Posted on 02/16/2011 7:38:10 AM PST by Rational Thought
A new poll shows just over half of likely Republican primary voters question where President Obama was born. What’s up with “birtherism” and why does it have such staying power?
The evidence shows Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama released a “Certification of Live Birth,” a document produced by the state of Hawaii certifying the state holds records that a person was born there.
Further, two Hawaiian newspaper announcements from 1961 tell of Obama’s birth. Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, told the Honolulu Advertiser in July 2009 that such newspaper announcements were based on notifications from the Health Department, which received information directly from hospitals.
The certification of live birth Obama released is legally sufficient documentation to apply for a U.S. passport, but it’s not the same thing as a “long form” birth certificate, called a “Certificate of Live Birth” in Hawaii. That document is issued by hospitals and includes additional information not on the certification.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The Andrea Shea King Show - Jack Cashill (Tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern Time)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2674592/posts
A very telling point, for me, is that the COLB his campaign provided has information extracted directly from the LF/BC.
For race, I find it dubious that the hospital in 1961 would indicate his race as “African”. For that reason alone, I believe the COLB to be concocted.
...a document produced by the state of Hawaii certifying the state holds records that a person was born there.
2. See Number 1. If no COLB has been produced, then what is the status of the actual birth certificate?
Further, two Hawaiian newspaper announcements from 1961 tell of Obama’s birth.
3. This is not legal documentation of birth and is therefore useless.
Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, told the Honolulu Advertiser in July 2009 that such newspaper announcements were based on notifications from the Health Department, which received information directly from hospitals.
4. See Number 3. Newspaper announcements are not admissable as proof of birth.
Thanks Hot.
Thank you for suggesting this. I just sent this to him:
Hi, Jonathan. I wanted to give you some of the facts that have been documented already but which the general public doesn’t know, largely because the media won’t report the facts (possibly because the media heads were threatened if they reported on it, according to a signed statement by an on-air personality who was personally threatened and other corroborating evidence. See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373 .
Though the HDOH has made public statements about seeing Obama’s “original birth certificate” and “vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii”, none of the statements have ever said that what they saw was LEGALLY VALID. The HDOH has repeatedly told me that they cannot reveal the legal status of the records they have. However, in making legal responses to FOIA requests, they have revealed that Obama was charged a fee to amend his birth certificate in 2006 - which according to Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) renders the BC legally invalid.
This also reveals that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery because amendments are required to be noted on COLB’s but the Factcheck COLB, printed in 2007, does not note the 2006 amendment. The HDOH has actually also indirectly confirmed that the certificate number and “date filed” on the Factcheck COLB are incompatible.
So in 2 different ways the HDOH has confirmed that what Obama presented to the public is in fact a forgery, and that they were aware of that all along. When I asked Janice Okubo directly if she would speak negatively about a COLB she knew was a forgery and report it to law enforcement, she said that she cannot reveal anything about a BC. IOW, she claims she CANNOT tell anybody - even law enforcement - if she knows that the holder of the nuclear football has committed the felony of forgery.
Your article mentioned the statement by Abercrombie that there is actually something written down in the archives (and the reporter said in a parenthetical statement that Abercrombie said there was something in the State Archive). The retention schedule for HDOH and Vital Records Office records only allows 2 kinds of records to be stored at the State Archive rather than at the HDOH office: 75-year-old Certificates of Hawaiian Birth, and registrations of foreign birth. So if Abercrombie was telling the truth and there is an HDOH notation regarding Obama’s birth, it is a registration of foreign birth.
What you didn’t mention in your article were the statements by Mike Evans on multiple radio spots, saying he had spoken to Neil Abercrombie and been told by him that he had checked the hospitals with a search warrant and there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. Hospitals don’t keep birth certificates, although they DO keep maternity/OB logs so there should still be a record of Obama’s birth at the hospital if he was born there. “Search warrant” is probably not the right legal term; more likely a subpoena from an investigative committee (especially since Abercrombie referred to an investigation taking place). But the main point is that he even CHECKED the hospitals, since a birth certificate should be kept at the HDOH office and he has the power to have his HDOH director look in those records, as Lingle said she directed Fukino to do. The HDOH director has the authority to release whatever records he/she thinks appropriate, which is the only reason Fukino could make either of her 2 public statements even though claiming that HRS 338-18a forbids her from revealing ANYTHING about vital records.
The truth of the matter is that at this point there are at least 4 reasons that Obama’s records are REQUIRED to be disclosed.
1) Once a record has been published by the person whose privacy is in question, the privacy exemption to disclosure no longer exists.
2) Once the HDOH has made a public statement, all the records that the statement was based on become public records which must be disclosed.
3) If there is a “scintilla of public interest” in a record, it outweighs privacy concerns.
4) The HDOH Administrative Rules, together with UIPA (HI’s FOIA law), require the HDOH to disclose to anybody who asks for it a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate (COLB).
Hawaii’s AG is lying when he says that Obama’s records cannot be disclosed. In reality, Hawaii law REQUIRES them to be disclosed. Reasons 1-3 are included in OIP Opinion Letter 03-16, found at http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2003-16.pdf . A snarky explanation of that is at http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/coach-june-s-jones-iii-hes-more-important-to-the-american-public-than-barrack-whats-his-name/
Hawaii officials have been breaking rules and laws for quite some time, which is why to me and many, many others this issue isn’t really about Barack Obama at all, but about the lawlessness it took to get him where he’s at. I’ve documented some of the ethics and rule/law violations by Hawaii officials at my blog at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com .
I’ve also documented there that the stories we were told about the birth announcement images were not true. We were told those images came from several different independent sources who got the copies from the Hawaii State Library and from somebody at the Advertiser office, but in reality the Advertiser images are all identical even though supposedly taken from different microfilms. And the Star-Bulletin images are not only identical images but actually identical SCANS - even though they were supposedly taken by different people at different places. Furthermore, those images are NOT from the Hawaii State Library, because prominent scratches in the online images were not on the microfilms 20 months later. You can see the documentation for all this at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/revised-article/ .
When all this is boiled down, Abercrombie and the HDOH have confirmed that there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii is REQUIRED to disclose whatever they’ve got but they refuse, just as they’ve refused to obey a multitude of laws and rules. And we were lied to about where the birth announcement images came from, which makes their provenance and everything about them suspect.
Furthermore, both the Hawaii Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi knew there were problems with Obama’s eligibility. The HDP refused to certify his constitutional eligibility and Pelosi perjured herself to swear that he was Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even though she had never even ASKED to see his records or to receive a letter of verification for his birth facts. Even if she had asked she could not have received anything that would have justified her sworn statement of Obama’s eligibility because HI has no legally valid birth record for Obama.
Everything I’ve said here is documented on my blog. I encourage you to go to http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com and look around. My “Welcome” post is intended to summarize and point you to the posts where the claims are documented.
The media will not touch any of this, but the public IS being informed of the genuine facts in spite of media inaccuracy (and their refusals to correct their inaccuracies) and ridicule. Facts are powerful things, and our leaders and media ignore them at their peril. The public increasingly knows that the Emperor is naked, and those of us with no elite reputation to protect are not afraid to come right out and say it.
Your article told part of the story. The revealing part is the rest of the story. If you have the courage to reveal the rest of the story I would be willing to work with you on providing documentation. You can e-mail me any time.
Thank you.
Nellie AKA Butterdezillion
This issue may keep the USA from having to suffer another 4 years of this Islamist-communist coup.
It is NOT a “loser”.
And even more important than who holds a particular office, this issue may expose to everybody just how lawless our entire system has become because the people have NOT been allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances; we’ve been told it’s none of our stinkin’ business if the Constitution is broken, as long as all of us are screwed equally.
“The evidence shows Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961”, after which he goes on to document his statement.
Anyone caring to politely offer a reasoned response....”
See: `begging the question’; assumes facts not in evidence; and, “won’t even give Larry a reach-around”.
If obama’s birth records were received from the Hospital,he would have a Certified(proof of birth)Certificate of Birth,showing hospital and doctor information. IF he has only the one posted, then his birth was registered with Hawaiian records by a family member.
Either way, by birth to a foreign father makes him ineligible to be the President.
Of course if he was born in Kenya ,he is a Kenyan national and should be deported .
Walk me through it, then. Tell me how this will help us get rid of the poseur.
Another question that need to be answered is how a unreadable microfilm record( original statement from newspaper) suddenly is “restored” and published as the original? Who restored it and was the information altered?
There was no problem finding the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates. In fact, the Nordyke long-forms - combined with HDOH statements - are how we know that the certificate number and “date filed” on Obama’s Factcheck COLB are incompatible and the COLB is a forgery.
There is video footage of a woman at the HDOH office ordering a certified copy of her long-form BC and being told she’d receive it in 2 weeks. That’s at http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth/
And Danae, right here at FR, ordered her long-form and after much hassle was able to get it.
So the long-forms exist. It’s just OBAMA’S that doesn’t exist. According to Obama’s good (former. lol) friend, Neil Abercrombie. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/evans-abercrombie-hospital-search-warrant/
Please don’t think that “being rational” means ignoring all the evidence. The times when you are truly “being rational” is when you REASON about what would explain all these facts. An admission against interest is one of the strongest forms of evidence there is. If Abercrombie desperately wants to say Obama’s got a long-form birth certificate and instead comes out saying there is no proof of a Hawii birth, that is an admission against interest. Rational people would definitely be asking WTH is going on in Hawaii.
Or doesn't exist.
The book is ‘Deconstructing Obama’ by Jack Cashill. It was just released yesterday. He doesn’t unequivocally believe that Frank M. Davis was Obama’s father but suspects it strongly.
I, too, found that choice of words especially galling.
My retort would be:
What evidence, specifically, do you mean? And what kind of evidence - i.e., evidence of what quality?
In a court of law (and the determination of eligibility to become President of the United States certainly warrants applying legal standards), a distinction is made between a) testimony (from witnesses), b) exhibits (i.e., physical objects), and c) documentary material (which should be authenticated).
Further, evidence of an indirect nature is termed circumstantial evidence.
In evaluating evidence, weight must be given to its credibility. Are the witnesses reliable? Are they unbiased? Is their testimony complete?Have they been suborned?
Has the documentary evidence been tampered with?
Besides the newspaper announcement (which newspapers publish without demanding proof), the only documentary evidence we have seen thus far is a digital image purporting to summarize the essential details of an actual, tangible original Certificate of Live Birth. Such specious documentary evidence is on a par with hearsay evidence in regards to testimony, and I would reject it.
Regards,
It would be very helpful if Obama would explain to the American public his original long form BC was sealed when the Soetoro adoption was finalized and a new BC with Lolo Soetoro listed as the father was created.
Since the original long form BC was sealed by order of the Court, then it is legally void. The only birth record that is legally viable is the COLB ordered by the court. There is no hospital or doctor’s signature on a vital record created after an adoption.
To complicate matters, the Soetoro adoption was annulled after Obama Sr. objected to the loss of his parental rights. Again, the court ordered another new vital record to be created listing Obama Sr. as the father. And again its a COLB without doctor’s signature or hospital because it ordered by the court and not attested to by the doctor or the hospital.
So, in conclusion, Obama has two sealed vital records that are not legally viable on file with the HI DoH and one COLB without doctor’s signature or hospital administrator’s signature that is legally viable.
Which hospital?
Which doctor?
Can’t have been that many OB/GYN’s working at those hospitals. Interracial birth was very rare at the time and the doctor would remember. Nurses?
MSM has looked the other way while our POTUS doesn’t fulfill the basic legal requirements for the office.
...newspaper announcements were based on notifications from the Health Department, which received information directly from hospitals.
Is there another way in which the Health Department issues notifications from information received? You know, like if a midwife delivered a baby at home? Don't they have to report the birth to the Health Department which, in the process, circumvents the hospitals completely yet also generates a birth announcement?
The certification of live birth Obama released is legally sufficient documentation to apply for a U.S. passport, but it’s not the same thing as a “long form” birth certificate, called a “Certificate of Live Birth” in Hawaii. That document is issued by hospitals and includes additional information not on the certification.
Is the certification of live birth Obama released legally sufficient documentation to run for POTUS or is a “Certificate of Live Birth” required?
I just discovered this:
“...It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ’save that of eligibility to the Presidency...”
LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ’save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’ Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.
That is the point I was trying to make. When they give the statement :
that such newspaper announcements were based on notifications from the Health Department, which received information directly from hospitals
they try to leave the impression that the only place that the DOH received info about announcements was from the hospitals- thereby implying that since there was a birth announcement, he must have been born in a hospital. They fail to mention that the DOH also got info from family members registering a birth - either a delayed one, at home, or out of country.
I see, so Obama has everything EXCEPT a standard, long-form birth certificate?
Maybe he could throw in a Boy Scout card (or would that be a Hezbollah card?) for good measure?
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.