er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

Let’s not Forget: Bill Clinton was the first “Birther”

ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA, AUGUST 4TH, 2008, QUESTIONED OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY

by John Charlton

(Jan. 11, 2010) — Let's not forget that the first "Birther" of note was Bill Clinton. "Birther" is the derogatory appellation used by Obama supporters to ridicule those who ask why Obama won't show his birth certificate.

Late last night, The Post & Email published the results of recent investigation of the issue by a citizen journalist, which explain that the Hawaii Department of Health knows Obama's alleged birth certificate (displayed on the Internet as an electronic image of a Certification of Live Birth) is a forgery.

In this context, it should be noted that Bill Clinton was apparently aware of the forgery as early as Obama's birthday in 2008.

He made these comments on Good Morning America. You can view the video here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFZQNan3-M[/youtube]

The comment was mentioned by the Associated Press in an unsigned report filed the same day:

"I never was mad at Sen. Obama," the former president said. "I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I'd be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition."

Evidently no one at the AP was willing to take the heat for even repeating the comment. But one political scientist explained what Clinton meant by his statement:

If you notice, at the beginning of the video, Bill makes a comment about Obama being held to a different standard than others who have run for president, but he also said (around the 44 second mark): “That everybody has a right to run for president as long as they’re qualified under the Constitution” (emphasis mine).

Here’s the thing – I have followed Bill’s political career for a long time (and I have studied it closely because I am a political scientist) and he did NOT say this accidentally. This is a message to TexasDarlin’ (I am sure he knows all about her posts and her reports) to keep pressing in on the citizenship/birth certificate issue.

NOTE: That is NOT what Bill Clinton said. We’re just reading between the lines, perhaps hopefully.

Though I can probably never prove this (and Bill would likely deny it, if he were ever confronted with it), I know that Bill was trying to say – “keep going!”

TexasDarlin was a blog from Texas, published by a female supporter of Hillary Clinton. The blog has been temporarily revived on the Internet in support of Scott Brown's candidacy; however, the blog posts no longer exists on the web.

In response to Clinton's comment, the obvious conclusion was being drawn within hours of Clinton's comment: "Is Obama qualified under the constitution?" asked JohnF, a platinum member, at CommonGroundsPolitics.net, at 3 :00 that afternoon.

The qualifications required by a presidential candidate are stated in the original text of the U.S. Constitution in Article II, section i, clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Certainly Bill Clinton was not disputing that Obama was at least 35 years old!

And certainly he was not disputing that Obama had been a resident of the United States since 1994!

So the only thing left is the natural born citizenship issue. And that would mean that Clinton was reminding us that to be a natural born citizen one must be born

1) On U.S. soil

2) of a father who is a U.S. Citizen, and

3) of a mother who is a U.S. Citizen,

4) each of which three criteria must be true at the moment of birth

For more information about the natural born citizenship requirement, see The Post & Email's article on the 4 Supreme Court Cases which have defined what this term means following what Emmerich de Vattel wrote in his treatise, The Law of Nations.

Few dispute that Obama's mother was not a U.S. citizen, although there is speculation about who she was, especially among Hillary supporters.

Few doubt that Obama's father was Barack Obama Sr., a British subject, and it has been conclusively shown that if Obama's birth story is true, that he is presently a British subject, still.

And many wonder if Obama was in fact born in Kenya, especially after an eyewitness says that is what Obama claimed in 1980.

The disclosure of Obama's original vital records will alone settle these doubts and clarify for all time, the issue of Obama's eligibility. The question is, "where are they being kept?" and that depends on where he was born.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , ,

Categories: Politics

25 Responses to Let’s not Forget: Bill Clinton was the first “Birther”

  1. Dennis

    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 2:23 PM

    Thanks for your answer.

  2. Dennis

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM

    Thanks for your answer.

    RE: Saving the blog.

    Yes I often save it but I never re-post it. It is just a normal business practice to be able to look up later to see what I said. You will not find my comments all over the Internet. If the readers are not interested in what I said or questioned, I just drop that site, concluding that the group has a different approach. My aim is to have intelligent exchange of ideas while respecting opposing views. I never post anything on a site where name-calling is the order of the day.

    RE: Mr. Fuqua

    Thanks for the info – this is very interesting. Can you provide a link to that information please? My impression is if HI-DoH told him that he had to wait a year, he could file a complaint as the rules have deadlines. It seems to me that HI has no reasonable legal defense on that issue and I don’t understand why that avenue is not approached more aggressively. Or maybe it is – just not reported?

    RE: Hospital letter

    Do you think that the approach I (and others) suggested would work? The lawsuit would not name BHO as defendant. The hospital would be the defendant. For one thing, DOJ could not defend the hospital on taxpayer’s dime.

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies Fuqua is one the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama. Contact Dr. Orly Taitz about the matter. You can’t sue the hospital about the letter unless they defrauded you in a charity scam; and they could make the case moot at any point by merely refunding your donation.

  3. DixHistory

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:24 PM

    Mr. Charlton replies: “This petition might be useful after the 2010 elections” sniped

    I agree and that goes for both parties. It will take the people to send in people with another agenda or mind set for congress to do anything. Those there now need to be in prison at the least

    DixHistory

  4. DixHistory

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    Clear and well said post on this issue.

  5. Dennis

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 5:28 AM

    Attn.: Mr. Charlton,

    You said I am off the topic. You mentioned Bill, Hillary, HI DoH, and the “Hospital Letter” either in this thread or your prior one. So possibly I am combining the two, but I think I am addressing relevant issues, directly or indirectly. If I bring up unrelated issues please forgive me but I would be very interested in your reply, whether you agree or not, as obviously you are more knowledgeable about these issues than I am.

    RE: Bill Clinton’s remark about eligibility

    I can not come to your conclusion that Bill was calling attention to eligibility. To me it is more like saying a person of any race can be president if constitutionally qualified. It is more like a statement that he (Bill) is not a racist. It was in this context.

    Bill is a master communicator if he wanted to attack BHO he could have done it elegantly without endangering Hillary’s chances in any manner.

    RE: Hillary

    If you call Bill a Birther, you could mention that in one of her campaign speeches Hillary said that her opponent does not have “American roots”. (Can not give you the date but I heard it myself.) We don’t know if she knew that facts or not. In hindsight we know that either Hillary or McCain could have eliminated BHO based on eligibility.

    McCain’s reluctance is obvious due to his own birthplace, but why the Clinton-team did not do it remains a mystery. Probably poor campaign management judgment or overconfidence, thinking that she can win on issues.

    I can see Hill saying to Bill:
    Bill, you master politician, why did you not advise me to push the eligibility issue? After all you were not busy with Monica anymore, or were there anyone else who kept you preoccupied?

    RE: “The hospital letter”

    An additional piece of circumstantial evidence: The White House refused to confirm or deny if the hospital letter is authentic. Very curious – don’t you think? I am surprised that no one is suing the hospital for false advertising or the like. Patients or people who made donations to the hospital might gain standing. Interning things could come out.

    RE: HI

    One of the HI’s rules says that blood-relatives are exempted from the general rule and can get a copy of the vital records. One of Orly’s plaintiffs claimed to be relative of BHO. (Can not remember his name or which case but the judge said that he does not have any special treatment just because he is a relative.) Obviously that is true for that case but why he or some attorney has not taken advantage of that avenue in HI? If this relative does not want to do it, one could track down the German or Kenyan relatives and have them file the official request. The rule does not say that they have to be close relatives and the requesting person does not have to be a US citizen. The German bloodline is well documented; Der Spiegel or one of the German magazines published a big article on his relatives.

    I look forward to your comments.

    —————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Dennis, you actually save your comments on your PC so that you can repost them later?

    But as for your comment regarding Bill, I have to take the opinion of a political scientist (as quoted in the article) over that of merely your gut reaction. Especially since your argument really has no sound reasons to support it. Clinton’s comment, if it were in the context of refuting a charge of racism, would be completely inappropriate, since the Constitutional requirements of office have nothing to do with race, before or after the 14th Ammendment. Thus by citing them, he could not deflect such a criticism.

    As for finding a relative who request the Bc: A man by the name of Fuqua, a not too distant cousin, if I understand correctly, has already requested the original vital records, was told to wait a year.

  6. Kathy

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:35 AM

  7. TexomaEd

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:26 PM

    Well said! This is THE question that NO ONE in the media is willing to answer, much less even ask.

    This question has nothing to do with birth certificate or where Obama was born.

    This question is about the citizenship of Obama’s father, the foreign claims upon Obama at birth, and the full definition of the term “natural born citizen”.

    This question is a legitimate question of Constitutional law, which can be asked impartially.

    The status at birth of a US natural born citizen can be governed by only one country, and that is the United States of America. Therefore, even a Hawaiian-born Obama would not be a natural born citizen because of his British/Kenyan citizen father. For a natural born citizen is a person born in the US *AND* born to parents (plural) who are both US citizens.

    ——————-

    Mr. Charlton replies:Texoma, Obama’s citizenship status has everything to do with who his parents were and where he was born, and a BC documents that, so it is crucial to the discovery of these facts.

  8. TexomaEd

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:18 PM

    Should the birth certificate be revealed? Of course it should. But does anyone think that the most powerful man on the planet will be unable to produce a piece of paper showing a Hawaiian birth? The document that Obama cannot produce is the one showing that Obama Senior was a US citizen. This fact alone makes Obama not a natural born citizen, because at birth there was a foreign claim upon Obama’s status.

  9. BobNC

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 6:42 PM

    UPDATE ON WHITE HOUSE CYBER/PHONE PROTEST SET FOR 1/20/2010;

    In about 7 days we have over 1,030 people confirmed to participate, over 1,030 Maybes, and the number is growing daily!

    Let’s hit them on ALL fronts!

    Help us send a message Loud and Clear that this issue is not going away!

    Operation Release Event page; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=243863999736

    Help us PUT PRESSURE ON OUR COURTS AND GOV’T OFFICIALS: We must make them to stop hiding from the eligibility issue!

    This 20th and 21st of January will mark the inauguration of this administration, in which Obama promised us that “Transparency, Accountability, and the Rule of Law” would have been “the touchstones to his administration”… Help us make him deliver on that promise!

  10. kailuagirl

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM

    Pat Caddell quote on Fox Beck: in Beck’s words…”my liberal friend” is very worried: “Some event will happen this year that will discredit the whole” [direct reference to the republic]. I think we have our answer why Beck has made the choice to join the massive MSM cover-up. In conclusion, we can learn from this. Beck is no different than the leftist elitist controlling 95% of USA MSM & News in that they rely upon justification as a reasonable excuse for participation in these egregious illegal unconstitutional actions. It appears Beck, consumed by ego-centric self-delusion, has convinced himself, and now seeks to convince his audience, that by remaining silent, and further now joining the “birther” attack strategy; he somehow is a loyal US citizen. Another lost sole in need of a reality check. His is however most astonishing, given his daily diatribes about the founding fathers; it appears he believes he is some sort of supreme educator of US history, but misses the only education that matters…upholding the Constitution of the United States of America is EVERY citizen’s responsibility. BHO stands on an extremely thin slice of melting ice [supported only by an illogical document posted on the web] as proof of being constitutionally qualified [using former Pres Clinton's words]. How these guys at Fox sleep at night is beyond me…fair and balanced my xxx.

  11. jc

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdvaxQIC1s4&feature=related

    Another unedited video where Bill Clinton mentions the “Constitution sets qualifications for the President”

  12. jc

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM

  13. b fuller

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:49 PM

    BO is an illegal alien until he proves otherwise. ICE should arrest him since he has no “record” of birth in the United States. If he has one, doubtful, he will be forced to provide it. I was sincerely hoping the sheriff in Brazos county here in TX would arrest him when he landed for his whatever trip to A&M. Another example of people who are supposed to enforce “ALL” laws ignoring the most fundamental to our being.

  14. Harry Hunter

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:31 PM

    Perhaps the Democrat powerz advised the Clintons that eligibility was not to be raised, since neither Hillary/Billary nor Obama was eligible for the presidency. The 22nd Amendment limits presidential power to two terms, and the Clinton co-presidents had already had their two terms. An eligibility fight would have sunk both Billary and Obama.

    ——————————

    Mr. Charlton replies: I do not think there is any Constitutional issue with Hillary holding the presidency; wives of presidents are not presidents; nor are advisers to the president, even cabinent officials, barred from holding the office after their service as such. Indeed in the early republic many presidents were previous cabinet members, were they not? If Hillary did know, she buckled because she saw they weight of who was behind Obama, and calculated that her powerbase would not defend her fighting them. I thihk she is smart enought to realize that the Democratic Party had been bought out, not out from the bottom, but top down, by powerful international forces; and having alientate so much of mainstreet america with her progressive views, she did not have the political support from the bottom to survive such a challenge. But this is only my opinion.

  15. rxsid

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    As asked by Leo last year: HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    Furthermore: Hawaii’s Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – “VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby’s born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.

  16. durus

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:13 PM

    Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

    Source: Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention Speech, 28 Aug 2008.

    Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya.

    Source: Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address, 27 Jul 2004.

  17. durus

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM

    Good grief… forget the bloody birth certificate. How many times in the press has Obama admitted that his father was a foreign student at the time of his birth?

    John perhaps it would be a great addition if there was an article documenting every direct comment by Obama and others which suggests his father was foreign born.

    The birth certificate don’t matter. Sure it would be great to see it.

    What does matter?

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

    Obama’s purported father owed allegiance to foreign sovereignty his whole life.

    The Democratic National Committee at the “Fight the Smears”, admits that FactCheck.org’s statement where:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    By that admission they are also admitting that at the time of Obama’s birth, he himself, as a son of Barack Obama Sr., owed allegiance to a foreign sovereinty.

    As John Bingham stated, citizens who owe allegiance to foreign sovereignty can not be “natural born citizens”.

    Citizens who can not be “natural born citizens” can never be eligible to serve in the office of the President of the United States of America.

    Case Closed.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Durus, you seem to understand the problem, but not the details of the problem.

    The BC does matter; because it is a document which evidences the facts of his birth story; whether the evidence it shows proves or disproves, or is found to be credible or not. Obama might have obtained the tacit support of the Congress, the DNC and the Supreme Court by showing a BC which is all together different from the one on record in Hawaii. That is the most probably theory behind such universal acceptance of his birth story, which evidently contradicts SCOTUS precedents and Constitutional requirements.

    That is why the disclosure of the HI documents is important.

    Obama is an inveterate liar, and if you think that the argument you marshall above can win in any court, then you grossly underestimate what Obama is capable of, because when cornerned, if you do not have a document to corner him; he can produce a document to escape from your argument. With a document which disproves his eligibility, he cannot escape your argument that he is not eligible.

    See now? That is why getting any official document about his birth, is important. And that is why he and his supporters fight this at every turn. If there was nothign incriminating they would not ridicule those seekign this, and would not oppose disclosure. By their very actions, long and sustained, they openy admit he is ineligible.

  18. Seizethecarp

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:53 PM

    Mr. Charlton: When I look at the Blaine document, I see no certifying signature by a “Doctor” in field 19a “Signature of Attendant” as you claimed at the time, but only the signature of a person designated “Other” and specifically _not_ designated as MD.

    While it is true that an MD wouldn’t honestly sign as an attendant if they weren’t there, a person that accompanied Grandma to the office of the local registrar to “witness” that a Kenya birth in an unknown hospital had been reported to Grandma might well have signed it.

    It might be that the policy and procedures for the local registrar mandated putting the declared city of residence as “Location of Birth” in field 6a for out-of-state births allowed under HI Law 57, and for a “witness” to sign as a second person with “knowledge of the birth” to attest on line 19a “Attendant” in the case of a late, out-of-state birth report.

    I don’t think that the actual attendant at an out-of-state birth be expected to show up at the local registrar’s office in HI to sign a late certificate of birth, but a second person with knowledge of the birth could well have been instructed to sign on that line as “Other.”

    I strongly suggest that you, Leo D’Donofrio and John Hemenway take another look at the Blaine BC. I am disappointed to hear that Blaine won’t make the provenance of the original available so far. Again, it maps to the Factcheck COLB and allows Fukino to say that the Location of Birth on the HI vital record says “Honolulu” without mentioning that it also says that the hospital was “Unknown – Kenya, Africa”.

    —————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: First, let me clarify: Blaine did not confirm the provenance, when I emailed him; that does not mean he is not willing to. Second, what you say seems improbable; however, if Obama was a WAIF adoptee, it might very well be that WAIF had an official or representative sign it. But to create speculation to defend what is not known to be authentic by other means, is not a sound method of investigation.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/20/new-evidence-points-to-obama-adoption-%e2%80%94-waif-program/

    We do know that if Obama was a WAIF adoptee, that when adopted in Hawaii, the original vital record would show a foreign birth; but WAIF might have arranged for a HI BC to be drawn up, to give the child a new identity, which is what is done in an adoption. This is plausable. Who is this person who signed the document? Blaine must answer.

    Why not do some citizen-journalism, and start an investigation of your own; it all starts with a phone call or letter. And let me know what you find, via the Contact form at our site.

    As you can see from recent reports at The Post & Email (Deal’s Letter & HI DoH obfuscations/Red Flags), citizen journalism is driving the news where it needs to go: to the truth.

  19. chrisnj

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:40 PM

    Many people heard that and disscussed that, but the lame stream media just swept it under the rug. No one knows why the Clintons didn’t pursue it. They can’t do it now because they don’t want to implicate themselves. Anyway, nothing can stop We the people from seeking the truth! Hit it while it is hot – Congressman Nathan Deal has started the pursuit, which shows that the Republican Congress is about to spring into ACTION on this historical issue!
    We have started the OBOGO (Operation BO has to Go) petition:

    OBOGO Petition – The Petition to your Senator that gets to the ROOT OF THE OBAMA “plant”

    This is what every single American can do that will put the House and the Senate on Notice for a “specific” remedy, without further delay. A Senate Trial takes 30 days..the courts can take years. So.. this is given to empower the People with a specific set and very specialized focus relating facts that are not ” alleged” but already proven.
    Anyone can copy paste and print this out..and Take A Stand for the Constitution with some authority as an American!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24591408/OBOGO-Petition

    or

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/1215-senate-emergency-rally

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: This petition might be useful after the 2010 elections, if those succeed in flipping the house and senate; otherwise if anything is done at all, it would be to monitor who sent them. If you have not been in the USA lately, perhaps you do not know that there is a Democratic Supermajority in control of Congress and it is bent on nothing else but advancing the tyranny of Obama. They certainly are less likely to render a just judgement than a Federal court, since they are active cooperators in usurpation and dicatorship.

  20. susan h

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM

    The Clintons did not pursue this issue because their hands were literally tied during the primary by the DNC and Obama thugs who demonized Hillary and any time she wanted to bring up any issue at all were told unequivocally by the DNC that you could not “show him in a bad light”. The DNC, led by Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decided this Kenyan born fraud was to be the candidate (I still do not know why) and did everything they could to undermine Hillary even though she did “win” the popular democratic primary. Any time anyone wanted to bring up a question about Obama’s eligibility (or anything about him related to vetting) they were immediately turned into RACISTS. I was a Hillary supporter and volunteer during the campaign and know for a fact how miserably the Clintons were treated by Obama and the DNC to steal the primary and then force super-delegates to pick him at the convention. So much went on behind the scenes to give this Fraud-in-Chief the nomination your hair would stand on end. With the media overwhelimingly being pro-Obama, none of the stations would even discuss any eligibility issues and Obama turned the campaign into a referendum about RACE and no one was allowed to question him or else be branded a RACIST.

  21. Chris Strunk

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM

    There is a story yet to be told more than the below:

    Subject: FW: Saudi government, Saudis bought Obama 2008 election, James Manning video, Saudis bought Columbia University, Obama Columbia degree, Obama Harvard degree, Saudis bought large share of Fox network, Obama in Afghanistan « Citizen Wells

    Open link then scroll to the Manning video…then learn why Obama bowed to Saudi king!

    Listen to this video and see if some things make some sence now.

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/saudi-government-saudis-bought-obama-2008-election-james-manning-video-saudis-bought-columbia-university-obama-columbia-degree-obama-harvard-degree-saudis-bought-large-share-of-fox-network-obam/

  22. Seizethecarp

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    John Charlton: You and Leo D’Onofrio might be interested in the thread on Free Republic discussing Hemenway’s filing of judicial notice of HI Territorial Law 57 allowing the issuance of COLBs to infants not born in HI posted by rxsid. There is also discussion pointing to reasons why the Blaine BC might actually be valid and filed under that law (Blaine discussion begins at comment #57 by rxsid, especially note my comment #121).

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2423856/posts?q=1&;page=1

    A plausible rationale for the notation of a 1982 statute in a footnote in the Blaine BC, which some folks jumped on to declare “hoax” for appearing in a 1961 document is discussed. The footnote may well have been added after 1982 in field 23, which is where “alterations” such as a 1982 footnote to explain the discrepancy between location of birth in Honolulu and name of hospital in Kenya would be placed.

    The field 6a on the Blaine long form say “Location of Birth” is “Honolulu”, yet field 6c “Name of hospital” says “Unknown — Kenya, Africa” and a post-1982 footnote says the information was provided by Grandmother. So Blaine maps perfectly to the summary Factcheck short form COLB which says location of birth is Honolulu, but that short form doesn’t have a hospital name field, so the short form omits any reference to an unknown Kenya hospital.

    If the Blaine BC is valid, Fukino and HI officials can state honestly that Obama’s vital record says he was born in Honolulu. They might be subject to legal action by Obama under HI statutes if they were to disclose the hospital name on that same vital record is “Unknown — Kenya, Africa”.

    —————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: There are internal problems with the Blaine document, not to mention provenance issues since the one releasing it, wont confirm the release:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/19/the-blaine-document/

    I wrote back on Oct. 19th, in regard to the Blaine Document: “The document is also self contradictory, since a Doctor cannot certify a live birth at a foreign hospital. He has to be present to do that.”

  23. Michelle

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:14 AM

    Since THE QUESTION has never been answered, with the exception of perpetually sealed records, web-sites sabotaged ad nauseum, the question will linger. The greater the effort to hide, dissuade, lie and the greater the question becomes. Still E=mc2.

  24. Pingback: Let’s not Forget: Bill Clinton was the first “Birther” « ~ THE GUNNY "G" BLOGS ONLINE ~ NEWS-VIEWS-BS, AND WORSE!

  25. Jon

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM

    Great connecting the dots and with Bill Clinton’s own words to show that Clinton had doubts about Obama’s eligibility. One part of the puzzle is why didn’t Clinton pursue the eligiblity issue to remove Obama or was he just relying on Philip Berg to complete the job? Or is Clinton just waiting for Obama to step down for his wife to regain the presidency?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>