An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of BirthBy Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011
Recently we saw an article appear at msnbc.com written by Michael Isikoff, National investigative correspondent for NBC News. The article is dated April 10, 2011, and is entitled, “Ex-Hawaii Official Denounces ‘Ludicrous’ Birther Claims.” It can be read at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics# I will now analyze the many problems that exist with this “investigative” story. My criticisms are directed at both Dr. Fukino and Mr. Isikoff.
The article states:
"The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is 'real' and denounced 'conspiracy theorists' in the so-called 'birther' movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.
'It’s kind of ludicrous at this point,' Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.
Fukino, sounding both exasperated and amused, spoke to a reporter in the aftermath of Donald Trump's statements on the NBC Today show last week questioning whether Obama has a legitimate birth certificate.
Trump, who says he is considering a run for president, repeated his claims on CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday, saying that 'nobody has any information' about the president's birth and that 'if he wasn't born in this country, he shouldn't be president of the United States.'
No matter what state officials release on the issue, the 'birthers' are going to question it, said Fukino. 'They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated,' said Fukino. 'The whole thing is silly.'”
Here we see nothing but excuses for not releasing Obama’s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate which I will call his “real birth certificate.” This is not to be confused with a short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB) dated June 2007 which Obama released on the internet in 2008, which does not contain the name of the birth hospital and the names and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth.
Isikoff states:
"Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments."
Fukino no longer works for the Hawaii Department of Health. Why did Mr. Isikoff not contact the current health department director who overseas the birth certificates in Hawaii? Why do we have to hear from someone who no longer works for Hawaii and no longer has any control over or access to its vital records files? Why can we not hear from the current official who could tell us what is in the file today?
Mr. Isikoff writes:
"The first is that the original so-called 'long form' birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a 'record of live birth' — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records."
Fukino is sure to tell us the exact location of where the real birth certificate was located. She gives us great detail to lend credibility to her story. But she does not tell us who this state official was who accompanied her and whether he or she also saw the real birth certificate. She does not identify any other person who allegedly saw the real birth certificate. One would think that such information would be important and lend credibility to her story. But for some unknown reason, she finds it important to give details of where the birth certificate was located but not that someone other than herself actually saw it.
Isikoff then tells us:
"She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files."
Why does Fukino tell us that the real birth certificate showed the doctor on it but she fails to tell us that Obama’s birth occurred in a hospital which is what Obama told the public occurred? After all, she knows how much “birthers” have been demanding to see conclusive proof that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Hospital, the hospital in which Obama says he was born. There would be no violation of any privacy laws for her to simply say that he was born in a hospital, without giving the name of the hospital, just like she said that a doctor delivered Obama and signed the birth certificate. What is suspect is that there were numerous doctors at that time who could have delivered Obama but only two hospitals in which he could have been born, Kapi’olani Hospital or Queens Hospital. In other words, the doctors get lost in the shuffle but the hospitals do not. Just saying that a doctor signed the birth certificate does not open up channels of information that can be independently verified. On the other hand, knowing the birth hospital pins down the place of birth to only two specific locations in which there would be contained medical evidence of the alleged birth there.
The article continues:
"She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time."
Why did her public statements back then not include the additional information that she is now willing to share with the public? Why has she waited so long to tell us her information?
Isikoff then quotes Fukino:
“'It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,' Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. 'Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?' she asked."
Why is Fukino theorizing about what a Republican Governor would or would not do? Either Hawaii has or does not have the real birth certificate. If they have the document, there is no need to theorize that the Republican Governor would not go along with any conspiracy. Additionally, Fukino does not say that Lingle ever saw the real birth certificate. So how could Lingle be involved in any alleged “cover up” if she was never privy to any information on the issue? By dragging Lingle into the alleged conspiracy makes it look like Lingle had access to some inside information which she would not fabricate because of her opposition position with the Republican Party.
Isikoff continues:
"Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated 'certification of live birth' that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was 'testy' when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said."
Why should a former campaign official who was involved in a presidential election and who can shed light on this national crisis issue want to maintain anonymity? Should concerned Americans not be able to learn who was intimately involved in handling Obama’s birth certificate? After all, what is the harm to anyone in knowing that information?
In 2007, there was no issue regarding Obama’s place of birth. The issue of his place of birth came up in 2008. So how could Obama have been “testy” in having to obtain his birth certificate and for reasons of putting “the issue to rest?” If there was no place of birth issue in 2007 why did Obama allegedly request his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) in 2007 which he did receive and which is dated June 6, 2007 to put to rest a nonexistent issue? Why have we not heard that Obama used that 2007 COLB by sending a copy of it to someone who he thought needed it? We have not heard that he sent a copy of that document to any state election officials to show that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Why did Obama wait a whole year before using the 2007 COLB?
Isikoff writes:
"The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.
'What he got, everybody got,' said Fukino. 'He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.'"
But Fukino fails to tell us who in the Hawaii Department of Health processed in 2007 Obama’s alleged request for a copy of his birth certificate. She does not tell us that she personally looked at the real birth certificate and used it to prepare the COLB. She is only speculating that someone did that. But she does not tell us who would have done that at that time. As the director of that department, she would have known who her employees were at that time. She could have easily identified the employee who prepared the document so that Mr. Isikoff could have done further “investigative” follow up with that person.
The article continues:
"Hawaiian officials say that the certification is, in fact, only one piece of abundant evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department's Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named 'Obama II, Barack Hussein' as having been born in the state."
But this public index only proves that a birth was registered in Hawaii. It is not independent medical evidence of any such birth actually occurring in Hawaii.
The article adds:
"In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu's newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama's birth on Aug. 4 of that year."
The newspaper birth announcements are not evidence of a birth in Hawaii. At best they are evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health put those ads in the newspapers based on a birth being registered as having occurred in Hawaii. The announcements are not the product of a medically verified birth in Hawaii. They do not have a direct link to the birth hospital.
The article goes on to say:
"Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
'It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody,' he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated 'certification of live birth' form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago."
Fukino attacks anyone who will not be convinced by her story, marginalizing them and casting aspersions toward them. It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department "shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates "may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." Hence, Hawaii’s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.
To further prove that Mr. Wisch is wrong and/or inventing information, we have seen recent examples of people who were born in Hawaii obtain with little fanfare a certified copy of their original long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. A friend of Miki Booth--who was born in Japan, spent much of her life in Hawaii and ran for Congress in 2010 from the Second District of Oklahoma—has a friend who obtained a copy of his long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in March 2011. See the story here, http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/07/exposing-the-birth-certificate-lies-used-to-cover-for-obama/. Also, October 13, 2010, a “Danae” posted on FreeRepublic a copy of her long-form, birth certificate originally issued in 1969, which she obtained by mail from the Hawaii Department of Health on September 28, 2010 after paying a $10.00 fee. She also posted a copy of the receipt that she got for paying the $10.00 fee. An interesting question is -- where is the copy of Obama's receipt for allegedly ordering a copy of his Certification of Live Birth in 2007? Surely the Hawaiian authorities could release a copy of that. Financial transactions of a government are public information.
We know that Governor Abercrombie recently tried to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. He told the public that he was going to see if he could release Obama’s real birth certificate. Eventually, Abercrombie told the public in a very vague and evasive fashion that he could do no more because of privacy laws. He did say that he found out that Obama’s birth was written down in some state archive. What is strange is that if the long-form birth certificate exists in Obama’s birth file as Fukino is now telling us, why could Abercrombie not tell us the same information that she told us? Why did Abercrombie have to be so evasive and vague about the matter? He could have told us like she did that he went into the health department file and actually saw with his own eyes Obama’s long-form birth certificate and he could have also told us that it contained all the information that Fukino now tells us it contained when she saw it. Abercrombie could have even told us what Fukino left out, i.e., that per the birth certificate, Obama was born in a hospital. Fukino only told us what was in the birth file when she worked there. Abercrombie, as the current Governor, could have told us what is in the file today. That would have been more credible. What is also suspect is that there is no one from Hawaii telling us what is in the health department file today. Rather, Fukino tells us what was in the file in the past. Hearing from someone with official authority tell us what is in the file today would have given the story more credibility given that now Joshua Wisch tells us that today no one can have a copy of the real birth certificate, not even Obama himself, a statement which in itself is incredible and has no basis in law. How convenient can Hawaii get, telling us that at one time the birth certificate was in the file but today no one, not even Obama, is allowed to get a copy of that birth certificate.
What Fukino now tells us is contradicted by former Hawaii election clerk, Tim Adams, who has stated and sworn under oath, that he worked in the Hawaii elections office during the 2008 presidential election and that even though Hawaiian election officials searched for Obama’s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate, none could be found. Rather, what was found was a registration and archive notation which sounds like what Abercrombie has told us.
It is very suspect that Hawaii tells the public what was in Obama’s birth file in the past but does not tell us what is in the file today. Fukino does not even mention that anyone has inspected the file today to see that those same documents are still in it. Why did Mr. Isikoff no reach out to any current officials in the health department for his story? Such a set up is suspicious, for if access to the file is eventually gotten and the alleged real birth certificate is not in there, Fukino can conveniently say that it was there when she looked and she has no control over what happened to it since she does not work there anymore.
What is also suspicious is that Hawaii, using privacy laws as an excuse, will not even release to the public a copy of the documents evidencing someone requested the birth certificate in 2007 and paid for its reproduction costs.
This whole article is also very suspect since we do not have direct quotes from Fukino but rather what Mr. Isikoff summarized to allegedly be her statements. Why would the reporter not provide direct quotes to such important statements?
So where is the grand conspiracy of which the “birthers” are accused? Based on what Dr. Fukino tells us, there is only one person who has actually seen Obama’s real birth certificate and that is she. Hawaii has not identified any other person who has seen it. So Obama’s nativity story is now held together by only one person, Dr. Fukino. That does not sound like much of a conspiracy story.
Why does Obama not want the public to see his real birth certificate or to learn that no real birth certificate exists? The real birth certificate could reveal information that puts into serious doubt that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. The absence of a real birth certificate could also put into serious doubt his claim that he was actually born in Hawaii. Or the real birth certificate could contain information that is highly embarrassing to Obama and which could put in jeopardy his life narrative that he has put into the public. Whatever could be the truth of Obama’s problem, the American people whom the President serves are entitled to know which one of those truths it is.
Obama’s supporters are proclaiming Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations are the death of the “birthers.” On the contrary, as we can see, what Dr. Fukino has recently said is a far cry from finally resolving the issue concerning Obama’s place of birth. If anything, it just has added more suspicion to the whole story.
Donald Trump needs to continue to press forward in his quest to find out what the truth is.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
This is current Hawaiian Law --
ReplyDeleteHaw. Stat. Rev. §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]
PS -- I am no longer 'paralegalnm'
http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/
All:
ReplyDeletePlease call or email the AZ Speaker of the House and urge him to 100% support the passage of SB1157, the presidential eligibility vetting law striker bill, and to get it into law as soon as possible, and effective this year. I have just made a call to his office. The AZ Speaker's name is: Kirk Adams
Phone#: 602-926-5495
Email: kadams@azleg.gov
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Attorney Apuzzo, I feel that this new blog report of yours is very objective, thorough and insightful. Its a masterpiece and I am confident that anyone with at least a semi-ability to analyze data will agree with everything that you have said in your new blog report.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former director of the Hawaii Department of Health, can now tell the media anything she wants to tell them, whether it be fact or fiction.
As we all know, she is no longer the director of the Hawaii Department of Health and cannot be held accountable for anything she now says about Barack Obama’s fabled long form birth certificate.
Why, when she was the director, did she not give out these details about there being an attending doctor listed and that the birth certificate is part typed and part hand printed?
She feels safe to say whatever she wants now that she is not speaking official capacity.
I challenge her to write out an affidavit/declaration and submit it to any of the various pending eligibility litigation. Then I want to see her show up at a hearing and be placed in the ‘witness room’ while waiting for the judge to call her out into open Court to testify on oath and penalty of perjury.
Hawaii Officials are referring to Obama's birth records as a "Recording of Live Birth" not a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certification of Live Birth. Just what is a "Recording of Live Birth" anyway? My take on that terminology is that it's possible Dr. Fukino is telling the truth that Obama was born in Hawaii BUT OBAMA WAS BORN AT HOME - NOT IN A HOSPITAL, in which a doctor was in attendance hence the "Recording the Live Birth"
ReplyDeleteObama may refusing to release the long-form birth certificate because the damaging information on it - The fact that Obama WAS NOT born at Kapaloni Hospital.
If this came out it would catch Obama in a major major lie and completely discredit him.
In addition, both Governor Abercrombie as well Kapaoloni Hospital would be in serious trouble for orchrestrating a scam by fabricating the alleged letter where Obama professed he was born at Kapaoloni.
Obama's secret then may be....
I WAS NOT born Kapaoloni Hospital and long-form Birth Certificate will prove that.
Very good points Mr. Apuzzo, as usual. And I add a few important points.
ReplyDeleteEven if they would produced a long form birth certificate, it would have to be fully certified to be 100% genuine (not tampered with in any way that is not a highly-skilled forgery) and, more importantly, it would have to be corroborated fully with the records that are held at the hospital at which this alleged Obama birth would have taken place!!!
On this matter of Obama's birth, we must expect any kind of highly-skilled forgery to be a real possibility!
There is such a level of cover-up in this story about the long form birth certificate of Obama that even if it would be shown to the public, it would still have to be checked thoroughly directly with the original and by several people representing every political group in the US.
Personally, I have the feeling (I assume) that a long form birth certificate does exist but that it is a very well done forgery!!!
James,
ReplyDeleteI don't think being born at home and not at Kapaoloni Hospital is a career destroying oversight. It could simply be brushed off as a miscommunication between him and his mother; a politician could easily lie their way around it: "Oh, it turns out I was born at home but they tried to get mom to Kapaoloni Hospital for the big event. Over the years, I got the story mixed up. After all, I was there for the birth but not in any capacity to document it." (Laughter fills the room).
No, I think Lame Cherry has the best guess at what such a recording means and why it's so damaging to both Obama and Hawaii.
Looks like Hawaii's taking one for team Obama again.
ReplyDeleteAfter Trump challenged Obama to show his long form birth certificate, former director of Hawaii's Department of Health Fukino stated you couldn't obtain one. When Miki Booth proved you most certainly still could, ALL OF A SUDDEN Hawaii does a 180 and no longer offers copies of long forms! Coincidence? Total, I'm sure.
This brings up a very salient question. How would a FORMER director of Hawaii's Department of Health (Fukino) obtain such inside information if she wasn't still inside? The answer is obvious. She's an operative and they're still using her to triangulate strategy.
In Re: Mario’s analysis of the Ishikoff article:
ReplyDeleteLong form birth certificates for my children indicate that the certificates were issued by: 1. State of Texas and 2. State of New Mexico.
While there are numerous claims that Obama’s original long form birth certificate is on file and has been seen, one question remains that has not been addressed:
Was it issued by the State of Hawaii?
Isikoff quotes Fukino as saying that the original long-form birth certificate is located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Dept. of Health. Is this where all of the original birth certificates are kept? I doubt it. In fact, if I remember correctly, people were saying a year or so ago that all of the paper birth certificates were destroyed. They were scanned into digital storage as digital images.
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear to me that someone filled out the paperwork to get a birth certificate for Obama but they did not include enough documentation to fulfill the requirements for an official birth certificate to be accepted by the state. This "record of live birth" that is in the file cabinet is just the incomplete paperwork. That is why the COLB says "Date Filed By Registrar" instead of "Date Accepted By State Registrar."
If what Fukino says is true, that must one big file cabinet. There must be millions and millions of birth records stored there. It would take a warehouse to store them all.
ReplyDeleteBreaking News ... via the grapevine ... more news to follow
ReplyDeleteHB 2177 ELIGIBILITY BILL IS PASSED BY AZ STATE SENATE! 21 YES VOTES! (We were hoping for 18) BILL MOVES ON TO HOUSE VOTE NEXT WEEK!
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Update on progress of state presidential certification bills
ReplyDeletePosted on | April 13, 2011 | No Comments
Arizona state presidential eligibility certification bill passed all the committees and full vote in the senate, it moves to the full vote of the house and signature of the governor next week.
I got a phone call from Lyle Rowland, sponsor of the presidential eligibility certification bill in Missouri.The bill finally passed the committees and is going to a full vote of the house this week or next week. Demand that your state representatives and senators vote for the bill.
I got a phone call from Leo Berman, Texas state senator, sponsor of the presidential eligibility certification bill in TX. Mr. Berman is extremely upset with members of the committee refusing to vote on the bill. They just seat on it, while they know that majority of of the state representatives and senators are willing to vote for it. Call each and every committee member and demand scheduling of the bill for vote tomorrow, immediate passing of the bill. Demand answers, whether committee members received some consideration or were intimidated into not bringing thebill to a vote. Call public integrity of unit of the office of the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott and demand immediate investigation, whether committee members received any considaration or were intimidated into not bringing this bill to a vote.
We need the same investigation in each state.
As the sessions are ending we need all the bill out of committees as original bills or striker bills this week or next week
RE: AZ ELIGIBILITY BILL PASSES IN SENATE!!!!!!!!!!
InboxX
Reply |Jeff LICHTER
show details 10:55 AM (7 minutes ago)
fromJeff LICHTER
to
dateWed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM
subjectRE: AZ ELIGIBILITY BILL PASSES IN SENATE!!!!!!!!!!
mailed-bymsn.com
hide details 10:55 AM (7 minutes ago)
Most of you know, we have been working on his bill for two years. Passed with 21 of 30 votes today in Senate. On to the House next week where we need 31 votes to pass
it and if it makes that, final step is on on to Gov. Brewer for signature.
FOR THOSE OF YOU IN ARIZONA, PLEASE HELP BY CALLING ARIZONA HOUSE REPS AND EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. MAKE SURE THE SECRETARYS TAKING THE CALLS SAY THEY WILL PASS YOUR SENTIMENTS ON ON TO THE REP. YOU CAN GET THEIR NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS AT www.azhouse.gov
Thanks, Jeff
Mario,
ReplyDeleteCan you create a status update on the state eligiblity bills?
You should also think about putting a post up promoting Dr. Corsi's book "Where's The Birth Certificate?" The ranking of the book is very high and we are just over a month before publication. I think you probably want to check with Dr. Corsi before you put any post.
Obama's PLACE of birth while of some importance pales in comparison to his DUAL citizenship at birth. As we all know, the latter is because his father was never a U.S. citizen, and Obama admits it. Our continued energy expended in finding Obama's original birth certificate, however, is not only a distraction it makes us an easy object of ridicule.
ReplyDeleteIf we do find his birth cert, well fine, but lets please move the cert search way to the back shelf and bring the reality of his DUAL citizenship front and center. His DUAL citizenship has been a very well kept "secret" as it has never been the topic of ANY media coverage. Nevertheless, it is a fact and it is EASY for most Americans to immediately comprehend its importance.
Thank you for considering my views.
Robare
New information on the Obama SSN fraud!
ReplyDeleteAn Excellent Audio Interview Link at this site to Susan Daniels, Private Investigator, explaining Her Research into Obama using Someone Else's SSN. Read the text and then click on the interview link to hear the one hour interview of Susan Daniels, PI. Very, very interesting showing the widespread and lengthy identity theft of someone else's Social Security Number going back as early as 1986 by Obama, the usurper-in-chief. She also explains how she believes the Selective Service Registration was falsely filed using that SSN and was back dated to 1980, but that the falsely file backdated SSS registration likely occurred in the last half of 2007 or in 2008. Some new information in this interview. Recommended listening to all interested in the Obama SSN felony caper. When will Congress investigate. This criminal activity directly by Obama makes the Nixon association with the Watergate operatives break-in look like tiddlywinks.
IT'S THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER STUPID! | T-Room
http://www.t-room.us/2011/04/its-the-social-security-number-stupid/
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
###
I count 39 republicans in the AZ house. If they need 31 votes to pass the eligibility law, it would seem a favorable number. Does anyone have an idea of whether the republicans will support the bill en masse? I must assume that the dems will vote no, but is there any reason to believe that there are enough republican defectors to kill this?
ReplyDeleteCharles.
ReplyDeleteI presume you have sent this to Trump
@MichaelN
ReplyDeleteYes, I have and much, much more. The Donald and his key advisor and lawyer Michael Cohen have all they need and more, including the SSN felony fraud and the back dated Selective Service Registration felony fraud. Things are going to be might warm in the Oval Office shortly. The walls of truth are closing in on the grifter/usurper in chief. And not just from Mr. Trump. Multiple powerful forces will be exposing the Obama ineligibility issue. You heard it hear first.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
Deconstructing FactCheck.org's Trump Smear Job.
ReplyDeleteBill O'Reilly told a big fat whopper and piece of disinformation on the ending segment of his TV show tonight when he said in answer to an email comment about Obama having a SSN from CT, O'Reilly then said that Obama's father lived for several years in CT and probably got it for his son. When that CT number was issues circa Mar 1977 Obama's father was back in Kenya for many years and Obama was age 15 living in Hawaii in the legal custody of his maternal grandparents. There is no way Obama Sr. in Kenya could have requested a SSN for Obama Jr. living in Hawaii and got issued a CT SSN. It also should be pointed out that Harvard which is the New England college Obama Sr. attended for a few years in the early 1960s before returning to Kenya is in Massachusetts, not Connecticut. So O'Reilly is either completely stupid or he is purposely putting out false information to protect Obama. Is O'Reilly dancing to the tune or Obama's Homeland Security Department warnings and disinformation to keep Obama's usurpation a national security secret with fear of violence threats if Obama's fraud is exposed or is O'Reilly simply a closet progressive and Obama's lapdog?
ReplyDeleteListen to this audio interview of Susan Daniels, Licensed Private Investigator, of the great state of Ohio at about 18 minutes and 25 seconds in where she destroys the above false story that O'Reilly repeated tonight. Listen to the entire audio if you have time. It's 34 minutes full of good, solid information on the Obama fraudulent use of a CT SSN.
http://www.t-room.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SDInterview.mp3
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
Does anyone know how to contact Jack Maskell -The Congressional Research Service?
ReplyDeleteI read what he sent in his reportto Congress and he is WRONG when he said …
“As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well settled from common law Principles of jus soli (“law of the soil”) extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence, etc, etc”
The English common law referred to by the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark case, was with reference to Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case where Calvin was adjudged a ‘natural born subject’, Coke said….
Coke:
“There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright,”
i.e TWO qualities to make a natural born subject of the English sovereign, i.e. ‘nature & birthright’
Coke:
“Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right…”
Again, TWO qualities to make a ‘natural born subject’
Coke goes further to say that without the parent father (wives took the subject/citizenship status of the husband) being a subject/citizen, that the child is NOT A SUBJECT, even if born jus soli (in the land)
Coke:
“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject…”
The chief justice in the SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case, cherry picked that children of aliens born in England are considered ‘natural born subjects’ and ran with that, but the chief justice (Horace Gray – appointed by & beholding to the usurper Chester Arthur) failed to mention these statements (quoted here) of Lord Coke, which clearly show that it was jus soli (born in the land) AND jus sanguinis (born of the parent) that was required to make a ‘natural born subject’.
In England, an alien visiting England, was considered a ‘subject’, and if he was not considered a subject, then a child born of that alien, even if born in England was NOT born a subject.
As you can see Jack Maskell has been misled by relying on the error of others to form his erroneous opinion and subsequently he ill advises the Congress.
According to the English common law it took TWO qualities to make a natural born subject.
Not one! …………. not only jus soli!
Both jus soli and jus sanguinis (born in the land to citizen parents) is what was required.
It is important to contact Jack Maskell and get him to offer his explanation as to what Coke meant by the statements that I have quoted here.
It would be good to have his written response.
I have already put this to other legal authorities, many failed to respond, but one who did, acknowledged that there is a problem with the way the English common law has be misrepresented over the years.
There is another important issue that might even be directly linked to Obama's birth (somewhere else than in the US!!) is the fact that Obama seems to have used several different social security numbers that are not his but other people's social security numbers!!
ReplyDeleteIt seems that several other documents that Obama does not want anyone to see (school records, applications to student loans, etc.) would seem to show that Obama does not only want to hide his long form birth certificate but that he also has several other areas of his life that he wants to hide!!
Donald Trump is the only one who will be able to force the truth to come out for all to see about Obama's long form birth certificate and more.
It would seem that Obama has hired his step-sister to influence the debate concerning this long form birth certificate! That proves again that Obama is really very worried that he might be forced to show his long form birth certificate.
Very soon, a new book on this birth certificate issue will be available. It is:
Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President [Hardcover] by Corsi Jerome (Author) at http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299
To support my remarks concerning the important issue that Obama seems to have used many different social security numbers that are not his, see "My first amended complaint in Taitz v Astrue was finally filed and docketted by the clerks of the US Disrict Court in DC, 3 weeks after I filed them and after the Chief judge, Hon Royce Lamberth, ordered them to be filed | Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire" at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20548
ReplyDeleteThis issue has the potential to be as big than Obama's avoidance at showing his long form birth certificate (if he has one)!!
I tried to leave this comment on your blog, but it says I don't own my Wordpress identity! I do, but somehow your blog doesn't recognize me. WP says I have to do something special so I will get recognized.(http://www.blogger.com/comment).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this is what I wrote.
Great rebuttal re the NBC article. Unbelievable distortions of truth and facts by that so called "investigative" correspondent. Michael has No integrity and zero credibility.
My Question: Recently, I've noticed that the term natural born citizen is being hyphenated. Does this change the meaning? FactCheck used it throughout their article rebutting Trump. Then today, I saw the hyphenated version in an article at WND.
Natural Born Citizen vs. Natural-Born Citizen
I remember reading once that it did, but am unable to find a citation about it. Using proper English, I know the difference, but I am looking at how it might affect the meaning legally.
Would you please clarify on your blog or send a note to me as others are questioning this as well.
Thanks,
Bridgette
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com
@Bridgett:
ReplyDeleteMario's WordPress blog is a mirror/backup site for this, his Google Blogger blog. Commenting is disabled on his WordPress backup blog. About once per month all posts and comments in this Google blogger blog are copied over to the WordPress blog which ... as I said ... serves as a back up site in case Google pulled the plug on this site. As you know Google is very, very friendly with Obama.
Hope this explains and that you understand.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
I have just posted on my weblog at http://jesbeard.com/?p=33 a detailed look at Hawaiian law regarding access to the state's birth records. Bottom line, they are available, not just to Obama but to ANYONE sharing a common ancestor. That reportedly includes Sara Palin and also Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDeletejesbeard@usa.net
Obama ran for public office. He put his life in the public spot light. He made statements that he was eligible to be POTUS. Members of Congress state he was vetted. Members of the Senate stated he was vetted. Judges from across this country state that he was vetted. At this point, the POTUS is a public figure, and is basing his right to hold office on nothing but other people saying he is qualified.
ReplyDeleteHe has no right to privacy. Hi. State Law has no right to deny anyone public documents of this nature. The right to privacy went out the door when Obama threw his has in for the election, and was certified when he held his hand up and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. At that point Obama's entire life became American History, which everyone in the USA has a right to know. There is no privacy rights for public figures of this nature. To claim so is obscene.
Saw an interview on Fox last night with a reporter from Arizona. He says there's a 50-50 chance Brewer's gonna veto the bill.
ReplyDeleteSomebody please tell me that's a joke.
The far left progressives are playing a game of Catch 22 with the election system.
ReplyDeleteBefore the election date of 2008 the Congress told people it is the state's job to vet the candidates. One court judge said it was up to Congress. Before the election date the courts said the case is moot because Obama may not win the election. Then after he won ... oops it's too late, he won the election. And then later of course in the infamous secret CRS Memo circulated secretly to members of Congress in April 2009, those lawyers said it is the responsibility of the states. Now that the states are doing something about this Catch 22 mess and gaming of the election and legal system by Obama and the progressives, now the far left progressives are saying ... nope it's not up to the states but up to the federal government to decide. Basically the bottom line of the far left progressives is that they don't want any rules or vetting. They want to let anyone run even if not a Citizen at all like the Socialist Party candidate Calero. The far left progressives want a pure democracy with no rules with 51% determining who the President and Commander of our Military is to be ... Constitution and fundamental law be damned from their point of view. A pure democracy is just a stepping stone to mob rule and that ultimately leads to a tyrannical nationalist socialist takeover to restore order. The is what the far left want. It's the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. No rules, no Constitution except for what the few far left elite will dictate for the moment to suit their needs then change them 30 days later to suit that times need.
Read this essay about out Cloward-Piven Government in which Obama is driving the country into the end game to throw out the Constitution and install a national socialist new government in response to the calls from the mob rule of 51% to end the misery that Obama and his Obots are creating.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
Hi:
ReplyDeleteThought you might like ot see this article from the Kenyan newspaper the Standard it is from their archives when Obama was running for Senator. I think this is proof that Presidente Obama is not eligble. Enjoy!
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
RiverQueen,
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot more sources in Kenya and Africa in general saying Obama was Kenyan Born, born in Kenya, and not in the USA. See this link for the collection:
http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2441535