Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

John F. Sweeney produced this edge-detection image of the Certificate of Live Birth obtained by The Post & Email from a person who had requested it from the Hawaii Department of Health

(Apr. 25, 2010) The Post & Email is in possession of an original paper “Certificate of Live Birth” recently issued from the Hawaii Department of Health to an American citizen born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Hawaii in 1981 as verified by his mother.

At first glance, the document appears similar to the image posted on Obama’s campaign website.  However, there are some differences:

  • The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
  • There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.”  Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there.  Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
  • There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
  • On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
  • Below the date there is a stamp which reads:  “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.”  The signature of Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
  • The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
  • There are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front as in Obama’s “document.”

The Post & Email had published an in-depth analysis by photographic expert John F. Sweeney of the document which Factcheck.org claimed to have photographed at its Chicago office in March 2008 but which Sweeney maintains was taken at the Obama campaign headquarters instead.

Factcheck.org claims that the document on their website has a raised seal.  However, the same edge-detection technique used with the image from Factcheck’s website shown below yields no such raised seal.  Mr. Sweeney stated in his earlier analysis:

Edge-detection of the document released by Factcheck.org shows no raised seal (John F. Sweeney)

“What else is in, or more importantly, not in this photo? There is absolutely no evidence of a raised seal in the lower right portion of the document where the supposed scans and other supposed photos show the raised, 3-D seal from the Department of Health machine. The seal should be located in the area that has the shadow of the arm. But it is not there. It is not visible to the naked eye; there is not a sign of it under any zooming of the original photo; no digital manipulation tools find any evidence of a raised seal in this picture. With 100% certainty, the raised seal is not there. So this is merely a picture of a printout. It is definitely not an official COLB from Hawaii…The photo is not that of an official Hawaiian issue COLB due to the lack of a raised seal.”

According to a WorldNetDaily report dated July 29, 2009, in 1961, there were four different ways to obtain birth documentation from the Hawaii Department of Health, including a mail-in registration requiring no in-person substantiation of the birth by an adult.  One website reports that there were six ways to do so, with one category, the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, being eliminated in 1972.

The Hawaii Department of Health provides the following information on how to apply for a “late registration” of birth:

As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration:

  • Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person.
  • Registration of a late certificate of death, marriage, or divorce may be requested by the person in charge of the disposition of the body, marriage officiant or performer, or court clerk, respectively.

Factcheck.org claims that members of its staff examined Obama’s “birth certificate” at Obama headquarters and that “we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).”  However, Factcheck displays a raised seal which cannot be conclusively determined to belong to Obama’s COLB, and the photo above of the Factcheck document using edge-detection shows no raised seal.

Likewise, Factcheck displays the stamp of Alvin T. Onaka’s signature in a close-up shot, but the background appears to be a darker shade of green than the full document.  Similarly, the “blowup” of the “City” field on the Factcheck document appears to be a different shade of green than the full-size document shown above it.  There is nothing to prove that an official registrar’s stamp, raised seal, or date stamp are present on the Factcheck document.

“Blowup” of a closeup from Obama’s purported “birth certificate” from Factcheck.org

In Factcheck’s “Analysis” of the purported Obama birth certificate, several links to news articles  which supposedly quoted Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as saying that she had personally seen Obama’s birth certificate on file no longer work, although the cited news reports are readily available elsewhere, and Dr. Fukino’s official public statements can be found here and here.

The document which The Post &  Email has obtained shows the word “Certificate” at the top.  The person to whom it belongs was born in Hawaii.  Is the “Certification” document with Obama’s name on it an indication that he received a “delayed registration”? Is the word “Certification” used only in cases where a birth in Hawaii cannot be conclusively proven?

During a meeting of the Kenyan Parliament on March 25, 2010, Minister of Lands James Orengo stated that Obama was born in Kenya and not in the United States (p. 31).  A previous Parliament meeting on November 5, 2008 contains multiple references to what might be understood as his birth in Kenya.  The Kenyan ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Peter Ogego, stated that Obama’s birthplace is Kenya “is well-known,” and Obama’s wife has called Kenya his “home country.”

To date, no witnesses to Obama’s birth in Hawaii have come forward.  Questions about his original birth certificate have been avoided by both the Bush administration and Obama regime.

Could Obama himself have requested a document from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 in preparation for his run for President?  Did he file for a “delayed registration”?  If so, what documentation did he present to Dr. Fukino or someone else at the Health Department?  Could he have presented the birth announcements from the two Hawaii newspapers as proof of his birth there to obtain the “Certification of Live Birth”?


Editor’s Note: Many thanks to John F. Sweeney for his assistance in preparing this report.

Join the Conversation


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. HRS338-13 provides for the issue of three different formats.
    A copy of the original
    A copy of the contents.
    Or part thereof.
    HRS338-13 then goes on to deem only the ‘contents’ as being considered for all purposes the same as the original…. See More
    ‘Contents’ means ALL the contents, because ALL is qualified by ‘part thereof’.
    A COLB is ‘part thereof’ and therefore cannot be used for the same purposes as a copy of ALL the contents (commonly known as a birth certificate.
    This is supported by the fact that a COLB has the notation of being a ‘certification’ and a BC as a ‘certificate’.
    Had the statute intended for all the three formats to be as good as a BC, it would simply say something like ‘all three certified copies shall be considered the same as the original’ ……….. but it doesn’t say anything even remotely like that, it is clear and specific.

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant
    a certified copy of any certificate, or
    the contents of any certificate,
    or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    ‘Proof of US Citizenship Required: When applying for a U.S. passport in person, you will need to provide proof of US citizenship. The following documents will be accepted as proof of US citizenship:

    * Previously issued, undamaged US passport
    * Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth
    * Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
    * Naturalization Certificate
    * Certificate of Citizenship

    If you do not have primary evidence of U.S. citizenship or your birth certificate does not meet the requirements, you can submit an acceptable form of Secondary Evidence of US Citizenship.’

    The site goes on to state ………..


    ‘A birth certificate or a certified copy of an original birth certificate is becoming increasingly important as a required form of identification…………….
    When ordering, be aware that shortened (abstract) versions of birth certificates offered by some states may not be acceptable for US passport purposes. Be sure to order only the full, certified copy of the original birth certificate bearing the registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office.’
    The meaning of Article II is clear and justifiable, in that the founding fathers sought to have only the best imaginable citizen as eligible for the office of POTUS.
    If they only sought to have any ‘born’ citizen eligible they would not have said ‘natural-born’.
    Clearly there were and stil are other ‘born’ US citizens who are not ‘natural-born’ for example at the time of the adoption of the USC there were children of a patriot (revolutionary) US new-citizen father and an indigenous indian, mother, or a British loyalist mother, or a african-slave mother, or children of people resident in US at the time who neither had any allegiance to the newly found nation, but rather were fence-sitters who might have expected the British to win the place back.
    The 14th made it possible for those born to such people or the like to be deemed ‘born’ citizens, but not ‘natural-born, because if they were intended to be deemed ‘natural-born’ by the 14th, it would simply say so …………. but it didn’t.
    Obama may be a ‘born’ US citizen (still yet to be proven), but it is a clear fact that he is NOT by any stretch, an Article II ‘natural born’ US citizen.
    Obama lied on his Arizona nomination.
    Funny isn’t it how he doesn’t come right out and PUBLICLY claim ‘natural born’ US citizen status ….. don’t you think?
    Even in the face of the legal challenges to his eligibility, which he has cunningly steered away from the courts through technicalities and the fact that he has made the claim IN PRIVATE, he has nothing to lose by stating now PUBLICLY his claim, it shouldn’t shock anyone because as you infer everyone who is not ‘sheer lunatic’ already ‘knows’ he is natural born …………. right? and it would be a normal thing to state.

  2. 1 The dataset within Obama’s Hawaii COLB would NOT be legally admissible on two counts: A) any person born before COLBs were introduced in November 2001 was registered using a paper record, and as an abstract of that paper record a COLB is nothing more than a notification that another as-yet-unauthenticated document purporting to contain witnessed information exists in DoH archives, so Obama’s COLB would only be evidence of (as it admits) “the fact of birth” not the factS (plural) of birth, given the Registrar’s stamp, seal, and signature merely authenticates the COLB alone not the dataset; B) as an abstract Obama’s COLB refers on its first line to an alleged originating 1961 certificate and its index number to substantiate the included dataset, but these references are hearsay-within-hearsay inadmissible under any FRE Rule, since in the circumstances only the containing document itself is exempted hearsay and Obama’s 2007 record (COLB) was not created at or near the time of the vital event, by an official with first-hand knowledge, nor was the informant (family member) employed by a public agency or business entity to be reliable and trustworthy.

    2 Following the usage of Hawaii statute, when Fukino in her statement refers to Obama’s “original” vital records she means nothing more than Obama’s “CURRENT” vital records. Given Fukino did not cite the type or date of Obama’s original i.e. current vital records, then all evidence suggests that, if accepted, they were only legally completed very recently.

    3 Hawaii DoH has confirmed through UIPA that Obama amended his birthdate; DoH also confirmed through UIPA that it holds Obama’s delayed birth certificate for which no affidavits or other evidence were supplied. These confirmations strip Obama’s COLB of its evidentiary status and mean he was not born in a Hawaii hospital as he claimed. Given the reason for the delay is illegally missing from Obama’s published COLB, this establishes it as fraudulent. The collusion of Hawaii DoH in the misrepresentation may be seen in the original date of the incomplete filing (August 8, 1961) appearing on the forged COLB as the date of its official acceptance, which was apparently delayed until 2007. The alleged newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth either originated from his family, or the few photo-archive “sources” were faked, and cannot substantiate the amended and delayed filing.

    4 The application of Vattel and his international law of nations to Article 2(1)(5) is an untested interpretation of the Constitution, not settled law. It is not likely SCOTUS would apply Vattel to Article 2(1)(5) and exclude “dual foreign citizens” from the Presidency when legal precedent shows that all citizens born in the US have been deemed at birth to owe exclusive allegiance to the US. This has been seen when tax protesters have claimed that there are two different legal entities named respectively the “United States” and the “United States of America”, and that one does not have exclusive legal jurisdiction over citizens of the other. Given no separate category of “dual foreign citizen” exists in US law I suggest it would be unrealistic to expect federal courts, which have always punished the “split allegiance and obligations” theory of US–USA citizenship in tax protest cases, to apply a parallel interpretation of US citizenship in a constitutional case.

    Furthermore, the US has always expected a loyal compliance with the US draft even during wartime by “dual foreign citizens” associated with enemy nations (for example, those of Japanese, German, and Italian parentage). Again, when “Tokyo Rose” (Iva Toguri, US born of Japanese parents) was tried for treason allegedly committed while resident in Japan during WW2, Toguri did not plead in her defense a “lesser loyalty”. Conversely, Tomoya Kawakita (US born of Japanese parents), convicted of treason for being an abusive civilian interpreter assigned to American POWs in Japan, did plead a “lesser loyalty” as a “dual foreign citizen” and appealed his conviction on that basis to SCOTUS. In 1952 SCOTUS found that since the US demanded the same loyalty from all US citizens then “dual foreign citizens” could not claim the privilege of a “lesser loyalty” or “fair weather citizenship”: the conviction was upheld (Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717). Toguri had resisted Japanese pressure to expatriate herself during WW2 and was always a loyal American despite her prison sentence and subsequent federal intimidation, such that when investigative journalists discovered that prosecution witnesses against her had lied, Toguri received a full, unconditional pardon from President Ford. By then, however, the point had been well made: federal authorities recognize no gradations of allegiance. Obama claiming to be a “dual citizen” effects a cunning distraction from his dubious immigration status when he knows he has the entire federal judiciary and precedent on his side regarding “dual foreign citizenship”.

    1. Funny, I happen to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States owing allegiance to no other Country.

      Can B. Hussein Obama say that?

      I am protected by the US Government via International Law and signed Treaties, whereever I travel in the world. (Except maybe a few Rogue states)

      Can B. Hussein Obama say that?

      “Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.”

      US State Department


  3. http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=7263

    “On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

    The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so”

    1. The change took place in October 2008. The current revision of the COLB form OHSM-1 is 10/2008. Obama’s COLB was allegedly printed in June 2007 on OHSM-1 Revision 11/2001. Interestingly, this coincides within the date range of Fukino’s first press release on October 31, 2008, and just days before the election.

  4. This site is suggesting that the Obama birth announcements are solid evidence that someone with the name Obama was born on August 4, 1961. Clearly they are forged. View:

    Obama Birth Announcement Forged

    View http://www.HoaxOfTheCentury.com to learn how US spies and Nazi Germany spies were MERGED after WWII to create the CIA and would you believe the Nazi spies were trusted?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: We really don’t know anything about the man who occupies the Oval Office. He might have a completely different name. Obviously, he is hiding a tremendous amount of information. The Post & Email does not maintain the position that anything about Obama is true, but we do seek the truth about him and his past.

  5. Absolutely amazing piece Ms. R. and Mr. C. Perhaps the best written yet. When he finally goes down please start stretching your arms so you can give yourselves double pats on the back. You are the media, you are investigative reporters, you took the place of an AWOL press and media. Question, do you get hits from http://www.whitehouse.gov? I do very frequently. If you get a chance, please let me know. Thanks a fellow patriot. J.C.

  6. Mrs. Rondeau,
    Please help me make this video go viral. I sent it to Rush just now, and I hope he will play it on his radio program. The tape is a little long, but Kenya Boy admits in the beginning that his father is Kenyan right at the beginning. We all know he is NOT a natural born citizen, and this just helps our cause. I hope it will help wake up the entire country. Thanks for all you do for all of us!!! We love you guys at Post&Email. Here it is…


  7. The “Solution”-
    Quo Warranto-
    Jury Trial – 12 citizens render the verdict on the facts & THE LAW
    Supreme Court is a farce Roberts et al are ridiculous. If you all can’t see that by now , I don’t know what show you’ve been watching.

    1. I would LOVE to believe this is true. How can we know? Can it be proved without a doubt? Even if the Daily Kos image was used and Obama’s camp denies that it used that as a template, the proof that she was issued a COLB would be AMAZING and in fact, that would be … dare I say, A SMOKING GUN.

      Was this video just released today? Sounds too good to be true.

    2. Leo Denofrio has verified that there is no Hawaiian COLB for the sister when he received the index data for vital records. She was born in Mylasia and the vital records released showed no registration for her. The rumors of the ‘sisters COLB’ can be discarded.

      Almost any valid 2007 COLB could have been used for the ‘template’ for the Daily KOS forgery. There was no specific need for a family member COLB since it was heavily photoshopped anyway.

      1. I do not believe that you can take what the DoH has stated at face value. There are four different birth indexes:

        a) the standard birth index for births that occurred in HI and were promptly registered b) birth index for Certificate of Hawaii Births (not to be confused with COLB; they are entirely different c) birth index for late/delayed birth registrations and d) birth index for foreign births.

        There is a another qualifier, SAD would have had to lived in HI within a year of Maya’s birth in order to apply for a HI COLB for her. While we cannot be certain given how all opaque this has been, I do not believe that Maya would qualified for a HI COLB since SAD likely did not meet the residency requirements.

        Unless Leo specifically instructed the DoH to search the foreign birth index, I doubt the DoH did, thus the answer “no records exist that are responsive to your request”. It has only come out recently (after Leo made his request), that the DoH maintains the four different types of index data.

        It might be worthwhile for someone who has not bombarded the DoH with requests to pay the $7.50 fee and request a search of Maya’s record in the foreign birth index. It is really the only way to know for certain if she received a HI COLB or not.

        The DoH will deny that a foreign birth index even exists, so it is important to preface the request with the following:

        “I hereby request a search of the foreign birth index data maintained by the DoH in accordance with the DoH Specific Record Retention Schedule Item VDR-10 (pg. 19) for a record containing Maya Kassandra Soetoro or any name derivative thereof”.

        Also for clarity sake, Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia not Malaysia, as someone previously posted.

  8. Okubo affirms Fukino is not guilty of misconduct, which means Okubo and Fukino BOTH are on the record stating Obama gave them permission to disclose vital information to the public. If he did not, they are both guilty of a misdemeanor crime. Since they say he gave them permission, they are required to show their source materials.

    1. By whom? That is, WHO WILL MAKE THEM?

      That’s our problem …

      we need the smoking gun or a step to it. i have a step to it

      Sharon, please read

  9. John,

    I’ve tried to contact you at editor@thepostemail. YOU NEED TO CONTACT ME. Why? I will tell you. Follow along.

    First, we have to be honest what we are going up against. I have a couple of questions for everybody to kick it off:

    We keep bringing up the details of the COLB (re: Date Filed vs. Date Accepted, etc.), but then [some of us] simultaneously say it is a clear fake. If it’s fake, do the details matter? I’m confused.

    This brings up A CRITICAL POINT: If it is NOT FAKE, then even if Arizona produces an eligibility requirement, you can bet your sweet behind that the Obama camp will say that a COLB (like what is on the internet) is enough because it is “prima facie” and it has DOB, location and parents. That scenario obviously gets us nowhere …

    Which means you need MORE reasonable doubt and you actually need to catch them in their lies, one of which is the fact that

    HE WAS NOT BORN AT KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER, as his camp and congressmen have claimed (not him specifically or officially).

    You have to contact me regarding this. It is critical.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Sometimes the Editor’s mailbox gets full, but do try again. I believe we received one message from you recently to which we responded. The details of the COLB are what prove it to be a fake.

  10. We need to investigate and proceed on the basis of both duality and birth certificate.

    Yes, I know, just like some of you, that dual citizen ship precludes him from being president. But you have to remember that we need five supreme court votes to get it done. We won’t get ginsberg, sotomayor, brennan (or his replacement) We’ll have to assume we get the four conservative justices and then hope either souter or kennedy votes with us. And assuming we’ll get all of the conservative justices isn’t a lock, because remember, it took four justices to vote to hear the previous eligibility cases and we couldn’t get four votes. We’ll be sitting around on pins and needles hoping we can get five supreme court votes. In other words, even though we’ve got the law on our side, we may not have the votes. Standing isn’t the only issue. The votes are just as important. That’s why the birth certif investigation must proceed.

    If there is something wrong with his bc, there aren’t too many places for any judges to run and hide. They’ll have to vote our way or they’ll show themselves to be fools.

    And don’t forget the indonesian citizenship thing, either. It may bear fruit.

    Fight this thing on all fronts just like you create a stock portfilio. Diversify it.

    1. I agree – pursue all avenues where Obama’s absolute disregard for the requirements of the Constitution and the rule of law has likely disqualified him. And so far, no avenue you mentioned appears to be a dead end. If anything, they still all appear more likely than ever to be possible paths to his ouster. He is that bad.

      However, I think you overlooked something very important that should greatly reduce your concern about the Supreme Court. In any case involving Obama’s eligibility, all of his appointees would have to recuse themselves as their very own legitimacies as Justices would depend directly on their decision in such a case. This is a clear conflict of interest that even the main stream media could not overlook.

      With two less liberals on the bench, the odds for justice and against Obama increase significantly. :) :)

      1. Good point about the Obama-appointed justices needing to recuse themselves.

        I think also that the Supreme Court will place a good bit of weight on precedent cases, and there have been at least four precedent cases where the term natural born citizen was equated with someone born in the country to citizen parents.

    2. There are four Justices – Chief Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas that I believe can be relied upon.

      Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Stevens (soon to retire), and Breyer – Forget it.

      There is only one Justice that has a propensity to vote with one side or the other and that would be Kennedy. Regardless of who Obummer appoints to replace Stevens, the whole vote pivots one way or the other, on Kennedy. No one else. I would be surprised if Kennedy has the fortitude to vote to remove a sitting President if it comes to that.

      Both Justices Souter and Brennan have retired and therefore cannot vote.

      Obummer no longer has a filibuster proof Senate and the number of seats the Repubs will pick up in November will only increase. He will not get away with nominating an uber liberal. Regardless of whomever he appoints, they will vote with the lib side of the court. Who after all is going to vote against the man who put you there in the first place?

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obummer tried to intitiate a repeal of the 22nd Amendement and pull an FDR and try to increase the size of the court and stack it with more libs so those Justices who actually vote in accordance with the Constitution, never prevail.

      2. I hope we can rely upon the justices that are assumed to be conservative. They, not all voting to hear some of the previous eligibility cases, causes concern.

        When it gets right down to it, those conservative justices, and kennedy or whoever we need for the deciding vote, will be faced with the following:

        A media, which has done their level best to portray tea partiers as violent, seditious, extremists that may explode and kill people, doing a complete about face. The media will attempt to egg on and legitamize violent protests from the left. The violent protesters will be the agrieved party, according to the media, and it will be ‘ just look what these justices are trying to do. steal a presidency”.

        Of course justices aren’t stupid. They know this will happen and even conservative justices will think twice before being a part of it.

        It’s why, while i want to pursue the dual citizen angle, I don’t want to place all the eggs in one basket. It’s just too risky to have to rely on a justice to vote the right way when they know the entire msm will crucify them and all the resulting riots will be blamed on them. It’s like a referee on a home court. It can’t help but affect them.

        Whereas the birth certificate fraud will make protesters against removing him look like rank criminals, no matter how hard the media tries to justify them.

    3. Um, Brennan retired in 1990 and died in 1997, so no, we won’t get his vote. Souter retired in 2009 and was replaced by Sotomayor, so we won’t get his vote either.

  11. While we all know that the Obummer on-line COLB is a complete fabrication, but I am not sure I understand what this analysis proves. According to an email exchange I had with Okubo in January, the feedstock for the COLB is completely blank, the border, the DoH seal (not the raised seal) at the top, the document title, the abstract/prima facie statement, the form field labels and actual birth registration data is contained in the Vital Records data base and only printed when the entire COLB is printed. The date stamp/signature on the back and raised seal is then applied after it is printed.

    The differences noted can be attributed to the revision to the data base that occurred on October 2008. This COLB example is printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 10/2008 COLB data base specification. Obummer’s COLB was allegedly printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 11/2001 data base specification. The example above is identical to the “blank” COLB I obtained in January. I was unable to obtain a blank or redacted copy of the OHSM-1 Rev. 11/2001. Apparently the DoH does not maintain a copy of obsolete revisions.

    I noticed that this COLB was identifed as “Date Filed By Registrar”. Under what circumstances did this 1981 birth take place? Was it in a HI hospital, at home attended by a midwife, unattended, or did take place out of state or country? Was it a late registration (after 30 days but less than one year)? I would be very interested in learning which of these circumstances apply.

    If I am missing something relevant here, can someone please point it out?

  12. Does anyone have a link to a PHOTO (not a scan) of a recent Certification of Live Birth just like Obama’s that shows the border detail? I’ve always found the border most disturbing, with the way the cross hatching has incomplete lines and such. You would think a laser printer would be capable of making all the lines solid.

  13. I found two discrepancies between the full-sized scan allegedly sent out by Tommy Vietor on June 12, 2008 and the document purportedly photographed by factcheck (not counting the embedded date of the photo being March 12, 2008, which was later scrubbed from factcheck’s currently posted jpgs).

    These are things you can look at on your own and double check by comparing the images. I created a couple of jpgs to demonstrate the discrepancies, but they are plainly visible as is.

    The date stamp that bleeds through on the scan – Jun 6, 2007 – can be flipped and rotated in any photo editing program. Compare the shapes of the letters and numbers to any of the date stamps from the alleged back of the COLB in the fact check photographs. The 6 doesn’t match and the zeroes are shaped differently and/or slant differently. Here’s an image to compare:


    The other discrepancy is the amount of margin outside of the security border. On the original full-sized scan, you can see the edge of the document very clearly. Notice that the margin is very thin outside of the security borders to the edge of the document. However, if you look at the document in the factcheck photograph, somehow the paper grew. The margins are wider and you can see more of the background pattern extending to the edges of the paper. I copied and pasted part of the scan and overlayed it on of the photographs. I changed the scale to make sure the width of the security border matches. This discrepancy is not a result of cropping, because you can see the edge of the paper and the back of the scanner lid in the original scan. And you’ll notice that the document in the photograph is at an angle, but if the scan was at the same angle, the margin would look thinner than it already does. My guess is that the scan was an image built in photoshop that was later printed out onto real security paper that had been obtained later, only nobody realized the paper was bigger than what was presented in the scan.


  14. There appears to be something wrong with the photo of the BC in the article. When I click on the photo to enlarge, it just gets hung-up loading.

  15. 12thGenerationAmerican hits the nail on the head. The “African” race of Obama’s father convinced me a long time ago that the COLB is not genuine. Gary Player is from Africa, but he is clearly Caucasian. The COLB was probably created by an Obamanut who did not know any better. Let us also not forget that the COLB appeared on the slightly lefty Daily Kos website before Obama’s FighttheSmears website. FactCheck.org is affiliated with the Annenberg Foundation, which gave millions to a committee on which Obama served.

  16. Nice job – it confirms again that there is something rotten in the Hawaii HD safe place. Also, I hope that the Arizona bill will become law – then, we’ll see –

  17. Still, the birth certificate does not matter, what matters is his father Obama Sr was a British Subject making Obama Jr the same, futhermore his step father adopted him and he became an Indonesian citizen. Obama is a dual citizen therefore can never be a natural born citizen of the USofA. Lulu Soetoro was his step father. Everyone including Obama are all still hung up on the bc issue when his fathers citizenship is what excludes him and his step father, from ever being a NBC.

    1. The birth certificate matters only if it shows a foreign birth. But does anyone think that the most powerful man on the planet, with the backing of a billionaire, would be unable to “produce” an authentic-looking document showing a Hawaiian birth?

      On the other hand, the document that Obama cannot produce is the one showing that Obama Senior was a US citizen. A dual citizen such as Obama, is ineligible for the same reason as a naturalized citizen — they were both subject to a foreign power at birth.

      1. TexomaEd,

        I am with you 100% but again, if the people, AND I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH — if the people THAT MATTER don’t agree with you …

        What’s it worth?

      2. The US has had a couple presidents that were dual citizens: James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur. Both their fathers were of Irish descent, when Ireland was a colony of the UK. Both of their fathers were naturalized US citizens, and both had children that were born in the US. However, UK law at the time was basically “once a British subject, always a British subject, even unto generations”. This same law was the basis for the War of 1812. (even though some of the sailors were deserters from the UK, some were born in the US to naturalized US citizens that were British subjects, but the UK did not recognize naturalized US citizenship).

        So, James Buchanan was both a US citizen and a British subject until his death. Chester A. Arthur was both a US citizen and a British subject until 1870, when the UK passed the Naturalization Act

      3. To David from Memphis,

        James Buchanan was a natural born citizen. He was born in Pennsylvania in 1791. His parents emigrated from Ireland in 1783 and they both became citizens of the US when the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

        Chester Arthur was indeed born a dual citizen. He was born in Vermont and his father was an Irish citizen who became naturalized when Chester was 14. Chester’s mother was a US citizen. However, when Arthur ran as VP in 1880 (he became President after Garfield’s assassination), NO ONE knew that his father was an Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. Chester Arthur told a number of lies to hide this fact, which only became known some 20 years ago.

      4. If he thought it would work, he would have already had it produced. In fact, if he had the resources to do so, he should have done it in 2008. At this point, and especially after the libtards at DKos admittedly posted a COLB that they counterfeited, none of the attorneys filing suit will simply accept a look-see at a Blowbama BC. With good reason, they’ll want to check the registration number against the state’s registrar. Again, due to the admitted forgery of a COLB by DKos, I can’t see any judge who’s already show enough chutzpah to buck the system and take the case, not agreeing with the reguest to check the state’s registrar.

    2. Sadly, Heather, even the fact that he was a dual citizen at birth doesn’t matter (right now). Why doesn’t it matter? He ain’t goin’ nowhere right now, them’s just the facts. Capiche?

      That’s why the Arizona thing is critical. Then and only then will it matter that he is a dual citizen. If you haven’t noticed, SCOTUS denial in defining NBC renders his dual citizenship MOOT. Let’s be honest — we could be 100% right about what a NBC is, but if SCOTUS doesn’t define it or agree with us, what is it worth?

      The deceiver is still there. ACTION, people, not regurgitation.

      1. This is in reply to your reply to me above.

        The “people that matter”? The people that matter are “We The People”, whose duty and responsibility is to defend and protect the Constitution — the document which protects our freedom from tyranny. When the American public realizes how our Constitution has been blatantly and seriously violated by Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency, and we demand that our Constitution be adhered to, then it will be our will that matters, for the power is with “We The People” and not with the federal government.

    3. IF Obama Sr. WAS his father. The missing information about father’s birthplace on the online COLB plus the missing dark smudges where father’s information ought to be on the FactCheck photo of the COLB’s embossed seal, give a person pause.

  18. Joseph Maine: The birth announcements are about as legitimate as evidence as the online COLB. They are digital images with no known provenance and no evidence to back up their supposed authenticity.

    Even if they did indeed appear in those newspapers (I would rather see an actual newspaper from 1961), they are proof only of the registration of “a son” to a couple known as Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, somewhere in the world.

    It’s been stated that the system by which birth registrations were automatically sent to the newspapers from the DoH did not begin until 1976.

    When asked, people at the DoH stated what the system is AT THIS TIME. So far as I know, nobody who was alive in 1961 and who knew how those announcements got into the papers has ever attested to how it worked BACK THEN.

    The announcements do not READ like any vital records notifications that I have ever seen in newspapers. They don’t READ like legal notices.

    Nobody, so far as I know, is on record stating that those announcements could NOT have been called in by a family member.

    In addition, NO BIRTHPLACE is in the announcements. The birth of that child may have taken place anywhere in the whole wide world, so how can they PROVE his birth in Hawaii?

    Did somebody create those announcements and use them to get a delayed COLB? Excellent supposition, Sharon! Did he also get Granny to sign an affidavit, stating that he was born in Hawaii, with both it and COPIES of those supposed announcements being presented to the DoH for them to make a “determination” that he was born in Hawaii, as Gibbs alluded to recently?

    Is that why Granny was basically under “house arrest” during the entire campaign? Why he made those sudden trips to Hawaii? Why nobody was given a chance to interview Granny?

    Nobody. And now nobody can ever interview her.

    1. The Birth Annoucement’s did appear in the said newspapers on the said days, as private researchers who independently verified this, confirmed for The Post & Email back in December.



      But, you are correct in saying that these annoucements are legally useless, because they indicate neither the name, nor date; plus it has been established that birth annoucments were placed by the families, back then, not by the Department of Health. So they are hearsay evidence.

      However, some private investigators believe that the Department of Health might have granted BCs on the basis of old birth annoucements, Obama’s included

      1. Very interesting concept John. I had not thought of that one. The COLB however would have to be identified as a “late registration” per HRS 338. If your theory is true, is all the more evidence that the on-line COLB is a forgery.

        Glad to see you post! dm

      2. Mr. Charlton: Thank you for those links. I had forgotten about reading the first story; however, I must note that this person received via mail something purported to have been copied from a microfiche purportedly stored at UC Berkeley. Is it beyond belief that someone who works in the library at UC Berkeley may have a partisan interest in this issue? In the same way that librarians at the main library in Hawaii may have a similar partisan interest?

        If I read correctly, the citizen researcher was waiting to see if the CA State Library had a copy of the announcement from the Advertiser. Was that ever forthcoming?

        The second story mentions that the box containing the microfilm for 1961 was the only box previously opened and also that no announcement was found for the Nordyke twins–which would seem to support the contention that announcements were indeed placed by families, not by the DoH, since we do know for a fact that those twins WERE born in Hawaii, at Kapiolani hospital, the day after Obama was supposedly born. Therefore, they should also have been announced.

        Has anyone ever seen an announcement for the Nordykes? I have read, and this may be disinformation, that their announcement appeared a week or two later.

        I still would prefer to see an actual newspaper, and hear from a named reporter who personally saw the microfilm and copied the pages from it. Your comments from the story bear repeating:

        “Second, the finding of the birth annoucments do not prove he was born in Hawaii, as they merely state the claimed legal address of the parents in the year of the birth. The child could have been born anywhere; the filing could have been submitted by a relative who was not a witness, for a foreign birth.

        Third, the birth annoucments do not confirm the name of the child. Ostensibly, the child could have died soon after, and the parents adopted a foreign born child to replace their loss in their time of grief…while there is no evidence to back such speculation, there is no evidence to discount it until actual documents are released.”

        Also, as you stated elsewhere, there’s no evidence in those announcements indicating who the MOTHER was. At that time, there were at least two women, if not more, known as “Mrs. Barack H. Obama”.

      3. With regard to the announcements: Particularly puzzling, if the DoH somehow provided the data (which is in dispute). Remember that the Nordykes, although born after Obama, had birth registration numbers sequentially lower than his, yet their births were announced three days after his! And for a LONG time, nobody could locate their birth announcement. Suddenly, it turns up.

    2. I wrote to the Honolulu police in July, 2008 because by then Camp Obama was keeping grannie under wraps, and his ineligibility issue was surfacing. I suspected that Camp Obama would have her terminated, which they did. I don’t think anybody protected her from her murderer. Remember Obama outside her apartment complex trying to dispose of evidence?
      I actually think the Honolulu police department did nothing to protect her.

  19. A link with some information about the difference between certificate of birth and certification of live birth.


    Basically, sometime after this controversy erupted, Hawaii stopped giving people actual copies of their long-form birth certificates. Now they give ONLY that computer-generated abstract, which used to be called a certification of live birth but now is called a certificate (not certification) and which, they claim, is as good as and as legal as a “birth certificate.”
    The comments associated with that Wiki Answers page are interesting. I searched for articles prior to 10/1/2008, so this is an old question/response.

    Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: “At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically.” And, she added, “In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document.”

    I found several references to this quote on the Web, but the link to the Israeli Insider article no longer works. And yet . . .

    Surprisingly, after getting a message stating that the page can’t be displayed, it came up! So, you try it:


    The story is from June 24, 2008.

    1. factcheck is owned by Annenberg
      Obama worked for the Annenberg foundation for five years with terrorist Billy Ayers on how to indoctrinate youth in to socialism

  20. What’s funny is that I have this feeling that either a) Arizona gets challenged or somehow they don’t get him to give up the original vital stats or b) he just says he isn’t running or he’ll run without AZ electoral votes. I just don’t think he’ll ever show. It’s that damaging. He will have completed 4 years and enough damage that may or may not be reversed — but he is covered for life by the Federal Gov’t and won’t necessarily care anyway. He won’t show.

    I have faith that it is possible that the US can come out of this stronger. If the Arizona thing comes to fruition it is a virtual LOCK that whatever method the Secretary of State uses to check for eligibilty will be challenged, and thus it WILL go to the Supreme Court. It will be a real issue at that time.

    We will then find out what a Natural Born Citizen is per SCOTUS, which is ulimately the only thing that matters, for the time being.

    I will be happy with that as a minimum. Exposing Obama is just a cherry on top.

  21. 12thGeneration,

    We’ve heard the business about African vs. Negro for years now. It’s just conjecture without proof or comparison, unfortunately, Other things make the doubt more reasonable than that fact.

    Sharon, I have bought your “1st time requesting birth document in 2007” theory because it makes a lot of sense in explaining things. Charles Kerchner is skeptical of this theory and he gives good reasons. Am I not thinking outside of the box here? If there were birth announcements he claims that the DoH gave them to the papers, so there was some sort of filing, complete or incomplete.

    I, for the life of me, can’t understand why he wouldn’t have just originally said, “Yes, I have affidavits that I was born in Hawaii. Know what? Hawaii accepts them as a birth there. You don’t like it? Prove I was born elsewhere, or go F— yourself.”

    Ultimately that neutralizes the situation, puts the doubters in a scenario where the onus is on them to prove the negative. But then he goes and lets people lie and say he was born at Kapiolani, which I know didn’t happen (and he knows it too).

    We are missing something. What IS IT!?

    1. “We are missing something. What IS IT!?”

      I believe that would be: The truth and Obama’s proof of origin?!?!?

    2. Let’s talk about facts here. He’s a British citizen, born that way. That alone makes him ineligible. Now let’s add in his Indonesian citizenship. Maybe Kenyan. Which country does he have allegiance to? Not the USA, that’s for certain.

      In terms of official documentation as to his birthplace, Kenyan officials have now six times said he was born there.

  22. Great article. I did notice however, that in her October 31, 2008 statement, Fukino never says that she has “Seen the original birth certificate”. She simply states (maybe mistakenly, maybe by design) that she has “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.” That is different from saying she has personally seen the Birth Certificate AND it is on record in accordance … blah blah blah. It may be nothing, but knowing how Hawaii DOH is famous for parsing words, it would not surprise me if the statement was made by design to avoid saying that she had seen the Birth Certificate. This would allow them to say they never made a public statement saying they SAW the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and would obviate them from having to produce documentation required for saying she verified the BIRTH CERTIFICATE was on record.
    She might have looked at the Data Base to “Verify” this – She may NEVER have “Seen” (or at least she can say she never SAID she actually saw) the Birth Certificate itself.
    I know it’s long winded – but, just a thought.
    They’re sneaky like that (it seems to me anyway).
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Factcheck article originally had links to both of Dr. Fukino’s statements. On October 31, 2008, Fukino said that the HI DOH maintained the record on file “in accordance with policies and procedures,” or something to that effect. Her second statement made on July 27, 2009, claimed that she had personally seen the document(s) and that Obama was born in Hawaii and was a “natural-born American citizen.” How she came to that conclusion she refuses to explain, and neither will anyone else in Hawaii. Both of the links in the Factcheck article are dead, which I found interesting, because the announcements Fukino made are still available through other channels.

    1. It is possible that the certification by DNC and Pelosi (remember, Hawaii was the only state to which she sent appropriate certification) was interpreted by HI DOH as certification of the natural born status? Every incomplete and evasive sentence they produce can be given many different interpretations, and some of them could even be mutually exclusive!

    2. Here are her statements:
      Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:

      “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.”

      Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:

      “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.”

      The first statement says she has seen that his BC is on record in accordance…. – this does not say that she saw the BC – it indicates, rather slyly, that she has seen the index data record where it is indicated that it is on file.

      The second statement says she has seen the original vital record(s). How many BC’s do you have? If your local director of health were to verify your birth, just how many records would she/he need to view in order to verify your birth? I only have 1 and they are not record(s) – it is just 1 Birth Certificate. Again, she is not saying she has seen the BC, only original records.

      She chose her words very very carefully – in my opinion, for a very very good reason. She doesn’t want to have to answer charges for perjuring herself.

      1. Regarding the July 2009 statement, keep in mind that an official certification of live birth is supposed to be an abstract of the original birth certificate and has prima facie value if entered in a court of law. There should be no other vital record(s) that Fukino had to look at to supposably verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, unless the original birth certificate is insufficient on its own. Since she did not identify these alleged vital records, her statement is only hearsay. It contains no legal weight, but it does indicate a serious deficiency with Obama’s alleged COLB.

        Also, no vital record maintained by the state of Hawaii declare anyone to be a natural-born American citizen.’ Technically, there’s no such thing since we are citizens of the United States, not America.

  23. yo: This has been going on for so long that I don’t remember all the ins and outs, but it seems to me that sometime after Obama originally posted his COLB on the Web and people started asking questions, the DoH changed the terminology they use for certificates versus certifications and voila! All the documents that came out of their database suddenly became “certificates”, although in the past they did mean different things. All the better to confuse you with, my dears.

    Does anyone remember? One was a “certificate of birth” and the other a “certification of live birth”. I think.

    I don’t think the person’s date of birth matters here. What matters is when in time this COLB was printed by the DoH. Obama’s supposedly came from June 2007. When was this printed?

  24. “Now let’s look at the document itself. Since when did African become a race? On your birth certificate is your father’s ethnicity listed as American? Of course not; American is not a race. Neither is African. This document would be far more credible had it listed the father’s race as negro or Negroid just as white or Caucasian were also used in 1961.”


  25. VERY WELL DONE, Sharon and John. Keep the pressure up.

    “Could Obama himself have requested a document from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 in preparation for his run for President? Did he file for a “delayed registration”? If so, what documentation did he present to Dr. Fukino or someone else at the Health Department? Could he have presented the birth announcements from the two Hawaii newspapers as proof of his birth there to obtain the “Certification of Live Birth”?”

    Your suspicions are VERY ASTUTE. I bet you this is the explanation. The law of parsimony yields overwhelmingly the most likely scenario which is:

    HE ASKED FOR IT THE FIRST TIME IN 2005-2007. That’s why it’s so damaging. Will people believe that someone who delayed registration 40+ years is reasonable? No, rather it is “embarrassing.”

    Great stuff.

    1. I remember one of Obama’s attorneys offering for defense in one of Orly Taitz’s cases that presenting the original BC would be embarrassing for Obama… Would it be embarrassing because it would not mention Obama Senior as the father, or because of the date it was applied for?

      It always bugged me that the number was blanked out. Would those numbers refer to a year and/or a month?

      We really need some more Hawaii documents to compare. They’ll come in time, I’m sure.

  26. Read this follow-up to this article ..

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I took a look at the Repubx article, and yes, I was comparing the document which The Post & Email has to that which was scrutinized by the photography expert, Mr. John F. Sweeney, for The Post & Email. I believe that was the first version. The very fact that three versions had to be produced to satisfy all of the requirements for even an abstract is suspect. Our article here is meant to promote discussion of whether or not the “Certification” document is used for a person who cannot prove he was born in Hawaii or is possibly foreign-born.

  27. Can you link us to a better copy of that new COLB? I can’t read it very well or download it, either.

    Very interesting find that the parents’ places of birth are listed. One says Japan and the other? I can’t make it out. Were both parents born outside the USA?

    If so, then that’s extremely interesting because at the very least, Obama’s father’s home country should be on his COLB, too. But it’s not.

    Perhaps they didn’t know that it OUGHT to be shown because, when they got his COLB, there was NO father’s information on it at all. Just speculating.

    I contend that the FactCheck blog photo purporting to show a close-up of the embossed seal–the one where the document is turned on its side and all information is foreshortened and blurred into dark spots–doesn’t have dark spots to correspond with the locations where the father’s name and race OUGHT to appear, leading me to believe that if he ever did obtain a COLB from Hawaii, there was no father listed on that document at all.

    This may be why the COLB image at FactCheck shows a father’s name and race but no father’s country: because they didn’t know that a real COLB WOULD show the father’s country, too, if he wasn’t from the US.

    Another interesting discrepancy. Another “tell”. Good work!

    1. SapphireSunday, This is my son’s, Alan, newly received bc. I was born in Japan when my dad, a marine, was stationed there. My husband’s home country is listed as Hawaii (which did not become a state until 1959). Fred was born in 1949. For a view of Fred and Alan’s REAL KAPIOLANI BIRTH CERTIFICATES the like of which BO/BS WILL NOT AND CANNOT PRODUCE, you can go to this link:


      1. Miki: Thank you for the information. It is very interesting that a recent COLB prints a parent’s birth place if not the USA. I’m honored that you responded. Good luck. We’ll be rooting for you. You’re a patriot.

  28. Like butterdezillion has concluded, the hawaii doh won’t answer basic questions like “why does one say certificate and one say certification,”, because it might lead us to the truth. So, they are using a technique known as glomarization to hide things they required by law to provide.

  29. Oh, the weasels will come up with some lame excuse when they read this. And they do read all blogs-I am sure.

    Let’s see the new lie!! Can’t wait……..