Saturday, May 21, 2011

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?


                                                        By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                May 21, 2011

We have seen many on-line presentations showing the American public that Obama’s recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. It is now time for Obama to release real evidence of his alleged birth in Hawaii. That real evidence is medical evidence.

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 Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children. He has also recently released his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth which states that he was born there. Hence, let us see the hospital birth records which name Obama and his mother and father. Let us see other medical records which name Obama and the mother and father. Since Obama has released to the public the name of his alleged birth hospital, he should have no interest in keeping private any medical records which show that he was in fact born in that hospital. Also, he can redact any part of the medical record which he wants to keep private.

Additionally, under Section 338-5, 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 the recently released birth certificate has been adequately shown to be a forgery which creates such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

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 regarding extant medical evidence which would give the public that needed assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine.

With the State of Hawaii having such authority under Section 338-5 to confirm through medical records that a birth in fact occurred in a Hawaiian hospital, why have we not heard that the Hawaii Health Department has any of this evidence in its files? We should also consider that Governor Abercrombie also did not confirm for the American people that the Obama birth file in Hawaii in fact shows that his birth event is corroborated with medical evidence from Kapi’olani Medical Center as is required by Section 338-5. Are we to reasonably believe that there exists no medical evidence confirming Obama’s birth in Hawaii that any one in Hawaii can share with the American people?

For a complete list of evidence of citizenship and identity identified by Medicaid, see http://www.ctelderlaw.org/HealthCare/Citizenship%20FactSheet%207%202%2007%20(2)%20(2).pdf. Out of all this evidence which can be used to prove citizenship and identity, what have we seen Obama and his enablers produce? The answer is a resounding “none.” If Obama wants to sell a lot of tee shirts proclaiming his birth in the U.S., let him put a copy of a Kapi’olani medical record on the tee shirts rather than the fake birth certificate.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 21, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

35 comments:

MichaelN said...

Jerome Corsi: White House Running Scared Over Latest Discovery of Obama’s True Origins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BygadqqiFH8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqvvqGqpkgE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqvvqGqpkgE&feature=player_embedded

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/obama-2012-made-in-the-usa-made-definition-fictitious-invented-obama-attorneys-paid-in-the-usa-with-taxpayer-dollars/#comments

paraleaglenm said...

I believe the duty of the clerk to contact the licensed birthing facilities was to confirm a parent's verbal attestation of time, date, and place of birth, if possible.

If there was no record in any hospital, or other licensed birthing facility, 338-5 allowed the clerk to register the birth, i.e., compulsory registration.

The clerk then posted the details of the birth in the 'legals' sections of local newspapers of record.

Carlyle said...

I don't want or expect the White House to "release" anything. I am getting tired of that. It reeks of propaganda. If you question some one's bona fides, motives, or conduct, the stupidest thing in the world is for them to force feed you the information defending themselves.

What we need is a complete lift of bans on information. Then the normal process of historical, legal, and investigative review can continue.

We just want truth and the ability to find and analyze relevant facts.

MichaelN said...

HRS
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as "delayed" or "altered". [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

MichaelN said...

Hawaiian Revised Statute
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate.

(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as "delayed" or "altered". [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
Read for yourself CLICK HERE

Puzo1 said...

I have posted in this blog several articles on kerning (two consecutive letters taking up the same vertical space) and how I believe that it is conclusive evidence that Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. I want to post this comment to reiterate my point.

The PPsimmons video on kerning should be viewed for a great explanation of the kerning that is found in Obama's birth certificate. It may be viewed at http://conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com/2011/05/does-kerning-show-that-obama-birth.html

Here are the instances of kerning that are shown on the video:

1. The Nordyke twins were born in the same hospital in which Obama was allegedly born(Kapi'olani) and only one day later than Obama. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that the exact or similar typewriter as used on Obama's birth certificate would have been used by the hospital clerk that filled out the Nordyke and Obama birth certificates.

2. The Nordyke birth certificate in the typed words "Kapiolani," "Maternity," and "Gynecolocial" has no kerning. But Obama's birth certificate shows kerning between the letters "ap," "ty," and "Gy" in these words, respectively. Note that the words "Kapiolani," "Maternity," and "Gynecolocial," not being part of the pre-printed birth certificate form would have had to be inserted by a typewriter.

3. On the Obama birth certificate, the words "Kenya" and "University" appear. There is kerning with the letters "ny" and "ty" in the words, respectively. These words would have been typed onto the form with a typewriter.

4. Note that the Obama pre-printed birth certificate form contains the words "City" and "Type" which show that the same "ty" formation does not contain kerning. The explanation for that is that the form was pre-printed by a commercial printer but the word "Maternity" which contains the letter combination "ty" would have had to be inerted with a typewriter.

Again, the words in which kerning exists on the Obama birth certificate would have been typed onto the pre-printed form of that birth certificate form using a typewriter. But kerning is not possible on a typewriter that would have been used in 1961. Thus, what is typed on Obama's birth certificate has been manufactured with a modern computer rather than typed with an era-appropriate typewriter. In other words, Obama's Certificate of Live Birth contains an anachronism (the error of placing a person or thing in a time period in which he/she or it does not belong). Hence, Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.

phil stone said...

Note the certificate number 61 10641.Does the number 4 overlap the number 6 ?? Might be caused by a worn out numbering stamp. I note that Corsi thinks that the number is 61 10611 - would this be to much of a spread ?? old marine Phil Stone

Thomas said...

Folks,

Is the obvious being overlooked here? The state registrar's certification on the document states: "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record..."

Would not a contemporaneously generated abstract look exactly like this? Has anyone at the WH ever claimed anything contrary to Onaka's certification?

Puzo1 said...

Thomas,

I also believe that the obvious is being overlooked. The obvious is that Dr. "David A Sinclair" "(Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama," and "U K L Lee" allegedly signed the document that Obama released. Those signatures would have been affixed in August 1961 at Kapi'olani Hospital. Hence, the document posted by Obama on the White House web site is supposed to represent a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth produced by the hospital, not some "abstract" or copy thereof produced by the Hawaii Health Department.

Puzo1 said...

Here is my challenge to Obama's enablers. Why don't we just cut to the chase. They profess to know so much about Obama. Let's see a document from Kapi'olani Hospital (not the Hawaii Health Department) that confirms that Obama was born there.

Simple, right?

No excuses, please.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Mr. Apuzzo, the answer to your question is simple, a few (if not more!) people from the State of Hawaii birth certificates department have created a false long form birth certificate for Obama and therefore officially Obama and the State of Hawaii did release the official (false!) long form birth certificate!!! This false official long form birth certificate is probably quite a good forgery. But your question was why?
Zealed politics!! There are fanaticisms of various kinds that sometimes people fall for: religion, politics, and more. Only a few zealed pro-Obama or pro-Democrat people working at the right place, the Hawaii birth certificates department, are needed to create a false official long form birth certificate and that is very likely what happened!!

Now the question is: is the truth on this bogus long form birth certificate going to be out anytime soon?! The answer is hard to determine!!
When I see how Obama was able to be basically above the law using the cover of standing seems to indicate that the battle to get the real truth on this long form birth certificate is not going to be easy at all.

What I suggest is that we focus on finding the truth on this bogus long form birth certificate BUT we must keep telling people that Obama is still NOT eligible to be president of the USA (NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN) because he is NOT a natural born citizen, as his father was not an American citizen and both parents need to be American citizen in order to be a natural born citizen.

cfkerchner said...

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/senator-marco-rubios-father-was-not-a-naturalized-citizen-when-marco-was-born-in-may-1971-per-national-archives-data-his-father-applied-for-naturalization-in-sep-1975/


CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

jayjay said...

All:

HI has some of the most screwed-up natality laws stemming from many years ago when the then-Territory was ardently doing anything possible to try to attract "citizens".

Fora a description of what the forged WHBC actually shows and the federally-required statistical procedure that causes the Nordyke/Obama certificate number gap, read this:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-analysis-on-obamas-birth.html

Further information about a man who has almost the identical "natality story" as Barky except that he was born in Australia (and later became what HI terms a "natural born citizen") read this:

"MAN IN THE MIRROR

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama and I share biographical similarities. We were fostered in paradise, along with a younger sibling, by our white grandparents whose origins once resided in Midwest America before moving west with hope of a better life for our family. Our American grandfathers served the United States as members of the military and we both had a close relationship with a maternal grandmother who passed away in 2008. We both claim a Christian faith, and we are both educated in professional fields attending college where we had occasion to write for the college newspaper.

We were both abandoned by our biological fathers who, at the time of our birth, both resided for some time in Hawaii. Then we were both paternally adopted. We were both born to educated, though wayward mothers during their less than discretionary teen years of the 1960’s. Both of our mothers moved to the Pacific Northwest soon after our birth and, later, became ill with incurable sickness as we entered into the endeavors of our professional lives. I, too, was issued a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth after applying for the document based on Hawaiian law 338-17 which allowed me to gain natural-born American natal status despite my birth in Brisbane, Australia. I am natural-born citizen of the United States because the laws of the state of Hawaii says I am, despite the fact that my natal origins are nowhere near American soil. I could actually run for President, despite being born abroad, under the same circumstances Barack Obama was."

gobillgo said...

How many times are you going to move the goal post?

You don't think most Americans can see right through this stuff?

You can almost hear the eye rolling as the birthers stretch their conspiracy further and further.

Everyone knows that even if you got the "new" records that you now demand, if they didn't show what you wanted...you will simply demand different records.

And on and on it goes...

MichaelN said...

By the same auther 'Penbook One'

'Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth Issued by Hawaiian Health Agency, Not Hospital'

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/05/obamas-certificate-of-live-birth-issued.html

Puzo1 said...

gobillgo,

I am not interested in your Obot goal post talk. The on-line alleged Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. Just produce the real evidence. Like I said, "no excuses, please."

paraleaglenm said...

I opened up the whitehouse.gov pdf of Obama's birth certificate in Adobe Illustrator and got the shock of my life.

I linked that file opened and the artwork seperated in Illustrator in a previous comment.

Note, that the law says that a document that has evidence of alteration or erasure is void, if not evidence of criminal intent.

Many states include that caveate/warning on their birth certificate security paper.

Jerome Corsi and WND are pursing civil action against Esquire, and criminal action against the president through the FBI.

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Here is my question:

Any intelligent informed person who has paid any attention to the issue of Chairman Soetoro’s eligibility to be POTUS knows that that it is not possible for him to be constitutionally eligible. Now Soetoro has provided proof positive of that fact by producing a poorly executed forgery of a BC and claims it to be evidence of his eligibility. Mr. Apuzzo in good faith has pursued a rock solid case against the usurper. The courts said in effect that they don’t care whether or not Soetoro is eligible nor do they care what the Constitution this nation was founded upon has to say. This process took two years for the courts to declare we don’t care. Now Soetoro by producing this forgery is saying that he is a fraud and you can’t do a damn thing about it. So, my question is:

What can be done about it? Some folks say let it go and win the next election. I say that is wrong. Do we want establish a precedent that anyone who wins an election is placed in office to run this country even if they are not constitutionally qualified? Do we want to say that it is OK to let an illegal alien leave office after four years with all of our national secrets? I say no. There is more to this than winning the next election. I ask again the big question. What can be done at this point to bring the usurper to justice?

Doublee said...

@gobillgo

Please tell us what you think is conspiratorial about asking the following questions.

1. Is a person born with dual citizenship a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president?

2. Is a document (the White House birth certificate) that can be shown to be "doctored" worthy of further investigation to determine whether it is a forgery?

3. If all reasonable analyses show that the birth certificate is indeed a forgery, what does this say about the person who released it?

If the documents that Hawaii would release would show some inconsistencies either internally or with respect to the White House document, any reasonable person would investigate further would he not? With Obama's track record so far how can we trust anything this man does?

Whatever is found in Hawaii needs to be verified one way or another. A trail of deceit does not end until every last item is verified.

I don't think that there is anything that could be found in Hawaii that would clear up the birth certificate issue.

If a verified document is presented that substantiates all the information on the White House certificate, this prompts the question why didn't Obama release this document in the first place? Obama released an allegedly forged document for no reason at all? Really?

If a verified document disagrees substantially with the WH certificate, then the trail of deceit just got longer.

Carlyle said...

@gobillgo said...

How many times are you going to move the goal post?

===============================

Read my post above. The goalposts have never moved, even slightly. All we want is access to the records.

You are right, however, in one regard. We will NEVER be happy with anything "they" feed to us. We don't want to be fed, we want to forage for ourselves.

Any journalist will tell you this. We must have access to primary sources. Secondary sources are always subject to the biases (or even fraud) of the intermediaries.

It is also why we feel the Investigative Journalists have failed us. They steadfastly (and seemingly with malice) refuse to look under ANY rocks whatsoever. Even ones with bits of evidence leaking out from under them.

"Not, me, man - I ain't touchin' it!"

Something is very wrong with that. Something is very dangerous. Something is very Un-American - dare I say, Anti-American.

We just want ground truth. No more, no less. Simple.

Carlyle said...

cfkerchner said...

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975.

==============================

We must ride this as hard as Paul Revere rode his pony. We need to prove that we are equal-opportunity-constitutionalists, not just sore losers or racists.

The best way we can out Zero is to out our own guys - especially popular ones - and shame the Zero Enablers to fess up.

Puzo1 said...

The burden of proof is on Obama to prove where he was born. The American people do not have the burden of proof to go around the globe looking for his place of birth. It is that simple.

Obama has put forth a document on the internet which he alleges is his long-form Certificate of Live Birth. There is now enough evidence showing that it is a forgery. Hence, he must show some other evidence.

Our Federal agencies accept medical evidence as evidence of place of birth and identity. Hence, Obama needs to produce that medical evidence from Kapi'olani Hospital, the hospital in which he says he was born and which is stated as his birth place on his alleged long-form birth certificate.

1961 is not that far back in time. Surely, the hospital has evidence of Stanley Ann Dunham and baby Barack being there, if they were there. Also, Stanley Ann Dunham would have had pre-natal and post-natal medical care for herself and baby Barack. Where is that medical evidence?

To Obama's enablers, please, no more excuses.

Carlyle said...

The burden of proof is on Obama to prove where he was born.

===============================

True enough. But, at this point, I do not want him handing me anything. I do not want anything whose pedigree or chain of custody is any way in-question.

To heck with hisself 'proving' anything. We need to insist on complete access to primary source material.

bdwilcox said...

Jerome Corsi about to file criminal charges against the White House for forging a birth certificate; will ask for FBI investigation. Clear Channel scrubs the interview. Cowards.

Puzo1 said...

In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court provided Vattel's definition of a "natural born citizen" without citing Vattel, and did not in any way refer to the English common law in defining that term. It stated:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80.

We can see that the Court’s definition of a “natural born citizen,” which included a requirement that the child’s parents be U.S. citizens, did not come from the English common law which, except for parents who were ambassadors or with invading armies, made a child a “natural born subject” without any reference to the citizenship of the parents. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that there were no doubts what a "natural born citizen" was. It also said that there had been doubts that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a "citizen." Hence, there was no doubt that such a child was not a "natural born citizen" and there were doubts whether such a child was even a "citizen."

This definition of a "natural born citizen" has never been changed, not even by the 14th Amendment or by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which only answered the question left open by Minor of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a "citizen," not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Under this U.S. Supreme Court confirmed definition of the term, Obama is not a "natural born Citizen." He was born to a British father. Hence, he was not born to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother). Not being a "natural born Citizen," he is not eligible to be President.

Puzo1 said...

Here is what Obama's enablers are saying on the blogs regarding my challenge that Obama or the State of Hawaii produce medical evidence proving that Obama was born in Hawaii: "Mario, et al. are moving the goal posts completely off the playing field by asking for something they know darn well would not exist after almost 50 years."

So, the Obots admit there is no medical evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Do we need more to further support our conclusion that Obama has not proven that he was born in Hawaii?

itooktheredpill said...

Subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, director of HI Health Department

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/subpoena-Loretta-fuddy_00011-791x1024.jpg

Doublee said...

I am starting to research the issue of whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime. So far there seems to be no clear answer.

I have always assumed that Obama cannot be impeached because only a legitimate president can be impeached.

I have envisioned the following scenario regarding Obama's release of the fraudulent birth certificate.

I wish to bring charges against Obama for releasing a fraudulent document.

You can't bring charges against a sitting president.

But the charge I am making, if proven, will show that he is covering up the fact that he is not a legitimate president and therefore he can be charged as an ordinary person.

I have envisioned what appears to me to be a legal "Catch 22".

Would you care to comment on this issue?

Puzo1 said...

Read this article at Politico. Rep. Clyburn says that racism is driving the Obama eligibilty issue.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55753.html


How could Rep. Clyburn not know that John McCain's eligibility to be President was challenged by Democrats and that the Senate even authorized research and a hearing on the matter, resulting in the Senate finding that McCain was a "natural born Citizen" as per Senate Resolution 511. Ironically, Obama was a co-sponsor of that resolution and also voted affirmatively for its passage.

Also, McCain is an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born to a U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother who were serving the national defense of the United States ("serving the armies of the state"). Hence, he is reputed to be born in the United States to citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217.

Also, as far as what the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" is, there is no race or color in the definition. Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), gave us that definition which it had already done in previous cases. It relied upon Emer de Vattel's definition of that term although it did not cite Vattel. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217. The Court also did not rely upon the English common law in providing that definition. The Court stated:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80.

Hence, an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother).

If Rep. Clyburn has such difficulty objectively addressing real constitutional issues in a multi-racial society, it is time for him to retire from public office.

MichaelN said...

News Release of May 22, 2011
Expanded Analysis of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth
by Douglas Vogt

http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_certificate_of_birth_May-22-2011_Expanded_News%20Realease.pdf

MichaelIsGreat said...

What is unbelievable is that by the time people have been able to challenge the non-validity of the Obama long form birth certificate, Obama might very well have finished a second term at the presidency (assuming that he would elected a second time)!!
As there is no other way to challenge Obama than to take the case to court, there is basically no hope through the legal channel!

Even Donald Trump has apparently given up questioning Obama's long form birth certificate!!

It is hard to have any hope on being able to get Justice against Obama despite the fact that Obama is NOT eligible to be President of the USA (no matter where he was born!!) because he is not a natural born citizen (as his father was never an American citizen).

Kanbun said...

Mario-

The Post and Email has published an essay entitled Citizens Educate Staffers of the Meaning of “natural born Citizen” and “Treason”. In this essay, the author makes the following statement:

Obama was a legal citizen of Indonesia and has sworn in Court prior to his election that he has been to Court and obtained his Naturalization Papers. If Obama has as he has sworn in Court, then that would at best make him a “Naturalized Citizen” and not a “Natural Born Citizen” as required by the Constitution. Obama failed to produce these documents, his “Certified Copy of his Birth Certificate” and his court records of his legal name change as the Court ordered.

Do you have any knowledge of Barry having ever sworn under oath to having "naturalization papers" or a court ever having ordered him to produce documents regarding his legal name change?

The Post and Email will not post my questions to this in the comments section of the essay. I think this is bull. What say you?

Puzo1 said...

Kanbun,

I have not seen any evidence that "Obama was a legal citizen of Indonesia."

I have not seen any evidence that Obama "has sworn in Court prior to his election that he has been to Court and obtained his Naturalization Papers."

I have not seen any evidence that any court ever ordered Obama to produce any birth documents, naturalization papers, or name-change papers.

jayjay said...

All:

Although on a bit of a different subject, I'd urge everyone to write/contact their Congressmen as well as any newspapers that have Letters to the Editor sections and/or radio/TV stations to ask why they do not have coverage of the submission to the FBI by Donald Vogt of the criminal complaint about Obama's document fraud - the White House Birth Certificate.

Should the FBI investigate this submission (made in both Honolulu and DC), it would be a VERY quick way to solidly prove Barkey is not a nbC if Kapiolani does not have an exactly matching real BC on file. After that the HI DOH could be investigated (but Barkey would already be in deep doo-doo).

The FBI will do nothing without a reasonable amount of pressure being brought to bear ... so here's your chance to genuinely help your country!! Howsabout some help for Doug in kicking off the investigation???

June 4, 2011 12:36 PM

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Frankstein created Obama's April 27, 2011 long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

A retired typographer who worked in the industry for 50 years has analyzed the Obama April 27, 2011 alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. He concludes that the document contains different typewriter typeface letters which come from a number of different typewriters. Paul Irey, an expert in typefaces and typography, concludes that the forger(s) used different pieces of actual 1961 valid birth certificates from Hawaii to create the Obama birth certifificate. The problem for Obama is that the different typewriter letters which come from different typewriters prove that the document is a forgery, for a valid birth certificate would not contain typeface letters created by so many different typewriters.

"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.

The anlaysis is presented by Jerome Corsi in his WND article which can be accessed at
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397

I wonder why Irey did not comment on the kerning that exists in the Obama released alleged birth certificate. Again, kerning is a way to type letters in such a way as to space them together so they look better. With letters extending into each other's vertical space, kerning cannot be done on a 1961-era typewriter which is what a clerk at Kapi'olani Hospital would have used to fill in the requested information on a valid pre-printed form of a 1961 birth certificate.

Again, where is the FBI and Congress who need to be doing a full-blown investigation of this serious crime which presents a serious security threat not only for the United States but for the entire world.