Texas Secretary of State Addresses Question about Presidential Eligibility

Update: Texas Secretary of State Addresses Question about Presidential Eligibility

AND CITES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!

by Sharon Rondeau

In 1836, Texas gained independence from Mexico, declaring itself a Republic. It sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War.

(Feb. 4, 2011) — A citizen contacted the Texas Secretary of State, Hope Andrade, whose responsibility it is to oversee the Elections Division.  According to its website, the Secretary of State “provides assistance and advice to election officials on the proper conduct of elections.”

From: Redacted

Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:54 PM
To: Elections Internet
Subject: Qualification to run for Office of The Presidency of The United States

Texas Board of Elections,

What are the qualifications to be President of The United States. It is not displayed on the Texas Board of Elections webpage.

My Request is that all Candidacy qualification remain throughout the year for educational purposes.

And the Elections Office responded:

From: Elizabeth Winn <EHanshawWinn@sos.state.tx.us>

Subject: FW: Qualification to run for Office of The Presidency of The United States – Maroney (EHW)
To: Redacted
Cc: “Kim Beal” <KBeal@sos.state.tx.us>
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2011, 3:48 PM

As you may know, the President of the United States is up for election every 4 years.  The next general election for this office will be in November 2012.  The requirements to run for President of the United States are outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  A candidate for this office must be:

1.    A natural born Citizen of the United States ;

2.    At least 35 years old; and

3.    A resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

The Texas Legislature is currently in session, which is why there is an absence of information on our website.  Additionally, because of the federal MOVE Act (to help military and overseas voters vote), Texas has a challenge of revisiting it primary dates and filing deadlines to accommodate the 45 day deadline for mailing ballots to this group.  Therefore, we will likely see some changes in the candidate filing process before the session ends late May of 2011..

We hope that this information answers your questions. If you need additional assistance, please e-mail or contact the elections division toll-free at 1-800-252-8683 (VOTE).

Elections Division Staff

Texas Secretary of State

1-800-252-8683

Elections@sos.state.tx.us

Full contact information for Texas Elections Division personnel can be located here.  A Texas state representative, Leo Berman, introduced a bill in the legislature which would amend the state’s election code such that candidates for president and vice president would be required to submit their original birth certificates in order to have their names placed on the ballot.  If adopted, HB 295 would take effect on September 1, 2011.

Berman’s represents the 6th District which is detailed here.  In regard to Barack Hussein Obama, who has failed to reveal his original, long-form birth certificate as well as other documentation about his history, Berman stated:

This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don’t know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place.” If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.

A retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army, Berman won re-election in his district in 2010 by garnering 86.86% of the vote.  He is originally from New York City.

A follow-up letter was sent by the same citizen to the Texas Elections Office:

2/6/2011

To: Texas Election Division,Texas Secretary of State,

I was hoping that your response letter would answer my question for the qualification of the United States Presidency, however it did only in part.

I do understand the qualifications for the Presidency of Article 2 Section 1 when stated ” at least 35 years of age”.

I do understand the qualifications for the Presidency of Article 2 Section 1 when stated ” A resident within the United States for at least 14 years. “

But when it comes to the qualification of the President in Article 2 Section 1 when stated  ” 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 “; Your answer is still not clear and since you are in charge of the Elections in Texas you most certainly understand the qualifications to run for Office within Texas.

The Architect’s of the United States Constitution showed a distinct difference between a ” Citizen “ and a ” natural born Citizen ” that is stipulated in Article 2 Section 1.

To only be a Citizen and become President of the United States you would of had to of been ” alive at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ” and still alive today. Since all those Citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution are not alive today, now one must be a natural born Citizen.

The 14 Amendment defines ” citizen “ as born or naturalized in the United States. So what is the meaning of Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen since a Citizen and a natural born Citizen are not one and the same as you can see in Article 2?

Can a child of two Illegal Aliens that is born in Texas run for the Presidency of the United States since that child is a 14 Amendment citizen?

I might run for The Presidency of The United States of America and I need to know if I qualify. I need to know if I am an Article 2 natural born Citizen as intended by the founding fathers of this Great Country.

Sincerely,

Creg Maroney

The Post & Email will be reporting on any response which Mr. Maroney receives from the Texas Elections Office which might attempt to define the term “natural born Citizen.”

Update, February 8, 2011: The following response was received on February 7, 2011 from the Texas Elections Division:

Mr. Maroney,

The following Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code defines “citizens of the United States at birth.”  Please note that our office has no authority to or expertise in interpreting United States law or the Constitution; therefore, we are providing this information simply to guide you further.  We recommend speaking to a federal official or legal counsel who is qualified to interpret provisions of the United States Constitution.

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian , or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United

States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States ;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States , or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical- presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code may also be found here – http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Mr. Maroney then sent another inquiry:

From: Creg MaroneySubject: Re: FW: FW: Qualification to run for Office of The Presidency of The United States – Maroney (EHW)
To: “Elizabeth Winn” <EHanshawWinn@sos..state.tx.us>
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 9:38 AM
To: Texas Election Division, Texas Secretary of State,

Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code defines “citizens of the United States at birth.

My questions are quite simple for those in charge of elections throughout the State of Texas.

Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of Title 8 United States Code eligible for the Ballot and will be placed on the Ballot in Texas to run for The Presidency and Vice President of The United States?

Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of Title 8 United States Code  eligible for the candidacy on any Ballot in Texas ” except ” for The Presidential and Vice President?

Sincerely,

Creg Maroney

New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge

New Jersey Citizen to File Obama Ballot Challenge

SUBJECT: REQUIRE BALLOT CHALLENGE INFORMATION

by Dwight Kehoe, from TPath.org

Date: December 5, 2011
From: Dwight Kehoe

New Jersey Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno was elected in 2009 with Gov. Chris Christie and has worked as an assistant U.S. attorney. She also serves as New Jersey Secretary of State.

To: Secretary of State/Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno

Dear Ms. Guadagno,

Please contact me at your earliest possible convenience with either the information I may need or a website where a form can be downloaded that will enable me to file a complaint concerning the Democratic Party ballot application for the upcoming Presidential New Jersey Primary elections.

It is my intent to challenge the application and submission of Barack Obama, which the Democratic Party has filed for him, in relation to the upcoming election referenced above.

No doubt there will be sufficient area on the complaint form for a detailed challenge, but in brief, the impetus and reasons for the intended challenge are as follows:

1. The framers of our Constitution intentionally included a very high level of allegiance to our country by stipulating a difference between being just a citizen and being a natural born citizen.  The first leader of the US Supreme Court, the Honorable John Jay requested that requirement and it was then included in Article 2, after approval in  the first Constitutional Convention in which George Washington presided as President.   The Democratic Party has petitioned for a candidate, Barack Obama, who does not qualify under that Article.

2. As of this date, no original birth certificate has been provided as evidence which would prove where Obama was born and who were his parents.  The computer manipulated birth certificate released by the White House in April of this year which purported to be a scan of the original on file in Hawaii has been proven, beyond any doubt, to be a forgery.  As of this date, the Officials in Hawaii have refused court orders and continue fighting the request for the original to be inspected and compared with what was released in April.  I do not know if what they are hiding will invalidate the Democratic Party’s nominee, but the point is, the State of New Jersey does not know either. As public officials, all sworn to support and defend both the NJ Constitution and that of our great country, your duty requires proof of any applicant’s identity.

3. Much has been made of the fact that Mr. Obama may be using a Social Security number issued to someone in Connecticut and that the Federal Government program, E-Verify, has rejected the number Obama is using.  Again, as a private citizen, I do not know if this is a problem but since a very liberal Federal judge has just recently refused to allow the Social Security Administration to release information relating to the SSN in question, there seems to be sufficient reason for the New Jersey Election Commission to require some answers before the petition for Obama is accepted as legal.

It will be my intent, at my own time and expense, to challenge the application of the Democratic Party, for Barack Obama and request that New Jersey do its charge of protecting the citizens and enforcing the law and our Constitutions.  The three items I have listed here may seem to be separate issues, but in reality they are all entwined and relate.  Each of them are or could be pieces of an ongoing effort to hide and evade the origins and identity of one, Barack Obama.  Election officials, from either party should be concerned and want to clear this up before they once again accept  an incomplete application.

Sincerely,
Mr. Dwight Kehoe

HAWAII CLAIMS “PRIVACY”

HAWAII CLAIMS “PRIVACY” PREVENTS RELEASE OF OBAMA’S ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE; TAITZ DEMANDS IT AS PART OF DISCOVERY

by Sharon Rondeau

Judge Royce Lamberth is presiding over the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue which seeks the disclosure of Obama's original social security number application

(Jul. 7, 2011) — Orly Taitz has filed and posted on her website a “Motion to Compel Subpoena” in regard to the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue filed in February 2011 against the Social Security Administration to obtain a copy of Obama’s social security number application.  Taitz is requesting that the “vault” original allegedly on file with the Hawaii Department of Health be released as part of the discovery phase of her case.

The Hawaii Department of Health does not display the purported long-form birth certificate bearing the name of Barack Hussein Obama II on its website, but rather, states that only index data is available according to state law.  The “document” released to the public on April 27, 2011 after almost three years of stonewalling has been denounced by experts as a forgery.

Former Weather Underground domestic terrorist and co-worker with Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge William Ayers has admitted to stealing and creating false identities, including names, social security numbers and birth certificates of deceased children.

DR. TAITZ: I have filed two subpoenas.  There are two types of subpoenas:  one that is issued by an attorney and one that is issued by the court.  The Hawaii Department of Health refused to comply with the first one which was signed by me as an attorney.  In response, I have filed a Motion to Compel.  Meanwhile, if they comply with the second subpoena signed by the clerk of the court, then I can withdraw the Motion to Compel.

If they don’t comply with the second subpoena as well, then I can file another supplemental brief saying, “Your Honor, the first subpoena was not complied with, and the second signed by the clerk of the court has also been refused.”  So I am trying to stay a few steps ahead and not waste time.

MRS. RONDEAU: Can someone fail to respond to a court-ordered supoena?

DR. TAITZ: They did respond.  There was a response to the first subpoena by the Hawaii Attorney General, which I posted on my website.  They stated that they are not complying with the first subpoena due to considerations of privacy.  So I issued the second subpoena which is signed by the clerk of the court.  Meanwhile, I can file a Motion to Compel to the first one, and a few things can happen:  the judge might decide to dismiss this case, and then the subpoena will be moot.  We had this happen before.  The judge might decide to grant a Motion to Compel.  The judge might say that the subpoena which was issued by the court should be answered, or he might decline to grant a Motion to Compel.  So we need to see what will happen.  I’m doing the maximum amount possible.

They have an attorney, the Attorney General of Hawaii, who represents the Department of Health, and he can file an Opposition to Subpoena.  If he files an Opposition to the first subpoena, I have sent the second one to him.  It is too soon to have heard from him yet on that.  He could file an Opposition or a Motion to Quash the subpoena.  Then I would need to respond by either a Motion to Compel or by an Opposition to their Motion to Quash the subpoena.

Sometimes people file frivolous subpoenas.  In our case, they have a right to oppose, and the judge would have to decide.  I have filed the Motion to Compel with the judge whom I have for my FOIA case, which was to obtain the application for the social security that Obama is using.  Typically, people who don’t have a valid birth certificate resort to using fraudulent social security numbers.  That’s why this is relevant, and that’s why I issued that subpoena to compel them.  There are a lot of things that can be done.  Keep in mind that there is a lot of pressure on this judge to dismiss the case.

What I feel is that I am providing more and more information, clear evidence of fraud regarding the birth certificate and his social security number.  I have also provided information from the Social Security Administration regarding his mother’s social security number application, which is clearly a fraudulent document.  I am getting such explosive information that the dam will have to break somewhere.  It is possible that the judge will allow the evidence of fraud and forgery in his court or he could dismiss it.  They know if this breaks and it becomes obvious that they had all of this evidence, they could be held liable; they could be prosecuted.  So I believe that the judges are worried today because of what has happened.

MRS. RONDEAU: Could a judge in Hawaii become involved?

DR. TAITZ: That’s another possibility.  I assure you that I will not leave a stone unturned.  Since the judge in Washington, DC has already found standing and we have discovery, I don’t want this opportunity to be lost.  I want to take full advantage of it.  But if the judge in DC says that it has to be resolved in Hawaii, then I will refile it in Hawaii.  I will have to wait, because we have to give the government time.  But right now, we have an ongoing case.  Two subpoenas have been issued, we have discovery, and now I have filed the Motion to Compel.  I want do the maximum I can with this case.

Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?
 
      By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                May 21, 2011

We have seen many on-line presentations showing the American public that Obama’s recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. It is now time for Obama to release real evidence of his alleged birth in Hawaii. That real evidence is medical evidence.

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 Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children. He has also recently released his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth which states that he was born there. Hence, let us see the hospital birth records which name Obama and his mother and father. Let us see other medical records which name Obama and the mother and father. Since Obama has released to the public the name of his alleged birth hospital, he should have no interest in keeping private any medical records which show that he was in fact born in that hospital. Also, he can redact any part of the medical record which he wants to keep private.

Additionally, under Section 338-5, 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 the recently released birth certificate has been adequately shown to be a forgery which creates such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

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 regarding extant medical evidence which would give the public that needed assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine.

With the State of Hawaii having such authority under Section 338-5 to confirm through medical records that a birth in fact occurred in a Hawaiian hospital, why have we not heard that the Hawaii Health Department has any of this evidence in its files? We should also consider that Governor Abercrombie also did not confirm for the American people that the Obama birth file in Hawaii in fact shows that his birth event is corroborated with medical evidence from Kapi’olani Medical Center as is required by Section 338-5. Are we to reasonably believe that there exists no medical evidence confirming Obama’s birth in Hawaii that any one in Hawaii can share with the American people?

For a complete list of evidence of citizenship and identity identified by Medicaid, see http://www.ctelderlaw.org/HealthCare/Citizenship%20FactSheet%207%202%2007%20(2)%20(2).pdf. Out of all this evidence which can be used to prove citizenship and identity, what have we seen Obama and his enablers produce? The answer is a resounding “none.” If Obama wants to sell a lot of tee shirts proclaiming his birth in the U.S., let him put a copy of a Kapi’olani medical record on the tee shirts rather than the fake birth certificate.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ 

Long Form Birth Certificate

A CITIZEN’S ANALYSIS OF OBAMA’S LONG-FORM “BIRTH CERTIFICATE”

(May 14, 2011) — To be accurate, what we call a Long Form Birth Certificate should probably be referred to as “the top portion” of a long form birth certificate. The Center for Disease Control website informs us: “Federal law mandates national collection and publication of births.” So because the Federal government mandates that information to be collected, they also create a standard form for the states to use. In viewing the standard form, we see there is a great deal of information the hospital collects (parent’s race, details on the delivery, APGAR scores, abnormal conditions of the newborn, etc.) that we never get to see when requesting a copy of our birth certificate.

Once every 10 to 15 years, the standard form undergoes a revision, and to date there have been 11 such revisions of the standard birth certificate, with the most recent occurring in 2003. The 2003 model is the one in use today and it replaced the 1989 standard form. This citizen researcher tried to figure out what revision might have been in use in Hawaii in 1961 but couldn’t find that information, although perhaps someone else can. It’s complicated by the fact that when there is another revision, it takes the states a few years to completely switch over to the new form.  They have to print and distribute them to the hospitals, and while some states seem to be quicker at it than others, others take a few years.

The records are used to compile statistics that provide indicators of growing social problems (for example, broken families and births to unwed mothers), so the form changes according to the statistics which the The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) need. In previous decades, whether children were born in an urban area or a remote, sparsely populated area may have been a major factor in infant death rates. So they ask detailed questions about that. But in latter years the CDC and NCHS might decide the highest education levels attained by the parents is a major indicator of problems so they gather that information. Just as a side note, according to the Revised Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 1997, mothers were to be offered the option of selecting one or more racial designations. I had wondered why later birth certificates seen posted on the internet sometimes had an entire sentence of race classification where earlier ones had one word.

More information on revisions is found here : http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vital_certificate_revisions.htm

While my research hasn’t completely answered all the questions I have concerning the long form birth certificate in use in 1961, I can draw some conclusions of what might be true with the latest edition to the growing “Obama Collection of Birth Certificates.” For example, to the right of –#9 Race of Father– there’s a marking that appears to be a penciled-in– handwritten number 9. Could it be a residual notation left over from when someone added a little note to remind himself (or someone else) of what exactly to type in that space? On the 2003 Revision under Father’s Race, I count 14 different classifications plus *Other (Specify), making a total of 15. But in 1961 could there have been fewer with *Other (Specify), making number nine (9)? I think it’s quite possible because behind “Stanley Ann Dunham, Race of Mother –Caucasian” there appears to be a little penciled-in one (1) and I’m fairly certain White or Caucasian has always in any American era been the first classification. In checking with the images of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates, there also is what appears to be a number (1) penciled in behind “Caucasian.”

Another possibility that occurred to me is that the little pencil notes might be an internal coding system indicating which information needed further verification or guidance, perhaps something on a scale of 1 to 9 meaning a 1 or 2 is fairly certain, practically self-evident, but a 9 is raising red flags or uncertainties and needs more proof.

I also have concluded by carefully looking at the Standard Form that all the discussion after the 2008 release of the Obama COLB about “Africa” is a continent and not a racial classification, while true, probably doesn’t apply because the form states that the information taker is to check whichever box indicates what the father or mother considers themselves to be. Besides, the racial classifications apply to Americans filling out American documents (and have been abused in the past to racially label people), but would they apply to a foreign national here on a student visa? If you’ve had a chance to look at Obama Senior’s immigration files you probably noticed his race is listed as Africa or Kenya there too. If someone asks “what race are you?” and the respondent answers “Africa” –does the person taking the information have the legal right to determine something else? Not really! Maybe change the answer “Africa” to “African” as seems to be the case with the latest Obama BC, but probably nothing more.

The more I look at Obama’s latest birth certificate, the more I am inclined to think it retains items from a Standard Long Form Certificate of Live Birth signed by his mother at the time of his birth.  In other words, it’s partially abstracted from an original source document. But if it couldn’t be stamped with the straightforward “an exact and true copy” stamp, but instead required the “this is a true copy or an abstract” stamp, it probably means –IT IS AN ABSTRACT. Plain and simple, pieces taken from one original source document married to bits and pieces from another original source document to create a hybrid document reflecting what is true now.

Just beneath the surface it shows his mother’s signature being pasted together in two parts. It’s “(Stanley) Ann D” and then in a separate layer… unham Obama. Is it possible the Hawaii Department of Health had to piece that signature together to make it comply with the new law effective April 1, 2011?

From the government website:

Beginning April 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of State will require the full names of the applicant’s parent(s) to be listed on all certified birth certificates to be considered as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship for all passport applicants, regardless of age. Certified birth certificates missing this information will not be acceptable as evidence of citizenship. This will not affect applications already in-process that have been submitted or accepted before the effective date.

Did his mother sign the standard birth form (Stanley) Ann D. Obama, adding the Stanley as an after-thought? Is it possible that in order to comply with the above requirement and be able to certify it, HDOH could leave the (Stanley) Ann D part; that was fine, but it had to have “Dunham,” not just “D,” so they pulled the “unham Obama” from a later document?

On the internet Obama has quite the collection of birth certificates.  I wonder if he has an equal number of source documents in the secret hiding place in which Hawaii keeps his records? Maybe instead of calling him “The One,” his supporters should call him “The Re-born One”? Just a Suggestion.

Trumping up the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama

Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann

Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
Joseph Hagmann earned a degree in business administration, marketing and management and holds several law enforcement related certifications. He has completed over 6,000 hours of field investigation and covert surveillance operations, specializing in surveillance and counter-surveillance operations.He is presently the Director of Field Operations (DFO) for the Northeast Intelligence Network.
Joseph can be reached at: joehagmann24@aol.com

Trumping up the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama The unraveling of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II  - Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann   Friday, April 8, 2011 To those who are now speaking out about the Obama eligibility matter, I can think of no better statement than the one uttered by a very frustrated Officer John McClane, played by Bruce Willis in the movie“Die Hard.” In order to get the attention of a police officer oblivious to the carnage taking place inside of the Nakatomi Plaza building after making a very cursory inspection and finding nothing amiss,McClane tosses the body of a terrorist from an office window window onto the windshield of the police cruiser and fires at the police car, yelling “welcome to the party, pal.” I suspect that this statement accurately reflects the sentiment of numerous individuals and groups who have been fighting in the real world trenches for full disclosure of all of Barack Hussein Obama’s records, including his birth certificate, for the last three years. People such as Commander Charles Kerchner (retired) and Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Pennsylvania Attorney Philip Berg,  Reverend David Manning of Atlah Ministries,  and numerous others who have spoken out and taken their valiant fight for full disclosure of Obama’s records to the nation’s courts, only to be struck down for lack of standing or other arbitrary judicial opinions. Due to the recent public statements by billionaire businessman turned reality television star about the birth certificate issue, the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has gained equal amounts of renewed interest and contempt by the American media and a vocal segment of the American public. The latter display of contempt is nicely displayed by some recent interview clips, including the priceless Meredith Viera interview of Donald Trump where she can hardly hold back her disdain of Mr. Trump and the entire eligibility matter, and Donald Trump’s appearance on “The View” last month. On “The View,” Mr. Trump wreaked havoc among the cadre of women co-hosts when he merely mentioned the lack of a legitimate birth certificate provided by Obama. Lacking any coherent or intellectual rebuttals to Trump’s claims, a not-so veiled accusation of racism was leveled against Trump by “The View” co-host Whoppi Goldberg, while Barbara Walters expressed discomfort with the matter by simply wanting to change the topic. “Welcome to the party, pal” During the last three years, there have been numerous individuals, authors, investigative journalists, and others (and I consider myself among them) who have been mocked, ridiculed, belittled or ignored by Obama supporters, the liberal media, and the political left for even suggesting that this issue has any merit whatsoever. Perhaps even worse, conservatives on the right, including some high profile media personalities, have joined with the left in the same vitriolic ridicule of us so-called “Birthers,” a pejorative term ascribed to those who are merely asking for yet-unfurnished proof that Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to occupy the office of the President of the United States. It has been only after Donald Trump began to ask the same questions others have been asking for the last three years that the matter appears to have morphed from a fringe topic into legitimacy. For example, Rush Limbaugh, who has kept this topic at arm’s length, has taken delight of the Viera interview, although it’s difficult to discern whether Mr. Limbaugh is more delighted at Mr. Trump’s steam roller approach and Viera’s reaction, or that the issue is being finally exposed in such an unlikely venue. Because Mr. Limbaugh has the ear of millions every day, I tend to gravitate to the former. To those who are now beginning to pick up the topic because of the exposure by Donald Trump, I can only say “welcome to the party, pal.” With all due respect to Donald Trump, he has not “legitimized” the eligibility issue, as the matter far exceeds the existence of the birth certificate and has adversely affected the lives of many patriotic Americans who have long fought for full disclosure of all of Obama’s records. Promising to be the “most transparent” president in history,  Barack Hussein Obama is the most deliberately opaque president who has withheld many more records than his birth certificate. Not only has he withheld his records, he has fought to keep them hidden from public view, amassing legal fees that some claim to exceed a million dollars of his own money, and perhaps twice that amount if pro-bono and other legal work is counted. Also as a result of his refusal to disclose his records, a respected military physician is presently serving time in Leavenworth for refusing to obey deployment orders until he was satisfied that the orders he was given were constitutionally legal. LTC. Terry Lakin, an honored veteran with 18 unblemished and distinguished years of service, lost his legal battle and remains behind bars as Obama’s first political prisoner in the war for truth. While many may question the methods and venue in which LTC Lakin chose to take up his battle, no one can question his motives. “The biggest scam ever” Both Messrs Trump and Limbaugh have stated that if Obama is determined to be ineligible to hold office, it is the “biggest scam ever” perpetrated. Indeed, and that statement itself might be an understatement. I urge those reading this and those who are pursuing the truth to avoid “battlefield myopia” and not merely cling to the existence or lack thereof of the long form, authenticated birth certificate. The issue is much greater than the birth certificate or where Obama was physically born, as he could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom during the Kennedy administration and still be ineligible to hold the office of president under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. Our founders determined that future presidents must be born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. Clearly then, the place of Obama’s birth is merely one concern, while the citizen aspect of his parents remains another. But the scam goes much deeper. Reviewing only the admissions of Barack Obama, we are told that Obama was born to U.S. citizen Stanley Ann Dunham, legally adopted by a foreign national named Lolo Soetoro, had taken the name Barry SOETORO, and was given Indonesian citizenship. He was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia, and attended a school there that accepted all faiths. At one point, Barry SOETORO moved to Hawaii to reside with his grandparents after Lolo SOETORO and Stanley Ann DUNHAM divorced. Obama completed high school as Barry SOETORO Much is missing from his early years, including a legal name change from Barry SOETORO to Barack Hussein Obama II. Absent of any document to show the legal process of a name change within the U.S., it is likely that the man sitting in the Oval Office is, in fact, Barry SOETORO. The above would also serve to explain the discrepancies with his social security number and region of issuance, a matter we are very familiar with in our capacity as licensed investigators. The reasons we have seen published concerning the allegations of the association of multiple social security numbers with Barry SOETORO and Barack Hussein OBAMA has always bothered us, but not necessarily for the reasons often published. After careful and extensive analysis, it appears that many of the numbers and name variations associated with Obama are what we would describe as “database chaff.” It is not uncommon for database repositories to erroneously associate different numbers, addresses and sometimes names to an individual. The reasons for this are many and beyond the scope of this article, but it happens. Accordingly, an investigator is well advised not to take the information obtained from a proprietary database at face value without first analyzing the information, tossing out the chaff and concentrating on the rest, which we have done. Additionally, we have found and concur with others on this matter that the social security number associated with Obama that was issued from the SSA region in Connecticut is troublesome, but again, not necessarily for the reasons as publicly stated by others. As we have been investigating this matter for some time (see our investigative report 1 and report 2 in PDF format for important background information), it has become apparent that at some point, the individual known as Barry SOETORO began using the name Barack Hussein Obama II. Based on our investigative findings, it was at about this same time period that the Connecticut issuance of the social security number appeared and became “attached” to the name Barack Hussein Obama. It can then be reasonably reconciled that Barry SOETORO became Barack Hussein Obama while he was a young man in New York following his mysterious trip to Pakistan on a passport that was likely not issued by the U.S. Trump’s curious statements As long-time investigators dealing with large corporations, we have the distinct advantage of knowing other professionals in the industry. Although we have had no contact with Mr. Trump’s investigators nor are we connected in any manner to Mr. Trump’s organization, team or efforts, we are aware of the identity of at least one who is actively working on the Obama birth certificate mystery. We are also familiar with that investigator’s associates and their areas of inquiry, so we have a fairly good understanding of what is taking place behind the scenes - and there is plenty taking place behind the scenes. NOTE: We will be talking about this in depth on the upcoming episode of CFP Radio’s “The Hagmann & Hagmann Report” on 8-10pm EST, Saturday, 9 April 2011. Program details follow this report. In advance of that show, however, we should address two rather curious statements made by Mr. Trump during one recent interview. When talking about his investigators in Hawaii who are looking into Obama’s birth certificate issue, he stated that “you wouldn’t believe what they’re finding.” Mr. Trump also stated that in his experience on Wall Street, he is familiar with frauds of all types, and has seen some very sophisticated frauds over the years. Well, we do have a very good idea of what is being found or verified as having been scrubbed from the records. In our investigation, we found that the scrubbing and altering of records pertaining to Obama began well before he became an Illinois state senator in the 1996 election cycle. The “scrubbing” or alteration of records did not begin or end with Obama, but also extended to his mother and other associates as well. In fact, a very large and extremely relevant part of the investigation of Barry SOETORO, or Barack Hussein Obama II as he is known, revolves around his parents, step father, and grandparents. and extends from the U.S. mainland to Hawaii and other points across the globe. Meteoric rise to power was well planned To understand how a virtually unknown politician from Illinois could rise to occupy the most powerful position in the free world in less than a decade after he became a state senator, one must take a few steps backward to understand the complete picture, and that Obama was selected long before he was elected to become president. Problems with his background were numerous, however, including but not limited to his parental lineage and place of birth. These problems became apparent through a private vetting process by his own handlers, or those who are known as the “power elite” in the latter half of the last century. His handlers were and are globalists of the highest order, extending from George Soros to those above him on the proverbial pyramid capstone of globalists. The globalists had direct and indirect ties to the Dunham family and in particular, Obama’s mother. Consider, for example, that Peter F. Geithner (father of Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner), worked for the Ford Foundation and oversaw the work of Obama‚Äôs mother, Ann Dunham, while she was developing “microfinance programs” in Indonesia. In brief, Obama’s mother set up a large loan system in Indonesia akin to the savings and loan structure of the 1970s and 1980s. To gain a better understanding of her activities in finance, despite her background in anthropology, recall the BCCI scandal of the late 1970s. In fact, some of the same “players” who existed then continue to exist in Obama’s circles. Our investigation into her activities and those close to Obama are continuing and will be the subject of a separate article, including how Obama as president fits into the communist China agenda in terms of global finance. Meanwhile, it’s important to take a few more steps backward in history to understand that the scrubbing of inconvenient records is not new. Fast Rewind: Senator Joe McCarthy & the relevance to today The majority of Americans alive today do not recall the WW II postwar era beyond the revised history contained in textbooks that rarely reflect the truth of that time. Today’s well-coiffed but intellectually deficient anchors who deliver the news to ordinary Americans know little to nothing of the gritty reality of the origins of the “cold war” between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and the infiltration of communist agents into American government. It is that very infiltration that has paved the way for Obama. Mention, however, the name of former Senator Joe McCarthy and watch as they recoil in disgust, having been taught that the inquiries of Senator Joe McCarthy is a black chapter in the history books of America. Since the 9/11 attacks, some of these news anchors and pundits have actually described the vetting of Muslims for sensitive positions in the U.S. as a throwback to “McCarthyism,” while few actually using that term know the true history of communist infiltration in key government positions in the postwar era. The truth is that communist infiltration of and through the U.S. government, particularly the State Department, was and remains a legitimate threat to America. A 106-page confidential memo dated 3 August 1946, written by State Department official Samuel Klaus, detailed the alarming levels of communist infiltration into American government. It was that memo that served as the basis of Senator Joe McCarthy launching an investigation into the threat to America from within. It was through the efforts of McCarthy that a Senate subcommittee chaired by Senator Millard Tydings requested and eventually received a copy of that memo. As noted by M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted by History, that memo would mysteriously vanish from our nation’s records. Mr. Evans notes that this historic memo is not in the legislative panel file of the Tydings panel, located in the National Archives of the U.S., and was also removed from the files of Samuel Klaus, the author of the memo, from the National Archives in March of 1993, nearly a half century after it was issued. As painstakingly revealed by M. Stanton Evans in his extensive work Blacklisted by History, important documentation well beyond the Klaus memo relevant to exposing the level of communist infiltration into the U.S. government is not limited to government sources such as the National Archive, but also to private data sources and repositories. He lists a number of instances where records were scrubbed and consequently, created a much different and much less accurate picture of that era of U.S. history. This topic is as relevant today as it was during the time of Senator Joe McCarty, if not even more relevant. One only has to look at the reported communist, Marxist and socialist ties in Obama’s lineage and inner circle to understand the impact of missing records. One would do well to use the voluminous work of M. Stanton Evans as a template to understand how Americans have been deliberately misled by the media and some members of our own government into believing that the communist and socialist objectives, launched in the postwar era, have led to where we find ourselves today. The removal of the Klaus memo from his file in March of 1993 was as deliberate as the refusal of government officials, complicit with the media moguls of today to address the lack of bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama. In fact, one could consider them an extension of the same. What it all means Based on investigative findings that are not discussed in the media, it would appear that the selection and election of Barack Hussein Obama was indeed the greatest scam ever pulled off against the American people. The above provides just a small portion of the critical issues surrounding Obama’s eligibility, identity and his place in U.S. and world history. The story is much larger than a single piece of paper, but that paper, if properly authenticated, will serve as the thread that will unravel the larger tangled web of the Obama legend. To those who have just awakened to the constitutional crisis we are facing at the hands of this president, we’d like to say once again, “welcome to the party, pal.” Douglas J. Hagmann & his son, Joseph Hagmann, both investigators, researchers and contributors to Canada Free Press, host a weekly radio program on CFP Radio called The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, broadcast live every Saturday from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. In it’s fifth week, the program has gained in popularity, and has become one of the ten most popular radio shows on the BlogTalk Radio platform. This week’s program will be providing additional details about the problems with Obama’s eligibility to occupy the White House.

Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital maybe 3

WorldNetDaily
July 07, 2009
By Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi

More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting website Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president's own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.

In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.

Barack Obama states in this letter on White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center on its website.

But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.
In Snopes' entry concerning allegations that Obama is a "radical Muslim," the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, "Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii."

WND took a screen shot of the entry and highlighted the name of the hospital.

In this screenshot of Snopes.com highlighted by WND, the myth-busting website asserts [Alleged] President Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, not the Kapi'olani Medical Center in which Obama claims to have been born.

Interestingly, in Snopes' entry focusing on the natural-born citizenship controversy, no mention is made of the birth hospital.

But Snopes is not alone in asserting Obama was born at a hospital other than the one he personally claims.

A number of news articles published both in the U.S. and abroad name Queen's Medical Center – not Kapi'olani – as the correct birthplace.

A United Press International report from Nov. 4 states:

"Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an 'all-America' story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience."

A screenshot of a United Press Inrernational story dated Nov. 4, 2008, indicates Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

A November 2004 report from the Rainbow Edition News Letter, published by the Education Laboratory School in Hawaii, noted in its lead sentence:

"Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii."

This screenshot of the November 2004 edition of the Rainbow Edition News Letter states at its outset Obama was born at Queen's Medical Center.

Adding a twist to the dispute is a separate claim on the MyBarackObama.com campaign website that lists a genealogy for Obama citing his birthplace as Queen's Medical Center.
The campaign website blog image:

Claim on MyBarackObama.com that Obama was born in Queen's Medical Center

The site documents Obama's lineage back to his great-great-great grandparents, who lived in the mid-1800s.
It states: "Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas."
William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress, first listed the birth location at Queen's.

Reference to Queen's attributed to Library of Congress

Now he's listing it at Kapi'olani.

Reference to Kapi'olani attributed to Library of Congress

Kenya's East African Standard, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled "From Young 'Barry' to Top American Senator," said of Obama: "The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen's Medical Centre in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Centre of the University of Hawaii in Manoa." 

But news agencies are hardly unanimous on the exact hospital.

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu Advertiser and Washington Post have all published stories indicating Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center, in agreement with the president's letter to the facility.

The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions only that Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, but makes no reference to any hospital.
The Associated Press reports that Internet users are far from ignorant about the questions over Obama's birthplace and documentation.
"Among the top search terms paired with Barack Obama: biography, Israel, news, jokes, stimulus package, birth certificate (related to those persistent but unfounded rumors that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.)," the news organization stated.
Makana Shook, corporate communications coordinator for Queen's, told WND, "The hospital is not allowed to give out any information to the public about patients without the patient's permission, because of federal HIPAA law restrictions."
Kapi'olani officials said they would release any documentation they may have about the president's birth if the president gives his permission to make the documentation public.
The White House did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The question to the White House noted the multiple references to Queen's. "Then, beginning sometime after the start of 2009, the president and various members of his family, including his sister Maya Soetoro, changed the story and gave interviews (or wrote letters as above) claiming [Alleged] President Obama was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center.
"Why did the president claim to be born at two different hospitals in Hawaii?" WND asked. "Which is the true hospital where the president was born?"
Snopes responded to a WND request for comment about the conflict between its report and Obama's statement with an automated message that shed no light on the matter.
WND has reported that among the documentation – besides his birth certificate – not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
That may very well be intentional on the part of Obama, who used his first full day in residence in the Oval Office to issue an executive order restricting the release of presidential records.
"Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose presidential records, the attorney general (directly or through the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel) and the counsel to the president shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified," the order states.
"If either the attorney general or the counsel to the president believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the president by the counsel to the president and the attorney general."
The result is that the president ultimately would decide if those records can be released.
"After receiving such notice, the archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent president or by a final court order," the order said.
Meanwhile, there are some who maintain Obama was not born in the U.S. at all as he claims, but in Africa.
An affidavit submitted to WND by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, asserts "it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya."

Rush was told it was Queen's

by Colby Hall | 9:43 pm, December 30th, 2009

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been rushed to a Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, and is reportedly in serious condition, according to local reports. Limbaugh has had a rather dramatic fluctuation of weight gain/loss, most recently shedding 90 pounds from Spring to late Summer of 2009. ABC News is now reporting that Limbaugh is “resting comfortably.” Coincidentally, the Hospital where Limbaugh is resting is the same where Barack Obama was born.

KITV in Honolulu initially reported:

HONOLULU - Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Friday that he had not suffered a heart attack and that his physician did not know the reason for the symptoms that resulted in his hospitalization in Hawaii this week, despite a number of tests performed on him.

"I wish I knew what it was,” Limbaugh told reporters before he was released from Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, which he was rushed to Wednesday after complaining of chest pains. "All people can do is make wild guesses about it."

Limbaugh shot down speculation that he is again taking painkillers amid news reports that he told paramedics when they arrived Wednesday at his hotel room that he was on medication for back pain.

Asked if he was taking painkillers, he flatly said "No," and added that he was taking Prednisone, a type of steroid used to treat inflammatory diseases.

Limbaugh, who has been vacationing in Hawaii at the same time as President Obama, also used his 5-minute statement to ding Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.

"The treatment I received here was the best that the world has to offer,” Limbaugh said. “Based on what happened here to me, I don't think there's one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy."

Limbaugh said that despite his celebrity he received the same treatment as anyone else who would have called 911 and been taken to the hospital in his condition.

"I got no special treatment," he said, adding that the care he received was nonetheless "confidence inspiring."

"I just feel very grateful and thankful be an American and have this happen to me," he said.

Dressed in a blue polo shirt, white shorts and black loafers, Limbaugh was energetic as he delivered his statement at a podium in a small room on the sixth floor of the hospital. He said around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday he started to feel chest pains and initially tried to walk it off around his hotel room. But when the symptoms did not dissipate, he called for emergency help and was taken to the hospital in serious condition.

With the physician who treated him, Dr. Joana Magno, by his side, Limbaugh made a plea for others who may have a similar experience not to wait around before calling 911.

"I'm 58, will be 59 in a couple of weeks - you start thinking about these kinds of things. Don't mess with it,” he said. “Any time you have heart pain or chest pain and you have no idea what it is and it's something you've never experienced before, turn it over to professionals right off the bat."

Limbaugh thanked well wishers who have reached out to him over the past two days.

"It has been a humbling experience," he added, saying he was overwhelmed with well-wishers who reached him

"It was a blessing that it happened as it did with no damage whatsoever," he said of his heart attack scare, "because it takes things like this in life maybe to prepare you for the [reality] that you are getting older, you're not as young as you were and not as invincible as you once thought you were."

On his way out of the room, Limbaugh told a reporter he plans to return to his radio show next Wednesday, not Monday as originally planned.

Limbaugh has been in Hawaii since December 23, staying at the posh Kahala Hotel and Resort.

Hawaii detective charges: 'Birth certificate' a fraud

Three Forgeries Created by the Hawaii Department of Health?

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR:  OBAMA’S LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE BASED ON ONE OF THEM

by Sharon Rondeau

Is this man a natural-born American citizen" or a foreign-born fake?

(May 8, 2011) — WorldNetDaily is reporting that a private investigator in Hawaii has confirmed that three documents have been manufactured by employees at the Hawaii Department of Health bearing the name and alleged vital statistics of Barack Hussein Obama, II.

The investigator, Mr. Takeyuki Irei, stated that the image released by the White House on April 27, 2011 was “more or less an exact image” of one of the three forgeries he identified.

Last week, The Post & Email was in contact with Dr. Jerome Corsi briefly and provided him with a piece of information, but we did not know about these latest developments.  However, we had reported on Corsi’s recent prediction that “certain government officials in the state [of Hawaii] have been contemplating releasing fraudulent birth records for Obama in the run-up to the 2012 election.”

Following the publication on the internet of the White House image, a website called “Aloha Reporter” recirculated an image which had originally surfaced last year.  The alleged document had been widely labeled a forgery at the time due to the law cited at the bottom which had not been in effect in 1961. In its most recent release, the image accompanied an article about the “Vexatious Requester” bill passed by the Hawaii legislature last year in order to quell inquiries about Obama’s origins and as before, stated that Obama had been born in Kenya.

Many readers of The Post & Email had wondered if the image published with the dated article about the Hawaii legislation was the real thing and the White House release a forgery.

On February 17, 2011, a website called “Aloha Update” issued a renewed confirmation that the Certification of Live Birth issued by The Daily KOS in June 2008 was Obama’s official birth certificate.  That has been declared a forgery by some.

The image released on April 27 was almost immediately labeled a forgery by many examiners from different walks of life.  The analyses all seem to center on the presence of layers which would not be found in a scan of a real paper document.  Another analyst focuses on not only multiple layers, but also what he explains is the use of Adobe Illustrator and PDF files to create the image.

Over the last 21 months, The Post & Email has made multiple requests under Hawaii’s UIPA law not only about Obama, but also from the Hawaii Elections Office, which took four months to respond to our request for documents already publicly available.   Janice Okubo, Communications Director at the HDOH, was usually evasive and at times, dishonest.

The attorney general under former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle had issued a statement that said his office could not corroborate statements made by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health at that time which confirmed that Obama had been born in Hawaii and was a “natural-born American citizen.”

WorldNetDaily also reported that the spokesman for Kapiolani Medical Center, Shawn Nakamoto, had “refused WND permission to ask questions of anyone at the hospital.”  On April 27, after the White House released the image purported to be a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, The Post & Email contacted Kapiolani and received a response from the same Nakamoto, which said:

Sharon,
This is in response to your email request to Martha Smith.  Below is our official statement:

Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women and Children cannot respond to media or other inquiries about President Barack Obama’s medical records or other related documentation.  As a health care provider, we are prohibited by Federal privacy laws from providing confidential information without the patient’s specific authorization.  Official certificates of birth are issued by the State Department of Health and not Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Interviews will not be granted with hospital officials.  Thank you.

Shawn E. Nakamoto, APR
Director of Communications
Hawai‘i Pacific Health
55 Merchant Street, 25th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813
808-535-7345 (direct)
www.hawaiipacifichealth.org

Why would the White House release a document based on a forgery if Obama had really been born in Hawaii, as he claims?

What was Nakamoto hiding from WorldNetDaily?  Why did he allegedly instruct hospital personnel not to answer their questions?  Who is the employee who allegedly created the forgeries?

Even more important, why were forgeries created?

The press in Hawaii and across the country has worked to make excuses for the mystery surrounding Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate and other records about himself.

What about all of the congressmen who have defended Obama’s purported Hawaii birth?  What about Speaker of the House John Boehner, who said, “The state of Hawaii has said that…Obama was born there.  That’s good enough for me.”

Are forgeries good enough for you, also, Speaker Boehner?

And what about Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who wanted only to see Obama’s official birth record to confirm his eligibility to serve?  What about the five months which Lakin has spent at Ft. Leavenworth, Mr. Boehner?

What say you, Obama?

http://alohareporter.com/2010/03/hawaii-considering-law-to-ignore-obama-birthers/




http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=295369

HONOLULU, Hawaii – A private investigator claims employees of the state Department of Health forged three Hawaiian birth certificates for Barack Obama to "screw with birthers."
Takeyuki Irei told WND one document placed the birth at Kapiolani hospital, another at Queens Medical Center and a third in Kenya.
The 57-year-old detective, who has been a P.I. since the 1980s, said he was stunned when he discovered that the purported copy of Obama's original birth certificate released by the White House was more or less an exact image of one of the forgeries.

Read more: Hawaii detective charges: 'Birth certificate' a fraud http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295369#ixzz1LpdNpvLJ

By Aloha Reporter On March 18, 2010 ·

Obama’s Birth Certificate?
Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama’s birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won’t give up.

“Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy,” said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health’s Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.

So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn’t meet a constitutional requirement for being president.