Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii - Thanks CDR Charles Kerchner
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
And even more so now see: Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB
A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers Published
HawaiiThe New York Times on April 21, 2010, did a story entitled, Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll, by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/obama-and-the-birthers-in-the-latest-poll/. The article reported that “[i]n a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent).” Question No. 50 in the poll was: ”According to the Constitution, American Presidents must be ‘natural born citizens.’ Some people say Barack Obama was NOT born in the United States, but was born in another country. Do YOU think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or was he born in another country? Born in US 58 Another country 20 DK/NA 23.” Hence, these numbers show that 43 percent do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. The New York Times article is written in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that those who do not believe that Obama was born there are misinformed and poorly educated. What the authors of the article fail to realize or refuse to report is that concerned Americans have very good reasons to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.
One might wonder why so many Americans are not convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims. Let us review the evidence pro and con on his place of birth being Hawaii or Kenya.
Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?
Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” Second, in any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:
(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);
(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB] computer form, which is a computer generated and easily forged form that was posted online in 2008 which is not a true Birth Certificate and is not a typed contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would have the name and signature of the delivering doctor or witnesses to the birth. No witnesses or hospitals have ever attested to Obama being born in Hawaii.);
(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);
(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);
(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can legally even raise the question and who among them would);
(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);
(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born);
(8) Congress confirmed his election (although political party politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue);
(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that defacto status is not proof of where he was born);
10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);
(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not ever publicly produced one);
(12 The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive and they have never confirmed the online COLB computer form image is genuine); and
(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu. See No. 20 below).
Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:
(1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;
(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;
(3) Ms. Odhiambo a Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in session and recorded in the official record of the Kenyan National Assembly on 5 Nov 2008 on page 3275 that Obama was a son of the soil of their country;
(4) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. Also see this more recent one in Ghana. Africa’s press knows what the American media refuses to investigate. There have also been other reports in the media that Obama was born in Kenya. A good list of these reports may be found at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293 where actual screen shots of the stories may be viewed;
(5) Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama stated in a video taped speech she made a couple years ago that Kenya is Obama’s home country. During a speech that Michelle gave to an audience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) delegates at the 2008 Democrat Party Convention on the topic of getting tested for HIV and in showing that Obama leads by example, Michelle Obama told them: “He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know–a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, he took a public HIV test for the very point of showing the folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” “Home country” is defined as “the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.” http://www.allwords.com/word-home+country.html. It is highly suspicious that Obama’s transcripts of Michelle’s speech now do not contain the reference by Michelle to Kenya being his “home country.” http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/03/obamas-facebook-page-omits-michelles-home-country-of-kenya-remark/. Obama’s facebook page has a transcript of her “home country” speech. The transcript omits the “home country” wording and says this instead: “He has supported full funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and has pledged to implement a national HIV/AIDS strategy to combat the continuing epidemic in the United States. He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, a stigma tied all too often to homophobia. And he’s led by example: On our trip to Kenya, (omission) we both took a public HIV test.” The words “Barack’s home country” are omitted;
(6) NPR public radio archived story says Obama in Kenyan-born;
(7) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;
(8) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters that her half-brother, then Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children which is also located in Honolulu. Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center;
(9) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;
(10) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;
(11) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;
(12) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);
(13) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;
(14) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;
(15) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated June 6, 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate). FactCheck.org web site has this to say about the COLB: “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.” FactCheck did provide an “Update,” on August 26, when they stated: “We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health.” They go on to explain they did get some clarification from them to “some” of their questions. But they do not address why DOH did not answer their question as to why DOH “only offer the short form” COLB. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. It is unbelievable that a fact-checking organization such a FactCheck (actually a reading of their “objective” information on this issue shows that they are quite biased and prejudiced on the issue in favor of Obama) would allow such an important matter to just die with the excuse that the DOH did not provide a response to their request for information. Would any reasonable person call that responsible and thorough fact investigation? Hawaii Department of Heath has “affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347. For an explanation as to who at the FactCheck organization allegedly handled and photographed the COLB and “authenticated” the document (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) go to http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/AnnenbergFactCheckers.htm;
(16) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document later pictured on the internet is a forgery;
(17) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;
(18) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root “evidence” is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.
Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”
Obama alleges he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. At no time during the ongoing public debate about whether Obama was born in Hawaii has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama’s alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was “completed and filed” with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi’olani Medical Center to confirm Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.
We will know what the underlying evidence is about Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii only if we can examine Obama’s contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii’s or anybody else’s bare statement as to the place and time of Obama’s birth.
Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence which would at least give the public greater assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine;
(19) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;
(20) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the “son.” The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2010/04/16/true-1961-birth-announcements-reported-by-hawaii-bureau-of-health-statistics/. Note the heading of both of the ads says “Health Bureau Statistics” which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;
(21) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field. See these examples compared to Obama’s COLB. This implies the birth registration was never finally accepted and that additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never “Accepted;”
(22) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people have questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama’s supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the “birthers”) could be put in their place once and for all;
(23) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu;
(24) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital;
(25) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke (”the Nordyke twins”) were born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes’ certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins’ birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins’ certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama’s and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama’s birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama’s purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state’s procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347;
(26) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo. Ironically, he expressed that “[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance….” He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the “unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years….” He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the “Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people….” He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: “The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.” Mr. Erengo’s statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a “native American.” It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/30293518/Minister-in-Kenyan-National-Assembly-on-25-March-2010-states-Obama-born-in-Kenya-See-page-31. The speech of Mr. Erengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;
(27) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama’s origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. “What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?” Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson’s Rebels http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/kenyan-minister-khalwale-asks-when.html.
None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting a computer image of an alleged 2008 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.
Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.
It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 25, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner:
Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.
Birth Registration Fraud. It’s Been Done Before. As reported by WND.com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107200
Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
« Jeff Kuhner declares we have a fascist gangster in the White House, says Obama must release all records and top DC Lib Journalists now have doubts about Obama, but afraid to report it. // John Jay’s Letter in 1787 to George Washington - Thanks Charles »
Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB
Posted on April 25th, 2010 by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
DOCUMENT CONTAINS REGISTRAR’S NAME, ISSUE DATE AND RAISED SEAL
by Sharon Rondeau
John F. Sweeney produced this edge-detection image of the Certificate of Live Birth obtained by The Post & Email from a person who had requested it from the Hawaii Department of Health(Apr. 25, 2010) — The Post & Email is in possession of an original paper “Certificate of Live Birth” recently issued from the Hawaii Department of Health to an American citizen born in Hawaii in 1981 as verified by his mother.
At first glance, the document appears similar to the image posted on Obama’s campaign website. However, there are some differences:
* The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
* There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.” Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there. Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
* There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
* On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
* Below the date there is a stamp which reads: “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” The signature Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
* The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
* Unlike Obama’s, there are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front.
The Post & Email had published an in-depth analysis by photographic expert John F. Sweeney of the document which Factcheck.org claimed to have photographed at its Chicago office in March 2008 but which Sweeney maintains was taken at the Obama campaign headquarters instead.
Factcheck.org claims that the document on their website has a raised seal. However, the same edge-detection technique used with the image from Factcheck’s website shown below yields no such raised seal. Mr. Sweeney stated in his earlier analysis:
Edge-detection of the document released by Factcheck.org shows no raised seal (John F. Sweeney)
“What else is in, or more importantly, not in this photo? There is absolutely no evidence of a raised seal in the lower right portion of the document where the supposed scans and other supposed photos show the raised, 3-D seal from the Department of Health machine. The seal should be located in the area that has the shadow of the arm. But it is not there. It is not visible to the naked eye; there is not a sign of it under any zooming of the original photo; no digital manipulation tools find any evidence of a raised seal in this picture. With 100% certainty, the raised seal is not there. So this is merely a picture of a printout. It is definitely not an official COLB from Hawaii…The photo is not that of an official Hawaiian issue COLB due to the lack of a raised seal.”
According to a WorldNetDaily report dated July 29, 2009, in 1961, there were four different ways to obtain birth documentation from the Hawaii Department of Health, including a mail-in registration requiring no in-person substantiation of the birth by an adult. One website reports that there were six ways to do so, with one category, the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, being eliminated in 1972.
The Hawaii Department of Health provides the following information on how to apply for a “late registration” of birth:
As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration:
* Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person.
* Registration of a late certificate of death, marriage, or divorce may be requested by the person in charge of the disposition of the body, marriage officiant or performer, or court clerk, respectively.
Factcheck.org claims that members of its staff examined Obama’s “birth certificate” at Obama headquarters and that “we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).” However, Factcheck displays a raised seal which cannot be conclusively determined to belong to Obama’s COLB, and the photo above using edge-detection shows no raised seal.
Likewise, Factcheck displays the stamp of Alvin T. Onaka’s signature in a close-up shot, but the background appears to be a darker shade of green than the full document. Similarly, the “blowup” of the “City” field on the Factcheck document appears to be a different shade of green than the full-size document shown above it. There is nothing to prove that an official registrar’s stamp, raised seal, or date stamp are present on the Factcheck document.
“Blowup” of a closeup from Obama’s purported “birth certificate” from Factcheck.org
In Factcheck’s “Analysis” of the purported Obama birth certificate, several links to news articles which supposedly quoted Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as saying that she had personally seen Obama’s birth certificate on file no longer work, although the cited news reports are readily available elsewhere, and Dr. Fukino’s official public statements can be found here and here.
The document which The Post & Email has obtained shows the word “Certificate” at the top. The person to whom it belongs was born in Hawaii. Is the “Certification” document with Obama’s name on it an indication that he received a “delayed registration”? Is the word “Certification” used only in cases where a birth in Hawaii cannot be conclusively proven?
During a meeting of the Kenyan Parliament on March 25, 2010, Minister of Lands James Orengo stated that Obama was born in Kenya and not in the United States (p. 31). A previous Parliament meeting on November 5, 2008 contains multiple references to what might be understood as his birth in Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Peter Ogego, stated that Obama’s birthplace is Kenya “is well-known,” and Obama’s wife has called Kenya his “home country.”
To date, no witnesses to Obama’s birth in Hawaii have come forward. Questions about his original birth certificate have been avoided by both the Bush administration and Obama regime.
Could Obama himself have requested a document from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 in preparation for his run for President? Did he file for a “delayed registration”? If so, what documentation did he present to Dr. Fukino or someone else at the Health Department? Could he have presented the birth announcements from the two Hawaii newspapers as proof of his birth there to obtain the “Certification of Live Birth”?
———————–
Editor’s Note: Many thanks to John F. Sweeney for his assistance in preparing this report.
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
Tags: Obama research //
One Response to “Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB”
1.
peggy // Apr 25, 2010 at 9:57 pm
obama’s colb is different for sure”””’an african race father for 1……a blotting out of the reference numbers that voids the document…..2……..a colb that says ”’ filed” and not approved…..3. the one with the reference numbers does not match up with the noridake twins .4…..nor does THE TWINS’ c o l b look anything like…” BARRY BOEHMER’S”’……… go figure . a fraud by any “r’ose ” STILL SMELLS like a FRAUD
Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB
Posted on April 25th, 2010 by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
DOCUMENT CONTAINS REGISTRAR’S NAME, ISSUE DATE AND RAISED SEAL
by Sharon Rondeau
John F. Sweeney produced this edge-detection image of the Certificate of Live Birth obtained by The Post & Email from a person who had requested it from the Hawaii Department of Health(Apr. 25, 2010) — The Post & Email is in possession of an original paper “Certificate of Live Birth” recently issued from the Hawaii Department of Health to an American citizen born in Hawaii in 1981 as verified by his mother.
At first glance, the document appears similar to the image posted on Obama’s campaign website. However, there are some differences:
* The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
* There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.” Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there. Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
* There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
* On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
* Below the date there is a stamp which reads: “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” The signature Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
* The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
* Unlike Obama’s, there are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front.
The Post & Email had published an in-depth analysis by photographic expert John F. Sweeney of the document which Factcheck.org claimed to have photographed at its Chicago office in March 2008 but which Sweeney maintains was taken at the Obama campaign headquarters instead.
Factcheck.org claims that the document on their website has a raised seal. However, the same edge-detection technique used with the image from Factcheck’s website shown below yields no such raised seal. Mr. Sweeney stated in his earlier analysis:
Edge-detection of the document released by Factcheck.org shows no raised seal (John F. Sweeney)
“What else is in, or more importantly, not in this photo? There is absolutely no evidence of a raised seal in the lower right portion of the document where the supposed scans and other supposed photos show the raised, 3-D seal from the Department of Health machine. The seal should be located in the area that has the shadow of the arm. But it is not there. It is not visible to the naked eye; there is not a sign of it under any zooming of the original photo; no digital manipulation tools find any evidence of a raised seal in this picture. With 100% certainty, the raised seal is not there. So this is merely a picture of a printout. It is definitely not an official COLB from Hawaii…The photo is not that of an official Hawaiian issue COLB due to the lack of a raised seal.”
According to a WorldNetDaily report dated July 29, 2009, in 1961, there were four different ways to obtain birth documentation from the Hawaii Department of Health, including a mail-in registration requiring no in-person substantiation of the birth by an adult. One website reports that there were six ways to do so, with one category, the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, being eliminated in 1972.
The Hawaii Department of Health provides the following information on how to apply for a “late registration” of birth:
As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration:
* Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person.
* Registration of a late certificate of death, marriage, or divorce may be requested by the person in charge of the disposition of the body, marriage officiant or performer, or court clerk, respectively.
Factcheck.org claims that members of its staff examined Obama’s “birth certificate” at Obama headquarters and that “we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).” However, Factcheck displays a raised seal which cannot be conclusively determined to belong to Obama’s COLB, and the photo above using edge-detection shows no raised seal.
Likewise, Factcheck displays the stamp of Alvin T. Onaka’s signature in a close-up shot, but the background appears to be a darker shade of green than the full document. Similarly, the “blowup” of the “City” field on the Factcheck document appears to be a different shade of green than the full-size document shown above it. There is nothing to prove that an official registrar’s stamp, raised seal, or date stamp are present on the Factcheck document.
“Blowup” of a closeup from Obama’s purported “birth certificate” from Factcheck.org
In Factcheck’s “Analysis” of the purported Obama birth certificate, several links to news articles which supposedly quoted Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as saying that she had personally seen Obama’s birth certificate on file no longer work, although the cited news reports are readily available elsewhere, and Dr. Fukino’s official public statements can be found here and here.
The document which The Post & Email has obtained shows the word “Certificate” at the top. The person to whom it belongs was born in Hawaii. Is the “Certification” document with Obama’s name on it an indication that he received a “delayed registration”? Is the word “Certification” used only in cases where a birth in Hawaii cannot be conclusively proven?
During a meeting of the Kenyan Parliament on March 25, 2010, Minister of Lands James Orengo stated that Obama was born in Kenya and not in the United States (p. 31). A previous Parliament meeting on November 5, 2008 contains multiple references to what might be understood as his birth in Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Peter Ogego, stated that Obama’s birthplace is Kenya “is well-known,” and Obama’s wife has called Kenya his “home country.”
To date, no witnesses to Obama’s birth in Hawaii have come forward. Questions about his original birth certificate have been avoided by both the Bush administration and Obama regime.
Could Obama himself have requested a document from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 in preparation for his run for President? Did he file for a “delayed registration”? If so, what documentation did he present to Dr. Fukino or someone else at the Health Department? Could he have presented the birth announcements from the two Hawaii newspapers as proof of his birth there to obtain the “Certification of Live Birth”?
———————–
Editor’s Note: Many thanks to John F. Sweeney for his assistance in preparing this report.
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
Tags: Obama research //
One Response to “Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB”
1.
peggy // Apr 25, 2010 at 9:57 pm
obama’s colb is different for sure”””’an african race father for 1……a blotting out of the reference numbers that voids the document…..2……..a colb that says ”’ filed” and not approved…..3. the one with the reference numbers does not match up with the noridake twins .4…..nor does THE TWINS’ c o l b look anything like…” BARRY BOEHMER’S”’……… go figure . a fraud by any “r’ose ” STILL SMELLS like a FRAUD
About that birth certificate (which Obama refuses to produce) - Thanks Redd
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Hillbuzz publsihed
One of the most ingenious things the Obama campaign did in 2008 was to nullify all questions about why he refused to produce his birth certificate, by stoking the “birther” conspiracy that he was not born in the United States and, thus, painting anyone who talked about his birth certificate as insane.
It’s classic magic trick distraction.
Whenever anyone questions why the current President of the United States refuses to release his original birth certificate, his followers immediately launch into an Alinsky-based attack on the person who brought the matter up — attacking that person as a “birther”.
This is a remarkably effective trick, because no one ever sees the REAL reason he does not want his birth certificate released. The “birther” screaming and yelling keeps attention focused away from what his original birth certificate would reveal about his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
In 1961, when Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, his father would have most likely be listed as “Arab”, not black, on his birth certificate. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was only 1/4 black, and identified himself as a Kenyan Arab. According to how the British would have recorded him in their documents back then, BHO Sr. would have been “Arab”.
Furthermore, if Hawaii’s birth certificates in 1961 were like our own birth certificates from Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York in the 1970s, then Obama’s official and original birth certificate would have been handwritten, with the religion of his parents recorded under their names. That’s what all of our birth certificates say, anyway. ”Catholic” is listed under most of our mothers’ and fathers’ names, with “Baptist” and “Episcopalian” on two of those slots.
We’ve always believed the reason Obama does not produce his birth certificate is because his father is listed as “Arab” and “Muslim” on that form, which is what he would have been recorded as in 1961 in Hawaii.
That cuts against the narrative that Obama rode to the White House, which he affirmed in his 2010 census — which is that he is black. This is how he has chosen to self-identify, and it’s the tool he used to advance himself so fast through the Democrat Party. He even had William Ayers write two books all about his racial grievances.
None of that flies if the public sees that his father was an “Arab” “Muslim”, as recorded on that birth certificate.
The public would have a very bad reaction to this, and would look upon the Lightbringer as a fraud and liar.
The whole White House of cards would collapse. Re-election 2012 would be a non-starter.
Hence, the White House and every Democrat in office is doing everything it can to make sure Obama’s original birth certificate never sees the light of day.
We believe if efforts in Arizona, Georgia, and Oklahoma succeed and they, and other states, pass legislation requiring presidential candidates to produce their original birth certificates to appear on the 2012 ballot, there will be some sort of fire or other accident at the Hall of Records in Honolulu. Expect a discovery relative to that which announces Obama’s original birth certificate, on file in Hawaii, was destroyed in that fire or other mysterious accident (beneficial to the White House). Because Obama moved around so much as a child, and because his mother and grandmother are now dead, the White House will announce they are unable to locate his familial copies of his original birth certificate. Thus, the recently computer generated “Certificate of Live Birth” produced by Obama will be the only document available for public inspection.
Obama’s narrative depends on his father being a black atheist from Kenya…a “goat herder”.
The reason the birth certificate will never see the light of day is because it reveals his father to be an “Arab” “Muslim”, and damn proud of it.
What’s happened here is that Obama promoted a lie about who his father really was — and he did this to get elected to high office. Now in that office, he needs to do everything possible to protect and eternally perpetuate that lie, lest he lose it all.
And the main strategy for protecting the lie is to demonize anyone asking questions about it — which is the Alinsky Method. Attack anyone asking where the birth certificate is and why it won’t be produced, call them “birthers”, and paint them as crazy…so that no one ever stops to look at the REAL reason the White House won’t produce a simple document and end all controversy.
Because they do not want you to see that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was an “Arab” “Muslim”, according to that document.
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Hillbuzz publsihed
One of the most ingenious things the Obama campaign did in 2008 was to nullify all questions about why he refused to produce his birth certificate, by stoking the “birther” conspiracy that he was not born in the United States and, thus, painting anyone who talked about his birth certificate as insane.
It’s classic magic trick distraction.
Whenever anyone questions why the current President of the United States refuses to release his original birth certificate, his followers immediately launch into an Alinsky-based attack on the person who brought the matter up — attacking that person as a “birther”.
This is a remarkably effective trick, because no one ever sees the REAL reason he does not want his birth certificate released. The “birther” screaming and yelling keeps attention focused away from what his original birth certificate would reveal about his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
In 1961, when Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, his father would have most likely be listed as “Arab”, not black, on his birth certificate. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was only 1/4 black, and identified himself as a Kenyan Arab. According to how the British would have recorded him in their documents back then, BHO Sr. would have been “Arab”.
Furthermore, if Hawaii’s birth certificates in 1961 were like our own birth certificates from Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York in the 1970s, then Obama’s official and original birth certificate would have been handwritten, with the religion of his parents recorded under their names. That’s what all of our birth certificates say, anyway. ”Catholic” is listed under most of our mothers’ and fathers’ names, with “Baptist” and “Episcopalian” on two of those slots.
We’ve always believed the reason Obama does not produce his birth certificate is because his father is listed as “Arab” and “Muslim” on that form, which is what he would have been recorded as in 1961 in Hawaii.
That cuts against the narrative that Obama rode to the White House, which he affirmed in his 2010 census — which is that he is black. This is how he has chosen to self-identify, and it’s the tool he used to advance himself so fast through the Democrat Party. He even had William Ayers write two books all about his racial grievances.
None of that flies if the public sees that his father was an “Arab” “Muslim”, as recorded on that birth certificate.
The public would have a very bad reaction to this, and would look upon the Lightbringer as a fraud and liar.
The whole White House of cards would collapse. Re-election 2012 would be a non-starter.
Hence, the White House and every Democrat in office is doing everything it can to make sure Obama’s original birth certificate never sees the light of day.
We believe if efforts in Arizona, Georgia, and Oklahoma succeed and they, and other states, pass legislation requiring presidential candidates to produce their original birth certificates to appear on the 2012 ballot, there will be some sort of fire or other accident at the Hall of Records in Honolulu. Expect a discovery relative to that which announces Obama’s original birth certificate, on file in Hawaii, was destroyed in that fire or other mysterious accident (beneficial to the White House). Because Obama moved around so much as a child, and because his mother and grandmother are now dead, the White House will announce they are unable to locate his familial copies of his original birth certificate. Thus, the recently computer generated “Certificate of Live Birth” produced by Obama will be the only document available for public inspection.
Obama’s narrative depends on his father being a black atheist from Kenya…a “goat herder”.
The reason the birth certificate will never see the light of day is because it reveals his father to be an “Arab” “Muslim”, and damn proud of it.
What’s happened here is that Obama promoted a lie about who his father really was — and he did this to get elected to high office. Now in that office, he needs to do everything possible to protect and eternally perpetuate that lie, lest he lose it all.
And the main strategy for protecting the lie is to demonize anyone asking questions about it — which is the Alinsky Method. Attack anyone asking where the birth certificate is and why it won’t be produced, call them “birthers”, and paint them as crazy…so that no one ever stops to look at the REAL reason the White House won’t produce a simple document and end all controversy.
Because they do not want you to see that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was an “Arab” “Muslim”, according to that document.
New Motions Filed in Hollister v. Soetoro; seeks hearing, release of court opinion, enters Justice Clarence Thomas eligibility evasion statement and more… - Thanks CDR Charles Kerchner
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Updating Hollister v. Soetoro new filing
Birther report
Attorney John Hemenway files new motions in Hollister v. Soetoro lawsuit -
Motion to Publish; The plaintiff/appellant Gregory S. Hollister, and the counsel/appellant John D. Hemenway, hereby request of the Court that it publish its panel opinion in this case as handed down on March 22, 2010. Although that opinion merely adopted, without independent analysis or reasoning, the two opinions from the court below, it is a very important repudiation of cases from the 19th Century such as the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, joined by Mr. Justice Livingston, in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and the opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 (Wall.) U.S. 162 (1874).
Further, as set out in the accompanying Petition for Reconsideration and Suggestion for a Hearing En Banc it is a matter of great importance for the American people and the history of this nation as a nation under the Rule of Law with a paramount Constitution. This is the first man in the oval office since Chester Arthur to appear to not meet the requirement of the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 5 that to occupy the office one must be a “natural born citizen” in the sense put forward by Vattel as familiar to the founders.
Further, unlike Chester G. Arthur, this occupant of the Oval Office has engaged in outright deception about what is his actual birth certificate as part of his campaign and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars as revealed in the public records of the Federal Election Commission, as to which this Court may take notice, to resist revealing not only his actual birth documents but also all of his passport, citizenship and school records. He is the first occupant of the Oval Office to use a State of the Union address to seek to intimidate the Supreme Court. He and his operatives, including a political force directed out of the White House, have engaged in a relentless campaign to attack and ridicule any persons who even dare to ask about his actual birth facts and documentation. At a prayer breakfast he announced by fiat that we, the public, are not allowed to inquire about his birth.
Despite this campaign the public concern over these matters has steadily increased. There is no doubt that the White House directed by the appellee has sought in every way to make judicial attention to these issues “unthinkable.” Mr. Justice Thomas has recently noted that the courts are engaged in avoiding these questions. It is not an understatement to say that the future of our constitutionally based legal system is at stake as is the belief of the American people in and their confidence in that system and its future. It is not seemly in this situation for courts to be seen as avoiding transparency with the American people.
The lower court engaged in an appearance of bias based on what it saw as blogging, texting, and twittering on the Internet. It mistakenly assessed that only a couple of dozen people are paying attention to the matters at issue here. Nothing could be further from the truth. The decentralization of not just information but of decision making itself as foreseen by Norbert Wiener in “Cybernetics” in the 1950’s has occurred and is proceeding with ever increasing size and velocity. There is a rising tide, real grassroots growing, not some big city machine Astroturf, of constitutionalism. History will have its verdicts and all shall be revealed. Ducking will be seen as ducking. Even the appearance of it should be avoided. The blogging, texting and twittering will continue, but it will not support deception where the Constitution is concern. Vetting there will be. But it is truth that will be sorted out.
The rise from status to contract that the great legal scholar and historian Sir Henry Maine described in “The Ancient Law” has been paralleled by a movement from status to liability for deception including those that involve the Constitution. Courts should not be seen to be avoiding important issues out of deference to status rather than the Rule of Law with the Constitution as the basis of that law. Transparency is important and the opinion should be published. Full motion embedded below…
MOTION to Publish - 4-21-2010
- PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUGGESTION FOR HEARING EN BANC - The plaintiff/appellant Gregory S. Hollister and the counsel/appellant John D. Hemenway hereby move for a panel reconsideration and request a hearing en banc by the full court on their case.
Snippet; This abdication by the lower court of its responsibility to examine the merits of the essential claim of the plaintiff Hollister, namely, that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, in which this Court has now joined, bears directly on the question of the assessment of the Rule 11 reprimand against the appellant Hemenway as the counsel who signed the complaint and other filings in this case.
Thus it acted in contradiction to all the cases from other circuits cited above, Schlaifer, Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (2nd Cir. 1999); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir.1998); Davis v. Crush, 862 F.2d 84 (6th Cir.1988); Donaldson v. Clark 819 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir.1987); Chamaikin v. Yefimov, (2nd Cir.1991); Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, (9th Cir.1983); Eash v. Riggins Trucking Co., 757 F.2d 557 (3rd Cir.1985).
All of these cases, as pointed out, make it clear that no Rule 11 sanction should be levied without a hearing and some say it is a violation of due process to do so and some also add that there must be a particularized notice of what justifies the sanction, which did not happen here. Donaldson even points out that sanctions, without proper process, approach denial of access to the courts.We have pointed in our briefing that the 19th Century decisions such as John Marshall’s opinion in The Venus, supra, and Minor v. Happersett, supra, point out how it was that the concept of “natural born citizen” from Vattel’s treatise on the Law of Nations was what the founders had in mind. Just recently the records have been located that reveal that George Washington himself never returned his copy of this treatise that he borrowed from the New York Library. This court is obliged to coordinate with those 19th century decisions. Without ascertaining this, the warrant in law that they assert gives a Rule 11 sanction no validity. hat tip: OFI. Full motion embedded below…
PETITION for Hearing en Banc - 4-21-2010
Popout
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Updating Hollister v. Soetoro new filing
Birther report
Attorney John Hemenway files new motions in Hollister v. Soetoro lawsuit -
Motion to Publish; The plaintiff/appellant Gregory S. Hollister, and the counsel/appellant John D. Hemenway, hereby request of the Court that it publish its panel opinion in this case as handed down on March 22, 2010. Although that opinion merely adopted, without independent analysis or reasoning, the two opinions from the court below, it is a very important repudiation of cases from the 19th Century such as the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, joined by Mr. Justice Livingston, in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and the opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 (Wall.) U.S. 162 (1874).
Further, as set out in the accompanying Petition for Reconsideration and Suggestion for a Hearing En Banc it is a matter of great importance for the American people and the history of this nation as a nation under the Rule of Law with a paramount Constitution. This is the first man in the oval office since Chester Arthur to appear to not meet the requirement of the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 5 that to occupy the office one must be a “natural born citizen” in the sense put forward by Vattel as familiar to the founders.
Further, unlike Chester G. Arthur, this occupant of the Oval Office has engaged in outright deception about what is his actual birth certificate as part of his campaign and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars as revealed in the public records of the Federal Election Commission, as to which this Court may take notice, to resist revealing not only his actual birth documents but also all of his passport, citizenship and school records. He is the first occupant of the Oval Office to use a State of the Union address to seek to intimidate the Supreme Court. He and his operatives, including a political force directed out of the White House, have engaged in a relentless campaign to attack and ridicule any persons who even dare to ask about his actual birth facts and documentation. At a prayer breakfast he announced by fiat that we, the public, are not allowed to inquire about his birth.
Despite this campaign the public concern over these matters has steadily increased. There is no doubt that the White House directed by the appellee has sought in every way to make judicial attention to these issues “unthinkable.” Mr. Justice Thomas has recently noted that the courts are engaged in avoiding these questions. It is not an understatement to say that the future of our constitutionally based legal system is at stake as is the belief of the American people in and their confidence in that system and its future. It is not seemly in this situation for courts to be seen as avoiding transparency with the American people.
The lower court engaged in an appearance of bias based on what it saw as blogging, texting, and twittering on the Internet. It mistakenly assessed that only a couple of dozen people are paying attention to the matters at issue here. Nothing could be further from the truth. The decentralization of not just information but of decision making itself as foreseen by Norbert Wiener in “Cybernetics” in the 1950’s has occurred and is proceeding with ever increasing size and velocity. There is a rising tide, real grassroots growing, not some big city machine Astroturf, of constitutionalism. History will have its verdicts and all shall be revealed. Ducking will be seen as ducking. Even the appearance of it should be avoided. The blogging, texting and twittering will continue, but it will not support deception where the Constitution is concern. Vetting there will be. But it is truth that will be sorted out.
The rise from status to contract that the great legal scholar and historian Sir Henry Maine described in “The Ancient Law” has been paralleled by a movement from status to liability for deception including those that involve the Constitution. Courts should not be seen to be avoiding important issues out of deference to status rather than the Rule of Law with the Constitution as the basis of that law. Transparency is important and the opinion should be published. Full motion embedded below…
MOTION to Publish - 4-21-2010
- PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUGGESTION FOR HEARING EN BANC - The plaintiff/appellant Gregory S. Hollister and the counsel/appellant John D. Hemenway hereby move for a panel reconsideration and request a hearing en banc by the full court on their case.
Snippet; This abdication by the lower court of its responsibility to examine the merits of the essential claim of the plaintiff Hollister, namely, that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, in which this Court has now joined, bears directly on the question of the assessment of the Rule 11 reprimand against the appellant Hemenway as the counsel who signed the complaint and other filings in this case.
Thus it acted in contradiction to all the cases from other circuits cited above, Schlaifer, Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (2nd Cir. 1999); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir.1998); Davis v. Crush, 862 F.2d 84 (6th Cir.1988); Donaldson v. Clark 819 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir.1987); Chamaikin v. Yefimov, (2nd Cir.1991); Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, (9th Cir.1983); Eash v. Riggins Trucking Co., 757 F.2d 557 (3rd Cir.1985).
All of these cases, as pointed out, make it clear that no Rule 11 sanction should be levied without a hearing and some say it is a violation of due process to do so and some also add that there must be a particularized notice of what justifies the sanction, which did not happen here. Donaldson even points out that sanctions, without proper process, approach denial of access to the courts.We have pointed in our briefing that the 19th Century decisions such as John Marshall’s opinion in The Venus, supra, and Minor v. Happersett, supra, point out how it was that the concept of “natural born citizen” from Vattel’s treatise on the Law of Nations was what the founders had in mind. Just recently the records have been located that reveal that George Washington himself never returned his copy of this treatise that he borrowed from the New York Library. This court is obliged to coordinate with those 19th century decisions. Without ascertaining this, the warrant in law that they assert gives a Rule 11 sanction no validity. hat tip: OFI. Full motion embedded below…
PETITION for Hearing en Banc - 4-21-2010
Popout
Traitor
Simply nothing more than a Traitor! - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The American Jingoist A Blog for Patriotic Americans Published
TraitorFriends,
SO!!! Are all those “birthers” so wrong? JB Williams sets it straight. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen! He is therefore an illegitimate President. By the very fact that he violates the Constitution he has sworn to uphold he becomes simply nothing more than a…TRAITOR!
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The American Jingoist A Blog for Patriotic Americans Published
TraitorFriends,
SO!!! Are all those “birthers” so wrong? JB Williams sets it straight. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen! He is therefore an illegitimate President. By the very fact that he violates the Constitution he has sworn to uphold he becomes simply nothing more than a…TRAITOR!
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
OBAMA truth REVEALED
MAKE THIS GO VIRAL: The Smoking Gun!? Say it isn’t so, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly… Got real Hawaiian COLB!? - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Updating Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB
Birther report
Say it isn’t so, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly!?
Via GiveUsLiberty and some; - NEWLY DISCOVERED COLB -
WE CAN PLAY THIS GAME TOO, ANDERSON COOPER, CHRIS MATTHEWS, BILLY O AND THAT GREAT INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, MEGYN KELLY! MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE NOW TAKING REQUESTS FOR OUR NEXT COLB!
OBAMA’S COLB IS AS WORTHLESS AS A PIECE OF TOILET PAPER! THEY ARE A DIME A DOZEN AND CAN BE REPLICATED ON REQUEST IN MINUTES!
COPY THIS AND SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE…THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO THE OBAMA COLB…MAKE IT GO VIRAL! Source.
Click & Zoom the COLB and have a look.
Below the COLB is a breaking report on Obama’s purported COLB, via the Post & Email, and some.
Obama, Megyn, Bill, Honolulu, Hawaiian COLB - FightTheSmears -
Via the Post & Email; - Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB - DOCUMENT CONTAINS REGISTRAR’S NAME, ISSUE DATE AND RAISED SEAL -
4/25/10 - The Post & Email is in possession of an original paper “Certificate of Live Birth” recently issued from the Hawaii Department of Health to an American citizen born in Hawaii in 1981 as verified by his mother.
At first glance, the document appears similar to the image posted on Obama’s campaign website. However, there are some differences: …continued here.
Via the Examiner; - Obama eligibility: a birth certificate alone does not prove ‘natural born’ citizenship -
4/24/10 - While the nation was focused on the SEC investigation into Goldman-Sachs and other major stories, a little-noticed incident occurred which may have far-reaching implications for the 2012 Presidential election.
The Arizona House of Representatives voted to require Barack Obama to produce and show his birth certificate in order to be placed on the ballot in the state for his reelection bid in 2012.
Similar bills have been introduced in Oklahoma and Missouri, although the measures failed to become law due to one of the two branches of the legislatures failing to approve.
The issue will not go away, however.
A birth certificate alone is not enough to prove ‘natural born citizenship’ according to the understanding of the Framers of the Constitution.
A group of citizens and elected officials, and even some within the legal community, continue to express doubt as to whether or not Barack Obama passes the Constitutional muster for a ‘natural born citizen.’ …continued here.
RECAP: As previously reported HERE, HERE, and HERE; Obama’s campaign posted 4 different images of a Certification of Live Birth on the Internet. Several document and computer image experts have deemed the Obama COLB(s) as fakes. If you have not yet researched the Obama COLB then this report from the Post & Email will explain it point by point. More from previous reports below the P&E report.
Via the Post & Email; - Obama’s Forged “Certification of Live Birth”: The Evidence - DID FACTCHECK PROVIDE THE LINK BETWEEN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND THE 2008 PASSPORT FILE BREACHES? …must read report HERE. …and HERE & HERE & HERE.
Before you go there check out the 4 different Obama COLBs posted online by Obama’s campaign. Also, if you missed it, meet the only 2 people to examine the Factcheck.org COLB(s), and one of them wasn’t Bill O’Reilly;
1) Daily Kos COLB; http://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bo_birth_certificate-kos.jpg
2) Fight the Smears COLB; http://www.fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg
3) Factcheck.org COLB with seal; http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
4) Factcheck.org COLB without seal; http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
Everyone must view all the research compiled at this site; http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/
Flashback from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM COLB’s.
The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.
FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Much more HERE.
And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more HERE and HERE.
And this oldie; Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president’s online COLBs images released by Obama’s campaign and FactCheck.org…
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.
FactCheck.org, an organization funded by the same left-leaning Annenberg Foundation that also employed Barack Obama and former Weatherman radical bomber Bill Ayers, produced a short-form Obama COLB that was very different in appearance than the campaign released. Source. And much more HERE.
Forgery is nothing new to the Obama campaign, via Debbie Schlussel; Obama’s Selective Service Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions.
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this(last) year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. The full investigative report is HERE.
And via Give us Liberty; EXPLOSIVE…more proof that AKA OBAMA is a fraud and very likely not even an American citizen!… - Obama conspiracy – It’s no longer just a theory - A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed. This is a must read HERE.
Bonus; CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s British/Kenyan Citizenship. We can report that it has been conclusively established – the Factcheck.org report contains false information. Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on Aug 4, 1982. Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug 4, 1982.
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived. Research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Source.
Will any person in the media ever mention what is going on in Hawaii?
News Recap: We don’t care what you or the State of Hawaii says. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON WE EMPLOY! Hawaii is obligated by their own laws to release records they used to make public statements that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”
Via the Associated Press; By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer – 3/17/10 - Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama ‘birthers’ -
HONOLULU – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama’s birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won’t give up.
“Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy,” said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health’s Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.
So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn’t meet a constitutional requirement for being president. [NOT TRUE, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN.]
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she’s seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama’s birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.
A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they’re told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.
“Do we really want to be known internationally as the Legislature that blocked any inquiries into where President Obama was born?” asked Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua. “When people want to get more information, the way to fuel that fire is to say, ‘We’re now going to draw down a veil of secrecy.’”
Nobody at the hearing questioned the fact that the president was born in Hawaii.
Attorney Peter Fritz asked why the state would pass a law punishing repetitive requests for open records. Instead, the state could simply say it would only answer each person’s question once.
If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a “vexatious requester” and restrict rights to government records for two years.
The committee will schedule a vote on the measure, said Chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele. The measure is SB2937. On the Net: Hawaii Legislature, http://capitol.hawaii.gov -end Source.
The problem is Mark(ap) is only reporting about the law that is about to be passed(or not). He ignores the fact the law will be used to further obfuscate laws already on the books. Below are reports compiled from the past year on the Hawaii DoH(not in order).
- Hawaiian Law Demands Obama records be made public - Hawaii officials are breaking Hawaiian law in not disclosing how they came to the public declarations made on October 31st, 2008 and July 27th, 2009. The hole Hawaiian officials had dug themselves with these declarations is deep, and there is no legal ladder out, other than to make public the resources and information they used in order to come to their conclusions. more HERE.
- Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes - According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:” more HERE.
- HI Officials Don’t Like Questions; Stats In; Complaint Filed; Attorney: Questions OK - more HERE. more archives at the Right Side of Life HERE.
- HI Director of Department of Health Perjures Herself before HI Senate Committee - STATEMENTS SEEN AS ATTEMPT TO DEFEND HERSELF AND DEPARTMENT FROM INQUIRIES REGARDING CONFLICTING PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS. more HERE.
- HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records - DOSSIER OF EXCUSES APPEARS ON WEB IN LAST 6 HOURS? more HERE.
- HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request -
THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st. more HERE. Complete archive of reports from the Post & Email can be viewed HERE.
Leo Donofrio’s reports; TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection. more HERE.
TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama. more HERE.
TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law. more HERE.
DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist. more HERE.
OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records. more HERE.
Complete archive of Donofrio’s reports can be viewed HERE. More HERE at Butterdezillion Blog.
Before the above proposed law; - Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents - Hawaii senator: ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state’s lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.
Espero told WND his bill is aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. more HERE.
- Officials confirm ‘Obama document’ not necessarily accurate - The online image posted by the Obama campaign of a “Certification of Live Birth” continues to be used as a source of documentation for the president’s birth place, even though previous reports have revealed there is little proof that can be derived from the document.
A new example came just as news broke of the statement by Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino that she had reviewed the “records” and confirmed that “Barrack Hussein Obama” was born in Hawaii. more HERE.
- Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president’s online COLBs images released by Obama’s campaign and FactCheck.org - In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents. more HERE.
Let us see what some have said about this issue over the last year;
“Hawaii state law won’t allow them to release it unless the president authorizes it. So what’s the problem here? Release the original and let’s be done with this madness. John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That’s how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things” - Mark Joseph - July 30, 2009 - Huffington Post columnist Source.
Huffington Post Blogger Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, says President Obama should just release his original long-form birth certificate and have done with the dispute. “I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Swain said the president is inexplicably fueling the controversy.
“The very fact that Obama has fought tooth and nail to prevent any release of his original long-form birth certificate- as well as other documentation- “suggests there’s something that the president has decided not to share with the public.” Source.
Feminist Camille Paglia: Birthers have a point. Tells radio audience ‘there are legitimate questions about the documentation’. Feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, now has told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point.
Talking to the NPR program “On Point” this week, she provided a defense to the citizens who carried protest signs asking “Where’s The Birth Certificate” at the recent protests that drew hundreds of thousands to Washington.
Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and Salon.com columnist, earlier wrote, “Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama’s birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama’s educational records remains troubling.” Source. More HERE and HERE from World Net daily.
My favorite; Media actually probed other candidates Records except Obama’s. In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancer surgery- even details about George W. Bush’s hemorrhoid troubles.
The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers.
However, while such private information about other candidates was divulged, we still have yet to see President Obama present his elusive long-form birth certificate and most other documents that remain unreleased or otherwise blocked from the public eye. Source.
Previous reports on the Hawaii DOH, HERE. Check back daily for updates!
Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya. See page 31
Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya.
Current Minister of Kenyan Government Declares Obama “was born here in Kenya” and Is Not a “native American” - http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html
Popout
Kenyan Parliament on Obama…The Country Which He Originates From… page 17 Col 2
Kenya Parliament Minutes 5Nov08
Popout
Popout
Citizen v natural born Citizen-It’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell-20100301 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5
Popout
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
Updating Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB
Birther report
Say it isn’t so, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly!?
Via GiveUsLiberty and some; - NEWLY DISCOVERED COLB -
WE CAN PLAY THIS GAME TOO, ANDERSON COOPER, CHRIS MATTHEWS, BILLY O AND THAT GREAT INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, MEGYN KELLY! MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE NOW TAKING REQUESTS FOR OUR NEXT COLB!
OBAMA’S COLB IS AS WORTHLESS AS A PIECE OF TOILET PAPER! THEY ARE A DIME A DOZEN AND CAN BE REPLICATED ON REQUEST IN MINUTES!
COPY THIS AND SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE…THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO THE OBAMA COLB…MAKE IT GO VIRAL! Source.
Click & Zoom the COLB and have a look.
Below the COLB is a breaking report on Obama’s purported COLB, via the Post & Email, and some.
Obama, Megyn, Bill, Honolulu, Hawaiian COLB - FightTheSmears -
Via the Post & Email; - Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB - DOCUMENT CONTAINS REGISTRAR’S NAME, ISSUE DATE AND RAISED SEAL -
4/25/10 - The Post & Email is in possession of an original paper “Certificate of Live Birth” recently issued from the Hawaii Department of Health to an American citizen born in Hawaii in 1981 as verified by his mother.
At first glance, the document appears similar to the image posted on Obama’s campaign website. However, there are some differences: …continued here.
Via the Examiner; - Obama eligibility: a birth certificate alone does not prove ‘natural born’ citizenship -
4/24/10 - While the nation was focused on the SEC investigation into Goldman-Sachs and other major stories, a little-noticed incident occurred which may have far-reaching implications for the 2012 Presidential election.
The Arizona House of Representatives voted to require Barack Obama to produce and show his birth certificate in order to be placed on the ballot in the state for his reelection bid in 2012.
Similar bills have been introduced in Oklahoma and Missouri, although the measures failed to become law due to one of the two branches of the legislatures failing to approve.
The issue will not go away, however.
A birth certificate alone is not enough to prove ‘natural born citizenship’ according to the understanding of the Framers of the Constitution.
A group of citizens and elected officials, and even some within the legal community, continue to express doubt as to whether or not Barack Obama passes the Constitutional muster for a ‘natural born citizen.’ …continued here.
RECAP: As previously reported HERE, HERE, and HERE; Obama’s campaign posted 4 different images of a Certification of Live Birth on the Internet. Several document and computer image experts have deemed the Obama COLB(s) as fakes. If you have not yet researched the Obama COLB then this report from the Post & Email will explain it point by point. More from previous reports below the P&E report.
Via the Post & Email; - Obama’s Forged “Certification of Live Birth”: The Evidence - DID FACTCHECK PROVIDE THE LINK BETWEEN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND THE 2008 PASSPORT FILE BREACHES? …must read report HERE. …and HERE & HERE & HERE.
Before you go there check out the 4 different Obama COLBs posted online by Obama’s campaign. Also, if you missed it, meet the only 2 people to examine the Factcheck.org COLB(s), and one of them wasn’t Bill O’Reilly;
1) Daily Kos COLB; http://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bo_birth_certificate-kos.jpg
2) Fight the Smears COLB; http://www.fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg
3) Factcheck.org COLB with seal; http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
4) Factcheck.org COLB without seal; http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
Everyone must view all the research compiled at this site; http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/
Flashback from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM COLB’s.
The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.
FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Much more HERE.
And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more HERE and HERE.
And this oldie; Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president’s online COLBs images released by Obama’s campaign and FactCheck.org…
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.
FactCheck.org, an organization funded by the same left-leaning Annenberg Foundation that also employed Barack Obama and former Weatherman radical bomber Bill Ayers, produced a short-form Obama COLB that was very different in appearance than the campaign released. Source. And much more HERE.
Forgery is nothing new to the Obama campaign, via Debbie Schlussel; Obama’s Selective Service Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions.
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this(last) year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. The full investigative report is HERE.
And via Give us Liberty; EXPLOSIVE…more proof that AKA OBAMA is a fraud and very likely not even an American citizen!… - Obama conspiracy – It’s no longer just a theory - A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed. This is a must read HERE.
Bonus; CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s British/Kenyan Citizenship. We can report that it has been conclusively established – the Factcheck.org report contains false information. Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on Aug 4, 1982. Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug 4, 1982.
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived. Research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Source.
Will any person in the media ever mention what is going on in Hawaii?
News Recap: We don’t care what you or the State of Hawaii says. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON WE EMPLOY! Hawaii is obligated by their own laws to release records they used to make public statements that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”
Via the Associated Press; By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer – 3/17/10 - Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama ‘birthers’ -
HONOLULU – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama’s birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won’t give up.
“Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy,” said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health’s Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.
So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn’t meet a constitutional requirement for being president. [NOT TRUE, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN.]
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she’s seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama’s birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.
A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they’re told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.
“Do we really want to be known internationally as the Legislature that blocked any inquiries into where President Obama was born?” asked Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua. “When people want to get more information, the way to fuel that fire is to say, ‘We’re now going to draw down a veil of secrecy.’”
Nobody at the hearing questioned the fact that the president was born in Hawaii.
Attorney Peter Fritz asked why the state would pass a law punishing repetitive requests for open records. Instead, the state could simply say it would only answer each person’s question once.
If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a “vexatious requester” and restrict rights to government records for two years.
The committee will schedule a vote on the measure, said Chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele. The measure is SB2937. On the Net: Hawaii Legislature, http://capitol.hawaii.gov -end Source.
The problem is Mark(ap) is only reporting about the law that is about to be passed(or not). He ignores the fact the law will be used to further obfuscate laws already on the books. Below are reports compiled from the past year on the Hawaii DoH(not in order).
- Hawaiian Law Demands Obama records be made public - Hawaii officials are breaking Hawaiian law in not disclosing how they came to the public declarations made on October 31st, 2008 and July 27th, 2009. The hole Hawaiian officials had dug themselves with these declarations is deep, and there is no legal ladder out, other than to make public the resources and information they used in order to come to their conclusions. more HERE.
- Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes - According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:” more HERE.
- HI Officials Don’t Like Questions; Stats In; Complaint Filed; Attorney: Questions OK - more HERE. more archives at the Right Side of Life HERE.
- HI Director of Department of Health Perjures Herself before HI Senate Committee - STATEMENTS SEEN AS ATTEMPT TO DEFEND HERSELF AND DEPARTMENT FROM INQUIRIES REGARDING CONFLICTING PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS. more HERE.
- HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records - DOSSIER OF EXCUSES APPEARS ON WEB IN LAST 6 HOURS? more HERE.
- HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request -
THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st. more HERE. Complete archive of reports from the Post & Email can be viewed HERE.
Leo Donofrio’s reports; TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection. more HERE.
TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama. more HERE.
TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law. more HERE.
DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist. more HERE.
OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records. more HERE.
Complete archive of Donofrio’s reports can be viewed HERE. More HERE at Butterdezillion Blog.
Before the above proposed law; - Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents - Hawaii senator: ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state’s lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.
Espero told WND his bill is aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. more HERE.
- Officials confirm ‘Obama document’ not necessarily accurate - The online image posted by the Obama campaign of a “Certification of Live Birth” continues to be used as a source of documentation for the president’s birth place, even though previous reports have revealed there is little proof that can be derived from the document.
A new example came just as news broke of the statement by Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino that she had reviewed the “records” and confirmed that “Barrack Hussein Obama” was born in Hawaii. more HERE.
- Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president’s online COLBs images released by Obama’s campaign and FactCheck.org - In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents. more HERE.
Let us see what some have said about this issue over the last year;
“Hawaii state law won’t allow them to release it unless the president authorizes it. So what’s the problem here? Release the original and let’s be done with this madness. John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That’s how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things” - Mark Joseph - July 30, 2009 - Huffington Post columnist Source.
Huffington Post Blogger Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, says President Obama should just release his original long-form birth certificate and have done with the dispute. “I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Swain said the president is inexplicably fueling the controversy.
“The very fact that Obama has fought tooth and nail to prevent any release of his original long-form birth certificate- as well as other documentation- “suggests there’s something that the president has decided not to share with the public.” Source.
Feminist Camille Paglia: Birthers have a point. Tells radio audience ‘there are legitimate questions about the documentation’. Feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, now has told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point.
Talking to the NPR program “On Point” this week, she provided a defense to the citizens who carried protest signs asking “Where’s The Birth Certificate” at the recent protests that drew hundreds of thousands to Washington.
Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and Salon.com columnist, earlier wrote, “Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama’s birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama’s educational records remains troubling.” Source. More HERE and HERE from World Net daily.
My favorite; Media actually probed other candidates Records except Obama’s. In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancer surgery- even details about George W. Bush’s hemorrhoid troubles.
The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers.
However, while such private information about other candidates was divulged, we still have yet to see President Obama present his elusive long-form birth certificate and most other documents that remain unreleased or otherwise blocked from the public eye. Source.
Previous reports on the Hawaii DOH, HERE. Check back daily for updates!
Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya. See page 31
Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya.
Current Minister of Kenyan Government Declares Obama “was born here in Kenya” and Is Not a “native American” - http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html
Popout
Kenyan Parliament on Obama…The Country Which He Originates From… page 17 Col 2
Kenya Parliament Minutes 5Nov08
Popout
Popout
Citizen v natural born Citizen-It’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell-20100301 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5
Popout
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obama Credibility Crisis
Washington Examiner
Examiner Editorial
April 25, 2010
Hard on the heels of that shocking Pew Research Center survey finding that four out of five Americans don’t trust government comes a blitz of new revelations about the Obama administration that amount to a full-fledged credibility crisis. The latest disclosures are especially damaging because they concern President Obama’s possible misrepresentation of his relationships with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and convicted felon Tony Rezko, his administration’s misleading statements about Obamacare costs, and questions about improper manipulation of government-owned General Motors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Blagojevich revelations were no less serious for being accidental. Blagojevich’s defense attorneys filed a federal court motion to subpoena Obama concerning charges that the former governor tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat formerly occupied by the chief executive. Improper formatting of the heavily redacted public version of the motion contained evidence that Obama spoke to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment a week before telling White House reporters that he had not done so. The document also revealed that federal prosecutors are withholding from Blagojevich’s attorneys documents describing what Obama told investigators about conversations with Rezko on the appointment or his financial ties to the Chicago developer who was one of his key fundraisers.
On Obamacare, the president and his appointees said repeatedly over the last year that it would reduce government health care spending. Yet now comes Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services secretary, confessing that “We don’t know how much it’s going to cost.” Why is Sebelius only now saying this when her own department just made public a report obviously months in preparation that projected government health care costs overall will go up, not down? That same HHS report also said Obamacare’s Medicare cuts could put 15 percent of all hospitals out of business, making treatment harder to get and more expensive, especially for seniors.
Finally, General Motors claimed in national advertisements this week that it repaid its Troubled Asset Relief Program loans, plus interest, five years early. But the TARP inspector general said GM used other TARP funds to repay its original TARP loans, so the ads were fundamentally dishonest. Recall here that White House adviser Carol Browner told GM and other automakers to “write nothing down” about their dealings last year with administration officials on fuel economy standards. So it seems entirely appropriate to ask if GM’s repayment claims were “suggested” by somebody in the Obama White House. That would be the same White House that is also now suspected of improperly influencing the SEC to file fraud charges against Goldman Sachs just as Congress debates Obama’s financial reform proposal. As the Obama administration will learn, plummeting public trust eats away at the fundamental credibility of government and undermines its ability to carry out even its most basic duties.
Examiner Editorial
April 25, 2010
Hard on the heels of that shocking Pew Research Center survey finding that four out of five Americans don’t trust government comes a blitz of new revelations about the Obama administration that amount to a full-fledged credibility crisis. The latest disclosures are especially damaging because they concern President Obama’s possible misrepresentation of his relationships with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and convicted felon Tony Rezko, his administration’s misleading statements about Obamacare costs, and questions about improper manipulation of government-owned General Motors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Blagojevich revelations were no less serious for being accidental. Blagojevich’s defense attorneys filed a federal court motion to subpoena Obama concerning charges that the former governor tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat formerly occupied by the chief executive. Improper formatting of the heavily redacted public version of the motion contained evidence that Obama spoke to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment a week before telling White House reporters that he had not done so. The document also revealed that federal prosecutors are withholding from Blagojevich’s attorneys documents describing what Obama told investigators about conversations with Rezko on the appointment or his financial ties to the Chicago developer who was one of his key fundraisers.
On Obamacare, the president and his appointees said repeatedly over the last year that it would reduce government health care spending. Yet now comes Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services secretary, confessing that “We don’t know how much it’s going to cost.” Why is Sebelius only now saying this when her own department just made public a report obviously months in preparation that projected government health care costs overall will go up, not down? That same HHS report also said Obamacare’s Medicare cuts could put 15 percent of all hospitals out of business, making treatment harder to get and more expensive, especially for seniors.
Finally, General Motors claimed in national advertisements this week that it repaid its Troubled Asset Relief Program loans, plus interest, five years early. But the TARP inspector general said GM used other TARP funds to repay its original TARP loans, so the ads were fundamentally dishonest. Recall here that White House adviser Carol Browner told GM and other automakers to “write nothing down” about their dealings last year with administration officials on fuel economy standards. So it seems entirely appropriate to ask if GM’s repayment claims were “suggested” by somebody in the Obama White House. That would be the same White House that is also now suspected of improperly influencing the SEC to file fraud charges against Goldman Sachs just as Congress debates Obama’s financial reform proposal. As the Obama administration will learn, plummeting public trust eats away at the fundamental credibility of government and undermines its ability to carry out even its most basic duties.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)