Obama Birth Certificate 100% Forged; Hawaii Officials Forged It

GE ( Government Electric)

Advertisement

AOL users support eligibility questions

Dec. 6, 2009

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – An AOL poll shows 67 percent of users supporting questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.

Despite the online poll’s appearance within the context of a highly opinionated column by Steve Pendlebury slanted against Sarah Palin’s recent remarks on Rusty Humphries radio talk show, more than two-thirds of some 82,000 taking the survey indicated support for her position.

AOL users were asked: “Do you think it’s fair to question President Obama’s citizenship?”

Questions have persisted about Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” a requirement of the Constitution, not his status as a “citizen.”

The column goes on to quote four people who are critics of the questions, none who support them – other than Palin.

(Story continues below)

// //

// //

The columnist concludes, “Nothing the former Alaska governor says seems to diminish the enthusiasm among her fans, who want Palin to be the next president. … But if Palin plans to be a leading candidate for president, she’ll need to learn what all successful politicians know: You don’t have to answer every question an interviewer asks.”

“I guess this AOL columnist prefers politicians like Barack Obama, who refuse to answer the most basic question of all: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?,'” said WND Editor and founder Joseph Farah, who has led the fight for full disclosure on the president’s constitutional eligibility requirement. “It’s strange to see journalists advising politicians to keep their mouths shut. It makes you wonder what is going on here.”

Last week, Humphries asked Palin on his nationally syndicated radio show: “Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?”

Palin responded: “I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers.”

Humphries then asked: “Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?”

“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.”

Palin said it was legitimate to question Obama’s eligibility, referring to “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son – ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.

Sarah Palin says Obama’s BC is valid issue

The Post & E-Mail

(Dec. 4, 2009) — Rusty Humphries, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin said the controversy over Obama’s vital records is a legitimate one.  In the exclusive interview, she is recorded to have said the following, as per Ben Smith’s transcript, at Politico.com:

“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked (around 9 minutes into the video above).

“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.

You can watch the interview on video from Ustream.

The ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama does not stand or fall on the question of his vital records.  Having claimed a father who is a British subject, he himself remains a British subject, if his vital records prove that his father is who he says he is. As a British subject from birth, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen of the U.S.A., because dual citizens are not natural born citizens.

Congressional ad mainstreams Obama eligibility

Dec. 4, 2009

Western Journalism

While much of the media and political establishment relegate presidential eligibility issues to the “fringe,” a congressman is trying to make his bill requiring future presidential candidates prove “natural born citizenship” a major campaign issue.

Posy’s campaign is making the eligibility bill a big issue

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., recently dispatched a message to constituents and supporters asking for help in an effort to defeat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the 2010 election.

He introduced the proposal saying, “I wrote to you not long ago asking that you stand behind me in defending our nation’s constitution. … My bill (H.R. 1503) that would require all candidates for president in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States, has resulted in the national liberal left making me Target #1 for defeat in the 2010 congressional elections.

“As I said before,” he continued, “I’m being lambasted by the media and late-night comics and Nancy Pelosi’s team has already paid for tens of thousands of automated phone calls in my district and are raising a multi-million-dollar campaign war chest to defeat me.”

Read More: By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation

Dec. 3, 2009

The Right Side of Life

This data originally garnered from TheObamaFile.com.

Updated: 07/07/09

WorldNetDaily’s “Where have all his records gone?” posting further elaborates on the following:

• Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15.
• Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit — Case and Affidavits
• Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com
• Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery
• Hospital of birth — Kapi’olani Medical Center won’t confirm Obama’s birth assertion; sister claims a different hospital
• Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
• Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
• Kindergarten records – Records lost (this is a big one — see here — read two frames)
• Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
• Soetoro adoption records — Not released
• Fransiskus Assisi School  School application — Released (by independent investigators)
• Punahou School records — Not released
• Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
• Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit — Document Locator Number update — another FOIA request
• Occidental College records — Not released
• Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
• Columbia College records — Not released
• Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released
• Harvard College records — Not released
• Harvard Law Review articles — None
• Illinois Bar Records — Not released.
• Baptism certificate — None
• Medical records — Not released
• Illinois State Senate records — None
• Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
• Law practice client list — Not released
• University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

HI Dept. of Health admits Obama’s COLB is faked

(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.

The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.

However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document.  Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.

Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.”  It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”

This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.

Mr. Roberson sent his email on Oct. 31, 2009:

The revealing email to and from Okubo reads as follows:

Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,

Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).

Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,

1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and

2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.

Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???

I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:

1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)

2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?

3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,

4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?

If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.

Respectfully yours,

 

IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:

“Aloha Mr. Roberson,

Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.

Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”

Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.

Okubo’s response also now makes her liable for criminal charges of conspiracy to use her office under color of the law to defraud the general public.  Because in the fulfilment of her official duties she is legally obligated  in State Law to explain what terms used on official documents mean, or at least to direct citizens to the published documents which explain these.

But numerous general inquiries for copies of such documents have been refused by the Deparment of Health for nearly 3 months