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

Does this image represent a real document? If so, did the state of Hawaii issue it? No one there has ever claimed that it was issued by the Health Department. If it is real, why is the certificate number blacked out?

(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!

Join the Conversation

17 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. 1. We don’t need to care what the COLB is, because Obama has failed the 2-prong test for article 2 natural born citizen presidential requirement – he was born to a British citizen father, i.e. born with dual allegiance, as such he is NOT a nbc no matter where he was born and is ineligible to be POTUS!
    2. Snopes, the source of the COLB, has been caught red-handed lying outright about Obama’s birth place – see
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/2008-snopes-article-reports-barack.html
    Before snopes said O born in Hawaii, Snopes said in black and white print: Obama born in Kenya!
    Ask the congress critters, judges, media – how do you feel having been made a fool by Snopes?
    Go ahead – blast all of them for taking the words from snopes! No, they won’t do a thing, but get in their faces anyway, make them the laughing stock!

  2. This is the same “confusion by design” the media perpetrates when they SHOUT: Obama is a US Citizen! Of course he is. The distiction that congress, the media, Fox, Beck, and the courts all willfully ignore is that Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen.

    1. I agree with what you are saying about the media shouting that Obama is a U.S. Citizen….but where is the proof that he is a U.S. Citizen, let alone a natural born one?

  3. obama and his legal team have been fighting – and winning – for the past two years to keep his birth certificate and other documents private. Most of us have little doubt that his reason for protecting the documents is they do not exist or they are fake.

    I cannot help but wonder what would happen if suddenly the shoe were on the other foot. If suddenly, two or three people came forward who were willing to swear that they witnessed obama’s birth in other locations and at other times. If a couple of other genuine birth certificates appeared from other locations, other dates, and that were properly witnessed when they magically appeared, would he not have to fight to disprove the bogus documents?

    He could then very conceivably be forced to produce his real documents in order to disprove the bogus ones. It would be sort of like beating him at his own game. I just wonder if, given a sufficiently persuasive reason, Dr. Polland might lend his expertise to the effort. Lastly, if the government wanted to prosecute somebody for swearing false witness, who in a government that does not run by the Constitution and larded with liars and crooks, would they get to do the prosecuting?

    1. It’s a lot easier for the government to swear something is real, which in reality is false, and not get sent to jail, than it would be for us “regular” people.

  4. To file my immigration I had to bring a birth certificate.
    I thought I make it easy on them and ordered an international birth certificate where everything is in English,Frensh, Russian, Spanish etc.
    The content was very much the same as in Obama’s COLB.
    Of course the INS did not accept it and I had to bring a certified copy of the original BC plus a certified translation.
    Selected gouvernment efficiency.
    You can also call it double standard.

  5. Dear Ms. Rondeau,

    With two queries regarding the last sentence in this editorial, can you ask the editorialist to clarify the last statement??

    Thank you
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: From the author: My intent was not to have people think a witness to Obama’s birth may be waiting to come forward, but for the readers to realize that until we know who reported Obama’s birth, anyone could claim to have been a witness.

  6. Great article; Succinct and cogent!
    Mrs. Rondeau – you are doing a great job. I believe we will get there in large part because
    you and others are not tossing in the towel even though you are undoubtedly taking tremendous flak
    from the left flank (and surprisingly some from the right too). Keep up the good work.
    ELmo

  7. The law that allows you to ‘register’ a birth was passed in 1982, 21 years after Obama was born. Fact. Also, the COLB will say where the child was actually born, it won’t say Hawaii. ugh. Do you do any research at all.

    1. meek,

      You’re looking for a law that would permit the registration of a birth that took place somewhere else. What you need to be looking at is HRS 338-6. It has been around since 1949.

      “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

      What constitutes “able to prepare a birth certificate”? Would the DOH have permitted a grandparent to make the report? No one knows how the statute was interpreted in 1961.

      This we do know: A certified copy of the original will settle who registered Obama’s birth.

      Why a matter that could be so easily resolved is intentionally left to fester resembles more the actions of a dictator than the leader of a republic.

      1. JLM:

        … if indeed it WAS registered. Let’s face it – no one knows. I suggest that you watch all of Ron Polland’s videos that I linked elsewhere.

  8. For exceedingly pertinent and definitive information about the paperwork (“BC” etc.) in the eligibility matter and how it all came about, just follow up on the videos by Dr. Ron J. Polland. You’re in for a REAL eye-opener!!!

    Suggested sequence for watching Dr. Polland’s YouTube “FRAUD IN THE USA” video clips; enter the channel using the #0 link below and then immediately pause the displayed video and open the videos noted in the #1 – #9 sequence:

    #0 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc YouTube channel entry; then select and view …

    ================================================

    #1 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 1)”

    #2 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 2)”

    #3 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 3)”

    #4 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 4)”

    $5 “It’s the conspiracy, Stupid!”

    #6 “HAIL TO THE CHEATS!”

    #7 “BLUE HAWAII”

    #8 “FRAUD IN THE USA: “SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED” (Chapter 2-1)”

    #9 “FRAUD IN THE USA: “MAKE A DATE WITH A SEAL” (Chapter 2-2)”

  9. “Who am I? I may be the person who witnessed Obama’s birth!”

    Is this last line in this editorial intended to provoke inquiries or is it a joke?

  10. Good article and nails the BC issue. I am left wondering, however, by the last sentence. . . .why be enigmatic? I cannot tell your nationality from your name, but it could be an African name for all I know. If you did not witness Barack Obama’s birth, then that provocable last sentence should be clarified. Either you did or did not witness obama’s birth. If you didn’t, why intimate that you might have? If you did, why haven’t you stepped forward and provided a deposition to one of the attorneys who have been litigating this issue???????
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I believe the author made the statement to show that anyone can “register” a birth in Hawaii without having to provide any details, whereas a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate would have the name of the doctor so that there would be no question about its legitimacy.