Sunday, April 25, 2010

Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii

The 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. 21 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)  During a December 2007 speech in Tampa, Florida, Michelle Obama stated, "What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country, the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama, a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."  As can be seen, Michelle Obama said that her husband is "a Kenyan."  Would she say that if he was a "natural born Citizen" of the United States?  What is also strange that she would make such a statement in light of the fact that Obama was running for political office in the United States.  The statement raises more suspicion and is just more fuel for the debate of where Obama was born.  Additionally, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the statement shows where his political loyalties are; 

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

(8) 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?;

(9) 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;

(10) 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;

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

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

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

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

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

(16) 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). Why would Obama have asked the State of Hawaii for the COLB in 2007?  What was his need back then for the document?  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;

(17) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) first posted on the political web site, DailyKos, on July 12, 2008, which was later published on Obama's own "Fight-the-Smears" web site, and then later on http://www.factcheck.org/, and the alleged underlying document later pictured on these internet sites is a forgery;

(18) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961.  This is the most important piece of evidence which would conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.  This document, unlike the COLB with he posted on the internet (see No. 16 above), would contain Obama's parents' names, the exact place in Hawaii that he was born, and would identify what source provided the birth event details serving as the foundation for the veracity of the original birth certificate itself.  It is this long-form, vault birth certificate which would contain contemporaneous evidence such as the name of the hospital where Obama was born and the name of the doctor or midwife that delivered him.  This is highly corroborating evidence which goes to adequately prove that he was in fact born in Hawaii.  What is highly disturbing and suspect is that Obama has not only refused to release to the public this crucial piece of evidence, but he has taken extraordinary and highly unprecedented steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to the 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate, hiring teams of lawyers who are presumably instructed by him to take all necessary steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to that document and spending his, third parties', and the public's large amounts of money, time, and others resources in doing so.  Obama's lack of transparency and integrity is further evidenced by the fact that, in addition to refusing to release to the public his 1961 birth certificate, he has refused to release to the public his travel, education, and employment documents, all while demanding that the people accept him as the legitimately elected President.  It is rather clear and commonplace knowledge that Obama needs to release to the public his long-form, vault copy, of his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate in order to meet his burden of proving that he was born in Hawaii, but still he without any reasonable explanation simply refuses to do so;

(19) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. During the 2008 election, Hawaii's Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, said: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.  Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.  No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."

Months later, in July 2009, she added: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."

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.

Moreover, no Hawaii official has yet to confirm that the online image and picture of Obama's COLB is a true and accurate image of the paper COLB that they allegedly issued to Obama in 2007. They also have yet to confirm that they ever even issued the COLB to Obama. When citizen journalists (Miss Tickly and the Post & Email, etc.) asked Hawaii officials for their opinion of the COLB image and pictures, they did not answer their inquiries;

(20) 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;

(21) 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;

(22) 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;"

(23) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people are 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;

(24) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu.  These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born.  The simple truth is that none of these agencies did any due diligence and now want to simply sweep this constitutional crisis under the rug to save political face.  Rather than helping conduct an honest investigation of Obama's place of birth, these individuals and entities, including the mainstream media, which failed to properly vet Obama are now engaged in a campaign of cover up, manipulation, deceit, and ridicule of those who are earnestly pursuing this investigation (who they pejoratively call "birthers");

(25)  Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the Chair of the Democratic National Convention,  signed an affidavit to 50 states certifying that Obama was nominated for the Office of President.  In many of the 50 states, Pelosi did not address the issue of Obama's Article II “natural born citizenship” qualifications. This unusual action and fact about the DNC's and Pelosi's activities in the 2008 election was explained on page 19 of the the Kerchner et al v Obama, Congress, & Pelosi, et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009.  Nowhere in the nominating documents that Pelosi provided to many States does it say he is qualified to serve as President per the Article II Constitutional requirements, if he is elected. What Pelosi filed in these states simply says that Obama has been nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Office of President. In many other states, Pelosi certified:  “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”  The only exception that has been found to date is for the state of Hawaii, which nominating certificate does say that the candidate is constitutionally qualified to be President. The certifying language that Pelosi used in this sole certifications is:  “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  A copy of Pelosi's signed document for Hawaii and the 2nd and different version sent to many other states may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30784035/DNC-Chairperson-Nancy-Pelosi-Issued-Signed-Two-Different-Certification-Forms-for-Obama-in-2008. A question that we should all ask ourselves is why would Pelosi use the constitutional qualification language in only the Hawaii certificate and not also use it in all the certifications of the other states she sent the 2nd version to?  Additionally, neither Pelosi nor the DNC adequately vetted Obama, for neither she nor anyone else in her party saw his original vault, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), (not to be confused with the internet image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama’s campaign posted on the internet in June 2008 and which has been attacked by at least two document examiners as a forgery), or any other sufficient and credible document that would lead her to come to such a conclusion;

(26) 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;

(27) 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;

(28) 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. Orengo. 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. Orengo'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. Orengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;

(29) 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 in 2008 a computer image of an alleged 2007 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
Updated May 6, 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/
####

32 comments:

Unbamboozleus said...

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an article, "Birther" Soldier Faces Charges" that contains the flagrantly irresponsible false statements, "A wide array of public officials from Hawaii—including its Republican governor—have attested that Mr. Obama was born in the state, and the Obama campaign released a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate during the 2008 presidential campaign."

The article can be viewed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388304575202393506147452.html

Readers are invited to write to the article's author Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com.

This individual MUST print a retraction to correct these false statements.

Born912 said...

I'd add that Obama will not release the paper COLD with raised seal for inspection by the media and allow unfettered access for quality scans and photographs. Unlike the obots from FactCheck, (using cameras that had the incorrect date-time set?). Also document experts vice political hacks.

Let us move forward said...

The online COLB was "filed" and does not have the notation "accepted by the registrar." Because it was never "accepted," there may have been missing data or other irregularities in the forms or papers filed.


"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);"

Do you really think that HRC or McCain would have made such a statement based on race? Mr. Appuzo, you disappoint me.

I was aware the HRC challenged his citizenship, but don't remember McCain doing so publicly.

Puzo1 said...

Let Us Move Forward,

I do not think you understand my point on Obama's race and Clinton and McCain. I believe that they like so many in government and in the media acted cowardly in not challenging Obama on his citizenship status because of the fear of being branded racists which is what the multitude of Obots call those who challenge Obama on any issue.

How nice that anyone could challenge the citizenship of white McCain or that of any other white presidential candidate in history and those supporting the challenge saw the challengers as individuals who just wanted to make sure that the Constitution was being respected and that the candidate was eligible for the office, but for those who fight and resist the challenge against Obama's citizenship status, the challengers are not driven by the same motives as others who challenged McCain and other white candidates in history but rather are driven by racism hidden underneath their proclaimed patriotism for the Constitution and the nation.

The Stacker said...

I emailed him, unbamboozleus. The Lingle thing is the biggest lie spread around for a LONG LONG time. Michael Medved has been saying the same line of crap to this day. Why would Lingle even be able to see his birth record? Without his permission? And then be allowed to talk about it publicly when no one else is? It is a flat out lie.

Robert said...

It may or may not be true that thousands of people have seen the original birth certificate.

It also may or may not be true that I have thousands of prime real estate just a mile south of Galveston for sale - cheap!

So, Barry, who's your Daddy?

The Stacker said...

Mario, it's heating up! We're going to get him. And I say that not in a self serving way, but rather, in an America-interested way.

Ms. Rondeau is onto something here

"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”?"

He got it for the first time in 2005-2007. Book it.

That is why it is "embarrassing".

cfkerchner said...

Stacker,

That theory/twist does not make sense with what we know thus far. The announcements in the newspapers in 1961 were placed by the state in Health Bureau Statistics section of the announcements. Those insertions were based on the filing/registration of a birth with the Health Department. Thus there was some filing done to the Health Department in 1961 registering a birth in Hawaii. I and many now just don't believe that Obama was physically born in Hawaii and instead his maternal grandma falsely registered him as being born there to get her new born grandson U.S. Citizenship. Thus I believe a vital record existed in Hawaii since 1961 that his birth was registered there and "filed". But we don't know if it was ever completed and "accepted" by the state. And we don't know what evidence was provided to the state that he was born in Hawaii by the person who registered it. I think it will simply state born at home with no witnesses. And thus there is no further independent corroborating evidence that he really was born in Hawaii. I don't believe he was. Registered there yes. Born there no.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/newspaper-birth-announcement-ads-in.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

The false registration came first and the announcements placed by the state came 2nd as a result of that false registration.

CDR Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://www.protectourliberty.org

A pen said...

Despite all the polls not a single one ask the pertinent question, What do you believe is a natural born citizen ? The ask, Do you believe the constitution must be upheld as written even though you may not agree with it ? And then, If a person sworn to uphold the constitution does not make an effort do so when evidence is produced that indicates it may be or has been violated, are they commiting a crime ?

I bet the answers would be sufficient to determine the percentage of people in this country that need to be discounted as a matter of determining the will of the American public. It is irrational to count those who form an opinion at odds with the law. You have a right to be wrong but not to be wrong and expect your opinion to carry any weight.

The Stacker said...

Of course, I could be wrong. I have to say you have sensical points.

Why are the documents so differing, then?

Did you hear about the idea?

I am in your area, actually, Charles, right in your backyard, as it turns out.

Here's my question Charles:

If what you say is true, the presumably false registration and incomplete filing, what is the reason for not just saying this in 2005 or so? If Hawaii accepts it, they accept it, period. There's not much we can do without a smoking gun or official from Kenya with BC evidence there.

Also, why lie about Kapiolani or let others lie FOR YOU about Kapiolani? It doesn't make sense.

I think if you come out and say it early and others can't prove you weren't born Hawaii, you are fine.

Yet, that never happened. There's something more. I'd like to hear what you think about these things.

cfkerchner said...

Stacker,

Obama's whole life is a fiction and a lie. He only has been able to get away with it because he has been groomed for the position with teleprompter schooling, has a ton of foreign provided money, thousands of lawyers, a country full of PC correct people who are deathly afraid of the "race card" he and his followers play, two complicit political parties who both put up candidates with questionable eligibility issues, and a 100% complicit and enabling press who wanted to elect him and now want to keep him in office.

As to my thoughts on all this there is a ton of writings and speaking by me on this in the links in this blog including the two links that I posted in my prior response to you.

Obama is a habitual liar and living in a fantasy life of his own making. The people around him are too. His narrative and story changes as new facts are uncovered. You can never win a debate with a liar until you get them in a court of law on the merits where hard facts speak for themselves and a bulls... bunch of lies and narratives that he has spun for himself about his early life will fail.

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

An excellent piece has been published at the Examiner.com of Philadelphia.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d24-Obama-eligibility-a-birth-certificate-alone-does-not-prove-natural-born-citizenship?cid=examiner-email

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

The Stacker said...

Well said, Charles. I agree with you 100%.

Puzo1 said...

Stacker,

You fail to be conscious of the requirement that Obama has the burden to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that he is a "natural born Citizen." The People do not have the burden of proof to disprove those facts.

The problem is that those who defense Obama have put the burden of proof on the People. This is the more shameful and corrupt when these same people have allowed Obama to hide from the People his life documents (birth, education, work, travel records) which the People need to prove what his enablers have unjustifiably placed upon the Peoples' shoulders.

Only an honest court of law can set this matter straight.

The Stacker said...

Mario,

I'm completely conscious of this fact. In fact, this is the problem; this is OUR struggle.

We are fighting an unfair battle.

You MUST UNDERSTAND that I agree with you but the fact remains that we need ways to defeat the corrupt system and people that are aiding the deception. I have given you one of these ways but haven't heard back.

I want to be VERY REAL. I agree only a court of law can make his claims legal or verifiable in any meaningful way. HOWEVER, we need a remedy.

In the world of TRUE AND LOGICAL arguments and positions, your legwork and arguments are commendable --- and without a doubt is correct, foundational, and UNDENIABLE.

But if we can't get to the MERITS of a case due to innovations or whims such as "standing" what recourse is there? I am looking for something in case the stonewalling continues.

Put another way, what reason do we have to believe a judge is just going to go against all the others and finally grant legitimacy to our argument? Against his self interest and the presumed threats of Washington and the Obama administration?

I wish this weren't the case. We need MORE.

I'm very happy that Arizona is on the horizon. I will be very very said if that doesn't come through.

If it does, you and Charles will be vindicated and surely seen as what you are --- Patriots.

That's why I've been so intent on following these matters up. I want to see you guys come out on top, because that's what I believe the founders would want, and because I believe in an America of the people, by the people, and for the people --- and the Constitution as its backbone.

Incredulous said...

Fukino could not have disclosed information from Obama's vitals without his express permission without committing a misdemeanor crime by virtue of Hawaii's own laws.

She says she is not guilty of misconduct. Therefore Obama had to have given permission for public disclosure.
Therefore Hawaii cannot fall back on privacy laws, since Obama already gave permission for public permission.

If Obama didn't grant permission, why doesn't anyone contact the PROSECUTOR FOR HONOLULU and get Fukino arrested? She's a criminal no matter how you shake things out, because with Obama's permission which she says she had by virtue of her actions, she cannot deprive anyone of information from his vital documents.

!

Teo Bear said...

These number simply don`t add up,

58% for US Birth
23% for birth outside US
20% not use
----
101% Total

Seems the NY Times got Joe Biden to do the math.

Let us move forward said...

For Chester Arthur, the burden of proof was not placed on the Candidate beyond his word (he told many lies) nor his Party, and the Senate (controlled by his party) refused to investigate when Hinman presented evidence indicating a reasonable doubt for Arthur's birth in the US.

Mr. Appuzo,
First thank you for pursuing this case and for this informative blog.

Allow me to express my continuing concern with the wording of "(although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);". On a reread, I have the same first impression of this phrase as I had on the initial read. I understand your explanation in your comment and agree with it. Maybe it's just me and others read it differently. However, caution seems advisable for any mention of "racial" these days, any use of that word should be perfectly clear in the context of a statement.


The Post and Email has a modern Certificate of Live Birth that is different from the COLB up for inspection.

Dixhistory said...

Puzo1 said "Only an honest court of law can set this matter straight."


If it is an honest court Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al are proven correct in their action.

If you work in the media and aren't reporting on the facts of this issue as given here, you all are cowards.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm

Puzo1 said...

Let Us Move Forward,

You said: "I have the same first impression of this phrase as I had on the initial read."

Would you care to enlighten me what your read of this phrase is. I get a little annoyed at people who attempt to create some hidden argument without having the courage to state what the argument is. I have nothing to hide. Maybe you do. So let's have it big fellow.

Teo Bear said...

Let us move forward,

You wrote, "For Chester Arthur, ... the Senate (controlled by his party) refused to investigate when Hinman presented evidence indicating a reasonable doubt for Arthur's birth in the US."

Could you please provide a citation on this, I am unaware of any "Request" by Hinman or his party to the Senate to investigate Arthur. Or are you saying that because the Senate did nothing, that this non-action is a defacto "Refusal?"

medical said...

Well, I'm forever through with Glenn Beck and his crazy propaganda! He says that all illegals should pay a fine and be legalized, and "it’s not their fault that 'white people' won’t do construction, lawn mowing, cement, asphalt paving, housekeeping, drywall, and other JOBS".
Beck suckered in a million patriots last year with his show, and now he's turned on the U.S.A.
"We should open three Ellis Islands on the border"? That we need to open the flood gates for millions of new immigrants? I'VE HAD ENOUGH of HIS TRICKS and CON GAMES! What's happened to the news media in this country?!

Let us move forward said...

Teo Bear:

An example interview of Senator on the matter can be found in the Chicago Tribune February 11, 1881.

cfkerchner said...

Let us Move Forward,

Interesting. What was the Senator's name and who was interviewing him? Where and how did you find this arcane tidbit in history? Can you please provide a link URL to where you found that Chicago Tribune story dated February 11, 1881, or provide a scan or digital picture image of the paper copy source for that story.

CDR Kerchner

Teo Bear said...

Let us move forward,

First I searched on the words "Chicago Tribune" "February 11, 1881" and only recieved 9 pages. Nothing with Chester A. Arthur.

However I did search the original Hinman document How a British Subject Became President of the United States (which you can access at http://birthers.org/publius/HowaBritishSubjectBecamePresident.pdf ) and I see on page 89 that on January 7, 1881 Hinman wrote Senator Thomas F. Baynard a democrat from Delaware. On January 10, Baynard wrote back and said that the term natural born citizen as used in the Constitution and statues is held to be a native of the United States. Then he goes on to say that the naturalization of the father before the child reaches the age of 21 would be the naturalization of the child.

I do beleive that Senator Baynard was refering to the phrase in the 14th Amendment "subject to the juristiction." In refereing to the naturalization of the child, he is infact echoing Sen Trumball who said, "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Please see an excellent essay on this subject at http://americanchaos.wordpress.com/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof/

If that is the case then we have a Democrat from Delaware in agreement with Attorney Puzzo. Interesting it seems a gaff even Joe Biden could make if he tried ;->

jayjay said...

let us move forward:

Looks like another mythical ad hoc quote to throw mud on the wall as an attempt to confabuilate the eligibility issue (which, BTW, never arose in the Senate for Arthur ... or, perhaps, you can show us valid, accurate links to the Senate testimony)?

Robert said...

Mario,

This link that may provide a means to address the politicians and other officials who are or may be obstructing this case and the efforts in Hawaii pertaining to obtaining Obama's records via the HDOH and Hawaii's open records laws.

http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/asia_raca_prof_hutter_prosecuting.pdf

see: C. Mail and Wire Fraud – 18 USC §§1341 (Mail), 1343 (Wire)

esp ppg 4-5

Incl:
3) With respect to the statutes’ use in public corruption cases, a fraudulent scheme includes “a scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” (18 USC §1346). It is this definition which makes the statutes a flexible tool for prosecutors to prosecute public corruption at the state or local level.

It is quite evident that your case as well as TerriK's pursuit of documentation in Hawaii is being affected by people who wish to deprive us of "honest services" and otherwise deprive us of due process and the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

This article also goes on to open the door to RICO and how it can be applied to the leadership of our major political parties, the members of the electoral college, the house and the senate.

In any case, persistent and honest disclosure will bear fruit as more people begin to understand the issues. Also, as the people's awareness increases the honest and patriotic judges and prosecutors will be easier to find.

Oh,and those remaining corrupt and opposed to the people and the constitution will be very easy to spot, too.

cfkerchner said...

See this link for the copy of this week's ad running on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly edition.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30538099/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100426-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5

To those of you who have contributed to make this print media national advertising campaign possible, thank you.

All: Please stop by our fund raising page and make a donation to help the cause:

www.protectourliberty.org

Synergy at work! If we all do a little to help with our time, talent, and treasure, together we can accomplish a lot!

CDR Kerchner

roderick said...

the mother of 'bama was and is a purported communist with many links to communistic and anti-american persons. being such she may have intentionally gave birth to the child in the country of kenya and put the announcements in the newspapers with something as simple as a long distance phone call. people argue that there is no way that she could have known that one day this boy would one day have this controversy surrounding him. i beg to differ. parents groom their children to reach for certain heights. she may have intentionally traveled to the country of kenya in order to make sure the child was not born on the soil of the United States of America. as he grew up she taught him that he could be president one day. she also told him that if there was any doubt by the American People as to if he had been born on the soil of the United States of America, offer them a couple of birth announcements as fodder for their quest.

Harry said...

We have, hanging over our heads, a Constitutional Crisis of unimaginable proportions. The Obama eligibility question is orders of magnitude beyond any other issues under consideration by the country. We have a Congress, a Court System, and a so-called free press that refuses to address the eligibility issue and who are complicit in this fraud.

“We the People” wrote the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land. The original Constitution (Articles I thru VII) was effective March 4, 1789. Unlike Articles XIII, XVI, and XV, which specifically state: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” the original Constitution has no such qualifier. Therefore, it follows that “We the People” have “standing” to enforce the provisions of the Constitution.

It boggles my mind that anyone would argue that there is no provision or requirement for anyone to determine whether or not a person is eligible to the office of the President. This is simply bovine scatology. For those who suggest that there is no “controlling legal authority,” I say: Nonsense. The “controlling legal authority” is “We the People.” “We the People” includes various Secretaries of State and the Speaker of the House whose responsibility is to assure that candidates for office meet the eligibility requirements of the Constitution.

Article XII states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.” Clearly, the Vice President must be a natural born citizen. It follows that the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to succeed to the office of President must also be a natural born citizen. It is in the realm of possibility that there is in the House today someone who is not a natural born citizen who could conceivably become Speaker of the House and not be eligible to the office of the President.

Nick said...

How does your case compare to the Chester Arthur case ?

Puzo1 said...

Nick,

There is no known evidence that the public knew that Chester Arthur was born to an alien mother and father. At that time, the wife followed the citizenship of the husband. Presumably, Arthur took steps to hide his papers from the public. Under the prevailing government citizenship position at that time with the government having the same position in 1898 as was evidenced in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, Arthur would have been declared an alien needing naturalization. Hence, his case is no precedent. Also, that Arthur was not eligible to be President does not serve to make Obama eligible, for two wrongs do not make a right.