If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IF THE RECORDS WEREN’T THERE, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 29, 2011) — In July 2009, CNN President Jon Klein stated that the vital records belonging to Barack Hussein Obama could not be obtained because the Hawaii Department of Health had discarded original paper birth records in 2001.
Klein told some members of the staff of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that no one should have a “legitimate beef” over Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate because it was no longer available.
Other members of the media continued for more than two years to insist that the short-form image posted in 2008 was Obama’s complete birth certificate. There were several different versions of the Certification of Live Birth, and the certificate number was originally blacked out.
However, the website for the Hawaii Department of Health mentions releasing “certified copies” of paper documents to eligible requesters, not electronic documents which would occur in a paperless environment.
If the Hawaii Department of Health had “gone paperless” in 2001, as claimed by CNN President Jon Klein, where did the image come from which was produced by the White House on Wednesday?
Where did the Certification of Live Birth come from which former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed was Obama’s “birth certificate?”
The HDOH also maintains that a person must have a “direct and tangible interest in the record” to obtain a certified copy of it. The law firm of Perkins & Coie reportedly made arrangements for Obama to obtain his long-form birth certificate from the Health Department on Obama’s behalf. But why did it take an attorney to obtain the alleged document? Why couldn’t Obama have done it himself using the simple request form from the Hawaii Department of Health’s website?
The application instructions for requesting a certified copy of a record online state clearly that electronic copies are not issued. Why, then, did CNN’s president imply that since 2001, that was the procedure? Where did he obtain his information?
From the Hawaii Department of Health:
Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?
A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:
- the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
- the registrant’s spouse;
- the registrant’s parent(s);
- a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
- a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
- a legal guardian of the registrant;
- a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
- a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
- a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
- adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
- a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
- a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
- a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
If you are not able to establish a direct and tangible interest in the record, you are ineligible and will not be issued a certified copy of the record.
Other news reports from Hawaii have confirmed the Department of Health’s defense of the state’s privacy laws in regard to vital records.
What “direct and tangible interest” did Attorney Judith Corley have in Obama’s birth certificate? She does not appear to meet any of the above criteria upon which the Health Department has relied to deny numerous UIPA requests made over at least the last three years.
If quoted correctly, Corley also lied when she said that Obama “doesn’t have a lot of personal legal issues.” There have been numerous lawsuits filed over the lack of proof that Obama meets the eligibility requirements of “natural born Citizen,” and more than 3,000 treason complaints have been filed against him. One lawsuit filed by Dr. Alan Keyes, a former 2008 presidential candidate, has been granted a hearing on the merits of the case on May 2, 2011. How, then, could Corley seriously say that he “doesn’t have a lot of personal legal issues?”
There is no evidence that an official change in “administrative rules” at the Hawaii Department of Health has been enacted which would deny an eligible requester access to his or her government-maintained record. Even if there had been, administrative rules would not take precedence over the law passed by the Hawaii legislature in 1988 requiring disclosure of government records. Therefore, the Department of Health’s recent denial of certified copies, as promised on its website, is illegal.
The claim made by Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy that the issuance of only “computer copies” to a requester was established “departmental policy” is not found anywhere in Hawaii law. Fuddy claimed that she was making an exception due to Obama’s “status.”
If Obama’s original birth record was held by the Hawaii Department of Health since doubts began to swirl about his birthplace, why was it not released then? Why were so many requests made under Hawaii’s UIPA law which were not even related to Obama denied or stonewalled?
Why was the wording on the Hawaii Democrat Party’s nomination form changed in 2008 and the DNC relied upon to provide the statement that Obama and Biden were constitutionally eligible to serve? And why did Tim Adams, a former Hawaii Elections Office supervisor during the 2008 election cycle, state in an affidavit that his supervisors had said that it was common knowledge that there “was no long-form birth certificate” of Obama’s held by the state of Hawaii.
Why have some people received copies of their long-form birth certificate and others been denied?
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which states that being born on U.S. soil is enough to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” requirement placed in Article II, Section 1 before the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Even the 14th Amendment, which many claim renders Obama eligible under Article II and which largely dealt with freed slaves following the American Civil War, refers to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It says nothing about “natural born Citizen.” The exception “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not have applied to Obama because his father was a British citizen; therefore, Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at his birth.
A report from USA Today claimed that the original birth certificate was two pages, not one.
The alleged document has not been shown in paper form, nor does it resemble a long-form birth certificate released on March 15, 2011 to another requester. Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy stated that the form is a copy of Obama’s original document rather than a computer-generated composite.
Some letters on White House stationery show an embossed seal, while others do not. A “letter” allegedly signed by Obama sent to Kapiolani Medical Center which the hospital later removed from its website and refused to allow Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom to see did not, and after analysis of the source code, was shown to be a combination of HTML codes rather than a scan of a real document.
Is Kapiolani Medical Center aware that a crime has been perpetrated and either participated in that crime or done nothing about it? When The Post & Email asked them to confirm that Obama was born there following the release of the image on the internet and on mainstream media, Kapiolani responded that it could make no comment due to privacy laws and that there would be no interviews granted to the press.
If employees of Kapiolani, the Hawaii Health Department, and Obama’s personal lawyer know that Obama’s documentation is not legitimate or that he has lied about his past to the American people to purposely deceive them, are they not committing misprision of felony?
Some are claiming that the image released on April 27, 2011 is a forgery. When Dr. Fukino told MSNBC that “what he [Obama] got, everybody got,” it was refuted by Miki Booth, whose son had requested a certified copy of his birth certificate and received something different than the original image purported by Factchek.org and Politifact to be Obama’s “birth certificate.” The Booth document contained a raised seal and was titled “Certificate of Live Birth,’ while Obama’s did not contain a seal and was titled “Certification of Live Birth.”
Contradicting Governor Neil Abercrombie, Fukino had told MSNBC’s Michael Isikoff that Obama’s “record of live birth absolutely exists.” She also contended that Obama’s original birth certificate was “half typed and half handwritten,” but the image released on April 27 did not appear to match that description.
Miki Booth has also shown a copy of her son’s long-form birth certificate from 1981 which contained spaces for the signatures of both parents rather than one, as shown on the image released by the White House on Wednesday.
The Booth document shows spaces for the signatures of both parents, while Obama’s shows a line just for the mother. There were fewer divorces in 1961, so why was there no line for the father’s signature on the form but there was in 1981?
The mainstream media have overwhelmingly gone to bat for the authenticity of the “document” released on Wednesday, claiming that those demanding to see it are racist or childish. However, on April 28, 2011, Eric Bolling of the Fox Business Network had Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs on as his guest to discuss the authenticity of the image presented by the White House. The style of the article is not a straight news story, as the author clearly shows a bias against Geller.
Update: On both Obama’s purported short-form Certification of Live Birth and the image released on April 27, 2011, the father’s race is described as “African.” However, the 1961 version of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare states on page 231:
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.” The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.
The White House website stated that Obama had requested a copy of his birth certificate in 2008. However, Factcheck.org had claimed that the document had been released from the Health Department in June 2007. Why is there a discrepancy, and where is the letter or form Obama purportedly used to make the request, as is required? The Post & Email had requested a copy of the form from Factcheck.org last year but was ignored.
Not one media outlet or politician will address the fact that Obama’s purported biological father was a British citizen, which should have eliminated Obama from being eligible under Article II.