Posted on 06/25/2010 9:43:42 AM PDT by Polarik
Sometime between October 31, 2008, and July 27, 2009, the dates of Health Director Chiyome Fukino's two press releases, Hawaii amended Obama's birth record. A brand-new Certificate of Live Birth (not Certification of Live Birth) was issued to him.
The DOH Director decides what goes in or gets taken out of birth records. She went on record as saying that "President Obama posted a copy of his certificate on his campaign website" even though she has refused to authenticate it for the past two years. This created a conundrum that could only be resolved by changing Obama's birth records to match what is in that online copy - which is a stone-cold forgery, and Fukino knows it!
That forged COLB also has its origin within the DOH: watch the video to find out the shocking truth as to whose COLB was used for the forgery.
You'll also realize that you've been staring at a forgery this whole time and not realizing that the most obvious sign of it was right there under your noses.
Not only did Obama get a new birth certificate, the certificate itself was designed with him in mind as Rev. 10/08 - coincidentally, the date of Fukino's first press release (10/31/08). Hawaii ditched the old Certification of Live Birth and switched to a hybrid form called a “Certificate of Live Birth” - formerly the name of the long-form birth certificate.
Say, "Aloha" to Obama's new COLB (Certificate of Live Birth):
Click on the thumbnail for a full-size copy
ML/NJ
You said, “The state of Hawaii only produces the computerized version Certification of Live Birth since 2001, so if a long form were to be released, it would be a copy of Obama’s original that the Obama administration would produce.
On top of that, there is no additional information on a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that is relevant to eligibility to be president.”
They computerized their files. Now what is sent in response to a request for a birth certificate is the “short-form”, computer printed, certified and embossed copy. HOWEVER, the originals are still on file in Hawaii. Upon request of the person named on the birth certificate OR upon request of a court of law, they WILL produce and/or copy and certify the ORIGINAL long-form birth certificate. That would be the one with the doctor’s name on it.
As for whether the current short form contains all information necessary to prove eligibility for POTUS, that all depends upon what the definition of “natural born citizen” is.
This is something that no court has yet sufficiently defined, although most who have studied the issue with an open mind must come to the conclusion that a person must be born to TWO U.S. citizens and (in most cases) on U.S. soil.
The COLB on FactCheck does not specify the birth place or citizenship of his parents. Polarik contends that the newest version of COLBs now (perhaps, oh, too conveniently) contains that information.
IF Obama wanted the original long-form birth certificate released, he could have that done, post haste. He could release all of the ORIGINAL document(s), whatever they are, if he cared to do so.
IF he’s telling the truth about his background, his parentage, his place of birth, his eligibility for the presidency, there’s no LOGICAL reason for him to spend thousands of dollars and waste the time and resources of the judiciary (paid for by taxpayers, btw) to prevent showing documentation that will prove that he’s telling the truth. Is there?
You said, “The state of Hawaii only produces the computerized version Certification of Live Birth since 2001, so if a long form were to be released, it would be a copy of Obama’s original that the Obama administration would produce.
On top of that, there is no additional information on a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that is relevant to eligibility to be president.”
They computerized their files. Now what is sent in response to a request for a birth certificate is the “short-form”, computer printed, certified and embossed copy. HOWEVER, the originals are still on file in Hawaii. Upon request of the person named on the birth certificate OR upon request of a court of law, they WILL produce and/or copy and certify the ORIGINAL long-form birth certificate. That would be the one with the doctor’s name on it.
As for whether the current short form contains all information necessary to prove eligibility for POTUS, that all depends upon what the definition of “natural born citizen” is.
This is something that no court has yet sufficiently defined, although most who have studied the issue with an open mind must come to the conclusion that a person must be born to TWO U.S. citizens and (in most cases) on U.S. soil.
The COLB on FactCheck does not specify the birth place or citizenship of his parents. Polarik contends that the newest version of COLBs now (perhaps, oh, too conveniently) contains that information.
IF Obama wanted the original long-form birth certificate released, he could have that done, post haste. He could release all of the ORIGINAL document(s), whatever they are, if he cared to do so.
IF he’s telling the truth about his background, his parentage, his place of birth, his eligibility for the presidency, there’s no LOGICAL reason for him to spend thousands of dollars and waste the time and resources of the judiciary (paid for by taxpayers, btw) to prevent showing documentation that will prove that he’s telling the truth. Is there?
We know from Obama’s book “Dreams For My Father” and from other authenticated sources that Obama’s father was born on the 4th of April in 1936 in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District in Kenya Colony of the British Empire.
Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham born on November 29, 1942 in St. Francis Hospital in Wichita, Kansas.
We know that the short form must contain all the constitutionally required information to qualify as an Article 2, Section 1 natural born citizen because one court has ruled that to be true and 69 other courts have refused to reverse the results of the 2008 election, the certification of Obama’s electoral votes or the swearing in by Chief Justice John Roberts and Obama has been president for a year and a half now.
Here’s what three courts have said about Obama’s eligibility:
First, the Indiana Court of Appeals:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
So I guess the Indiana Court of Appeals didn’t have an open mind. And neither did the original trial judge nor the Indiana Supreme Court who refused to hear the appeal.
Second, the US District Court for the District of Columbia:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
I guess Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee also doesn’t have an open mind.
And third, the US District Court for the Central District of California:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.”
October 29, 2009
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009
No open mind for former US Marine, Vietnam Vet, Bronze Star and Purple Heart winner, Judge Carter either.
Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has had seven opportunities to look at this issue and they have rejected all seven appeals. Its pretty obvious that they aren’t interested and see no significant constitutional issues.
As for spending money on this issue, when people sue you, its probably best to hire an attorney and have that person show up in court. However Obama has only presented a defense in the form of submitting a legal brief asking the judge to dismiss the suit in four of the more than seventy lawsuits that were filed, so it is highly unlikely that he has spent too many thousands of dollars on this issue.
Many of the lawsuits that have been filed don’t even name Obama as a defendant so he has zero legal fees and all of the suits that actually name him since he was sworn in have US Attorneys doing the representation of Obama at taxpayers’ expense. The inflated numbers for what this issue has cost Obama are an internet rumor with zero substantiation.
From Obama’s point of view, he provided the entire planet with a copy of his birth certificate back in 2008 when he posted a copy of his COLB on the internet. The state of Hawaii has confirmed his birth there and declared him to be a natural born citizen and just within the last month, the Republican Governor of Hawaii declared that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu. Two birth announcements for him appeared in the August 13 and August 14th editions of the Honolulu newspapers.
If he released a long form Certificate now, would anyone who qualifies as a doubter as to his eligibility be dissuaded? I doubt it.
Would YOU trust a copy of a birth document released by Obama? Would you even trust a copy of a birth document released at this late date by the state of Hawaii after they have gone out of their way for almost two years now to defend Obama’s birthplace as Honolulu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m. Particularly when all the people doing the defending of Obama are Republicans (Governor and Attorney General) or appointees of those elected Republicans.
What are you talking about? My understanding is that in most states you can request a birth certificate of anyone you wish. But even if you cannot, as in Hawaii, the person whose birth certificate it is can certainly waive his right to privacy.
ML/NJ
“Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?”
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
I don't know of any state that allows that.
You said:
According to Janice Okubo, Director of Communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, they ONLY release the computerized Certification of Live Birth since 2001. You can read her quote on that here:
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
******
Don’t need to read her quote. I read her backtracking already. They didn’t destroy the originals and others have already learned that the originals are available if the person asks for a copy of the original. AND any court can subpoena the original. So, it’s there. It can be released. Do you really believe that if the president of the United States asked the state of Hawaii to give him his original documents, they’d refuse? Get real.
You said:
We know from Obama’s book “Dreams For My Father” and from other authenticated sources that Obama’s father was born on the 4th of April in 1936 in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District in Kenya Colony of the British Empire.
Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham born on November 29, 1942 in St. Francis Hospital in Wichita, Kansas.
********
We know from his book that it’s fictional. He admitted as much. Characters are composites. He (if he is the author) wrote that he’s not even sure his “parents” were married. We don’t even KNOW who his parents are. He tells us. But are they real or are they characters in a fictionalized “auto”biography?
Somehow, I just knew you would play the “Wong Kim Ark” card, James. Tell it to your pals at politijab. I’m not interested. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t care what your interpretation of the phrase “natural born citizen” is. All that matters is the SCOTUS interpretation. Since they haven’t accepted the case and haven’t ruled yet, I’ll wait for their ruling, if and when they make one.
You said:
As for spending money on this issue, when people sue you, its probably best to hire an attorney and have that person show up in court. However Obama has only presented a defense in the form of submitting a legal brief asking the judge to dismiss the suit in four of the more than seventy lawsuits that were filed, so it is highly unlikely that he has spent too many thousands of dollars on this issue.
Many of the lawsuits that have been filed don’t even name Obama as a defendant so he has zero legal fees and all of the suits that actually name him since he was sworn in have US Attorneys doing the representation of Obama at taxpayers’ expense. The inflated numbers for what this issue has cost Obama are an internet rumor with zero substantiation.
*******
It would be so much cheaper and easier if he would just supply the proof he contends exists.
You said,
From Obama’s point of view, he provided the entire planet with a copy of his birth certificate back in 2008 when he posted a copy of his COLB on the internet.
********
HE didn’t post the copy. It’s on a blog. It’s not a copy of his birth certificate, because it’s a digital image that no entity would accept as legitimate proof of anything. Are you a mind reader, so much so that you can assert Obama’s “point of view?”
More later. Stay tuned.
You don't think this is a rather big assumption on your part. It seems to me that there have been at least two DIFFERENT COLBs posted, and that both have been adjudged phony by at least some people with fancy analysis that I sometimes have trouble following.
Which of the different COLBs would Hawaii send to me?
And why would Obama not let anyone obtain a certified copy of something he has already shown to everybody? Certainly he has nothing to hide in this regard. Certainly.
But, thanks for playing.
ML/NJ
Is there anything at all ‘real’ about Obama?
.
From an NYC website (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/vr/vr-online-order.shtml):
A credit card, debit card, or electronic check may be used only to order birth certificates for you and your children, provided you are named on the birth certificates. To request a birth certificate for any other person, including any child where your name does not appear on the birth certificate, you must submit an order in-person or by mail.So it sounds as if they still allow for the possibility of requesting a birth certificate "for any other person." I'm quite sure when I obtained mine (many years ago), I just told them my name and my date of birth (and maybe the hospital too) and sent them a check. Of course my name was on the check. I do remember people talking about how stupid the whole birth-certificate-as-identification thing was because you could just walk into a cemetery and find someone about your own age who had died and request the dead person's certificate.
ML/NJ
Friend, in 1961 I was an eight year old black child living in the black community, and I can assure you that no one, but no one used the term "black" at that time. It was simply unheard until around 1968 or so....MLK, Black Power, Flower Power, etc.
I know this, because the term "black" exploded in the community around that time, and became the appellation of choice for all "negroes" overnight. I was there.
There's your timeframe.
You don’t think this is a rather big assumption on your part. It seems to me that there have been at least two DIFFERENT COLBs posted, and that both have been adjudged phony by at least some people with fancy analysis that I sometimes have trouble following.
Which of the different COLBs would Hawaii send to me?
And why would Obama not let anyone obtain a certified copy of something he has already shown to everybody? Certainly he has nothing to hide in this regard. Certainly.
But, thanks for playing.
ML/NJ
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
You’re most welcome! It was fun playing.
Hey pal I can order a birth certificate for anyone born in California. It is marked informational copy and is certified. Why do they do this? To help fight birth certificate fraud.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/pages/certifiedcopiesofbirthdeathrecords.aspx
By golly, you’re right.
Hey pal I can order a birth certificate for anyone born in California. It is marked informational copy and is certified. Why do they do this? To help fight birth certificate fraud.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/pages/certifiedcopiesofbirthdeathrecords.aspx
Wrong. Under Hawaii law and the law of every other state, even if Obama released his own COLB, that does not entitle anyone else to order it.
Can you image the identity fraud that there would be in this nation if anyone could order a copy of someone else’s birth documents? Every illegal alien in the nation would have a US birth certificate.
You are wrong and try and weasel out of it again....have you no pride, admit you were wrong!
“On another note:”
Nice try to deflect the millions people’s belief vs. yours only A FEW!!!
Now you may also take a look at what your very dear leader in the W.H. himself is saying, hmmm. Are you ready to lift your right hand in special degree, you know, and exclaiming H.H. or H.O???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY&NR=1
There is a photo out there of Obama Sr. at a dock received by a “welcome committee”???
No, there’s not. The photo came from CBS.com. And here’s the caption:
“Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., center, is shown wearing floral leis on his graduation day at the University of Hawaii in the early 1960s.”
Graduation day. Not “welcome committee.”
I don’t understand.
If this is true, where is the wife and son of this man? The grandfather is there but no one else from the Dunham side? Are they there and I can’t see them?
And BTW it does look like a boat arrival —— why would Granps Dunham be waiting at the dock?
I thought they met in Russian class?
What a hoot.
Russian class in 1960.
What does that tell you about Stanley and Barack ? Hmmmmmmm?
ML/NJ
Thank you, FRiend, and I believe you are correct. I was just looking at it from as critical a perspective as I could think of. [Kicking the tires.] Maybe some minds will indeed be changed. It seems ludicrous to you, so it will indeed be ludicrous to others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.