Replies

Hawaii allows an adoption to be set aside.

Unless the HDOH is lying about the name their records are under, the adoption was probably set aside. Beckwith argues that this procedure is why BHO came back to HI in 1971, if I’m understanding correctly. Beckwith, correct me if I don’t have that right.

The problem we have is that if the HDOH can lie at will - as it does - then we just have no firm ground to stand on to even speculate. After all the research and analysis, all I can say is that we don’t know anything AT ALL until the transaction logs for all the records are disclosed and we can see which of the HDOH’s statements are truthful and which are sheer fabrication.

The way we’re going to get those transaction logs disclosed and get some closure on this issue is by getting our state legislatures to require the transaction logs to be disclosed together with the actual birth and citizenship documents before a candidate can be placed on the ballots.

A bill that could do that is posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/final-short-form-eligibility-bill1.pdf . I’m asking everyone to e-mail that to their state legislator and ask them to introduce and pass it or something similar. Or if there is an eligibility bill already proposed in their state, ask the legislators to add a requirement for the transaction logs as well.

The Inspector General for HHS has released a report that makes it clear why a measure like that is important, at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf . The IG concludes that states need to decide for themselves what documentation they will require as proof for claims, based on the reality that fraudulent documents can be used to get genuine documents and the truth is known only by looking at the whole picture.

The possibility of someone claiming an at-home birth is specifically mentioned as an easy way to get fraudulent BC’s. If what the HDOH told Lori Starfelt is correct and there was a requirement for a baby to be seen by a HI doctor within the first 30 days, that still allows for fraudulent BC’s claiming a HI birth that are perfectly legal, as noted by Aloha .... (can’t remember his name here on FR). The baby would have to arrive in HI within the first 30 days, unless a doctor was willing to fraudulently claim the child was born within the last 30 days (which would make for children whose birth might actually be weeks or months sooner than their BC says). Interesting that the dr that Abercrombie appointed as health secretary is being investigated for fraud. Medicare fraud, I believe, but it still speaks of the willingness to turn a blind eye to the rule of law.

That would explain why there are so few claimed unattended births in Hawaii for 1961. They considered it an attended birth if a doctor examined the mother or baby within the allotted time. Everything would seem legitimate, just looking at the statistics - and yet lots of people who immigrated to Hawaii with a newborn could have been fraudulently registered as Hawaii births.

Danae, do you remember the name of the Aloha person who talked about seeing people arriving in HI being told they could get a Hawaii BC easily? If you remember the name, could you ping him/her?

Beckwith argues that this procedure (ther adoption) is why BHO came back to HI in 1971, if I’m understanding correctly. Beckwith, correct me if I don’t have that right.

I wouldn’t describe my theory as an argument, but rather a “best guess” as to why Barak Obama showed up in Hawaii in December, 1971.

The fact is we don’t KNOW anything about Barack Obama until 1971, and we DON’T KNOW very much about Obama since then.

By the way, don’t you think if Obama’s COLB were genuine, the State of Hawaii would have spelled Obama’s alleged father’s name correctly?