(21) 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. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii and other areas as this recent article attests.;
(22) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department "registered" a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the "son." The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2010/04/16/true-1961-birth-announcements-reported-by-hawaii-bureau-of-health-statistics/
. Note the heading of both of the ads says "Health Bureau Statistics" which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;
(23) 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;"
(24) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama?s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people are questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama's supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the "birthers") could be put in their place once and for all;
(25) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu. These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born. The simple truth is that none of these agencies did any due diligence and now want to simply sweep this constitutional crisis under the rug to save political face. Rather than helping conduct an honest investigation of Obama's place of birth, these individuals and entities, including the mainstream media, which failed to properly vet Obama are now engaged in a campaign of cover up, manipulation, deceit, and ridicule of those who are earnestly pursuing this investigation (who they pejoratively call "birthers");
(26) Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, signed an affidavit to 50 states certifying that Obama was nominated for the Office of President. In many of the 50 states, Pelosi did not address the issue of Obama's Article II ?natural born citizenship? qualifications. This unusual action and fact about the DNC's and Pelosi's activities in the 2008 election was explained on page 19 of the the Kerchner et al v Obama, Congress, & Pelosi, et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009. Nowhere in the nominating documents that Pelosi provided to many States does it say he is qualified to serve as President per the Article II Constitutional requirements, if he is elected. What Pelosi filed in these states simply says that Obama has been nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Office of President. In many other states, Pelosi certified: ?THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.? The only exception that has been found to date is for the state of Hawaii, which nominating certificate does say that the candidate is constitutionally qualified to be President. The certifying language that Pelosi used in this sole certifications is: ?THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.? A copy of Pelosi's signed document for Hawaii and the 2nd and different version sent to many other states may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30784035/DNC-Chairperson-Nancy-Pelosi-Issued-Signed-Two-Different-Certification-Forms-for-Obama-in-2008
. A question that we should all ask ourselves is why would Pelosi use the constitutional qualification language in only the Hawaii certificate and not also use it in all the certifications of the other states she sent the 2nd version to? Additionally, neither Pelosi nor the DNC adequately vetted Obama, for neither she nor anyone else in her party saw his original vault, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), (not to be confused with the internet image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama?s campaign posted on the internet in June 2008 and which has been attacked by at least two document examiners as a forgery), or any other sufficient and credible document that would lead her to come to such a conclusion;
(27) 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;
(28 ) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke ("the Nordyke twins") were born at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins' birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins' certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama's and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 ? 61 ? 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 ? 61 ? 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama's birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama's purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes' is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347
Ross Dolan of The Daily Republic on Friday, May 15, 2010, interviewed Eleanor Nordyke. The interview may be read at http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/43081/
. More on the article here. Mrs. Nordyke makes some outlandish statements, accusing ?birthers? of being motivated by racism and money in pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. On the birth certificate numbers, she said: ??My daughters? birth certificates were 10637 and 10638, and Obama?s was 10641, so his mother must have come in after I did,? Nordyke said, though she never met Obama?s mother.? Not so Mrs. Nordyke. You must have forgotten that Obama was allegedly born August 4, 1961 and your twins were born a day later on August 5, 1961. And in those days women stayed in the hospital after giving birth for a week or more. How you two new moms could not have met in that small hospital maternity ward during your many days stay there is not so easy to explain away, especially a young 18 year old teenager in Hawaii having just given birth to a black baby (this was the 60s and that would have been unusual for those times and would have been whispered about back then in the maternity ward) unless of course Obama's mom and baby Obama were never there. Mrs. Nordyke's statement clearly shows her bias for Obama. It makes no sense to believe that birth certificates would have been issued before a baby was born and that the numbers were even issued at the hospital. Nevertheless, Mrs. Nordyke did make some important concessions. She admitted that she would have been in the same maternity ward as Obama?s mother if Obama's mother was there at Kapi?olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital (now called Kapi?olani Medical Center) on Friday, August 4, 1961; while one would not reasonably expect her to remember everyone who was with her in the maternity ward, she did say that she never saw Obama?s mother in the maternity ward while she was there and yet Obama's mother allegedly gave birth the day before Mrs. Nordyke did; and that even though there were only five obstetricians at the time of Obama?s birth and that her late husband, Dr. Robert Nordyke, was an internal medicine specialist at Honolulu?s Straub Clinic, she does not know the name of the doctor who allegedly delivered Obama in that hospital at that time. One would think that the doctor who delivered the President of the United States would be very famous and would be well-known within the families of doctors in Honolulu. I cannot think of any reason why the name of a doctor who delivered a President of the United States should be a secret and not even known by the medical community. Yet, Mrs. Nordyke states she does not know who the doctor is. What is also telling about this interview is that our nation?s so-called journalists have to resort to relying on the memory of a clearly biased and probably coached elderly person to try to prove that Obama was born in Kapi?olani Medical Center rather than demanding Obama provide a simple copy of the typed original contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961;
(29) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Orengo. Ironically, he expressed that "[i ]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance...." He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the "unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years...." He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the "Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people...." He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: "The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence." Mr. Orengo's statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a "native American." It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/30293518/Minister-in-Kenyan-National-Assembly-on-25-March-2010-states-Obama-born-in-Kenya-See-page-31
. The speech of Mr. Orengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;
(30) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama's origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. "What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?" Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson's Rebels http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/kenyan-minister-khalwale-asks-when.html;
(31) In his book, ?Dreams From My Father, ? at page 126, Obama, in referring to himself and his mother and father, quotes his mother as saying: ?Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies.? According to the timeline provided by Obama's supporters, neither Obama himself nor his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, would have yet been in Kenya when Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. made this agreement. But now, we have Stanley Ann saying that the three of them were going to return to Kenya after Obama Sr. completed his studies. Normally, one does not say that he or she is going to return to a place unless he or she had already been there. That includes speaking of oneself and of a third person. Hence, did Obama?s mother say that she and her son Obama had already been to Kenya? Why would she say that she and her son were going to return to Kenya, with Obama Sr., if they had never been there before? This statement is also important because it shows that Obama Sr. always intended to return to Kenya after completing his studies in the U.S. and thus never became domiciled in Hawaii or any other U.S. state. We thank an anonymous researcher for his find of the page 126 quote. Images of page 125 and 126;
(32) Did Obama Attend Columbia University As He Claims He Did? Something which goes to Obama?s credibility regarding his claim that he was born in Hawaii is his representation that he attended and graduated from Columbia University in 1983. But was he really there? If Obama is not telling the truth about Columbia then he may very well not be telling the truth about so many other aspects of this life including his place of birth. Let us look at some of the available evidence:
Stephanopoulos of ABC news said during the 2008 campaign that he too was a classmate of Obama at Columbia class of 1984. He said he never had one class with him.
The Wall Street Journal on Sept 11, 2008, reported that Obama was never at Columbia University.
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there. But no one remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama was supposed to have been in. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Nobody recalls him. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not kidding." Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.? A bio on Root may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root#column-one
Two investigators researched the Columbia University yearbooks (1981-1985), and found the following: there are no pictures or mention of the names Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham in the yearbooks; Obama?s alleged Political Science class of 1983 had 43 students only 2 of whom were black and those two looked nothing like Barack Obama (pictures in detail and in color).
The above evidence was confirmed at the C.I.A. Columbia CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial which was held by Rev. James David Manning in New York City, May 14-19, 2010, as reported in This report provided by Neil B. Turner, Citizens for the Constitution, NBTurner @ Earthlink.net. Dr. Manning?s trial which resulted in a guilty verdict against Obama and Columbia University former President confirms that Obama never attended Columbia University as he claims he did. Dr. Manning's entire hour-long Press Conference can be seen at:
CIA Columbia Obama Trial - Guilty Verdict Press Conference http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7098248
Guilty Verdict Press Conference http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8274
Rev. Manning, who was in studies at the Union Theological Seminary, an across-the-street sister-institution to Columbia, and a member of the Columbia University Student Union in 1981, 82, and 83, ?never heard of or saw a fellow black student named Obama or Soetoro or Dunham.? He also did extensive investigation within the Harlem community where he has his church and where he has spent so many years of his life and could find no evidence of Obama ever attending Columbia University.
Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
No one at Columbia remembers Obama at Columbia. Why does not anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Maybe he never attended class? Maybe he never attended Columbia? He won't allow Colombia to release his records either. All this is very suspicious.
(33) A college instructor who worked as a Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu in 2008 has stated in May 2010 that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate does not exist in that State. Tim Adams now teaches English at Western Kentucky University, in Bowling Green, Ky. "There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this." Adams, who says he is a Hillary Clinton supporter who then voted for John McCain when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, told WND, "I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity." He says during the 2008 campaign, the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility was raised. His elections office was inundated with requests to verify his birthplace. He adds: "I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]." At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu or the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office investigated at and contacted both facilities. He adds: "They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him.'" "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth." To date, no hospital has been willing to confirm that Obama was born there. "His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the City and County of Honolulu. Takahashi also confirmed Adams' time frame at the office from spring until the month of August. "We hire temporary workers, because we're seasonal," he said. However, when WND asked Takahashi if the elections office could check on birth records, he said, "We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records." Adams responded, "They may say, 'We don't have access to that.' The regular workers don't, the ones processing ballots; but the people in administration do. I was the one overseeing the work of the people doing the balloting." Adams stressed, "In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state." A June 5, 2010 radio interview of Mr. Adams conducted by James Edwards, host of a weekly radio show on WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tennesee, can be heard at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AV4YxiD7Jo&feature=player_embedded
. This new revelation is also reported at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/hawaii-confirms-tim-adams-was-senior.html
. A very good YouTube summary of this new news can be heard at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3Aj2eqmS8
. WND.com reporters did personally speak to Mr. Adams and he confirmed the truth of what he is reported to have said on the radio program.
Mr. Adams has reaffirmed his claims to a network television affiliate. Mr. Adams was interviewed by Gene Birk of ABC affiliate WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Ky. Video of the 9-minute interview has been posted on YouTube and is viewable at this link. He confirmed his previous statement when he said: "As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office," said Adams, "we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii."
(34) That the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a legitimate question is evidenced by the fact that there are national and state political leaders who are now asking questions which show that Obama has not yet provided sufficient and credible evidence conclusively proving that he was born there. From the web site http://themodernpriest.blogspot.com/2010/06/and-list-growsand-growsand-growsstill.html
, we learn the following:
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to allow for the release of Obama's birth records so that those who question where he was born may be satisfied. While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he added, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."
Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze, sponsored a proposal demanding that candidates for political office including those running for President produce eligibility documentation. Ritze says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility. He adds that an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.
In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., introduced H.R. 1503, the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas. The proposed law seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate ? to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND that she has been getting questions from other states about H. 2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to show they are a "natural born citizen" and therefore eligible under the Constitution to be President. Some three dozen lawmakers have co-sponsored the bill and they want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a December 10, 2009 letter to the White House formally requesting that Obama address questions about his place of birth. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility. "I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.
Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate. "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records ? all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay, in October 2009, provided his views on Obama's place of birth issue, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."
When U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, he said: "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., believes Obama was born in the U.S. But he also said he thinks Obama is trying to hide something. "I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long form birth certificate." "I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."
Feminist icon, Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.
In September 2009, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he is not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as President. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who administers the state's elections, to demand answers. "Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that ? a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: if he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship? "I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."
(35) As we know, the only "document" that Obama has produced for the American public is an alleged 2008 computer image (which some experts have declared to be a forgery) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) (which Hawaii has yet to even confirm is authentic). Hence, his only proof of where and when he was born is this digital image of only a short-form document and not the long-form birth certificate which latter but not the former includes the name of the hospital and delivery doctor. Apart from the question of whether either or both alleged computer image of an alleged paper document are authentic, there are many problems with simply relying on a birth certificate as conclusive evidence of the place and date of birth. Birth certificate fraud is a real problem in the United States. The U.S. Office of Inspector General published a report in September 2000, entitled Birth Certificate Fraud. The report explains that over the last 25 years there have been a number of studies addressing the problem of birth certificate fraud. The report states that there exist misconceptions among the public as to the integrity of birth certificates. The report says that with current technological advances with computers and the internet, it is easier to produce counterfeit birth certificates. It explains that many times the alleged birth certificates produced by a government agency are based on false or fraudulent information or do not even have documentary evidence to corroborate the veracity of the birth event as stated in the birth certificate. It explains how a birth certificate that is "spawned" by false information or documents is itself fraudulent. The report concludes that "birth certificates alone do not provide conclusive or reliable proof of identity." It adds that "[w]hen used in combination with other documents, birth certificates can add to the level of proof in establishing eligibility and identity." The report recommends that birth certificates should be used "only with other documents." The full report may be read at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
. We should remember that Obama has refused to release to the American public any of his "other documents" (birth, medical, travel, work, and education). This refusal on his part is very troubling given that the Inspector General in his report recommends that birth certificates be used "only with other documents" and that with Obama we are talking about making sure that he is who he says he is and therefore eligible to receive the vast and singular civil and military powers of the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States. See also the recent change to the law in Puerto Rico needed because of the massive birth certificate fraud involving birth certificates from there. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59715
. ("The Puerto Rican government, in cooperation with the departments of State and Homeland Security, has enacted a new law that invalidates all Puerto Rico birth certificates issued on or before June 30. The law, which takes effect July 1, is intended to combat the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico birth certificates to obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits and other federal services, according to the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration"). See also Department of Justice news release on fraudulent birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (HCOVS), in New Jersey. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande1028_r.htm
. ("As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally").
(36) Bill Keller, leader of LivePrayer.com, an internet ministry that has over 2.4 million subscribers worldwide and who is seen daily on Comcast's MyTV8, has issued a $10,000 reward to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. Late last year, Keller was hired to produce and host an infomercial that was seen in markets around the country. He asked the simple question, where was Obama really born? Maddow used her MSNBC program to mock and demean Keller and others who simply request that Obama produce his long-form birth certificate. Keller contacted Maddow's producers and offered to appear with her on her program, but she declined his offer. As a result, Keller has made his $10,000 offer to Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. One would think that if Obama has released his birth certificate like his enablers tell the world, the $10,000.00 should be easy money for Maddow to earn. But let us see if she is able to produce the birth certificate and take her cash.
(37) Tanzanian newspaper "The Citizen" published in English reports on 29 Jun 2010 that Obama was born outside of the USA but that did not preclude him from being elected President in the USA and that the people of Zanzibar should follow the example of Obama.
(38 ) 2nd Tanzanian newspaper "Daima" published in Swahili with a reporter in Nairobi Kenya reported on 2 Sep 2006 about Senator Obama's visit to Kenya that year that Obama was born there in Kenya. Translation provide by the Google Translator online services.
None of the above 38 factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting in 2008 a computer image on the internet of an alleged 2007 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.
One would think that the Obama camp and all those who support him would mount an all-out attack and present all the evidence that proves Obama was born in Hawaii. What is important to ponder is that after almost two years of public trashing of the Obama birthplace issue, the 2008 alleged electronic on-line image of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (a COLB which is not a Certificate of Live Birth that contains the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), the two 1961 newspaper announcements, and what some Hawaii officials say in 2009 and 2010 is the only evidence provided by our nation?s editors and political leaders on the question of where Obama was born. So let us review. What evidence do we currently have which sufficiently proves where Obama was born? We have an unconfirmed 2008 computer image on the internet of an inconclusive COLB which some experts maintain is a forgery, two unsubstantiated 1961 newspaper announcements (which were placed in those paper automatically by the health bureau statistics office, not the family, after someone filed a registration of birth form) which do not tell us the source of the birth information stated therein, and some hearsay statements made by Hawaii officials in 2009 and 2010 which all together and by themselves do not conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What our editors and many political leaders fail to understand (unwittingly or intentionally) is that this evidence does not tell us who with personal knowledge and/or what (some physical piece of evidence) existing in 1961 (called contemporaneous evidence) says or shows that Obama was born in Hawaii at that time. As I have explained above, these leaders fail to understand or feign not to understand that a Certificate of Live Birth is the original (from the moment of or near birth) and complete document attesting to a birth event. A Certification of Live Birth is a document signed by someone of authority saying that the real thing (the Certificate) exists and providing only some information that is contained on the Certificate. Obama says he was born in a hospital. Hence, what is not included on Obama's Certification, among other things, which would be included on the Certificate, is the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor. In other words, the Certificate contains corroborating information which is needed to assure us that what is stated in the documents is true. On the other hand, the Certification of Live Birth does not contain this corroborating information and therefore the document leaves us with the question of whether what it says is true or not. The problem with the Certification of Live Birth is greatly compounded given that there exists evidence that contradicts its content and Obama refuses to release to the public his other life documents which would also serve to corroborate his claim of being born in Hawaii.
What makes matters worse is that these same leaders have not taken Obama to task for his hiding his personal papers from the American public (original 1961 birth certificate and travel, work, and education documents). That is a lot to think about. What ever happened to America?s intelligence? The manner in which our nation?s leaders have addressed the Obama birthplace issue is shocking given that we are supposed to be concerned with properly vetting and identifying the to-be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military before we entrust him or her with the survival and preservation of our nation and the free world.
Given America?s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a ?natural born Citizen? to whom they can entrust their very lives.
It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns. Obama?s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Posted: April 25, 2010
Updated June 24, 2010
Updated July 16, 2010http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner:
Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.
Birth Registration Fraud. It's Been Done Before. As reported by WND.com:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107200
And also in this recent story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/puerto-rico-birth-certificate-crisis-invalidating-fix/story?id=10422841
Commander USNR (Retired)http://www.protectourliberty.org/
Update 2 Jun 2010: New poll shows that 55% of all Americans want Obama to release all his hidden and sealed records:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=159317