Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

April 12, 2011

>An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth

>

An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011

Recently we saw an article appear at msnbc.com written by Michael Isikoff, National investigative correspondent for NBC News. The article is dated April 10, 2011, and is entitled, “Ex-Hawaii Official Denounces ‘Ludicrous’ Birther Claims.” It can be read at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics# I will now analyze the many problems that exist with this “investigative” story. My criticisms are directed at both Dr. Fukino and Mr. Isikoff.

The article states:

“The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama’s original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is ‘real’ and denounced ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the so-called ‘birther’ movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.

‘It’s kind of ludicrous at this point,’ Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.

Fukino, sounding both exasperated and amused, spoke to a reporter in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s statements on the NBC Today show last week questioning whether Obama has a legitimate birth certificate.

Trump, who says he is considering a run for president, repeated his claims on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ Sunday, saying that ‘nobody has any information’ about the president’s birth and that ‘if he wasn’t born in this country, he shouldn’t be president of the United States.’

No matter what state officials release on the issue, the ‘birthers’ are going to question it, said Fukino. ‘They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated,’ said Fukino. ‘The whole thing is silly.’”

Here we see nothing but excuses for not releasing Obama’s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate which I will call his “real birth certificate.” This is not to be confused with a short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB) dated June 2007 which Obama released on the internet in 2008, which does not contain the name of the birth hospital and the names and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth.

Isikoff states:

“Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump’s recent comments.”

Fukino no longer works for the Hawaii Department of Health. Why did Mr. Isikoff not contact the current health department director who overseas the birth certificates in Hawaii? Why do we have to hear from someone who no longer works for Hawaii and no longer has any control over or access to its vital records files? Why can we not hear from the current official who could tell us what is in the file today?

Mr. Isikoff writes:

“The first is that the original so-called ‘long form’ birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a ‘record of live birth’ — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state’s then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.”

Fukino is sure to tell us the exact location of where the real birth certificate was located. She gives us great detail to lend credibility to her story. But she does not tell us who this state official was who accompanied her and whether he or she also saw the real birth certificate. She does not identify any other person who allegedly saw the real birth certificate. One would think that such information would be important and lend credibility to her story. But for some unknown reason, she finds it important to give details of where the birth certificate was located but not that someone other than herself actually saw it.

Isikoff then tells us:

“She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”

Why does Fukino tell us that the real birth certificate showed the doctor on it but she fails to tell us that Obama’s birth occurred in a hospital which is what Obama told the public occurred? After all, she knows how much “birthers” have been demanding to see conclusive proof that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Hospital, the hospital in which Obama says he was born. There would be no violation of any privacy laws for her to simply say that he was born in a hospital, without giving the name of the hospital, just like she said that a doctor delivered Obama and signed the birth certificate. What is suspect is that there were numerous doctors at that time who could have delivered Obama but only two hospitals in which he could have been born, Kapi’olani Hospital or Queens Hospital. In other words, the doctors get lost in the shuffle but the hospitals do not. Just saying that a doctor signed the birth certificate does not open up channels of information that can be independently verified. On the other hand, knowing the birth hospital pins down the place of birth to only two specific locations in which there would be contained medical evidence of the alleged birth there.

The article continues:

“She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.”

Why did her public statements back then not include the additional information that she is now willing to share with the public? Why has she waited so long to tell us her information?

Isikoff then quotes Fukino:

“’It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,’ Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request. ‘Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?’ she asked.”

Why is Fukino theorizing about what a Republican Governor would or would not do? Either Hawaii has or does not have the real birth certificate. If they have the document, there is no need to theorize that the Republican Governor would not go along with any conspiracy. Additionally, Fukino does not say that Lingle ever saw the real birth certificate. So how could Lingle be involved in any alleged “cover up” if she was never privy to any information on the issue? By dragging Lingle into the alleged conspiracy makes it look like Lingle had access to some inside information which she would not fabricate because of her opposition position with the Republican Party.

Isikoff continues:

“Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was ‘testy’ when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.”

Why should a former campaign official who was involved in a presidential election and who can shed light on this national crisis issue want to maintain anonymity? Should concerned Americans not be able to learn who was intimately involved in handling Obama’s birth certificate? After all, what is the harm to anyone in knowing that information?

In 2007, there was no issue regarding Obama’s place of birth. The issue of his place of birth came up in 2008. So how could Obama have been “testy” in having to obtain his birth certificate and for reasons of putting “the issue to rest?” If there was no place of birth issue in 2007 why did Obama allegedly request his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) in 2007 which he did receive and which is dated June 6, 2007 to put to rest a nonexistent issue? Why have we not heard that Obama used that 2007 COLB by sending a copy of it to someone who he thought needed it? We have not heard that he sent a copy of that document to any state election officials to show that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Why did Obama wait a whole year before using the 2007 COLB?

Isikoff writes:

“The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

‘What he got, everybody got,’ said Fukino. ‘He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.'”

But Fukino fails to tell us who in the Hawaii Department of Health processed in 2007 Obama’s alleged request for a copy of his birth certificate. She does not tell us that she personally looked at the real birth certificate and used it to prepare the COLB. She is only speculating that someone did that. But she does not tell us who would have done that at that time. As the director of that department, she would have known who her employees were at that time. She could have easily identified the employee who prepared the document so that Mr. Isikoff could have done further “investigative” follow up with that person.

The article continues:

“Hawaiian officials say that the certification is, in fact, only one piece of abundant evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named ‘Obama II, Barack Hussein’ as having been born in the state.”

But this public index only proves that a birth was registered in Hawaii. It is not independent medical evidence of any such birth actually occurring in Hawaii.

The article adds:

“In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu’s newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama’s birth on Aug. 4 of that year.”

The newspaper birth announcements are not evidence of a birth in Hawaii. At best they are evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health put those ads in the newspapers based on a birth being registered as having occurred in Hawaii. The announcements are not the product of a medically verified birth in Hawaii. They do not have a direct link to the birth hospital.

The article goes on to say:

“Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.

But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

‘It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,’ he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”

Fukino attacks anyone who will not be convinced by her story, marginalizing them and casting aspersions toward them. It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department “shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates “may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.” Hence, Hawaii’s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.

To further prove that Mr. Wisch is wrong and/or inventing information, we have seen recent examples of people who were born in Hawaii obtain with little fanfare a certified copy of their original long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. A friend of Miki Booth–who was born in Japan, spent much of her life in Hawaii and ran for Congress in 2010 from the Second District of Oklahoma—has a friend who obtained a copy of his long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in March 2011. See the story here, http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/07/exposing-the-birth-certificate-lies-used-to-cover-for-obama/. Also, October 13, 2010, a “Danae” posted on FreeRepublic a copy of her long-form, birth certificate originally issued in 1969, which she obtained by mail from the Hawaii Department of Health on September 28, 2010 after paying a $10.00 fee. She also posted a copy of the receipt that she got for paying the $10.00 fee. An interesting question is — where is the copy of Obama’s receipt for allegedly ordering a copy of his Certification of Live Birth in 2007?  Surely the Hawaiian authorities could release a copy of that. Financial transactions of a government are public information.

We know that Governor Abercrombie recently tried to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. He told the public that he was going to see if he could release Obama’s real birth certificate. Eventually, Abercrombie told the public in a very vague and evasive fashion that he could do no more because of privacy laws. He did say that he found out that Obama’s birth was written down in some state archive. What is strange is that if the long-form birth certificate exists in Obama’s birth file as Fukino is now telling us, why could Abercrombie not tell us the same information that she told us? Why did Abercrombie have to be so evasive and vague about the matter? He could have told us like she did that he went into the health department file and actually saw with his own eyes Obama’s long-form birth certificate and he could have also told us that it contained all the information that Fukino now tells us it contained when she saw it. Abercrombie could have even told us what Fukino left out, i.e., that per the birth certificate, Obama was born in a hospital. Fukino only told us what was in the birth file when she worked there. Abercrombie, as the current Governor, could have told us what is in the file today. That would have been more credible. What is also suspect is that there is no one from Hawaii telling us what is in the health department file today. Rather, Fukino tells us what was in the file in the past. Hearing from someone with official authority tell us what is in the file today would have given the story more credibility given that now Joshua Wisch tells us that today no one can have a copy of the real birth certificate, not even Obama himself, a statement which in itself is incredible and has no basis in law. How convenient can Hawaii get, telling us that at one time the birth certificate was in the file but today no one, not even Obama, is allowed to get a copy of that birth certificate.

What Fukino now tells us is contradicted by former Hawaii election clerk, Tim Adams, who has stated and sworn under oath, that he worked in the Hawaii elections office during the 2008 presidential election and that even though Hawaiian election officials searched for Obama’s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate, none could be found. Rather, what was found was a registration and archive notation which sounds like what Abercrombie has told us.

It is very suspect that Hawaii tells the public what was in Obama’s birth file in the past but does not tell us what is in the file today. Fukino does not even mention that anyone has inspected the file today to see that those same documents are still in it. Why did Mr. Isikoff no reach out to any current officials in the health department for his story? Such a set up is suspicious, for if access to the file is eventually gotten and the alleged real birth certificate is not in there, Fukino can conveniently say that it was there when she looked and she has no control over what happened to it since she does not work there anymore.

What is also suspicious is that Hawaii, using privacy laws as an excuse, will not even release to the public a copy of the documents evidencing someone requested the birth certificate in 2007 and paid for its reproduction costs.

This whole article is also very suspect since we do not have direct quotes from Fukino but rather what Mr. Isikoff summarized to allegedly be her statements. Why would the reporter not provide direct quotes to such important statements?

So where is the grand conspiracy of which the “birthers” are accused? Based on what Dr. Fukino tells us, there is only one person who has actually seen Obama’s real birth certificate and that is she. Hawaii has not identified any other person who has seen it. So Obama’s nativity story is now held together by only one person, Dr. Fukino. That does not sound like much of a conspiracy story.

Why does Obama not want the public to see his real birth certificate or to learn that no real birth certificate exists? The real birth certificate could reveal information that puts into serious doubt that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. The absence of a real birth certificate could also put into serious doubt his claim that he was actually born in Hawaii. Or the real birth certificate could contain information that is highly embarrassing to Obama and which could put in jeopardy his life narrative that he has put into the public. Whatever could be the truth of Obama’s problem, the American people whom the President serves are entitled to know which one of those truths it is.

Obama’s supporters are proclaiming Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations are the death of the “birthers.” On the contrary, as we can see, what Dr. Fukino has recently said is a far cry from finally resolving the issue concerning Obama’s place of birth. If anything, it just has added more suspicion to the whole story.

Donald Trump needs to continue to press forward in his quest to find out what the truth is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

March 26, 2011

>President Dwight Eisenhower Had to File a Birth Certificate to Run for President – Unlike Obama, Ike had nothing to hide!

>Via Sonoran News;Ike needed birth certificate to run for president‘Ike had nothing to hide!’

BY LINDA BENTLEY – CAVE CREEK – Glen Fairclough, a reader from Salt Lake City, Utah, sent us an e-mail last week to express his gratitude for publishing the recent article regarding President Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

And, while going through digital images online of his hometown newspaper, the Deseret News and Telegram, Fairclough forwarded us a United Press wire article from the Oct. 2, 1952 edition he thought we would find interesting.

The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office. Read more

Read rest of the story via the link and for further information about Ike’s proven natural born Citizenship status upon his birth in Texas in Oct 1890 to two U.S. citizen parents, unlike Obama who claims he was born in Hawaii but whose father was a foreign national and was not even an immigrant to the USA. And also unlike Ike, Obama has relatives, African newspapers, and government officials in Kenya saying he was born there and not in the USA. Ike never had relatives and government officials in foreign countries stating repeatedly that he was born in their country. Thus, the logical justification to ask to see Obama’s original long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and any amendments to same. This is logically needed to verify that he indeed was physically born there and not just had a false birth registration done in Hawaii via sworn affidavit of a birth at home with no independent witnesses and submitted by mail by his maternal grandmother who lived there in order to get U.S. Citizenship for her foreign born grandson. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii in 1961 due to the very lax laws in the new state.

Regardless of the lack of claims of foreign birth about Eisenhower, Ike was still required to file a copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities upon running for election as President. So Whoopi Goldberg, was it racist to ask Ike to file a certified paper copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities in order to run for President. Ike wasn’t allowed to just show a picture of it on television. He had to provide a certified paper copy of his birth certificate to the authorities. What is racist about having to prove you are constitutionally eligible to run for President? What is racist about the rule of law of which our U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Read more here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/reminder-dwight-d-eisenhower-had-to.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. If Whoopi Goldberg needs another example of others being asked to show documents and birth certificates to prove they are eligible to run for President, she should read about the challenges made to John McCain’s natural born Citizen status in the 2008. John McCain was sued in NH by a man named Hollander charging he was not a natural born Citizen. The Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Leahy, and of which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were voting members, investigated McCain in response to citizen requests. He was required to show his paper certified copy of his birth certificate to them in executive session. But for similar requests in much larger numbers calling for the investigation of Obama’s eligibility, and with lawsuits filed charging Obama was not eligible, that was all ignored by the Democratic Party lead Senate. That is lack of due process and unequal protection under the law of land and the U.S. Constitution. So Whoopi Goldberg’s charges of racism on The View TV show are completely groundless and show her ignorance of history or her willingness to go to the lowest level of politics and debate, and shout and yell and act absurd on air … and play the race card and call and imply that anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility is a racist. See this blog post in early March 2008 by Professor Jonathan Turley questioning McCain’s eligiblity who along with articles in the New York Times started the investigation of John McCain under constitutional grounds which ultimately lead to the Senate investigation and resolution in April 2008: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/ . And this one: http://birthers.org/misc/FOMB.html
####

August 31, 2010

Is Obama Telling Us the Truth About His Place of Birth and Religion?

For those looking for an answer to this question, you may want to listen to the interview by NBC Nightly News anchor, Brian Williams, of Obama done on 8-29-10. The answers that Obama gives are quite revealing in this regard.

First, when Williams informed him that one-fifth of Americans do not believe that he is American-born and also believe that he is not a Christian but rather a Muslim, he answered “American born and Muslim are not the same thing?” And just what does Obama mean by that statement? He says, “the facts are the facts.” But he surely does not tell us what those facts are.

Second, regarding the question of his birth place and religion, Obama says that he went through that during the campaign for Senator and President. Evidently, Obama feels that he has no obligation to tell the American people the truth about those issues at this time. Rather than address the issues with solid facts, he dismisses them as mere campaign smears which he has already overcome by winning the election.

Third, why would Obama believe that in order to address the question of where he was born he has to “spend all of [his] time with [his] birth certificate plastered on [his] forehead?” He tells us that to address the questions of concerned Americans regarding his birth certificate he would have to “spend all [his] time” on the birth certificate issue and that if he did he would not get much done. But how much time would it take for him to simply release his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate to the public? He could start by posting it on the internet just like he posted in 2008 his questionable 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB). I can estimate the time for him to do that being 5 to 10 minutes.

Fourth, Obama says that he trusts in the “American people’s capacity” to do the right thing and that he will “always put [his] money on the American people.” If he has so much trust in them and would always “put his money on them,” then why will he not release his birth certificate and his education, travel, and work documents for the American people to see?

We cannot put much trust in anything that Obama says. It is quite clear from Obama’s answers that he is not telling the American people the truth about where he was born or about his religion. Rather, what we must do is ask him the proper questions and demand from him his evidence which proves that what he says in response to those questions is true.

And a special note to Brian Williams, it’s a lot more than one-fifth of the American people asking questions. Up to 60% in this CNN poll have doubts about Obama’s origins.

The interview can be seen here on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7dJqmfLR38

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Read this essay on the difference between being a “Citizen of the United States” and being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

May 7, 2010

A Failed Lesson in Honor and Courage

There is a more critical issue underlying the debate over Obama’s eligibility to be President. The current status of the question regarding Obama’s place of birth and whether he meets the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen” has left so many concerned Americans wondering why our nation’s leaders have failed to provide them with clear, honest, and convincing information on the basic question of where Obama was born and whether he meets the constitutional eligibility requirement to be their President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The bottom line is that these leaders have failed the lesson of honor and courage. Yes, we have become a nation of leaders without honor and courage. Where is the America that I once knew, where honor and courage made America the great nation that it was? How can we as a nation tolerate a man who, while sitting behind the curtain in the White House, refuses to show the People whom he is supposed to serve a simple thing such as a birth certificate and his other background documents? How can we just sit back and complacently allow such flim-flam behavior to continue? Indeed, our leaders have made us a nation of cowards and buffoons, a nation where slick double talk and glittery images count more than what is right. Is this the way that our leaders propose to protect our lives and our nation? If our leaders lack the honor and courage to deal with the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President, can we reasonably expect those same leaders to have the honor and courage needed to adequately protect our safety and survival? Our leaders must right this wrong if they expect to ever regain the respect of so many Americans and to keep our nation honorable and strong.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 7, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

May 6, 2010

A Catalog of Evidence – Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii

 A Catalog of Evidence – Concerned Americans Have Good Reason
to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The New York Times on April 21, 2010, did a story entitled, Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll, by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan. The article reported that “[i]n a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent).” Question No. 50 in the poll was: “According to the Constitution, American Presidents must be ‘natural born citizens.’ Some people say Barack Obama was NOT born in the United States, but was born in another country. Do YOU think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or was he born in another country? Born in US 58 Another country 20 DK/NA 23.” Hence, these numbers show that 43 percent do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. The New York Times article is written in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that those who do not believe that Obama was born there are misinformed and poorly educated. What the authors of the article fail to realize or refuse to report is that concerned Americans have very good reasons to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.

I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” Second, in any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

One might wonder why so many Americans are not convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims. Let us review the evidence pro and con on his place of birth being Hawaii or Kenya.

Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);

(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB] computer form, which is a computer generated and easily forged form that was posted online in 2008 which is not a true Birth Certificate and is not a typed contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would have the name and signature of the delivering doctor or witnesses to the birth. No witnesses or hospitals have ever attested to Obama being born in Hawaii.);

(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can legally even raise the question and who among them would);

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born and a popular election result cannot negate the constitutional eligibility clause);

(8) Congress confirmed his election (although political party politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue despite the pleas from constituents to investigate);

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that defacto status is not proof of where he was born or his constitutional eligibility);

(10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);

(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not ever publicly produced one);

(12) The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive and they have never confirmed the online COLB computer form image is genuine); and

(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu. See No. 21 below).

Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:

(1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;

(3) Ms. Odhiambo a Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in session and recorded in the official record of the Kenyan National Assembly on 5 Nov 2008 on page 3275 that Obama was a son of the soil of their country;

(4) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. Also see this more recent one in Ghana. Africa’s press knows what the American media refuses to investigate. There have also been other reports in the media that Obama was born in Kenya. A good list of these reports may be found at  where actual screen shots of the stories may be viewed;

(5) Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama stated in a video taped speech she made a couple years ago that Kenya is Obama’s home country. During a speech that Michelle gave to an audience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) delegates at the 2008 Democrat Party Convention on the topic of getting tested for HIV and in showing that Obama leads by example, Michelle Obama told them: “He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know–a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, he took a public HIV test for the very point of showing the folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” “Home country” is defined as “the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.” http://www.allwords.com/word-home+country.html. It is highly suspicious that Obama’s transcripts of Michelle’s speech now do not contain the reference by Michelle to Kenya being his “home country.” http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/03/obamas-facebook-page-omits-michelles-home-country-of-kenya-remark/. Obama’s Facebook page has a transcript of her “home country” speech. The transcript omits the “home country” wording and says this instead: “He has supported full funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and has pledged to implement a national HIV/AIDS strategy to combat the continuing epidemic in the United States. He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, a stigma tied all too often to homophobia. And he’s led by example: On our trip to Kenya, (omission) we both took a public HIV test.” The words “Barack’s home country” are omitted;

(6) During a December 2007 speech in Tampa, Florida, Michelle Obama stated at about 2 minutes into this video of the event, “What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country, the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama, a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.” As can be seen, Michelle Obama said that her husband is “a Kenyan.” Would she say that if he was a “natural born Citizen” of the United States? What is also strange that she would make such a statement in light of the fact that Obama was running for political office in the United States. The statement raises more suspicion and is just more fuel for the debate of where Obama was born. Additionally, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the statement shows where his political loyalties are;

(7) NPR public radio archived story says Obama in Kenyan-born;

(8) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;

(9) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters that her half-brother, then Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children which is also located in Honolulu. Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center;

(10) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

(11) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;

(12) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;

(13) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);

(14) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;

(15) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;

(16) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated June 6, 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate). Why would Obama have asked the State of Hawaii for the COLB in 2007? What was his need back then for the document? FactCheck.org web site has this to say about the COLB: “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.” FactCheck did provide an “Update,” on August 26, when they stated: “We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health.” They go on to explain they did get some clarification from them to “some” of their questions. But they do not address why DOH did not answer their question as to why DOH “only offer the short form” COLB. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. It is unbelievable that a fact-checking organization such a FactCheck (actually a reading of their “objective” information on this issue shows that they are quite biased and prejudiced on the issue in favor of Obama) would allow such an important matter to just die with the excuse that the DOH did not provide a response to their request for information. Would any reasonable person call that responsible and thorough fact investigation? Hawaii Department of Heath has “affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347. For an explanation as to who at the FactCheck organization allegedly handled and photographed the COLB and “authenticated” the document (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) go to http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/AnnenbergFactCheckers.htm;

(17) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) first posted on the political web site, DailyKos, on July 12, 2008, which was later published on Obama’s own “Fight-the-Smears” web site, and then later on FactCheck.org, and the alleged underlying document later pictured on these internet sites is a forgery;

(18) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961. This is the most important piece of evidence which would conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. This document, unlike the COLB with he posted on the internet (see No. 16 above), would contain Obama’s parents’ names, the exact place in Hawaii that he was born, and would identify what source provided the birth event details serving as the foundation for the veracity of the original birth certificate itself. It is this long-form, vault birth certificate which would contain contemporaneous evidence such as the name of the hospital where Obama was born and the name of the doctor or midwife that delivered him. This is highly corroborating evidence which goes to adequately prove that he was in fact born in Hawaii. What is highly disturbing and suspect is that Obama has not only refused to release to the public this crucial piece of evidence, but he has taken extraordinary and highly unprecedented steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to the 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate, hiring teams of lawyers who are presumably instructed by him to take all necessary steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to that document and spending his, third parties’, and the public’s large amounts of money, time, and others resources in doing so. Obama’s lack of transparency and integrity is further evidenced by the fact that, in addition to refusing to release to the public his 1961 birth certificate, he has refused to release to the public his travel, education, and employment documents, all while demanding that the people accept him as the legitimately elected President. It is rather clear and commonplace knowledge that Obama needs to release to the public his long-form, vault copy, of his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate in order to meet his burden of proving that he was born in Hawaii, but still he without any reasonable explanation simply refuses to do so;

(19) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. During the 2008 election, Hawaii’s Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, said: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

Months later, in July 2009, she added: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root “evidence” is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. At no time during the ongoing public debate about whether Obama was born in Hawaii has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama’s alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was “completed and filed” with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi’olani Medical Center to confirm Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.

We will know what the underlying evidence is about Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii only if we can examine Obama’s contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii’s or anybody else’s bare statement as to the place and time of Obama’s birth.

Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence which would at least give the public greater assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine.

Moreover, no Hawaii official has yet to confirm that the online image and picture of Obama’s COLB is a true and accurate image of the paper COLB that they allegedly issued to Obama in 2007. They also have yet to confirm that they ever even issued the COLB to Obama. When citizen journalists (Miss Tickly and the Post & Email, etc.) asked Hawaii officials for their opinion of the COLB image and pictures, they did not answer their inquiries;

(20) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

(21) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the “son.” The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2010/04/16/true-1961-birth-announcements-reported-by-hawaii-bureau-of-health-statistics/. Note the heading of both of the ads says “Health Bureau Statistics” which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;

(22) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field. See these examples compared to Obama’s COLB. This implies the birth registration was never finally accepted and that additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never “Accepted;”

(23) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people are questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama’s supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the “birthers”) could be put in their place once and for all;

(24) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu. These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born. The simple truth is that none of these agencies did any due diligence and now want to simply sweep this constitutional crisis under the rug to save political face. Rather than helping conduct an honest investigation of Obama’s place of birth, these individuals and entities, including the mainstream media, which failed to properly vet Obama are now engaged in a campaign of cover up, manipulation, deceit, and ridicule of those who are earnestly pursuing this investigation (who they pejoratively call “birthers”);

(25) Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, signed an affidavit to 50 states certifying that Obama was nominated for the Office of President. In many of the 50 states, Pelosi did not address the issue of Obama’s Article II “natural born citizenship” qualifications. This unusual action and fact about the DNC’s and Pelosi’s activities in the 2008 election was explained on page 19 of the the Kerchner et al v Obama, Congress, & Pelosi, et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009. Nowhere in the nominating documents that Pelosi provided to many States does it say he is qualified to serve as President per the Article II Constitutional requirements, if he is elected. What Pelosi filed in these states simply says that Obama has been nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Office of President. In many other states, Pelosi certified: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.” The only exception that has been found to date is for the state of Hawaii, which nominating certificate does say that the candidate is constitutionally qualified to be President. The certifying language that Pelosi used in this sole certifications is: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” A copy of Pelosi’s signed document for Hawaii and the 2nd and different version sent to many other states may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30784035/DNC-Chairperson-Nancy-Pelosi-Issued-Signed-Two-Different-Certification-Forms-for-Obama-in-2008. A question that we should all ask ourselves is why would Pelosi use the constitutional qualification language in only the Hawaii certificate and not also use it in all the certifications of the other states she sent the 2nd version to? Additionally, neither Pelosi nor the DNC adequately vetted Obama, for neither she nor anyone else in her party saw his original vault, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), (not to be confused with the internet image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama’s campaign posted on the internet in June 2008 and which has been attacked by at least two document examiners as a forgery), or any other sufficient and credible document that would lead her to come to such a conclusion;

(26) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital;

(27) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke (“the Nordyke twins”) were born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes’ certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins’ birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins’ certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama’s and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama’s birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama’s purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state’s procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347;

(28) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Orengo. Ironically, he expressed that “[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance….” He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the “unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years….” He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the “Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people….” He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: “The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.” Mr. Orengo’s statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a “native American.” It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/30293518/Minister-in-Kenyan-National-Assembly-on-25-March-2010-states-Obama-born-in-Kenya-See-page-31. The speech of Mr. Orengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;

(29) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama’s origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. “What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?” Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson’s Rebels http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/kenyan-minister-khalwale-asks-when.html.

None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting in 2008 a computer image of an alleged 2007 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.

Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.

It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 25, 2010
Updated May 6, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner:
Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.

Birth Registration Fraud. It’s Been Done Before. As reported by WND.com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107200

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
####

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.