Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Gov. Abercrombie Tells Hollywood Journalist/Radio Host Mike Evans There Is No Obama Hawaii Birth Certificate

Click the Usurper Image to See the Catalog of Evidence
Hollywood celebrity journalist/radio host, Mike Evans, has known now Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, for decades. He first met the Governor when the Governor was driving a cab in Honolulu, Hawaii. They became good friends. They spent a lot of time together in Washington during the time of Obama’s inauguration. Abercrombie told Evans then that he was going to run for Governor of Hawaii. He also told Evans that he remembered Obama as a child and that he used to call him Barry. He told him that once he became Governor, he was going to put an end to the story that Obama was not born in the United States by getting a copy of his birth certificate.



Abercrombie did become Governor and using his powers as Governor, he did look for the document. On January 19, 2011, Abercrombie told Evans during a telephone conversation that he searched everywhere for the birth certificate. He told him that he went to the only
Recognize Reality Bob.  Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen
two hospitals that existed in Honolulu at the time at which a baby could be born, Kapi’olani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queen’s Hospital. Abercrombie told him that there is no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii and that there is absolutely no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Abercrombie also told Evans that he remembered Obama playing in a tee-ball league when he was about 5 or 6 but not before that. A confirmation of this information can be heard on a recording of an interview on the radio 92 KQRS Morning Show done on January 20, 2011. During this radio show, Mike Evans, recounts the details of his conversation he had with Governor Abercrombie just the day before.

A story on this new revelation and the radio interview can be heard at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/hawaii-hollywood-reporter-mike-evans.html . A full bio on Mike Evans can be seen at http://www.evansradio.com/mikestory.html .

On January 20, 2011, former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams signed an affidavit in which he swears that his supervisors in Hawaii told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Obama. He swears that he was also told that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any medical record showing that Obama was born in either facility. Read more: Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401#ixzz1C21WDdlc

The question now is if Abercrombie has not been able to find any Obama Hawaii birth certificate, why did he tell the public that he was abandoning his search for it because privacy laws prohibit him from disclosing the document?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 25, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

###

34 comments:

James said...

Mario,
There is a very simple answer to the question. Hawaii simply doesn't have the birth certificate and they know it. Rather than fessing up to it, they are hiding behind privacy laws as a defense. Hawaii is bluffing. Unfortinately we can't call their bluff. The only thing Hawaii has to some type of birthing statement probably submitted by the grandparents which how the COLB is derived from. It's that simple.

sap_vb said...

One needs to ask why the Main Street Media refuses to broadcast this most troubling of news.

bdwilcox said...

Oh, my, my. How deep this rabbit hole goes!

Puzo1 said...

Even if the Governor were to find the long-form birth certificate or some other convincing evidence of an Obama Hawaiian birth, Obama still would not be a "natural born Citizen."

Briefly, we know from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that for anybody born prior to the adoption of the Constitution, to be eligible to be President that person, satisfying the age and residency requirements, only had to be a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. But for anyone born after that adoption, that person has to be a "natural born Citizen" in order to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Emer de Vattel told us what a "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" are, defining the former simply as a member of civil society with rights and obligations and the latter as a child born in the country to citizen parents (meaning father and mother). Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68(1875), providing the same definitions which it said are based on "common law," confirmed these definitions of a "citizen" and "natural born Citizen," stating that the former is a member of civil society with rights and obligations and the latter is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Obama's supporters argue that if Obama was born in the U.S., he would be a “natural born Citizen” under the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). They also cite the state court decision of Akeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), which while not ruling that Obama was born in Hawaii or that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” did rule that "persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." In so ruling, the Ankeny court incorrectly equated a British "natural born subject" with a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and incorrectly relied upon Wong Kim Ark.

The Wong Court declared a child born in the U.S. to alien parents to be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. In the decision, the Court did clearly explain that the Constitution in Article II includes "natural born citizens" and "citizens of the United States." The Court then defined a "citizen of the United States" under English common law that existed in the British colonies prior to the Revolution. The Court was careful to tell us that it was deciding the case based only “upon the facts agreed by the parties” and that the “necessary effect” of its decision was to declare “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subject of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” Id. 169 U.S. at 705. Hence, the Court only decided that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.”

Hence, neither U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), Ankeny (because it was decided incorrectly), the 14th Amendment, nor any Congressional Act ever changed the American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen."

When Obama was born, his mother was a “citizen of the United States.” But his father was not a “citizen of the United States” but rather under the British Nationality Act of 1948 a British subject/citizen and Obama himself by descent from his father was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, Obama, born to a non-U.S. citizen father and himself being born a British subject/citizen, fails the “natural born Citizen” test, even if he was born in Hawaii.

cfkerchner said...

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) explains on the Bill "Willy" Cunningham radio show in Cincinnati OH in Aug 2009 why there is not long-form hospital generated Birth Certificate for Obama in Hawaii. Grandma Dunham falsely testified via a mail-in birth registration affidavit that Obama was born there simply and conveniently to get her new foreign born grandson U.S. Citizenship using the lax Hawaii birth registration laws. Document and identity and birth registration fraud occurs today to get U.S. Citizenship and it occurred back then, especially in Hawaii which as a new state with many undocumented residents had very lax birth registration laws. Obama and his falsified birth registration in 1961 is a classic example of it.

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

bdwilcox said...

LameCherry explains Obama's lack of Birth Certificate and mysterious 'registry entry':
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-x-marks-spot.html

bdwilcox said...

When it comes to Obama not being a 'Natural Born Citizen', common folks probably either won't understand it, think it's important or say that the definition isn't clear (though we know otherwise).

What's wonderful about these revelations is that this situation is scandalous and EVERYONE knows a scandal when they see one (and don't like being made a fool of, either.) Once the common folk realize that Obama has been involved in a conspiracy to re-write his past and has been supported in that effort by numerous high-level officials, it will be hard to keep that dam from breaking.

As in the Watergate scandal, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

bdwilcox said...

That picture of Robert Fibbs as Baghdad Bob is classic. :)

bdwilcox said...

Mr. Apuzzo, what's your take on this article?

Kagan, Sotomayor blew chance to stop eligibility challenge?
Lawyers say Supremes broke rule, failed to respond to recusal motion
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255733#ixzz1C6ODhkam

bdwilcox said...

Also, what's the correct tag on your bulletin board here to make an active link? I tried using an "a href" and my link became a recursive link back to this page.

cfkerchner said...

Hello BDWilcox,

Here is a link to the instructions of how to make links active in Blogger blogs using HTML code:
http://www.bloggertipsandtricks.com/2011/01/how-to-link-to-location-in-different.html

Carlyle said...

Even if supposedly "private" don't both abbercrummy and AG have the ability to appoint a task for or a commission with subpoena powers?

winnybar said...

The Open to the Public vital document index of the Hawaii Health department lists Barack Hussain Obmaa II. That index describes the type of vital document and the location number. What type of vital document?

Big drops in Hawaii vistors in 2008 and 2009. Visitor arrivals¹ -10.6 -4.5
Tourism is second biggest industry in Hawaii. A good motivation to clean up Hawaii's reputation possibly connected to the Obama fraud.
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/data_reports/qser/outlook-economy

Robert said...

THERE IS NO 'PRESIDENT'OBAMA:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/

Bob said...

Remember, the only copy of any birth certificate is from Mombassa --

Perhaps now Governor Abercrombie will used his good offices to ask the Kenyan Government (from Obama's Dad), if it has a copy of Obama's authentic birth certificate, since there is none in Hawaii.

Its just a suggestion, and he probably won't to it, but it should be asked -- to put the interest of the whole country first, along with his personal friendship with Obama's Dad.

Puzo1 said...

Someone who posts as "nbc" said on his/her blog during an on-going debate with me:

“We all know your position and wonder why someone would hold to such an opinion when legal rulings, contemporary scholars, logic and reason all point the simple fact that natural born refers to the common law principle of birth on soil, and that the status of the parents made no difference?”

This is my brief response:

You are wrong here. Simple birth on the nation’s soil without considering the citizenship of the parents can only produce a “born” naturalized citizenship status created by positive law. This citizen is naturalized at birth by positive law and needs no further naturalization. These birth circumstances, while allowing one to become a member of American society, do not produce a “natural born” citizenship status which requires birth in the country (or equivalent) to citizen parents and which status is created by nature alone without the intervention of any positive law.

The Framers conveyed this understanding when they wrote in Article II as their eligibility requirement for President and Commander in Chief that for births occuring after the adoption of the Constitution, he (today he or she) not only have the requisite age and residency in the U.S. , but that he also be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and not just a “Citizen of the United States” or even a “born Citizen of the United States.” Again, the Framers said “natural born,” not “born.”

Doublee said...

WND just posted Arizona's presidential eligibility bill, HB 2544. "http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.pdf/"

This bill "nails it" as far as the elibility requirements are concerned. It requires documentation of all three eligibility requirements.

Somebody has done his homework, because the bill requires that the following documentation be provided:

"A SWORN STATEMENT ATTESTING THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS NOT HELD DUAL OR
MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP AND THAT THE CANDIDATE'S ALLEGIANCE IS SOLELY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

As an Arizonan, I will write my representatives and senator, who are co-sponsors of the bill to offer my full support.

Ted said...

Drudge ups the ante — no hawaii bc NOW IN RED!

Puzo1 said...

There are nations and there are citizens or subjects. Historically, nations have been created by conquest and enlarged by either more conquest or peaceful acquisition of more territory in exchange for a valuable consideration. In formal organized society, positive law eventually recognizes a nation and its boundaries. The members of these nations have been called citizens or subjects, coming into being as the first to create their societies or thereafter by the law of nature or by positive law.

Today as since time immemorial, citizenship is a product of allegiance to that nation. But formally organized society is not necessary for a person to acquire a natural allegiance for a given group, become a member of that group, and in return receive protection from that group. In a state of nature, no laws or national boundaries are needed to create natural allegiance. Simply stated, since the beginning of time, if one was born in whatever place to members of a tribe, then that person upon gaining maturity to reason and through rearing by his or her parents identified with the place where he or she was born and that tribe, all causing the person to became a member of that tribe and attaching to the tribe and the place of birth. The infant would follow his parents whose responsibility it was to rear him or her. Upon maturity, that natural attachment caused the person to inhabit where the tribe was physically located and followed that tribe wherever it went when deemed necessary. The tribe could count on that person’s natural allegiance to be used for the defense and preservation of the tribe and its people and the tribe would in turn give that person protection.

This is a law of nature and the basis for the Framers’ “natural born Citizen” clause.

Puzo1 said...

Now Mike Evans says he never spoke to Governor Abercrombie.

He clearly said during his radio interview: "Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ..... there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."

So why would Evans make such stuff up?

Read the full story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/celebrity-journalist-says-he-never-talked-hawaii-governor-obama-birth/

jayjay said...

When we eventually find out the true particulars of Obama's life story I think it will become ovious even to his supporters that the man is an outrageous liar and fraud and has flummoxed the American public.

Or, as the Wizard of Oz might have said ... "a humbug". In the current situation, I think there are many, many levels of both criminal and civil penalties for the many laws he will obviously have broken no matter the claims of the Flying Monkeys of "... but we love him and he meant well ...".

jayjay said...

Sounds like the radio show guy Evans has been told in no uncertain terms to shut up or else ... either by his "pal" the HI gov or by the Chief of the Flying Monkeys o one of his functionaries.

Puzo1 said...

Can we just imagine a seasoned, intelligent, articulate, journalist/radio host like Mike Evans saying all those things on a recorded national radio show about Obama and his close friend, Governor Abercrombie, in the context of the national controversy concerning Obama's place of birth and his birth certificate, and then telling us later on that he never spoke to Governor Abercrombie about the birth certificate.

Now isn't that all just a coincidence that Evans would just say all that given what Governor Abercrombie has himself revealed lately?

I did not see in any explanation by Evans that he had learned what Governor Abercrombie said just several days back about his not being able to find Obama's birth certificate and that that information somehow tainted his thinking.

Also note that in Evans' radio interview in which he said that he did speak with Abercrombie, he also did not say that what the Governor told him about there being no birth certificate should not be a surprise to anyone because the Governor just days before himself told the public the same thing.

Are we therefore to conclude that Evans was not aware of what the Governor said just days before? If he was not aware, what a coincidence it would be for him to say the same thing that the Governor said previously but it be a mistake. If he did know about what the Governor said, with such information being fresh in his mind, how could he have made such a blunder by saying he spoke to the Governor when he in fact did not speak to him?

cfkerchner said...

Is this "celebrity journalist" Mike Evans throwing himself under the bus and back tracking about what he was told by AberCOMMIE as a result of pressure brought to bear on him by Obama and his powerful friends to squelch this AberCrombie slip up by saying it never really happened and Mike Evans and possibly his journalistic career takes the fall for it all. Did the Obama goons find some dirt on him to make him change his story? I mean it was very, very clear what Mike Evans said on that radio show a few days ago about his very good friend Abercrombie's conversation with him. He was speaking in a relaxed first person knowledge state during his radio show account the other day of his phone call to Governor Abercrombie's office. Now when you hear him talk to others about it such as on the Peter Boyle radio show out of Denver CO, he's tap dancing all over the place and one sentence after another contradicts what he said 5 minutes previously. It does not sound like he's telling the truth now. He sounded like he was telling the truth during that radio show a few days ago which caused this latest round of higher profile discussion of Obama's nativity story. Has another person been forced to throw himself under the bus to protect Obama, the Usurper-in-Chief? Was pressure put on his radio station and bosses and/or major sponsors by the White House to get Mike Evans to change his story?

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Dixhistory said...

This is what ticks me off. Dumb media (Fox) writing stuff that is not true. The link is at the bottom.

"In 2008, the Obama campaign provided a certification of live birth -- a shorter form document that bears the same legal weight as the more detailed original certificate of live birth -- to prove his eligibility to be president. That has not quelled calls by those who have asked for the president’s original, longer form birth certificate, which they maintain would more clearly prove his status as a natural-born American citizen."

The below in the same story makes it clear that no BC is needed as there was no such thing back then.

The fact that his father was a Brit is all one needs to know. We and they all know that. Including all those that post stating other wise.

If you are smart enough to turn on your computer and make a post then in your heart you know this is all a fraud. Men in places that matter that are to scared to take a stand is what it all amounts to.


"The U.S. Constitution stipulates that only “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 the President.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/celebrity-journalist-says-he-never-talked-hawaii-governor-obama-birth/

Puzo1 said...

Evans told KQRS that he talked "with Neil's office, Neil says that he's searched everywhere using his power as governor" at Kapiolani Medical Center and Queens Medical Center only to come up with no birth certificate.

Now Evans says he never spoke to the Governor.

Has anyone asked Evan then who did he speak with in the Governor's office?

Evans did not say that he just made the whole story up. The only change now is that he did not speak to the Governor. Then tell us to whom you spoke in that office. Then the next question is how does that person know that there is no birth certificate showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/27/2011-01-27_journalist_i_never_spoke_with_hawaiis_gov_about_obamas_birth_certificate.html#ixzz1CFHaSt1e

Vixmith said...

This story about Abercrombie and some birth certificate being there or being lost simply ratchets up a lie that a Hawaiian birth certificate will qualify obama. That premise hides the real issue: Natural Born Citizen means born of two US citizen parents; and born in the US. By selling this deception with the help of media, including those in FOX claiming to respect The Constitution, Abercrombie has achieved his goal.

Both parents must be citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Do not be fooled by this well-designed move. Ask yourself “Why is obama’s party still trying to sell him as a Natural Born Citizen?” Press secretary Gibbs ridiculed those who wanted to defend The Constitution, asking if obama needed to wear a birth certificate pasted to his forehead. He ignored $2 million spent hiding whatever is on file. This story admits that the question has NOT been truly answered YET!!

Burden to qualify lies upon he/she who desires to be President, and NOT upon 300 million citizens who are guaranteed a Natural Born Citizen President by The Constitution.

Thanx, VGS

Carlyle said...

What is so BIG or so SCARY that Evans would throw himself under the bus like that. Surely a simple polite phone call from the White House would not be sufficient. So what was it?

Or was it the tried and true horse head in the bed or a kidnapped loved one?

The Stacker said...

Mario and Charles,

WHAT ARE YOU going to do about this?

Remember? I TOLD you he wasn't born at Kapi'olani.

Now we know for certain.

MichaelN said...

Surely there is a way to have the COLB that was produced as an internet image verified by an independent entity & ascertain the source document that it was generated from by having that document cited.

Obama has offered the COLB as his 'proof', then he is obliged to verify it's authenticity.

What about putting Abercrombie to task and have him seek verification of what document 'held on file' (see HRS 338-13) gave the basis for the generation of the COLB.

Then there is also the matter of HRS 338-13 that excludes 'part thereof' (as opposed to ALL 'the contents' of a record held on file')as being 'considered for all purposes the same as the original'

As I read HRS 338-13, only an image copy of the original or a copy of ALL the contents is considered the same as the original to the exclusion of 'part thereof' (aka a COLB)

Legal proceeding should be commenced in Hawaii and possibly also Arizona, where Obama swore before a notary public that he was a 'natural born Citizen on his nomination.

MichaelN said...

What CERTIFICATE 'on file' did the HDoH base the COLB on, if in fact they issued the COLB.

A COLB is a 'part thereof'.

'The contents' must mean ALL the contents, because of the mention of 'part thereof'

In (b) the 'part thereof' doesn't get a mention, only the 'contents'.

See HRS 338-13.

§338-13 Certified copies. (
a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any CERTIFICATE, or the contents of any CERTIFICATE, or any part thereof.

b) Copies of the contents of any CERTIFICATE ON FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

MichaelN said...

There must be a CERTIFICATE ON FILE in the department, FIRST, for a COLB to be authentic & valid as a 'certified copy' per HRS 338-13.

Joe said...

You know what surprises me the most about this story,

that FOX News scrambled to get this up on their internet site the same day the lie was exposed. Boy he must have some really close friends at FOX.

Wow that was fast. The same news organization that wouldn't even mention the issue for 3 years, yeah right, their real credible on this issue.

In fact I can't think of single issue of this magnitude or interest, that has gone on this long, that a news station wouldn't do a story on.

I guess they didn't want to get Dobbed.

Alana said...

Aloha and Welcome to Chicago West. Abercommie was not elected, he was bought and paid for. Sister Maya campaigned for him and introduced him as our new governor, was on the podium for his inauguration. Neil announced his search intentions to the media on the day Barry arrived for vacation, however, he and Nancie departed for remote Hana prior to his arrival and returned the day after Obama's departure. This is a huge scam folks. Our officials are the most corrupt in the nation, not the people. Congress is still celebrating Neils resignation. Enter slimy Schatz, our Lt. Gov.

Precisely As predicted: Brian Schatz becomes part of birther conspiracy

Governor Abercrombie’s recent pronouncements indicate to me, he believes no documents were available in the public record which could have provided a basis for the oath taken in 2008 by his Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz, then Chair of the HI Democratic Party, to HI election officials guaranteeing then candidate Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the office of POTUS, which sworn statement was required under HRS §11-113 before these officials could authorize his name to be printed on HI state ballots.

What does arouse my suspicion in HI is the ‘coincidence’ that Mr. Schatz, Chair of the HDP, taught in Kenya and went to school there, in the early ’90′s… What are the odds?

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-you-know-that-current-hawaii-lt-gov.html