Saturday, August 08, 2009

Where is Obama's Birth Certificate? (Part 2)


Obama's Birth or America's Rebirth?
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
November 29, 2009
Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?
Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm.
Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.
Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it.
No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.
The federal government--and by current default, the states--operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head--the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.
Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.
Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.
Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?
In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do?
Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.
Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!
You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?
Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism?
Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!
The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action--a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.
Go to for articles, speeches and interviews of Timothy Baldwin.
A Nation Deceived
By Lynn Stuter
August 25, 2009
Recently, World Net Daily published an article about Also Known As (AKA) Obama's webpage. On that page, Obama's age is listed as 52.
Why is this relevant?
Well, first of all, when was Obama really born? Was he born in 1961 as the pictures of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) published by pro-AKA websites claim? Or was he born earlier or even later?
Of course, the answer to these questions is that we don't know. On July 27, 2009, Chiyome Fukino, Director, Department of Health, Hawaii, stated, in a press release,
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file for 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 in October 2008 over eight months ago."
Unfortunately, Fukino misspoke. Historically, a natural born citizen is one born of two American parents within the United States (Vattel's Law of Nations, Section 212). As AKA has himself acknowledged, his mother was American, his father a British subject. Where he was actually born is not known. What his actual citizenship was and is, although he claims he was a dual citizen, is also not known. The only people with dual citizenship, however, eligible to the office of president, under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States Constitution, were the Founding Fathers of which AKA is not one.
This, of course, is the basis of Leo Donofrio's lawsuit; the one the lower courts refused to hear, claiming Donofrio had no standing (not based on merit), and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refused to hear without comment. As the laws signed by AKA affect every American, as I see it every American has standing, equally and individually, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If AKA is not eligible, and I do not believe he is, then anything he signs, any executive order or presidential determination he draws up, are null and void; any order of troop movement he makes, is illegitimate and without authority, stripping soldiers of their rights under the Geneva Conventions. Recently, a National Guard reserve officer was ordered to report for duty, ultimate destination being the Middle-East. When the officer challenged that order based on AKA's right to give that order (eligibility), the order was rescinded and the judge dutifully dismissed the case, claiming Cook had no standing as the order was rescinded (pretty obvious why the order was rescinded: AKA is not eligible to the office he holds). AKA then brought pressure to bear to have the reserve officer fired from his job at a company that subcontracts to the government.
It is duly noted that Fukino carefully avoided—as she did in her October 31, 2008 press release—stating where, in Hawaii, Obama was supposedly born. While radio, television, and print media, also various talk show hosts, both liberal and conservative, have touted the line that AKA was born in Hawaii, under Act 96, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act, in force from 1911 until 1972, foreign-born children could be birth-registered in Hawaii. In other words, AKA could have been born outside Hawaii and his birth still registered as though he was born in Hawaii.
For all of the assertions made, that AKA was born in Hawaii, until the actual type-written, long-form birth certificate, issued at the time of AKA's birth, is produced and examined, where he was actually born and when is s matter of pure speculation for the simple reason that no one truly knows. While claiming AKA was born in Hawaii, Fukino also claims he is "natural born" which he isn't under any circumstance and by his own admission that he was a dual citizen at birth. By her own claims, Fukino has left her credibility in tatters!
Now comes AKA's page declaring that he is 52 years old. For those who are mathematically challenged, that means his birth would have occurred sometime in 1957, not 1961. It seems that his actual age is a matter of some speculation among his own supporters.
Why is his actual birth year relevant?
If Obama was born in Hawaii, and we don't know that he was until we see the actual document issued at the time of his birth; if he was born in 1957; he was born when Hawaii was still a territory of the United States; which, like his dual citizenship, would make him ineligible to the office he holds.
Is it possible that AKA was born in Hawaii in 1957 when it is known that the Dunham's didn't move to Hawaii from Washington State until after Stanley Ann Dunham graduated high-school in June 1960 and before she supposedly became pregnant in November/December 1960?
Do we know that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was his mother? That Barack Hussein Obama was his father? What proof has been presented, beyond the claims of AKA and his worshippers, that he is even the child of these two people?
Again, until we see the actual document, issued at the time of his actual birth, who his actual parents are, where he was actually born, and when he was actually born are all unknown. As AKA and his worshippers have already more than adequately demonstrated, what they claim is not to be believed.
On page 26 of AKA's book, Dreams from My Father, (Three Rivers Press; New York, NY; 1995, 2004), he writes,
"I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school."
Re-read that sentence very carefully … "my birth certificate … when I was in high school."
If this is not but more of the fabrications of AKA, he is not speaking of the laser-printed Certification of Live Birth that he and worshippers have been passing around as his birth certificate; that his White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, falsely claims is his "birth certificate." Rather, AKA is speaking of that document issued at the time of his birth; whenever that was.
Now, pray tell, if AKA has his original birth certificate, issued at the time of his birth, why would he go to the Department of Health, Hawaii, and request a Certification of Live Birth of the laser-printed variety issued after 2001?
By the way, numerous requests have been made of the Department of Health, Hawaii, for a copy of any written requests made by AKA, by all the various names he has used, for that COLB, pictures of which have turned up on the internet. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has failed to produce such a signed request from AKA; leaving in question, of course, whether Obama actually did request a copy of the COLB.
Likewise, the Department of Health, Hawaii, has refused to authenticate the COLB, pictures of which have turned up on the internet. Janice Okubo of that agency has stated that AKA's COLB looks just like her birth certificate that she obtained two years ago; she obviously mistaking the birth certificate for the COLB, an entirely different document, leaving her credibility in tatters also!
This lends credence to the contention of many, including forensic specialists, that the COLB, pictures of which appear on pro-AKA websites, is a forgery. Likewise, the digital files, representing the pictures, when opened, show that the original file has been altered/forged. If everything was on the up and up, why would it be necessary to alter/forge those digital files?
And we come right back to the question of why would AKA request a laser-printed COLB when he already had his actual birth certificate issued at the time of his birth. At over 70 years of age, through all the moves and years of moving from station to station in the military, when John McCain was challenged on eligibility, he readily produced his original birth document for all to see. Are we to believe at the tender age of 52 (or it that 48?), AKA just can't remember where he put an important document like his birth certificate?
Which takes us to another interesting discovery made by World Net Daily recently. It seems that while Stanley Dunham and his wife Madelyn did rent the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu, the address shown in the birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser, Barack Obama (the father and husband) did not reside there. To be clear, the rental of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway occurred in the 1961 time frame.
This raises the interesting question of who actually registered AKA's birth, Stanley Ann Obama or her parents that her parents address was used in the birth announcement. We know that shortly after AKA's supposed birth date, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was living in Seattle, Washington, enrolled for classes at the University of Washington. She did not return to Hawaii until after her supposed husband left that state. That AKA found his birth certificate and other documents during his high school years more than strongly suggests that Stanley and Madelyn Dunham were in possession of it and other documents regards AKA, not his mother, making the question of who registered the birth even more significant. This discovery gives credence to the question of where AKA was born, especially when no hospital is willing to acknowledge the birth and no doctor seems to remember delivering him.
All of this, of course, could be cleared up by AKA producing the birth document that he apparently has that shows all the information relevant to his actual birth, place of birth, parents, etc. As more and more time goes by without his producing that document, the question of what our "transparent" occupier of the White House, usurper to the Oval Office, has to hide becomes ever more urgent. That he has spent over a million dollars to keep it hidden makes this matter even more especially urgent.
It is duly noted that Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) is now considering #"filing a lawsuit regards AKA's eligibility to hold the office of president under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (who had previously been British subjects), shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Looking further on the AKA webpage, we see that the page is paid for by Obama for America; a group based in Chicago, Illinois.
Interesting group, Obama for America. Some very interesting names to be found there: Oprah (New Age) Winfrey, George Soros, George Lucas, Bill Gates, a bevy of Hollyweird actors (whose movies I will never again spend a dime to see or buy), a gaggle of politicians including Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State (conflict of interest, anyone?), and many names associated with large corporations and banks. Not to be outdone, they obviously want to make sure that AKA will represent their corporate interests; in other words, he has been bought and paid for! Rather makes his claim, and that of his worshippers, that he is a man of the people, quite laughable! Even more laughable is that anyone with a brain would believe him a man of the people when he wants to enslave them and kill them on convenience (AKA deathcare, HR 3200), all in the name of his sick tyrannical ideology!
Since my last writing, AKA has told so many lies, including about "health insurance reform," that listing them would take pages. Others, however, are doing a masterful job of exposing the fact that AKA is a pathological liar, not an abnormal trait for a narcissist. Never before, in all my years of activism, have I seen so much negative writing and cartooning about a president so early in his administration. But then, considering that AKA is not really eligible to the office he has usurped, that he holds that office because a traitorous Congress and U.S. Supreme Court refuse to uphold their oaths of office and remove him (no wonders the death threats are pouring in), maybe the amount of negativity can't be counted as he isn't a legitimate president.
Of course, it seems that the threats are not a one-way street; that while aimed at the usurper in the White House (by agent provocateurs like Hal Turner?), they are also emanating there from according to a report put out by the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press.
Recently, a new website appeared: I'm sorry I voted for Obama! The number of people willing to admit they voted for AKA seems to be decreasing by the day!
Thanks to Also Known As (AKA), America is waking up to the fact that the Marxist ideology of the left is not something they want to live under, is not good for America, is not about freedom and liberty!
“Birther” Label Overshadows a Real IssueNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States
By Frank Salvato Saturday, August 8, 2009
I have always been one to say that I cannot know the answer to the “birthers’” question of whether Mr. Obama is eligible to hold the Presidency. I can’t answer the question because I am being kept from examining the only documents that do exist to prove the point.
To date, I have heard all the arguments and seen all the propaganda – from both sides of the issue – and for all the uproar there is only one way to know who is right and who is mistaken. But the “birther” issue is a literal smoke-screen issue and one that is covering up a much more serious one; one that threatens to produce a constitutional crisis.
In examining this subject in the days after it first presented, our non-profit organization,, tasked with educating and informing the citizenry on matters that include constitutional literacy, began to ask questions in an effort to honestly understand the facts of the matter. As our examination progressed it became abundantly clear that there exists no mechanism for the enforcement of Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which states:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
During our examination of the issue we contacted each of the State Boards of Election and/or Secretary of State’s offices to ask whether they or another organization within their jurisdiction required candidates for the Executive Branch offices to present first-source, vaulted proof of their prerequisite satisfaction of Article II, Section 1. They shared with us that their candidacy filing requirements for any elected office includes:
▪ A Statement of Candidacy – This form (this link is an FEC form but it encompasses the requirements of every state) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.
▪ A Loyalty Oath (Ironically, this is optional)
▪ Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests (This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices).
▪ Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.
When pressed about verifying documents that prove prerequisite satisfaction of Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution, they responded, in total, that it wasn’t their job. Here are some of the responses:
"Under Florida law, the way in which a major party’s candidate is placed on the ballot is that the state executive committee of each political party submits its slate of presidential electors for its candidate before September 1st of each presidential election year; then, by law, the names of candidates are printed on the ballot. Those candidates are not required to provide any documents to the State that they meet the qualifications for office."
North Carolina
"The North Carolina State Board of Elections has accepted the nominations for President from the Democratic, Libertarian and Republican Parties as presented by those parties. The North Carolina State Board of Elections does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the eligibility of these Presidential candidates."
"While the Secretary of State certifies candidates for the ballot, each political party is legally responsible for choosing the candidate they wish to place on the ballot."
"Please be advised that the state central committee of each political party qualified to appear on the ballot certifies the names of its nominees for U.S. President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State under the signatures of the chairperson and secretary of the committee. (See MCL 168.686) Copies of the nominees' birth certificates or birth records are not required."
When the RNC and DNC were contacted they both implied that they had no mechanism in place to require such documentation and that even if they did they had no provision authorizing them to share that information with the public.
It should be noted that the Federal Election Commission does not oversee prerequisite requirements for candidates and is solely interested in the financial aspect of the election process.
So, a candidate for the Executive Branch of the US government does not have to present proof of his eligibility to any person, any organization or any government entity prior to being placed on the ballot in every state in the Union. The only piece of paper required – and this is required by only some states – is an affidavit signed by the candidate stating that he or she satisfies the requirements for the office for which he or she seeks.
In the end, this issue is not about the “birthers” or their quest to have President Obama’s long-form birth certificate – now sealed by the State of Hawaii – made available for examination. In reality, it is less about President Obama’s eligibility than it is about protecting the US Constitution and the sanctity of Fundamental Law. In fact, if it were to be proven that President Obama was ineligible to hold office it would throw our country into a constitutional crisis the likes of which has never been seen. There is no provision for removing someone from the office of President or Vice President of the United States who has been deemed – after the fact – ineligible to have run for the office. The only tool available – impeachment – would be a practical impossibility given the viciously partisan atmosphere in Washington DC, and even then there are technical legal issues:
▪ If someone is not technically the President of the United States how does the Legislative Branch remove him or her from the position?
▪ Because the Commander in Chief would not technically exist and the Vice President wouldn’t be technically seated as the President, would the military be prohibited from executing any order to remove the usurper? And who would give that order?
▪ If the Supreme Court ruled that Article 2, Section 1 was not satisfied, where in the Constitution does it authorize them – or any other body – to nullify a federal election?
▪ What would be the constitutional procedure for validating that the usurper was indeed ineligible to hold office and for removing him or her from control of the US military, the Executive Branch departments and the United States’ nuclear arsenal?
The list of technical legal issues goes on and on...
But, in the rush to condemn the “birthers” as a fringe group and a group detrimental to the conservative cause, conservative talk radio and television show hosts – including Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Michael Medved, to name just a few – have ignored this very real and very serious issue and are helping to sweep it into the dust bin. This is not only irresponsible, it is the antithesis of what they say they provide the public: media entities acting as serious governmental and constitutional watchdogs. Can this possibly be what they intended or have they not thought the issue through completely before forming their opinions?
Our organization has facilitated the formation of an independent volunteer group, The New Sons of Liberty Society, to achieve – on both a state and federal level – legislation to require candidates for elected office of the Executive Branch to present first-source, vaulted proof of their eligibility to hold said office as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Should we successfully achieve this goal, hopefully, the next step would include the ratification of a constitutional amendment, establishing the requirement as Fundamental Law.
But the organization needs your grassroots activism to achieve this goal. We need you to contact those in elected office and in the media, especially in the conservative media, and explain this constitutional vulnerability and ask that they pledge to protect the fundamental law of our country, The Charters of Freedom, and that they actively and pro-actively support this initiative.
Only when we provide a solution to this constitutional vulnerability will this issue pass into history. Only when we enact this solution can we effectively safeguard the 2012 Presidential Election. To believe that this issue can be talked or smeared into obscurity is pure folly given the political climate in our country today.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Mr. O’Reilly (I have even appeared on his program), Mr. Beck and Mr. Medved, but truth be told, we can look out for ourselves, thank you very much. What we need is for the conservative media to honestly look out for the Constitution...and right now, they are not.
Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace
Announcements published in 1961 not solid evidence of U.S. location
By Drew Zahn
July 22, 2009
The announcements of Barack Obama's birth printed by two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 do not provide solid proof of a birth in the Aloha State because of uncertainties over the policies and procedures that apparently were being used at the time.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.
"We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.
The operator said, "This is how we've always done it."
The newspaper's "proof" of birth, therefore, could be based on a state-issued "Certification of Live Birth" which, as WND has reported is insufficient alone, even for some State Department officials, to document the birthplace.
Many people remain unaware a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certification of Live Birth, the very "evidence" the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii.
Hawaiian law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.
The only requirement for proof cited in the law doesn't address the birth of the child either, just "that the legal parents of such individual while living without Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
Complicating the situation somewhat is the affirmation from a woman in the Star-Bulletin newsroom – who did not identify herself – that the birth listings today contain just a child's name, no home address. The 1961 newspaper announcements also did not carry the name of the child.
The unanswered question, since the Obama announcement carried an address and no name, was whether the state provided addresses at one time and stopped, and didn't provide the name, or whether the information was obtained in some other fashion. Or was there another procedure to transmit information different from what now is released through the Certification of Live Birth that state officials say is the only document they now provide?
Likewise, the Honolulu Advertiser, which ran a Barack Obama birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Sunday Advertiser, relies on the state-issued certification, rather than reporting from hospitals.
The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
"If we published it, it came from the state," she said.
She said today's rules are different. Anyone can submit information for announcements but the newspaper requires a birth document to verify. It also no longer uses addresses.
Hawaii State Registrar Dr. Alvin Onaka has told WND that most birth records stem from a hospital report. Documentation for children not born in hospitals depends on other records, such as the pregnant mother's prenatal exams, the statement of an attending midwife and a verification of the birth of a live child.
Onaka did not cite any independent investigative procedures for a report that would be submitted by a midwife.
According to Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department, a document such as the Obama's COLB could be acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship for the purposes of getting a passport, but Fuller also conceded there are cases known where a COLB did not reveal the location of the child's birth accurately.
"There are some documents that say things that aren't true," Fuller said. "That's not what's supposed to happen."
In a previous WND report, too, an investigator who actually visited the address cited in 1961 expressed doubt about its authenticity.
The affidavit from Jorge Baro was made available online.
Baro was hired by WND to investigate issues related to Obama's birth in Hawaii and he documents an interview his staff conducted with Beatrice Arakaki, who has lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu since before Obama was born.
The affadivit was at the center of a federal lawsuit filed prior to the November election in Hattiesburg, Miss., before U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett. The suit was one among many calling for proof of Obama being a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution.
Baro is the in-house senior investigator for Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach, Fla.
In Hawaii, WND was able to locate at the Honolulu public library microfilm of a notice placed in the Sunday Advertiser Aug. 13, 1961. The announcement in the "Births, Marriages, Death" section read: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4."
Arakaki told Baro's investigators she had no recollection of Obama being born or of the family living next door having a black child born to a white mother.
Baro sent a team of investigators to Honolulu to explore records regarding current residents of Kalanianaole Highway and to track down residents back to 1961.
Baro's investigators were unable to locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the Sunday Advertiser announcement.
Baro also sent investigators to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad.
According to Baro's affidavit, Beatrice Arakaki affirmed she was a neighbor of the address listed. She has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.
Moreover, Arakaki said she believed that when Obama lived with the Dunhams, his grandparents, the family address was in Waikiki, not on Kalanianaole Highway.
Baro was able to determine the previous owners of the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the alleged address of Obama's parents when he was born – were Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased.
It still remains unclear at which Hawaiian hospital – if any – Obama was born in, since #two different facilities, the Queen's Medical Center along with the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, have both been cited as the exact facility.
The Kapi'olani Medical Center claims it has a letter on White House stationery from the president himself in which he ostensibly calls Kapi'olani "the place of my birth." But both the hospital has not verified the content of the letter, and the White House has steadfastly refused to confirm the authenticity of the letter and its content despite repeated requests by WND.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to be president that focus on Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The lawsuits include contentions Obama was born in Kenya, wasn't a "natural born" citizen because of his father's Kenyan citizenship, was a dual citizen and that his mother wasn't old enough to transmit citizenship at birth.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight releasing a state birth certificate that could put to rest the questions.
A key to the defenses presented by Obama supporters always has been the "Certification of Live Birth:"
Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"
The document contrasts with an actual Hawaii long-form birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.
Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)
Until recently when state officials changed their program, the Hawaiian "homelands" program didn't even accept a "Certification of Live Birth" for its qualifications.
To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him. He's also declined to confirm as authentic a letter used by Kapi'olani hospital in Honolulu as a fundraising tool in which he states it is the hospital of his birth.
Has the Media been Muzzled Re: Threats, Birthers & Obama
By Dr. Laurie Roth
August 7, 2009
Breaking news on the Laurie Roth Show at 3:00pm PAC. Friday August 7th. Doug Hagmann, director of Northeast Intelligence Network has proof.
Is there a real story to track regarding where Obama was born and his records?
I have been called many names, Islamaphobe, Homophobe, racist and now birther. I and others leading the charge to find the truth about who Obama is and where he was really born are called Right wing extremists and now we have a special category of scandal and strangeness…..we are BIRTHERS!
I am planning to break ground on a museum highlighting all my assigned syndromes, mental illness , domestic terrorist classifications and stigmas. It will be a very large and grand building highlighting the many labels with beautiful lighting.
For some time we have seen the media big dogs completely avoiding the issue of where Obama was born and if he complied with our constitutional requirements about being born in the U.S. Bill O’Reilly has poo poohed it for some time on his national show, while others pretend it isn’t there or worse. Recently, even Glenn Beck on his show, while visiting with Michelle Malkin mentioned talking mostly about czars, “I have to tell you, the - I mean, first of all, the birther thing, what are you going to do. Even if it was true, what, are you going to take him out of office? You can’t do that.”
Is the questioning of where Obama was born and concealment of all his records out of line?
Just yesterday again I talked with attorney Phillip Berg again who was the first to sue Obama regarding his birth status. As many of you know by now, his case went all the way to the supreme court but was thrown out for lack of standing. Go figure. Berg is a leading democrat, attorney and respected citizen on the east coast but he has no standing to ask real questions?
According to Berg’s web site we know the following facts.
02-18-08: Star Bulletin News Article Obama backers stress importance of caucuses, page 2, “He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children”
11=04: The Rainbow Edition, Volume 2, Issue 3, Education Laboratory School, page 2, Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1061 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii”
10-30-08: Interview with Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.’s Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Obama during a taped interview at her home in Kenya was adamant “Barack, Jr. was born in Mombasa, Kenya and I was present during his birth.”
10-30-08: Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya, “Kenyan Officials with the Provincial Civil Registrar stated there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961, and confirmed the birthing records of Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.”
10-27-08” Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, “US Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii”
01-01-68: Indonesian School Record, “Name of School: Fransiskus Assisi School, Name: Barry Soetoro, Citizenship: Indonesian, Name of Parent: Lolo Soetoro, M.A. The school records indicate that Barack Obama Jr. aka Barry Soetoro attended first grade in Indonesia and that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii on 08-04-1961 and his father is Lolo Soetoro.
In addition to the above affidavits and questions raised, the Kenyan Ambassador himself said on The Mike in The Morning Show on WRIF in Detroit, Michigan that Obama was born in Kenya.
Let’s see… have Obama’s Grandma, the Ambassador, various clergy all saying he was born in Kenya, but we are all crazed, nutty and racist birthers for wanting the truth confirmed and revealed. Never mind that if he was born there that it is fraud and puts us in a constitutional crisis.
Never mind that Obama’s orders, bills signed and deals made would be null and void. What about the military, the wars, the stimulus bill and health bill from hell…..then there is the cap and trade bill ready to bury our country under trillions of dollars in debt and Government control. Did I say control at the top by what may well be a usurper? Maybe I’m wrong……well prove it.
Perhaps some of you feel like Glenn Beck. If it is proven what can we do anyway? We wouldn’t possibly throw him out of office. Shame on Glenn Beck for cashing in like that! I thought Beck had more courage than that! Of course we must have the moral and constitutional courage to do the right thing. We must demand with court discovery that Barack Hussein Obama show his real, long form birth certificate.
Why has he paid over a million in legal fees to hide all his records, not just some? Why are we not allowed to see any of Obama’s college records, passport records or birth records? Could it be that Obama received foreign student money from Indonesia or other foreign places paying his way through college? Why hide your records? Anyone can find my records of my Ph.D. at Oregon State University. My degree is in Counseling which was in the School of Education. My dissertation is in the library and I worked my way through school and got an assistantship to cover the rest. Any questions? There is nothing to hide here.
Where are the real journalists who want to defend and protect the truth, our freedoms and our country? Where are the brave hearts? So far, most of the media seems to be sold out, spineless, cowards only concerned about their millions, popularity and compromise.
The truth is out there and so far points to HUGE fraud with who Obama really is and where he was born. Do the big media monsters like the feeling, as they count their money, of being someone else’s butt boy and kick dog?