credit for forcing Obama to post a counterfeit version of a birth certificate in 2011.

Requests for Obama’s personal records have been prompted by chronic suspicions that he is not eligible to hold the office of president because he has presented no evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the U.S.  These suspicions have evolved from Obama’s lack of transparency and his failure to disclose what the majority of Americans consider to be common records everyone else must present with any application to a job.  More than 2 million Americans have signed petitions demanding Obama to present his records.

In the video, the master-marketer Trump goads at Obama for his lack of transparency as doubts about Obama’s real identity and citizenship have circulated internet media sites for more than five years.

"I have a deal for the president; a deal that I don't believe he can refuse and I hope he doesn't," Trump said in the YouTube video released at noon on Wednesday.

"If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give to a charity of his choice… a check, immediately, for $5 million," said Trump, who was famously dubbed "Sideshow Don" on the front page of the Daily News in April 2011.

The Donald, as he is nicknamed, told reporters on Wednesday that he has already gotten a "tremendous response" to his offer.

"I think it's a positive thing, and I really think it could very positive for the President if he releases the documents I request.  Positive for the President, the country and the charity."

As reported by Kristen Lee of the NY Daily News, Trump, a vocal supporter of the so-called “birther” movement, was one of the loudest voices pressing Obama to release his long-form birth certificate last year.

When the White House complied, Trump still wasn't satisfied. He's since suggested that Obama's college records would show that he listed a foreign birthplace on applications. Some conservatives have also questioned whether the president benefitted from affirmative action at Columbia University.

The Donald — who began his offer by calling Obama "the least transparent President in the history of this country" — said releasing the college and passport records "will end the question, and indeed the anger, of many Americans."

"This is something that's so easy to do, that will give a tremendous amount of money for a charity," he told the News.

Trump has been teasing his offer since Monday, when he told “Fox & Friends” he would announce "something very, very big concerning the President of the United States."

On Wednesday, he claimed he will be "totally satisfied" if Obama releases the college and passport documents, although he added the vague stipulation that the records must be provided "to my satisfaction."

The immediate response by White House senior adviser David Plouffe indicated that Obama is unlikely to agree to Trump's terms. Plouffe told reporters to direct questions about the offer to Mitt Romney’s headquarters — suggesting that the Obama camp will use Trump’s offer to tie the GOP candidate to the controversial businessman.

"Direct those questions to Boston because Donald Trump is Mitt Romney's biggest supporter, so he owns everything he says," Plouffe told reporters, according to Politico.

Trump gave the president a one-week deadline. He said the records must be turned over by 5:00 p.m. on Oct. 31.

OBOTIC MEDIA DESPERATELY SHIFTING LIES ABOUT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY by Penbrook One
Sunday, August 26, 2012

FLEEING FROM BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO “LEGITIMACY” - A shocking change in the content of reporting at NBC, CNN and CBS indicates the pro-Obama media are beginning to stagger under the weight of facts which plainly show that Barack Obama has never provided valid, corroborated documentation proving he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office.

By Dan Crosby,
of The Daily Pen

New York, NY - The pro-Obama, liberal mainstream media is showing symptoms of fatigue in their endless treading in defense of Barack Obama’s fraudulent identity.

A sudden reverse in liberal media content indicates they are realizing that a defense of Obama’s “eligibility” based on their fading support of his fraudulent birth certificate is no longer sustainable. The lies about Obama's identity are just too heavy to carry for those undersold as errand-slaves for the bowing liberal consensus.

In at least two broadcasts by CBS ad MSNBC, following Mitt Romney’s campaign rally joke about his own birth certificate, hosts from the leftist networks used a term not previously assigned to the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Defense of Obama's "legitimacy" is now emanating from media propagandists indicating they no longer want to defend the lie that the digitally forged image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is an indication that he is “eligible” to be president. Now, they are desperately hoping everyone will forget their abetment of the “eligibility” lie and, now, show grace for Obama’s contingent claims to “legitimacy”.

On Friday, "The Ed Show" host, Ed Schultz, instead of defending the authenticity of Obama’s birth document used the term “legitimate” to defend Obama saying, “Another day at the office with the “Mittster”. Today Mitt Romney reignited the fringe, those in his party who don’t see Obama as a legitimate president.”

Then, Romney’s joke evoked an almost desperate need from CBS’s Scott Pelley to hear Romney say that Obama was a “legitimate” president, while Pelley completely avoided the tired lie that the digital image of Obama alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted an official government website, was an authentic indication that Obama was eligible to be president.

See the video here.

Pelley asked Romney, “In the rally today, you said, ‘No one has ever asked for my birth certificate. They know this is the place I was born and raised.’ Why did you say that?”

Romney told Pelley the comment was a joke based on the fact that he and his wife, Ann, were born and raised in Michigan.

Pelley then embarked a pathetic defense of Obama, “But, this was a swipe at the president.”

"No, no, not a swipe," Romney replied. "I've said throughout the campaign and before, there's no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home. And humor, you know -- we've got to have a little humor in a campaign."

Unconvinced under the crushing weight of his own chronic dissonance, Pelley then posited a question which reveals the old lie is no longer effective for liberals and that they are beginning to rethink their position on Obama’s alleged birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility.

“For the record, will you say, once and for all, that you believe Obama is a legitimate president?” pleaded Pelley.

Romney replied with a confident smile, “I have said that 30 times, I guess 31 won’t hurt.”

Romney answer accompanied a sudden light in his eyes. As if he now understands that a question about Obama’s "legitimacy" is not the same as a defense of his "eligibility". He also realized from Pelley’s question that the media knows it, too.

“If you have the wherewithal to suspect that sharks are preparing to attack because they happen to smell blood in the water, perhaps instead of asking why the sharks are attacking, you should ask, why am I bleeding?” asks TDP editor, Pen Johannson.

“Obama was bleeding credibility on the issue of his eligibility long before anyone challenged him. The media is beginning to see this.”

Eligibility is based on a legal requirement rooted in the rule of law and doctrinal precedent over the past 250 years in America. Legitimacy, on the other hand, is a transient status of subjective entitlement based on the fact that voters supported the candidate, even though the candidate was never legally eligible to be elected.

In 1840, John Tyler, serving as Vice President as the first ever candidate eligible for the office of President born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, became the first candidate required by the Constitution to be a Natural Born citizen of the United States, which he was. However, Tyler was also the first candidate to perform the duties of President without being elected to the office. He was forced to assume the powers and duties of president upon the untimely death of President William Henry Harrison just after the 1840 election.

Many in opposition to Harrison’s administration refused to acknowledge Tyler as a “legitimate” President, even disparaging him as “His Accidency”. Harrison's unprecedented death in office caused considerable confusion regarding Tyler’s succession despite the fact that he was eligibile.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution merely states:

“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President.”

The Constitution did not endow Tyler with the title of President in his own right, just the powers of the office. It only stated that the “Powers and Duties” of the deceased President Harrison would “devolve” upon him as Vice President, not that he would hold the office. Read literally, Tyler would remain the Vice President with presidential powers, as Acting President, but he could not be called “President of the United States”.

In spite of his constitutional eligibility to be president, Tyler’s opponents refused to acknowledge that he was a “legitimate” president. Therefore, it is completely absurd for the liberal media to actually expect that Obama would be considered “legitimate” without a shred of documented proof of eligibility.

Obama’s legal right to hold office has never been verified because he does not possess the historical proof to show that he meets the requirements stipulated by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

MEDIA LOSING CREDIBILITY AS OBAMA LOSES AUTHORITY

Shultz and Pelley, like the remaining slew of obotic liars in the liberal media, are being confronted with a terrifying reality that there is no proof that Obama is actually eligible to be president. Moreover, they are realizing that only Obama, not original sources, has been the only one they were allowed to receive information from about his identity, which they willingly swallowed and so enthusiastically defended as the truth.

They see the fox in the hen house. The shift in perception indicates the delusions of liberal media are now being confronted with the reality that Obama has poisoned and corrupted their personal and professional reputations. They are beginning to think Obama might actually be a fraud.

Long ago, CBS and NBC sold out to Obama’s and have no way to reconcile with the soul crushing truth so they no longer have the credibility to fight the cause for Obama based on the losing proposition that the birth certificate represents the truth about his identity. It does not. It represents the greatest lie ever told to the American people, and they are beginning to realize it.

Mitt Romney’s recent joke about his own birth certificate, according to CBS, was apparently an endorsement of suspicions by so-called “birthers” that “…ultimately drove Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.”

Yes, a CBS writer, lost in ideological delusions about Obama’s eligibility grandeur, actually used the word, “drove” in attempting to convince themselves of an elusive reality about the intentions of Romney’s comment.

Of course, CBS reporters can provide no documented proof that Romney’s comment was directed at Barack Obama. Sounds a little like CBS believes there is a coo-coo conspiracy to undermine Obama. They are beginning to sound more like what they accuse so-called “birthers” of, everyday.

CBS and other liberal emanations seem to be slowly admitting, now, that the derogatorily called “birther” movement must have had the power and facts to “drive” the anointed One of a bowing liberal consensus to the brink if destruction by forcing him to actually provide evidence that he is who he says he is.

Think about what CBS is claiming. A bunch of crazy, rightwing fringe racists “drove” Obama to present a digitally fabricated image of an alleged 1961 birth certificate which was proven by 10 month-long criminal investigation to be a forgery?

They sound like crazy left-wing conspiracy theorists. Acknowledging the power to drive an alleged “legally eligible” president to prove his legitimacy is a lot of respect to assign those formerly considered a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists.

Imbalanced pundits like Shultz and Pelley are beginning to look like fools. Labeling those who question Obama’s eligibility as racists and crazy people is beginning to come back on liberals in a very destructive way. When the truth is against you, your condemnations will return to haunt and destroy you because no aspersion you cast holds credibility once the lies you defended are exposed. At that point, you have become worthy of destruction and ridicule.

Let’s talk about Obama’s legitimacy, shall we?

After all, sarcastically speaking, it’s not as if suspicions about Obama’s illegitimacy were actually based on facts about his past, like the fact that his alleged father was never a U.S. citizen…which means he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be president based on 250 years of legal and doctrinal precedence.

Legitimacy?

Facts like, Obama voted in favor of congressional resolution 511 stating that his 2008 opponent, John McCain, was a natural born citizen because, unlike Obama, both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens serving in the military and, therefore, eligible to run for president, despite the fact that McCain was not born in the U.S.

Legitimacy?

Obama lived to Indonesia as a boy, attended school as Indonesian citizen as required by Indonesian law and so stated on his school registration form, and has never provided documentation showing that he retained his American citizenship upon return to Hawaii in 1971.

Legitimacy?

Obama traveled to Pakistan, by his own admission, using a passport which would show his citizenship status in 1980 and, yet, it has never been allowed to be seen by anyone. Legitimacy?

Legitimacy?

Obama refuses to provide his college transcripts which contain information about whether or not he attended school as a foreign student, which would show that if he received foreign scholarships he could not have applied as a U.S. citizen.

Legitimacy?

The Democrat Party of Hawaii chairman, Brian Schatz, refused in August of 2008 to provide an “Official Certification of Nomination” containing legally required language under Hawaiian election laws stating that Obama was “constitutionally eligible” to hold the office of President.

Legitimacy?

Obama’s literary publicist printed in an official promotional brochure for 16 years that he was born in Kenya.

Legitimacy?

Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration card, allegedly signed by Obama a day AFTER it was stamped by a Honolulu postal worker, apparently using the only two-digit year received stamp ever possessed by the U.S. post office, was determined by a six month law enforcement investigation to be a forgery. Requests by investigators for the original record from the Selective Service Administration were denied without explanation.

Legitimacy?

The digital .pdf image of his alleged 1961 Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” has been proven through a criminal investigation by officials with years of federal, state and local law enforcement experience.

Obama’s horde of puppets have a better chance of winning the eligibility argument.

New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”

by Sharon Rondeau

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

New Hampshire produced the first state constitution on January 5, 1776, prior to the American Revolution

(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.

New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.

The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”

We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.”

The Post & Email asked, “Were you surprised that your own state Supreme Court refused to hear your appeal?” and Rappaport responded, “Yes, I was surprised.” He stated that in the letter he received, having been one of the plaintiffs, no reason had been provided.

Rappaort described the purpose of the press conference:

Our biggest concern is that the public becomes aware of what’s going on. We think that the public does not understand, and it is our effort to try to enlighten them. I would cite three things: First of all, there was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which gave the definition at the time of the Founders. Second, there was the case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which established the definition of “natural born Citizen” as one who has two American-citizen parents. We have tons of evidence that Obama’s alleged father was not a citizen. He never held a green card and was never a resident alien. In fact, the truth is he was thrown out of the country.

Rappaport also cited Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, which declared that John McCain was a natural born Citizen by virtue of having two U.S.-citizen parents, but that Obama was not held to the same standard, and he “didn’t know why.”

The Post & Email asked Rappaport, “Do you think that most of your constituents support what you are doing?” and he responded, “Yes. Obama is definitely not very popular in northern New Hampshire.” He stated that Coos County is the largest land mass in the state, has only about 30,000 residents, and was the reason he moved there. New Hampshire has a total of about 1,300,000 residents.

As to his reason for questioning Obama’s eligibility, Rappaport said, “We all swore an oath to two constitutions: the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. I take my oath very seriously, and I feel that I’m required by that oath to do this. I feel very strongly about that. I’ve received a death threat on this go-around and a lot of letters from people who disagree with me. I’ve been called names, but I’ve never gotten a reasoned explanation, not one. I feel as if everyone is claiming ‘This is a settled matter, but I haven’t heard that.’”

We then asked him, “Do you believe the April 27, 2011 purported birth certificate being released to the public is what they’re considering the point which ‘settled’ it?” and he responded, “It didn’t come from him specifically; it came from the ‘White House.’ It is my opinion that not only is it a forgery, but it is a lousy forgery. I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened, although a document expert could have still determined that it was a forgery.”

Rappaport stated that his background was in electrical engineering and that he “wrote computer software.” He said his skills include laying out a website, although he sometimes “hired other people” to do things beyond his skill level and is not a computer “expert.” Other New Hampshire representatives also have stated that they believe the image is a forgery.

The press conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, and New Hampshire media will be notified. “There’s no guarantee that any major media will cover it, but my biggest hope is that major media is finally waking up. When I was growing up, I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Back then, The Times, in particular, was a really good newspaper. What you read on the front page was news, and what you read on the Editorial page was opinion, and the two were not mixed. Today, the news is highly biased. I feel as if The New York Times and The Washington Post report on a story only if it’s something they agree with. If it’s something they don’t agree with, it doesn’t appear anywhere. If it’s something that they mostly agree with, then you’ll find it on page 40.”

Rappaport is 71 and serving his second term in the New Hampshire House. He stated that the organizers of the press conference would have preferred to have more time to plan, but the New Hampshire primary is fast approaching on January 10 and they want to inform the people of what they believe has transpired. The group will also invite the attorney general and all New Hampshire representatives. “My plan is to put out an announcement to all representatives inviting them to support us and to come,” he said.

Final details of the time and place will be released shortly.

WHEN WAS THE “VETTING” OF OBAMA DONE, AND BY WHOM?
Californians to McClintock: What About the Two Citizen Parents McCain Had to Have?
by Sharon Rondeau

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

To which vetting process is Rep. Tom McClintock referring when he says that Obama's eligbility was determined before the election?

(Jul. 16, 2011) — In response to the letter received by Congressman Tom McClintock and published here, the congressman has received the following two letters:

Hi Tom:

As my former Congressman, I hold you in high esteem and also voted for you for Governor. I am a well-regarded retired businessman.

After reading the letter appearing below this one, purportedly from you, I offer the following thoughts. I’m writing to ask you to reconsider your position on the eligibility issue– please hear me out.

1. There was no vetting process. That has been confirmed at the federal level and for various states, including our own (please research the case against Debra Bowen, Secretary of State). Nancy Pelosi omitted the Constitutional eligibility statement in her 2008 “Obama” candidate certification in 49 states and apparently perjured herself in the 50th (Hawaii). The “media” glossed over the vetting of “Obama” and seemed strangely incurious, relying mostly upon the two somewhat fictional “autobiographies.” “Obama” offered almost no background and substantiation of his past. In fact, he has actively and aggressively covered it up, in an unprecedented manner. If you can point out how and who he was vetted by, we would like to help enlighten the benighted public, who question “Obama’s” legitimacy.

2. It is fairly clear, from the papers of the founding fathers and De Vattel’s Law of Nations, a primary reference used by them in the writing of the Constitution, that they thought of a natural born citizen as someone born in this country of two citizen parents at the time of that person’s birth. SR 511 appears to harbor similar assumptions. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. However, CRS wrote a very misleading memo about eligibility, distorting both facts and case law, particularly Minor vs. Happersett. This has been documented in several articles, which we will forward upon request.

3. The withholding of “Obama’s” vital papers and expenditure of possibly up to $2MM to defend him in eligibility legal actions, plus an undetermined amount from DOJ funds, is an outrage. They should have been prosecuting, not defending him.

4. There is documented, indisputable evidence, compiled by multiple independent private investigators (Sankey, Daniels and others), that:
- “Obama” is linked at least 16 stolen Social Security numbers, including 042-68-4425, via name and addresses.
- This was uncovered via commercial databases and other research.
- That led to a finding that his Selective Service registration, linked to the aforementioned Social Security number, is also fraudulent and apparently forged circa 2008.
- At least one of his purported mother’s Social Security numbers appears to be stolen.
- We are told by investigators that this normally happens either when people cannot obtain such documentation legally, or are using it to break the law, usually for financial gain or other felony fraud.

5. There is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah to his current AKA. There is also evidence linking him to an alias of Harrison Bounel.

6. The so-called birth certificate was, after over three years of stalling. finally released in digital form by “Obama,” via the White House staff, on 4-27-11, with limited copies made from an undetermined source document. It has been declared a fraud by dozens of document experts, some of them very well-known and respected. In short, it opens up in Adobe Illustrator as a nine-layered document, displaying numerous symptoms known to experts as evidence of alteration.

7. John McCain was submitted to an extensive investigation and humiliating Senate hearing, on his eligibility for the Presidency, in spite of having a very well-documented history and two American citizen parents. His family has served with distinction as military officers for multiple generations. Even though he was born in Panama (NOT the at the time Canal Zone, a U.S. Possession, as many thought), he was declared eligible, because his father was serving his country as a military officer, a special case. No such hearing was ever held for his Democrat opponent, who had far more mysterious circumstances in his past and had already been served for eligibility suits. Some say this was some sort of quid pro quo. Whatever.

8. You didn’t raise the issue in your letter, but the so-called “birth announcements”:
- Are unvetted
- Are not legal documents
- Could have been triggered via relatives in a request, or Certification (NOT Certificate) of Live Birth, obtained with only an affidavit, under Hawaiian law.
- Do not state the name of the child
- Do not state the place of birth
- List a false address, where the parents never lived

Congress and courts have both failed to act on the issues, to date. The Courts claim it’s Congress’ responsibility and Congress vice- versa. You say it’s a non-issue. About half of the public at large surveyed think otherwise.

We do NOT intend to roll over and let this go away. The stakes are way too high. The founders established a high bar for eligibility, precisely to help avoid situations like we have now, with a chief executive whose priorities, loyalties, ideology and revered traditions clearly do not stand with We The People. This and his many impeachable offenses, are far worse than Watergate and Monicagate to the nth power.

We hope and pray that you will have the courage to act, to motivate the House of Reps to investigate this and act accordingly. I also ask you to help motivate the FBI to move on the multiple complaints submitted.

We do not think it is sufficient to wait until January 2013 to solve the problem, particularly because he has been so very dangerous and destructive in office and seems willing to commit massive fraud to get his way, with powerful forces enabling him to do so.

Regards,

G. Miller

———————————

Dear Rep. McLintock,

I read your letter to “redacted” on the Post and Email website and would like to share the following. You said that President Obama was thoroughly vetted and found clean. I don’t think so. You may have forgotten Senate Resolution 511 which vetted Sen. McCain on being a natural born citizen. He was cleared and his nomination accepted by Democrats. But here’s what you and so many others are missing. During one of the hearings on Res. 511 Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “Because he (McCain) was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” Obviously, “born to American citizens” means that both parents are U.S. citizens, which McCain’s parents were. But by this statement, Sen. Leahy admitted that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution. This appeared to be a thoughtless “oops” that went unnoticed. But according to the historical record and Surpeme Court rulings, Leahy is dead on. Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States because his father was Kenyan and never was a U.S. citizen. McCain must have known this, but why didn’t he bring it up? And why didn’t he and Republicans demand that Sen. Obama be vetted for natural born citizenship also? Those questions need to be answered, but try and get one. The real substance of natural born citizenship is citizen parents and Leahy nailed it. So you are wrong, sir, when you say that Barack Obama was thoroughly vetted. He has committed election fraud and is guilty of usurping the presidency, among other things. Check with Senator Leahy and see if he still believes a natural born citizen is born of parents who are BOTH “American citizens.”

Regards, J. Black

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.