Thursday, March 18, 2010

Is the State of Hawaii Covering Up Birth Registration Fraud in the Case of Obama? Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There. A Catalog of Evidence for and Against Obama's Physically Being Born in Hawaii and Not Just Falsely Registered There After the Fact.

The State of Hawaii is contemplating passing a law allowing its officials not to answer the requests of concerned Americans who are looking for proof from that State that putative President Barack Obama was born there as he claims. Officials there contend that many of the open records requests are repetitive and vexatious and they cause them to lose time and money in providing a response to others.

We hope that the State of Hawaii will consider the state of affairs as they exist today regarding the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is probably these circumstances which causes concerned Americans to continue to pursue the State for a definitive answer. Let us review what we know.

Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.

Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);

(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB] computer form, which is a computer generated and easily forged form that was posted online in 2008 which is not a true Birth Certificate and is not a typed contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would have the name and signature of the delivering doctor or witnesses to the birth. No witnesses or hospitals have ever attested to Obama being born in Hawaii.);

(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can legally even raise the question and who among them would);

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born);

(8) Congress confirmed his election (although political party politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue);

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that defacto status is not proof of where he was born);

(10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);

(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not ever publicly produced one);

(12 The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive and they have never confirmed the online COLB computer form image is genuine);

(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu. See No. 20 below).

Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:

(1) Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she was present to witness Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction;

(3) Ms. Odhiambo a Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in session and recorded in the official record of the Kenyan National Assembly on 5 Nov 2008 on page 3275 that Obama was a son of the soil of their country;

(4) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. Also see this more recent one in Ghana. Africa's press knows what the American media refuses to investigate. There have also been other reports in the media that Obama was born in Kenya. A good list of these reports may be found at where actual screen shots of the stories may be viewed;

(5) Obama's wife, Michelle Obama stated in a video taped speech she made a couple years ago that Kenya is Obama's home country. During a speech that Michelle gave to an audience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) delegates at the 2008 Democrat Party Convention on the topic of getting tested for HIV and in showing that Obama leads by example, Michelle Obama told them: "He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know--a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, he took a public HIV test for the very point of showing the folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” “Home country” is defined as “the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.” It is highly suspicious that Obama's transcripts of Michelle's speech now do not contain the reference by Michelle to Kenya being his "home country." Obama's facebook page has a transcript of her "home country" speech. The transcript omits the "home country" wording and says this instead: "He has supported full funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and has pledged to implement a national HIV/AIDS strategy to combat the continuing epidemic in the United States. He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, a stigma tied all too often to homophobia. And he's led by example: On our trip to Kenya, (omission) we both took a public HIV test." The words "Barack's home country" are omitted;

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

(7) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;

(8) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters that her half-brother, then Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children which is also located in Honolulu. Obama claims he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center;

(9) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

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

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

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

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

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

(15) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated June 6, 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate). web site has this to say about the COLB: "The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response." FactCheck did provide an "Update," on August 26, when they stated: "We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health." They go on to explain they did get some clarification from them to "some" of their questions. But they do not address why DOH did not answer their question as to why DOH "only offer the short form" COLB. It is unbelievable that a fact-checking organization such a FactCheck (actually a reading of their "objective" information on this issue shows that they are quite biased and prejudiced on the issue in favor of Obama) would allow such an important matter to just die with the excuse that the DOH did not provide a response to their request for information. Would any reasonable person call that responsible and thorough fact investigation? Hawaii Department of Heath has "affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001." For an explanation as to who at the FactCheck organization allegedly handled and photographed the COLB and "authenticated" the document (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) go to;

(16) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama's campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document later pictured on the internet is a forgery;

(17) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;

(18) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root "evidence" is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: "§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]."

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center. At no time during the ongoing public debate about whether Obama was born in Hawaii has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama's alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was "completed and filed" with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi'olani Medical Center to confirm Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.

We will know what the underlying evidence is about Obama's alleged birth in Hawaii only if we can examine Obama's contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii's or anybody else's bare statement as to the place and time of Obama's birth.

Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence which would at least give the public greater assurance that Obama's birth record is genuine;

(19) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

(20) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department "registered" a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confim that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the "son." The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at Note the heading of both of the ads says "Health Bureau Statistics" which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;

(21) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of "Filing" the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was "Accepted." Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date "Accepted" in that field. See these examples compared to Obama's COLB. This implies the birth registration was never finally accepted and that additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never "Accepted;"

(22) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people have questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama's supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the "birthers") could be put in their place once and for all;

(23) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu;

(24) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital;

(25) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke ("the Nordyke twins") were born at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins' birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins' certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama's and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama's birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama's purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes' is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at;

(26) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo. Ironically, he expressed that "[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance...." He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the "unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years...." He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the "Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people...." He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: "The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence." Mr. Erengo's statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a "native American." It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at The speech of Mr. Erengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;

(27) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama's origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. "What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?" Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson's Rebels

None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting a computer image of an alleged 2008 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.

Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.

It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns.

We hope that Hawaii can understand the frustrations that these concerned Americans feel when they turn to that state for confirmation regarding Obama’s place of birth which Obama himself could easily provide. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 17, 2010
Update: April 25, 2010

A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner: Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.
Birth Registration Fraud. It's Been Done Before | by

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)


James said...

Very Good Mario! If the Law does pass it won't go into effect until July 2010. This means we have until July 2010 to hit the State of Hawaii with as many requests as possible. There is quite a battle going on with the Hawaii DOH. I am glad you started to take an interest in it.

James said...

Even if Obama does have a Hawaiin COLB or has actually released it, (FactCheck did say they touched the real deal.) given the totality of circumstancial evidence of countering evidence that points Obama's birth in Kenya or outside the state of Hawaii, the Prima Facie evidence of Obama's COLB must fall.

Anonymous said...


The sponsor of the “vexatious requester” bill, Hawaii Senator Will Espero, left the following comment at the following TP&E article. However, his comment is no longer in the comments section.

I posted the gyst of your article, "Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There" as a comment to th TP&E article.

Hopefully, Will Espero will read it.

Perhaps you should comment at the TP&E article and challenge Will Espero to a debate. He is obviously reading TP&E's articles...

HI Senator [Will Espero] who sponsored “vexatious requester” bill is a sellout to Obama

Will Espero says: “Aloha readers of The Post and Email. Also a warm hello to writer Sharon Rondeau. Thank you for writing about my bills, SB2937 (vexatious requests) and SB2059 (Inspection of birth records). I only wish the writer had called me to get my direct perspective on these 2 measures. SB2937 was introduced because of a request I received from the Dept. of Health. I believe the introduction would elevate the discussion regarding the matter at hand. I also introduced SB2059 because I feel some birth information should be in the public domain. Due to concerns such as ID theft, conditions or restrictions on viewing are proper. As a legislative veteran, I knew many Democrats would be against SB2059. Thus I worded it in a way I thought could get support and pass. At this stage, 2059 is going no where. I would like to see both bills pass, thus allowing some access to birth records and dealing with multiple public requests regardless of the issue. Next time, someone from The Post and Email should call me. I would be happy to chat and share my views.”



Incredulous said...

Thank you for such a great compilation. One reason you forgot to mention as proof he was born in Hawaii...."I WON!" lol

Gov. Lingle's office says they cannot release ANY information from the birth certificate without express information from the party of interest. Fukino's statement that BHO was born in Hawaii she said came from "vital documents" which could have included his born-elsewhere-but-given-HI-document "vitals"...but her statement could not have come from his birth certificate since HI says they cannot say anything from that document.
Where is the permission Obama gave to only give this limited information? Unless this was given, Fukino is guilty of an automatic misdemeanor (less than 1 year in jail).
And when is HI going to abide its own laws? Once BHO published his COLB, HI is obliged to reproduce same (non-certified) as validation. This is difficult, since it does not exist!!

I've spoken to Pelosi and Barney Frank's reps, and when I asked them the question "How can a British citizen be a natural born citizen?" they were both highly abusive, yelled, phone slammed. They both said in essence, "get a life, there's nothing you can do, he's not going anywhere"--they didn't even deny he's British (difficult since Obama twice published this fact). He's STILL British (because BNA81 kicked in before KIA63 expired)...they know he's totally a plant, a fraud, a usurper...
This is a coup, a communist takeover, a coup and now they're in our faces about it. This is just awful, horrible!!

Brianroy said...

National Security Clearances for Obama only went back 10 years, and to the last University he attended. His National Security Clearance answers needs to be petitioned for.

On the "Questionnaire for National Security Positions", "Standard Form 86 revised July 2008",

On page 1 question 3, Obama was required to disclose the city, county, state and country of birth. They did not require him to name a hospital or clinic. At question 5, Obama was required to disclose if he had ever used any other names, and the month/year to month/year he used them.
On p. 2, question 10, Obama would have lied on the question "Do you now hold or have you EVER held multiple citizenships?"
Page 11, question 18 - identify "each relative and give their full name and other requested information...for each of your relatives, living and deceased, specified below.
1-Mother, 2-Father, 3-Stepmother, 4-Stepfather, 5-Foster parent, 6-Child (incl. adopted and foster), 7-Stepchild, 8-Brother, 9-Sister, 10-Stepbrother, 11-Stepsister, 12-Half-brother, 13-Half-sister, 14-Father-in-law, 15-Mother-in-law, 16-Guardian.

Code, Full Name, Deceased box, Date of birth, Place of birth, Country(ies) of citizenship, Current address (Street, City, and State, include Country if outside the U.S.), If relative was born outside the U.S. indicate documentation that he or she possesses...(FS 240 or 245, Citizenship certificate, DS 1350, Naturalization certificate, Alien registration, US Passport, other / Document number)."

Security Directive 63

The security check only extended backwards for 10 years from his announcing to run, to 1997.
They check his bank and criminal records, they ask the neighbors if the subject has behaved or said anything of note in the last 5 years to them, they check the medical records and 4 submitted references who are going to say nothing but good for the subject anyway, the employment record in the last 10 years, and whatever the LAST collegiate or university record states. In other words, they would have checked the University of Chicago, talked to two or three Obama selected people, and stopped.

The March 16, 2006 directive from the United States Office of Personnel Management, Notice No. 06-02, states that if a Birth Certificate is stamped "delayed", that essentially, it is no big deal, and one can accept it at face value and move on. By the wording, if Obama simply produced the same birth certification that was forged for him, a sympathetic investigator would simply note that a birth document was present, accept the forgery at face value, and move on.

Brianroy said...

Further, the March 16, 2006 directive from the United States Office of Personnel Management, Notice No. 06-02, states that if a Birth Certificate is stamped "delayed", that essentially, it is no big deal, and one can accept it at face value and move on. By the wording, if Obama simply produced the same birth certification that was forged for him, a sympathetic investigator would simply note that a birth document was present, accept the forgery at face value, and move on.

As per Executive Order of 08/04/1995 12868- 1.2(e) 1a,b,c only relevant financial institution records and consumer reporting records would be checked, as well as only those travel records maintained by employers to that employee traveling on company business to locations outside the USA (but only if that company was a US Commercial entity within the USA).
(A) relevant financial records that are maintained by a financial institution as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a) or by a holding company as defined in section 1101(6) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401);
(B) consumer reports pertaining to the employee under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a); and
(C) records maintained by commercial entities within the United States pertaining to any travel by the employee outside the United States.

In other words, Obama wasn't properly vetted for anything much other than a fiscal identity and good credit record.

Brianroy said...

In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s own Carol Fowler broad brushed that: “The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.)

Fowler, it seems to me, went on promises and lies from Democratic Party Leaders and top Obama Campaign handlers, instead of having before her a de facto legal documentation. The "we'll have it for you later" excuse is, to me, that which either equals fraud or the possible intent to defraud.

Connecticut’s Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run!

"As Secretary of the State of Connecticut, I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws...Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate's eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States." Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz (Connecticut).

She further went on to say that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal presented the Connecticut State Supreme Court Justice, Chase T. Rogers, that he made a phone call to Hawaii's Department of Health and was told to the effect, "Yeah, we got A birth certificate on Barack Obama". Vaguery. It is a fact that Foreign Births and Foreign Duplicate State of Hawaii Birth Certifications are known to be acceptable documents in and as part of Hawaii's Official State of Hawaii Birth Registry.

When asked if Obama was born there, the answer was to the effect of "Yeah". No details as to where. Both Obama and his sister originally stated Barack was born at Queens hospital until 2006, and flip-flopped between Queens and Kapi'olani as late as 2008, Kapi'olani 1.6 miles away from Queens and a totally separate hospital and Healthcare network.

The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut never asked if or not Barack was a "Natural Born Citizen", nor inquired to his parents, and if any Treaty with another nation had claim on Barack.

How do we know Barack was born in official documentation? No. The hearsay of what someone in Connecticut said another person on the phone told him.

Is this kind of Keystone Cop claim to an investigation legally admissable on the part of the State of Connecticut?

Brianroy said...

In California and now in Washington D.C., the legal briefs of Orly Taitz have stated:

“5. Taitz has written to the CA secretary of State Debra Bowen, asking which documents she checked to ascertain Obama‟s eligibility.

6. Bowen responded by stating that she did not check anything, but rather relied on Obama‟s statement that he is eligible.”

WAS NOT EVEN A SINGLE pertinent document of Obama's origin checked on Obama for Presidential eligibility? This is a National Security meltdown!

On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard University Q&A: US Supreme Court Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.”

In the majority opinion of 2001’s Nguyen et al. v. INS ,
one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001)
@ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

Supreme Court Law therefore states that the disclosure of witnesses “TO THE BIRTH” must also demonstrate the veracity to the birth certificate or hospital records. A claim by the DoH health director is NOT legally sufficient under Nguyen.

Brianroy said...

In conclusion, by bypassing Article 1.7 “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. . . .But in all such cases the votes of
both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.” and by bypassing Article 2.1 (in the person of Barack Obama,
and by bypassing the Fifth Amendment “No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."and by bypassing the 10th Amendment's "necessary and proper" clause, Article III standing is made because of the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Healthcare Bill and how Speaker Pelosi and others brought it about and the illegal means they used to see its passage (if it succeeds).

Under the Law, is this not then a class action actionable to emergency petition to the US Supreme Court, whence then Obama is legally obligated to prove his right to hold office and sign ANY legislation, especially THIS Legislation, or to exercise ANY executive authority under Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653,
states: “The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States or the prohibition of power to the states is upon those making the claim.”?

A President receives his executive authority “either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

Further, Youngstown also states that any Executive Order must be based upon "specific statutory authority," and cannot be "based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

Correct me if I am wrong, does not the US Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL "President" such as Obama and over any legislation he signs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 2201, and 2202; and in regard to the Constitution and laws of the United States? Will not the Healthcare Legislation, if it passes, potentially allow you to amend your petition and rocket right into the Supreme Court within a matter of weeks from now?

Larry said...

Not only have the wholly impotent and self important little dictator wannabes of the government of Hawai'i suspiciously repeatedly refused to obey their present laws, now they propose passing yet another. They obviously do not care that there could easily be another sneak attack upon America, one that would literally dwarf Pearl Harbor and kill millions of our Citizens within minutes. The supremely important national security interests of the United States of America trump ANY law which attempts to prevent the release of ANY documentation regarding any portion of the background of a C.I.C. Those who are fighting so hard to block the release of the Usurper's records either cannot comprehend the importance of knowing all details about the man who has "his finger on the button", or they fully comprehend and they secretly harbor the most evil of intentions. I believe the latter scenario to be the most plausible. The present holder of the office of POTUS arrogantly endangers the safety and security of every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. by refusing to publicly open ALL his records to "We the People" in order to prove his Constitutional eligibility, his life history, and his patriotism, that should be grounds for his immediate removal. One of the Usurper's most repeated campaign promises was "complete transparency". His first official act was the signing of "Executive Order Number 13489", which sealed all his records, public and private - truthfulness is not to be found in him. His words are hollow and meaningless, he is a self-proven narcissistic pathological liar and he is not worthy of our trust, nor is a man who is so secretive and elusive concerning his background worthy of holding the highest office in this nation. "We the People" demand that ALL his records be opened for public inspection - we have a right to know the facts and he has a duty to produce them!

jayjay said...


Actually, there are other "missing pieces" as well about "the man who would (like to) be king", aka BHO.

Among other things, his Selective Service registration, college records, alleged possible use of Social Security numbers, etc.

BUT HEY!!! We all know the guy wouldn't lie! (... don't we???)

Incredulous said...

And Mr. Apuzzo, Obama has a litany of proven photoshopped historic pictures (slang term is "shooped pix").
Just look at these! This man's history is PURE FICTION!.
Then today, lamecherry found another obviously shooped picture of Ofraud from Indonesia...

Whoever did these, was a poor photo-forger. They got uniforms wrong, head sizes wrong, shadows wrong, it's so bad you wonder if they don't WANT us to figure out (maybe too late) that Obama is a total enemy plant.

The urgency of your work cannot be overstated!

Incredulous said...

I have to add, that these were pictures released by the Obama campaign, AP, Time Magazine, ABC/NBC/CBS, from his own books--they come "from" camp Obama.

You'd think MI6/Mossad other countries who know he's a fraud and will suffer if he's allowed to continue wouldn't help bring this reign of terror on America to a halt? Pravda's been publishing stories about Ofraud for 2+ years!

Anonymous said...

Brianroy said...
Just a couple of corrections:

1) and 4 submitted references who are going to say nothing but good for the subject anyway,
Correction: The 4 listed references are questioned and then asked for others that would know the subject. A minimum of 2 unlisted references are interviewed.

2)Notice No. 06-02, states that if a Birth Certificate is stamped "delayed", that essentially, it is no big deal, and one can accept it at face value and move on.
Correction: The subject does not provide a copy of the birth certificate. A release form is signed and a copy is obtained from the records of the state in which the subject was born.

I have conducted background investigations for the Office of Personnel Management for many years and also conducted then as an active duty criminal investigator. Most of what you stated is true.

Brianroy said...

Thanks. It is most always good to have a second pair of eyes double check one's research and conclusions.
The Birth record regarding No. 06-02. Question: Would the Office of Personnel Management accept a stripped down copy, such as a short form Certification showing no hospital or physician signature
(as in the Obama forgery of 2008 )
rather than the Long Form Certification of Live Birth (
I ask this because by comparison, New Jersey certainly in its hospital Birth Certificate and Birth Registration of the relevant periods of the 1960s (when Obama was allegedly born) and the early 1980s (when Obama allegedly went to Columbia and Harvard University) definitively shows the hospital or medical facility one is born in, and is hand signed validated by the Hospital Administrator on the BC or if County generated, on the Birth Registration short form attestation, signed off by a registrar of Vital Statistics regarding not only the name, birth, location, facility, sex, bureau seal, etc.; but also the date of registration and date the duplicate was issued on. I am curious as to what standards the OPM would use to call a Birth document as satisfactory, such as if it excludes the actual birth location, or signatories, or what have you (in your knowledge or experience regarding Hawaii in contrast to New Jersey's). Thanks.

Larry said...

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796 "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers." *(A RIGHT!)*
John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765 "In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."
John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797 "Let justice be done though the heavens should fall."
John Adams, letter to Elbridge Gerry, December 5, 1777 "The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 "We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."
John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797 "Judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

medical has left a new comment on your post "Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned...":

(PART II) "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796 "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775 The Founding Fathers forewarned us, justice must prevail or our nation shall be ruined. Should the courts and Congress ignore our pleas for justice, we shall be left with [editor's deletion].

Larry said...

"In the wake of 9/11...I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." "So let me say this as clearly as I can -- the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam." BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. I'd LOVE to see Larry Sinclair and Pastor James David Manning elected to Congress. I can just imagine the Usurper stuttering, stammering, and dripping perspiration during a speech before the Congress as he attempts to keep one eye on the teleprompter and the other on his two most outspoken detractors.

Incredulous said...

Re: Obamacare
Do we have to follow what a British citizen tells us to do?

richard a stevens said...

The Biggest problem facing the eligibility plaintiffs has been the word ' injury'
thats now mute
this bill has illegal MANDATES in it--forcing all 360m Americans to have insurance---
thats not in the Constitution thus a plaintiff can argue that since he CANNOT AFFORD insurance he has been INJURED by an illegal mandate.
there must be legall arguments concerning the ABORTION issue and the ex order the usurper signed since he is not legally the President

please write a blog on your view of this position.

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo: As a health care professional, I cannot fathom the stupidity behind Obamacare. It's as if we are commodities, not humans, and they expect to introduce 30 million more patients overnight with the same number of professionals? Even if we started right now, it would take 4 years to generate a new crop of B.S. professionals, 6 years for Pharm.D.s, 8+ years for MDs with specialization....What are they going to do, use SS agents who crack whips and use German shepherds to get these people to run CBC panels faster, make IVs faster...what the hell??? And then they plan on setting salaries? Oh wow, talk about your INCENTIVES~! Yes, incentive to QUIT!! Or foot drag, be surly, not give a crap...
I tried calling Pelosi's office and was sent to a "comment line" their power grab, they treated us like lumps of coal, grains of wheat, commodities---but it just won't work this way.

This is the most ill-thought-out stupid unconstitutional ridiculous...
unbelievably insane bill ever!

And I will not follow what a British usurper tells me to do!

James said...

I think what is needed is forced prosecution of an individual or a group who then can claim a defense that Obama is ineligible and that the law is unconstitutional and therefore does not have to be followed. Such a case would be tried in a criminal court and due process would require discovery into Obama's records in order prove the defense claim. In any case, if civil lawsuits are failing, a forced criminal suit may be neccessary to claim such a defense. In that case, due process would require discovery in Obama's records and standing would absolutely clear. So it might interesting to research where criminal action is done but the defense is that Obama is ineligible and therefore that criminal action can be condoned.


Are you going to post your reply brief?

Larry said...

I lease and sell medical diagnostic imaging equipment, most of the very expensive equipment is mounted on walk in trailers and leased to small medical facilities. Today, I've already had three calls telling me to "please pick up the leased equipment, radiologist so and so has quit". That's sad. In the countries where socialized medicine has been in effect for quite some time, there is almost no demand for the latest, most advanced equipment, hospitals want used magnetic resonance imaging units ("m.r.i.") for "$25,000, including shipping" (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE!). The liquid helium cooled magnets (maintained at -268 Celsius) in the units have to be replaced on a set schedule, new or "still within specification" magnets alone cost $400,000 and up, plus installation charges. Those who complain about the cost of medical care have no idea how much physicians spend to open and maintain a practice - and much of that cost is due to silly government regulations. The Usurper has destroyed the world's most advanced healthcare system AND ruined what was left of our economy - he's sooo proud of himself. When I saw grinning, America hating, treasonous granny Pelosi prancing in with a circus clown size gavel, I immediately thought, "she's planning to give our country a symbolic death blow with that". The eligibility lawsuit MUST succeed, we want our country back!

Let us move forward said...

Since physicians are considering leaving their practice of medicine, I wonder if a law will be passed forbidding them from doing so, ordering them to practice.

Is it true that each syringe used will be federally taxed? Is that not insane? Who will pay the tax, physicians, hospitals, diabetics, insurance companies? What other medical equipment/supplies will the feds tax?

Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze on health care providers - insurance company negotiated prices, outrageous billing hoops to jump through, late payments, higher cost of supplies, malpractice insurance, now federal "not income" taxes.

Larry said...

@ Let us move forward - God forbid that you develop two expensive to treat life threatening chronic medical issues concurrently. For example, a bicuspid aortic valve with severe regurgitation (surgical replacement of an aortic valve costs approximately $120,000), and renal failure requiring dialysis (approximately $45,000 per year, barring complications requiring hospitalization. Annual death rate for dialysis patients exceeds 20%). There will be a local panel which will instruct physicians on what treatments you are "worthy of" and which ones they're willing to pay for. They'll take into account certain issues to decide whether or not you deserve state of the art treatment (valve replacement and possibly a kidney transplant), or if you'll only be afforded "palliative care" (meaning they'll just keep you full of morphine until you die). One consideration will be age, another will be whether or not you are currently a productive member of society, yet another consideration will be whether or not you'll still be productive after your treatments have been completed. The former Medicare and Medicaid plans were far superior to the downgrading of them by the passage of "Obamacare". This outrageous and insane law will needlessly cause a great deal of suffering and snuff out many innocent lives. Also, everyone will be required to accept an F.D.A. approved injectable R.F.I.D. implant about the size of a grain of rice (already in use) known as "VeriChip" ( which identifies you and gives the physicians instant access to your medical history - it will eventually become your "personal identifier" for everything you do - driving, banking, etc. Hitler had instituted a similar medical plan, he simply did away with those who didn't meet certain physical and/or mental standards, too. The Usurper and his nightmare of an administration have not yet been the least bit honest with "We the People" on ANY subject. Be CERTAIN to register and vote!

Spaulding said...

Medical, I see doctors who have already made their plans. We are all depending upon the Cmdr and Mario to do what they can. I suspect Mario has done more Constitutional education than any lawyer in the history of the nation as millions follow the lawsuit.

I confirm your report on MRI machines. I was part of the team that developed the first commercial super-cooled machine. Ours used 1.5 Kgauss magnetic field strength. GE was about 1 1/2 years behind us, but got the FDA to hold up our filed approval with the claim that their non-shipping 3Kg machine might be safer than ours! It is wonderful technology which inspired me to depart a govt. lab for the commercial world.

Before that I was pretty naive about government corruption.

A good friend, a North Bay GP, with a Phd in chem eng as well his MD, a natural born citizen with Taiwanese parents, is leaving Calif for Singapore in a month. He had already refused medicare patients because the generated negative cash flow was intolerable. He guessed that about a quarter of his medicare patients were illegal, using false documents, adding insult to injury. He was born and raised in SF, Nancy Pelosi country, and is taking his family to a country where practicing medicine is less restricted. Singapore has a very successful medical savings account system - so successful that the country boasts of reinvesting money made from moderate taxes on the medical savings accounts in their highway system (not a very large one, but not so large a population).

Let us move forward said...


Are these "local panels" in the bill or are they to follow?

ditto on the RFID chips, I though all medical records were to be held on a central HHS server.

Congress is interested in biometrics, i.e. the new card that you will have to present when you apply for a job.

Must be contributing to society, hmm.. Another Michelle statement haunts me: believe me, he will make you work.

jayjay said...


Good observations there about the "decision" process in the Obama Deathcare law.

In fact, it will not be long at all before one of the prime decision points will NOT be age or current and prospective health, but rather whether or not you voted "correctly" (if we even have voting; if not it will be whether the last time voting was "allowed" in the USSA you voted for BHO and other Communists).

It's an entire bizarre scene right out of George Orwell's "Animal Farm". If you've not read it, you should.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have seen the corrupting influence of government when it has control over people's lives. I have seen how decisions to be placed in nursing homes, public housing, and even hospitals controlled by government came down to whether you were loyal or not to those in power.

Unknown said...

In terms of logical deduction, it is absurd to demand that Obama prove that he was born in Hawaii if there are no acceptable grounds for proof. Any document could be a forgery, any eyewitness could be lying, any state official could have been paid off, any memeber of the media could be dupped. Were previous presidents required to prove their citizenship under conditions where nothing can be proved?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


I do not understand why you make this Obama birth place issue so difficult. He just provides the 1961 birth certificate and that is the end (or the beginning) of the birth place issue. Why do you ask so many difficult questions?