If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IS THE HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PURPOSELY BEING DECEPTIVE TO COVER FOR OBAMA?
by Ukweli Ni Uhuru
(Jul. 28, 2010) — Is there a difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “Certification of Live Birth”?
We all know there is! Some just don’t what to acknowledge that there is a difference.
According to recent reports, the Hawaii DOH decided to change the name of their COLB from “Certification” to “Certificate”! Why? The only possible conclusion for using such deceptive and inaccurate terminology, in the wake of the present controversy, is to further confuse the public.
A Certificate of Live Birth (in the traditional sense) is an original birth report that has been filed with the state. It is signed by someone who declares to be a witness to the event. The identity of that witness is what gives the filed certificate credibility. Most original birth certificates are witnessed (attended) by a physician. Some are witnessed by a nurse. Others are witnessed by a midwife. Since most of these people are licensed by the state, we trust them to provide a true and accurate account of the event. The penalty for filing a false report would include loss of their license. That is why births attended by a physician are considered to be extremely reliable.
In some cases, a parent, relative, or any adult may report an extra-institutional (outside the hospital) birth. Only a fool would consider a report filed by an “interested party” (a parent or relative) to have the same credibility as one filed by a “disinterested party” (a doctor or nurse)! Was Obama’s birth reported by an interested party, or a disinterested party? For some reason, Obama doesn’t want us to know, and the State of Hawaii is unwilling to disclose that information. Who is being protected by not disclosing that information? How and why would they need to be protected?
For most of our history, when proof of a birth event was required, the state would issue a certified copy of the original certificate. Today, however, as a means of cutting costs, many states now issue a “certification.” While this new “certification” (an abstract of the information on file) has been deemed adequate for most situations, it completely eliminates subsequent discovery of fraud having taken place when the original was filed. This omission of key information (though unintentional) prevents anyone from asking; “Who submitted that original report?”
A COLB is a “certification” of live birth. It is merely an abstract used to demonstrate that the issuing authority has some source information on file. Nothing more! The government (the issuing authority) is not claiming to be a witness to the event. All they are claiming is that SOMEONE has stated that they witnessed the event, and the record of such is on file. Many people have concluded that the State of Hawaii knows that Obama was born in Hawaii. A Representative of the State of Hawaii was not present at Obama’s birth. Dr. Fukino was not a witness to the event. At best, she can only rely on the statement of another. In the legal world, they would call that “hearsay”. However, the relative ease with which the original record could be made available, and the national security interest at stake, demands that hearsay should not be accepted when turning over the keys to the most powerful military force in the world.
Why accept a “certification” in lieu of a certified copy of the original? This would be akin to a college or university notifying one’s state of record that the registrant has obtained a degree of education. The state would then issue an abstract or “certification” stating that they have (in their files) a document that supports the registrant’s degree. What information would be omitted from that “certification of degree”? It wouldn’t contain the name of the college or university who issued the degree. It would only demonstrate that the degree was obtained. -I may be wrong, but I doubt the liberal intellectuals would ever consider the acknowledgment of a degree, without the name of the university who issued it, to be a true indication of the value of that degree. (Didn’t most of the liberal lawyers attack Orly Taitz because of where she obtained her degree?)
If we look at this from a COLB vs. the original birth certificate, it would be like the state saying that Obama has earned the degree, but when we ask what college or university awarded that degree, the state would refuse to disclose such information. In essence, did Obama obtain his degree from an “Ivy League” school, or did he just obtain it by paying some online university?
Shouldn’t WE, as his employer, be able to ask such questions?
It should not be “The Birthers” fighting in the courts to obtain access. It should be Barack Obama who voluntarily authorizes the release of that information. It should be disclosed to a plethora of media representatives, directly by the Hawaii DOH, and it should be disclosed to all of them at the same time. It should be disclosed because it is the right thing to do.
A country in which a large number of citizens have serious questions about the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to hold that office is a country in turmoil. When the source of that turmoil is a game of hide and seek being played by a de facto president, his intent must be seen as nothing less than a deliberate attempt to destroy this country.
Who am I? I may be the person who witnessed Obama’s birth!