The Worthless Certification of Live Birth
July 10, 2011 5 Comments
Posted by Patriotallday on May 28, 2011
December 2010, newly elected Hawaii Governor Abercrombie announced he was going to locate and release Obama’s birth certificate to silence the birthers once and for all. By Feb of 2011 Abercrombie was saying there was only a “handwritten notation in the file” and declined to answer further questions. The Hawaii Health Department director Dr. Fukino said she had “seen and touched” Obama’s birth “record” and it was HALF hand-written and HALF typed.
April 27 2011 Obama releases ANOTHER birth certificate pdf image, which contains no hand writing other than signatures, layered on a green pattern background, which is soon proven to be just another fake.
In Obama’s book “Dreams of My Father” the last paragraph on page 26 says “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms”!
Obama already had his birth certificate (which he’s never shown), so what were these other two documents images?
The Nordyke twins’ BCs appear to be True certified photo-stat copies of their original hospital birth certificates, rather than the digital “Abstract”concoction that was created for Obama, which leads to the conclusion that it had to be created because an original does not exist. And no one in the press or government has even wondered why he didn’t just post a scan of the birth certificate that he inherited from his mother. He has never said that it was somehow destroyed, in fact he has never mentioned it since his BC has become an issue. It must be that it contains information that he does not want the American people to see. One must suspect that he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii, though there is probably an affidavit in the state records, filled-out by his mother or grandmother, asserting that he was born in Hawaii (possible claiming the birth took place at her home ( her parents house).
As for his legal name, he may have reverted to his given name after his mother divorced Soetoro, but that’s not very likely if he only had identification in the adoption name. It’s still a mystery whether or not BHO is his legal name.
The statement by director Fukino that Obama’s “birth certificate” is “on record” means that some form of birth information exists in their computer records. It does NOT imply that there is an original HAWAIIAN Certificate of Live Birth. So they have NOT confirmed that he was born in Hawaii because to do so would be a state CRIME since that “fact” would be information contained in a document that they are prohibited from discussing.
Plus, the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen clearly disqualifies him from the unique office of President since it is reserved only for those born as natural American citizens, meaning the parents were citizens. Natural citizens of the U.S., in the eyes of the founders, are not the off-spring of visiting foreigners, un-naturalized foreigners, American Indians, or slaves. The parents, in particular the father, must be an American or else the loyalty of the off-spring could not be assured to be to the United States alone, possibly resulting in the dual loyalty of dual-citizenship, which the founders intended to prohibit.
author: unknown blogger (Joseph?)
Barack Obama has released his birth certificate? An easy way to prove that would be to simply show it. Instead, what Media Matters does is to hype the digital short-form document we’ve all seen – the “Certification of Live Birth,” which would likely not have been sufficient proof to get the young Obama signed up in Little League, if he had been living in Hawaii rather than Indonesia at the time of his eligibility for competitive sports. This is a document that Hawaii has routinely handed out to register births occurring elsewhere, even out of the country, on the basis of an affidavit filed by a parent or grandparent. If this is “the original birth certificate,” as claimed by FactCheck.org, Obama has more eligibility problems than most people realize. It is hardly the contemporaneous eyewitness document one would expect to prove constitutional eligibility for the highest office in America. Media Matters then quotes former Hawaii health department Director Chiyome Fukino as asserting she has seen the original “vital records” and proclaiming Obama to be a “natural-born American citizen,” despite her lack of bona fides as a constitutional authority.
Newspaper birth announcements prove Obama was born in Hawaii: Actually they suggest only that indeed Obama’s birth was “registered” in Hawaii, probably producing the “vital records” Fukino referenced. Hawaii made it very easy for parents or grandparents to register births that took place out of state or out of the country by simply filling out an affidavit.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was not able to find Obama’s birth certificate: Immediately following his election, Abercrombie pledged to several major news agencies in the U.S. that one of his highest priorities was producing the birth certificate. However, he conceded weeks later he was unable to find it – and, if he could, was helpless under the law to produce it. Instead he assured the press that there is a “recording of the birth”: “It was actually written (not typed) I am told, this is what our investigation is showing. It actually exists in the archives, written down …” Again, this claim by the governor still does not deal with the particulars of what that document or registration might say – or, if it is any different than the “certification of live birth” we’ve all seen (on the web)
These statements implicate the entire Hawaiian political hierarchy that’s connected to the Health Department, the silent Congress, and the silent States – everybody! They all had openly shredded the Constitution straight into the face of the people.
The birth certificate issue is a distraction to divert attention from the real issue. It does not matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Illinois, or the basement of the White House, he is NOT a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
In 1862, Congressman John Bingham from Ohio, who is recognized as the father of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, made the following statement during debate on the floor of the House:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
Four years later, Bingham stated:
“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.”
During the 2008 campaign, Obama’s website stated:
“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.”
Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, although there are no facts on the table to prove that, then he passed the first test of being born within the jurisdiction of the United States. But birth “within” the jurisdiction” is quite different from birth subject to the jurisdiction as the 14th Amendment requires, since one born of a father who is subject to a foreign power is, through him, subject also since subjection flows downhill from father to son. Via his blood connection, the child is under the subjection of the father, who owes allegiance to his own nation, as does his progeny. Allegiance is not affected merely by location, and neither is subjection.
So even if he were born in the U.S., by his own admission he failed the second test. He was born to only one parent not owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Thus, he is not a natural born citizen and is unconstitutionally occupying the office of the President of these United States. An individual whose citizenship was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948 cannot be a natural born citizen.
Errors, Omissions, Distortions, and Lies about The Birth Certificate ~ Are we all mental midgets now?
A rebuttal to the CNN segment about Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate on April 26, 2011 -the day before the long-form Certificate of Live Birth pdf image was posted on the internet.
Their report seemed like a sincere attempt at being factual, unfortunately, it was riddled with errors.
1. In reference to the ~original birth certificate~ this false statement was made; “Ironically, unlike the certificate of live birth, it is no longer accepted for official usage.” First, “no longer accepted” is patently and stupidly false. To say “it is no long routinely required” is something completely different than “not accepted”. And even though it is the new simplified means of confirming the state’s certification of citizenship, it does NOT establish that the person named in the application was actually born in Hawaii, only that their legal guardian, parent, or grand-parent, by filling out an affidavit, applied for and received the state document thanks to the proven presented evidence (or sworn testimony of third parties) that that applicant provided which affirms that said child was born in Hawaii, or if not, was born to an American parent or parents.
It does NOT establish those affirmations as proven FACT without an official hospital or doctor birth certificate. Only the original birth certificate can confirm the facts about the named person’s birth, the short-form document cannot do that.
Second, it reveals how shallow CNN’s investigation has been when they call the short-form document a “certificate of live birth” which it is not and never has been, rather it is called a “CERTIFICATION of Live Birth”. The problem is that it is not called a “Certification of HAWAIIAN Live Birth”. Only the actual certificate of live birth (the original birth certificate) can establish where a person was born, in what hospital, in what city, by what doctor, on what date.
First, note that this is the former HDH director, which means she does not have to worry about the truthfulness of anything she says from the standpoint of concern about what the Hawaiian Attorney General might think. She is free to speak her mind, speak her truth, speak her opinions, or speak her lies.
But while she was director, she never once went on the record in any legal form or forum to state that she has seen the original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate in the state vault. She is described as “a Republican” which in this two-faced world means nothing, since several prominent progressive Republicans in recent years have switched sides and allegiance.
Am I implying that she is lying? Well, would you lie for the one you love? Would the O.J.Simpson jury vote in favor of the one they admired? We do not know what her feelings are toward Obama. Who can verify that she is a completely neutral and objective party? No one. People lie when they are not under oath, and they lie when they are under oath.
To ground the foundation of the validation of the legitimacy of the current President upon her opinion (she has “no doubt” Obama was born in the state) without evidence, is contrary to how governments are meant to be run, and how human trust and knowledge are established. We don’t want opinions, we want facts, and the fact is that there aren’t any -because the original birth certificate either doesn’t exist or it is from another country.
Barack Obama knows what the truth is because in the past he would have applied for a copy of his original, for the usual reasons, or he inherited one from his mother’s records, or she informed him that she was never able to obtain one for him. If he applied for one many years ago but was told it doesn’t exist, then he would definitely not want that to be made public.
He is believed by many to have presented a certified copy of his original birth certificate because he supports the lie that the Certification form is the “official birth certificate”. But even the one that is “available” at Factcheck and Politico is an uncertified piece of paper that no document expert has been allowed to examine, and the online image of the document is a Photoshop fake (as many experts state) and invalid (as stated on the document itself) since it lacks a certificate number -which was black-out.
3. “Obama’s certificate is “absolutely authentic,” she said. “He was absolutely born here in the state of Hawaii.” This is very revealing. The use of the word “absolutely” indicates a strong bias. To say that the certificate is “absolutely authentic,” without even having it authenticated by any expert as not being a counterfeit, is clear evidence of deliberate “spin” to deceive, not by a provable lie, but by a total lack of evidence.
To say “He was absolutely born here in the state of Hawaii.” is to further this disinformation since it is stated without any corroborating proof, which can’t be given without Obama’s consent, -which will never come. All bases covered. If she actually viewed an original HAWAIIAN birth certificate, then she could honestly say that, but she has never stated that the birth record in the archives is an actual original HAWAIIAN Certificate of Live Birth. It could be a foreign one, or a mere affidavit from the mother or grandparents. So what she has stated needs to be taken, not with a grain of salt, but with a cup of salt. On this issue we all need to be like the very American Missourians -the SHOW ME! state.
4. “Obama’s 2008 campaign produced a certification of live birth, a document legally accepted as confirmation of a birth and routinely used for official purposes.” Note that it DOES NOT say it is confirmation of a live HAWAIIAN birth, or that qualification to be in command of thousands of nuclear weapons constitutes a “routine use”.
5. “The U.S. Constitution says only “natural born” citizens can become president – a vague clause that some members of the birther movement contend disqualifies Obama because, they insist, he was born outside the United States.”
This statement reveals the full magnitude of their ignorance about this subject. First error, “a vague clause”. Was it vague to the men that wrote it? Was it vague when they made it the first and foremost requirement?
“some members of the birther movement contend disqualifies Obama” -this really reveals the full degree of her bias since she was implying that only “birthers” contend the clause disqualifies Obama. It disqualifies him because he was not a citizen by birth to citizens of the United States, regardless of where he was born. Natural born American citizens MUST have an American father or they do not fit the definition of the phrase.
6. “CNN asked a current resident of the state – Stig Waidelich – if he could get a copy of the document. Waidelich, like Obama in 2008, was given a certification of live birth in response to his request. A copy of “the document”. CNN has not stated that they attempted to get a copy of the original birth certificate and were denied, because for the Dept of Health to deny such a request is a violation of Hawaiian law.
Based on how the numbers fall, it appears that:
1. Obama was given the BC# that originally belonged to Stig Waidelich. (Waidelich was born about 2.5 hours after Gretchen Nordyke, and since the Honolulu rate was almost 1 child/hour, that could easily have made Waidelich the 3rd birth after Gretchen, which means that Waidelich originally had the 10641 BC# that Obama now has).
2. Stig Waidelich was given the BC# that originally belonged to Ray Piiohla, Jr (an infant born on Aug 20 who died at 2 days of age)
3. Virginia Sunahara was given the BC# that originally belonged to Johanna Ah Nee. (The timeline regarding the funny business with her record will be understood as we analyze the clues.)
4. Johanna Ah Nee was given the BC# that originally belonged to an infant who was born on Oahu but outside Honolulu around July 20th.
Obviously, because this analysis is based on statistics that presume a steady rate of births, the numbers may stray a little from the estimated ranges, but not a lot. Waidelich’s BC# in particular is problematic (with a 12,400% variance from the average birth rate within a 2.5-hour period). Yet that was the one that the HDOH and CNN arranged to showcase right before Obama’s forged long-form was released. It’s almost as if they wanted to put a LOT of distance between Obama’s BC# and the person who originally had that BC#.
At this point, no August 1961 vital record disclosed by the current HDOH is credible. They are falsifying and fabricating documents at will. The only credible sources for what really existed in 1961 are the original microfilm rolls, original paper records forensically tested, and the original WORM (write-once-read-many) disks onto which the images were stored from scans when the system was computerized/digitized. These are the documents that Congress should DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE independent investigation of.
7. Regarding the newspaper announcements; “Indeed, as CNN confirmed, all birth announcements at the time came directly from hospital birth records.” FALSE! The came directly from the Dept of Health, not from hospital records. There is no need for a hospital record to exist before one can file for and obtain a state certification document. All that’s needed is an affidavit which states that my child/grandchild was born at home, or abroad to a Hawaiian resident mother, along with sworn statements of corroborating witness.
8. “Obama could file a Freedom of Information Act request to view his original birth certificate and make copies. But at this point, the White House maintains, nothing will satisfy the doubters.” Now they’re just making things up. All citizens of perhaps all states have the legal right to obtain certified copies of their own birth record. To pull out the statement that a Freedom of Information Act filing is needed to obtain ones own record reveals an amazing degree of ignorance about what is ours, what is secret, and what the Act is used to obtain. “…the White House maintains, nothing will satisfy the doubters.” Yes, nothing but the proof, which he is unwilling to provide or is unable to provide. That is precisely why the doubts exist and grow stronger the longer he is unwilling or unable to provide “PROOF of the TRUTH”.
9. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, was friendly with Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, and remembers celebrating the birth. “Of course, we had no idea at the time that the future president of the United States was that little boy, that little baby,” Abercrombie recalled. But “we are very, very happy … that took place.” No statement could be more subjective than that, revealing the strong emotional bias of a life-long left-wing, counter-culture Liberal.
10. “Regardless of the evidence, there may be no convincing SOME of those who question the president’s origins.”
This is an asinine statement as worded. (What would be a legitimate statement would be “there may be no convincing ALL of those who question the president’s origins.”) This lame-brain statement implies that most of the doubters are fixated fanatics, which implies that the doubts themselves are illogical and unfounded. And all who doubt are irrelevant because they adhere to baseless beliefs, so don’t answer the questions and don’t provide the proof that will answer them.
11. “”I find it a bit amusing (-feigned amusement) in the sense that (the issue) keeps resurfacing over and over again,” Fukino said. “No matter what you do or say, it makes no difference,” she said”
What issue? The issue that he may not have been born in Hawaii or the issue that he is not a natural born citizen? They continue to resurface because they have never been resolved, not by the Hawaiian government -which has no legal authority to examine them, not by Congress, and not by any committee or any court of law.
“No matter what you do or say, it makes no difference,” A big fat exaggeration and falsehood. “no matter what…” What has she done? Nothing but engage in deflection and obfuscation. It’s true, what she or anyone else says, makes no difference because it is irrelevant since it is not under oath, but what Obama does, or in this case, DOESN’T do, makes all the difference in the world. He won’t confirm the existence of an original Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth as long as he chooses to thumb his nose at the American people and the validity of the process by which they elect their President by refusing to reveal what he knows, and refusing to show the document that either does or does not exist. Obama himself is the cause of the doubts, not the clear thinking doubters.
But the place of birth is irrelevant to the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen and was never eligible to be the President of the United States. His entire presidency is illegitimate due to the requirements clearly stated in the Article II of the Constitution. He meets the maturity and residency requirements, but not the loyalty requirement since without an American father, no one’s allegiance can be assured if their father was a subject of a foreign power when they were born.
These issues reveal the entire press corps of the United States and the Democratic party to be biased mental midgets who haven’t yet learned how to ask the right questions because they approach the subject with a slant toward what they want the answers to be, and presume to be.
by Adrien Nash July 2011, revised July 2014 obama–nation.com