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/ 

Arizona: Presidential candidates will prove their U.S. citizenship

The state of Arizona has moved onto contentious political territory once again with the legislative passage of a bill requiring President Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state's ballot.

Opponents say Arizona's bill, approved late this week, gives the state another black eye after lawmakers approved a controversial immigration enforcement law last year.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who has until the end of business Thursday to act on the proposal, declined to say whether she would sign the measure, which would make Arizona the first state to enact such a requirement.

"That bill is an interesting piece of legislation. I certainly have not given it a whole lot of thought with everything that's been on my plate," said Brewer, a social conservative who has vetoed four bills and signed more than 100 others since the legislative session began in January.

If she does sign, a court could possibly have to decide whether the president's birth certificate is enough to prove he can legally run for re-election.

Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state, but so-called "birthers" have demanded more proof.

Opponents also point to other actions they believe have affected the state's reputation, including the consideration of legislation asserting state rights.

"Arizona is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. We've cut school funding. And they pass a bill questioning Obama's citizenship? For real?" Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said Friday.

Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the bill's author, said the president's birth record wouldn't satisfy the requirements of his proposal and that Obama would have to provide other records, such as baptismal certificates and hospital records. But Seel said the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and instead was meant to maintain the integrity of elections.

"Mr. Obama drew the question out, but it's not about him," Seel said, noting his bill would also require statewide candidates to complete an affidavit showing they meet the qualifications for those offices, which include U.S. citizenship.

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

But the term "natural-born citizen" is open to interpretation -- and many bloggers, politicians and others have weighed in.

No one knows for sure what the term means, said Gabriel J. Chin, a University of Arizona law professor who is an expert in citizenship and immigration law. "Natural-born citizen" was modeled after a phrase used in British law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never defined it, he said.

Birthers have maintained since the last presidential election that Obama is ineligible to hold the nation's highest elected office because, they argue, he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. Obama's mother was an American citizen.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificate has been made public. Even though the courts have rebuffed lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, the issue hasn't gone away.

Whether Arizona's measure would be found constitutional is an open question, legal scholars say.

Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University's law school, said he doesn't think the bill on its face conflicts with federal law. But he said a court might find its application unconstitutional. "I think the state of Arizona, like any other state, is entitled to formulate rules to ensure that candidates whose name appear on the ballot are in fact qualified," Tokaji said.

The U.S. Constitution sets the qualifications for presidential candidates, and the Arizona proposal requires proof of those qualifications. However, opponents question whether Arizona's bill adds additional requirements.

The measure says political parties and presidential candidates must hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also requires them to provide the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates don't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it can't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates are eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would be able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements have been met. The names of candidates can be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state doesn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

The bill doesn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.

But Richard Hasen, a University of California, Irvine professor who specializes in election law, said the candidate in such a case could go to federal court to seek an order preventing enforcement of the law on the grounds it would be an unconstitutional qualification for the office.

Hasen believes there's a good chance the law would get struck down, likely on the grounds that it adds an impermissible requirement for presidential candidates. "It depends on how a court would read the bill," he said.

Seel predicted the proposal would stand up in court because it relies on standards that the Department of Defense uses in making sure military applicants are U.S. citizens.

He said one fan of the measure is real estate tycoon and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who last month appeared on ABC's "The View" and called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Seel said he discussed the bill with Trump last week, and "he liked it."

Seel added that the measure was not intended as a snipe at the federal government.

"I wouldn't say that, but I am proud of my Republican colleagues (who voted for the bill)," he said. "It was a good day for the Constitution."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/16/arizona-plows-controversial-ground-birther/#ixzz1JiPQZ1T6

Donald Trump's "Were is the birth certificate"

Donald Trump at a news conference in New York last month. Trump, who may run for president, is continuing to ask questions about the president's origins. Donald Trump at a news conference in New York last month. Trump, who may run for president, is continuing to ask questions about the president's origins. (Lucas Jackson/REUTERS)

In his fundraising opener, Obama endorses 'a caring America' 

WSJ/NBC News poll: Donald Trump No. 2 among likely Republican candidates for president WSJ/NBC News poll: Donald Trump No. 2 among likely Republican candidates for president * 

Pawlenty gets Trumped in CNN interview Pawlenty gets Trumped in CNN interview By James Oliphant April 15, 2011, 6:12 a.m. The public revival of the so-called “birther” question among some Republicans plays to his political advantage, President Obama says. 

Obama told ABC News interviewer George Stephanopoulos that Donald Trump and others are doing themselves no favors in persisting on the issue of the president’s background. “I think that over the last two and a half years there's been an effort to go at me in a way that is politically expedient in the short-term for Republicans, but creates, I think a problem for them when they want to actually run in a general election where most people feel pretty confident the President was born where he says he was, in Hawaii. He doesn't have horns,” 

Obama said in the ABC interview. “We may disagree with him on some issues and we may wish that you know, the unemployment rate was coming down faster and we want him to know his plan on gas prices. But we're not really worrying about conspiracy theories or-- or birth certificates. And so-- I-- I think it presents a problem for them.” For Obama, the birth-certificate sideshow has become a punch line.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Chicago Thursday evening, the president said. “I grew up here in Chicago. I wasn’t born here.” The crowd laughed. “Just want to be clear,” he said. “I was born in Hawaii. But I became a man here in Chicago.” Meanwhile, Trump is working the question of his GOP presidential aspirations to his full ratings-seeking advantage. He told Bill Carter of the New York Times Thursday that he may make some sort of announcement regarding his political future on his NBC show “Celebrity Apprentice.” (And, he just got us to mention the show. He’s a genius.) 

But Trump has to be careful about federal rules that require networks to provide equal time for presidential candidates—so it’s not as if Trump can declare that he’s running for president at the end of the show, even though NBC no doubt would love for him to. “I believe I can say I will be announcing my decision in a few days,” Trump told the New York Times. “But before I did that I would get the approval of NBC.” The network said that as long as Trump does not become a formal candidate for president, equal time rules do not kick it.

Donald Trump reveals he's a birther

Donald Trump isn't even running for president yet, but he is already gearing up for the primaries by pandering to the Republican base.

In an interview with ABC News' Ashleigh Banfield that aired Thursday, Trump said he had some doubts that President Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen.

"Everybody that even gives any hint of being a birther -- a word you didn't use -- even a little bit of a hint like 'gee, you know, maybe, just maybe this much of chance,' they label them as an idiot," he told Banfield. "Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy," Trump continued. "I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt -- just a little -- is because he grew up and nobody knew him." "When you interview people, if I ever got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life." "It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he added.

If the American business magnate wants the Republican nomination then he may need support from the birthers. A recent PPP poll found that a majority of Republican voters don't believe Obama was born in the U.S.

Trump also took issue with Republican House Speaker John Boehner's emotional outbursts. "I don't like the crying," he said. "I do not like it. I don't understand it. I really like him as a person. I think the crying is an emotional thing that frankly, probably makes him a very nice man. But you know, I don't like to see it in a leader.

" Trump told Banfield that he was prepared to spend $600 million of his own money if he does decide to make a run for the White House. "That's one of the nice things. I mean, part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich. So if I need $600 million, I can put $600 million myself," he said.

Is Obama From Kenya?

The Obama Deception

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.

The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.

We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. It's not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.

Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.

Watch the Obama Deception and learn how:

- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.

- Obama's handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.

- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.

- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.

- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.tv

Fire the Silver Bullet!

Fire the Silver Bullet!

By

Hugh McInnish

Hugh McInnish

The late, brilliant Sam Francis used to call the Republican Party the "Stupid Party." Sam was a great conservative, so great that he was fired as editorial page editor for the conservative Washington Times for being too conservative. I greatly admired his ability and his unflinching courage in the face of attack. But while he was living I was never quite able to cross the line he had drawn and call the party in which I have lived and breathed since Goldwater "stupid." But since his death it has become progressively more difficult for me to disagree with him.

Just to mention the iceberg's tip:

In regard to the immigration problem they are virtual participants in committing the suicide of the Republican Party. Rather than working to stop the invasion, they have welcomed the influx of millions of Mexicans and others who in the long run are certain to work to the Party's detriment.

Bush the Elder broke his read-my-lips promise and raised taxes. Bush the Younger sponsored the No-Child-Left-Behind fiasco, increased funding for the intrusive Department of Education, and plunged us deeper into debt. In brief, rather than being unapologetic combatants fighting to kill the deadly virus of socialism spread by the Democrats, Republicans have willingly propagated a slightly less virulent strain of the same pathogen.

And now that we have Obama the quasi-Muslim, marginal American in the White House what are they doing? One thing that they are doing is ignoring the silver bullet that has been handed to them gratis, and which if used could dramatically change the political picture.

There is a serious, a most serious, question of whether Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. The Constitution requires that he be a ''natural born'' citizen, and there are strong reasons to believe that he is not. Numerous lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to settle the question, but so far without success. Without ruling on the merits of the cases the courts have generally dismissed them because the plaintiffs ''lacked standing.'' Numerous cases are still pending.

And that brings the silver bullet into sharp focus. There it is lying on the table, shining in the light. If a few conscientious Republicans, mindful of the welfare of the country and of the Republican Party, would simply come together, load and fire it, the world would likely change, and with it the prospects of the Republican Party.

I mean, that if they would simply demand that Obama produce his birth certificate for all to see, the issue would be resolved one way or another. What could be more reasonable to ask of the President? After all, he demands that every soldier under his command show his, and even a cub scout, a Little League baseball player, or an applicant for a driver's license, must do the same. Of course there is a very high probability that this man is hiding something, otherwise why would he spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers' fees to keep his birth certificate hidden? And in all likelihood the thing that he is hiding is the fact that he was born outside the United States and is ineligible to be President.

In other words Obama is almost certainly a Pretender to the Throne. Why, then, are not the Republicans clamoring for him to unlock the vault holding his birth certificate? Not only are they mute on the subject but almost seem to be helping him in suppressing the truth. One example of this is the strange behavior of Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions. I have already recounted his surprising reaction when I brought the subject up. And below is a copy of a computer-generated letter that Sessions is pumping out to constituents who ask why he is not asking Obama to show us his birth certificate:

If read quickly, the reader is likely to come away believing two things: First that Obama has published his birth certificate, and second that an official in Hawaii has confirmed that everything is in order. But look again. Don't confuse what Obama has published with a genuine birth certificate. His so-called certificate has not a single signature, and could probably be easily created by a skillful graphics designer. (For a further analysis of this question see here.)

Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii Health Department did indeed issue a statement in regard to Obama's birth certificate, but to understand what she actually said let us look at his statement reproduced below.

Dr. Fukino is not commenting on the ''certificate'' published by Obama, but on what is presumably his real birth certificate which is locked in a vault. Fukino says that it is genuine, but she says nothing about the information it contains. She does not say, for instance, what is given for the place of birth.

In other words the Sessions letter conveys two fundamentally incorrect ideas: that we have Obama's birth certificate, and that all is well.

All is not well. It is manifestly obvious to most of us out here in the hinterland that there is a coverup going on here, a very serious one, one involving a fundamental constitutional issue. Only in Washington is the squatting elephant invisible.

And this brings us back to the question of why the Republicans don't pick up the silver bullet, load and fire it. Doing so would likely stop Mr. Obama in his tracks, deal the Democrat Party a serious blow, and save our country from socialism. Is the Party really, as Sam Francis charged, the ''Stupid Party''? As I said earlier it becomes harder to disagree with Sam.

N.H. Joins Roster of States Requiring Presidential Birth Certificate

N.H. Joins Roster of States Requiring Presidential Birth Certificate

As reported by The New American earlier this week, state legislators are riding to the sound of the guns and courageously reaffirming the constitutional requirement that anyone seeking the office of the presidency qualify as a “natural-born citizen” of the United States.New Hampshire is the latest state to consider such a measure. On Tuesday, the chairman of Election Law committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, David Bates,reported that his committee will soon consider offering an amendment to a bill that would require candidates for president to provide a birth certificate and a sworn affidavit attesting that the candidate is at least 35 years of age and has lived in the United States for 14 years. This documentation would need to be filed with the state election committee before the candidate’s name could be included on ballots in the Granite State.

And as with similar statutes being debated in other states, the New Hampshire bill specifies that only a “long-form birth certificate” would qualify as sufficient proof of natural born citizenship. 

In a statement to the press, Representative Bates, a Republican from Windham, New Hampshire, said that he did not want people to think that the amendment is aimed at President Barack Obama, and that to avoid such a presumption he would consider setting the effective date for the proposed law in 2013, thereby precluding President Obama from having to conform to its mandates.

The New American has been in the forefront of coverage of the lingering issue regarding the birthplace of President Barack Obama and the concomitant question of his constitutional eligibility for president.

The “certification of live birth” found on the Internet, which purports to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, has been dismissed as valid proof, as it is a “short-form” document, as opposed to the “long-form” document that lists the hospital and attending physician. “Short-form” documents are easily obtainable. In addition to Obama’s missing birth certificate, other documentation that has been concealed includes kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school records; college records; Harvard Law Review articles; passport; medical records; Illinois State Bar Association records; baptism records; and adoption records. The constitutional language in question is tricky, as it states that the president of the United States must be a “natural born citizen,” though the term has been undefined. Some argue the term means that the president must be born in the United States to two parents that were also born in the United States. If that proves to be the case, Obama would be disqualified, since he has openly admitted that his father never was a U.S. citizen. However, much of the legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility rests upon the presumption that Obama was not even born in Hawaii, as he claims. 

Ten states have pending proposals that would require future candidates for president to provide legal proof of their constitutional qualifications for that office. Each of these state measures is currently pending approval and is at one stage or another of the process of enactment. Without regard to the status of the various bills, what follows is an alphabetical recap of them:

In Arizona, State Representative Judy Burges joined with 16 of her colleagues from the state senate in sponsoring a bill that is being deliberated by relevant committees of the state legislature. 

Unlike "birth certificate" bills offered by other state lawmakers who insist that their measures are not directed specifically at President Obama, the text of the bill offered by Representative Burges leaves little room for doubt about the impetus:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

Like the similar bills pending in Georgia and New Hampshire, the Arizona proposal requires candidates to provide a cache of sworn documents to supplement the birth certificate.

In Connecticut the language of the legislation is much simpler. SB 291 requires that “the Secretary of the State to be presented with an original birth certificate of any candidate for the federal office of president or vice-president that certifies that the certificate holder is a natural-born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.” This bill, introduced by State Senator Michael McLachlan, appears stalled in the Committee on Government and Administration and Elections.

As reported earlier in The New American, Georgia is considering a bill that mandates that the qualifying birth certificate must list the date and time of birth and name the hospital or other place of birth. Other mandatory information would include: the attending physician, birth parents' names, birthplace, and addresses and signatures of witnesses to the birth.

In the event that such a document is proven in good faith to be unavailable, the bill provides that the candidate may yet satisfy the bill’s requirements by providing an affidavit attesting that:

the candidate has never been a citizen of any country or nation other than the United States of America; that the candidate has never held dual or multiple citizenship; and that the candidate has never owed allegiance to any country or nation other than the United States of America....

In the Hoosier State, Indiana, State Senator Mike Delph has offered SB 114 for consideration. In a tone much like that of the other similarly-targeted measures, Delph’s proposal

requires a candidate for the office of President of the United States to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States (qualifications), and to submit with the candidate's declaration of candidacy or request that the candidate's name be placed on the primary ballot a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications.

Another midwestern state, Iowa, has seen the introduction of a bill that would seek more ironclad proof of a presidential candidate’s Article II qualification.

State Senator Kent Sorenson has sponsored SF 368 in an effort to accomplish that worthwhile goal. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the measure read:

A candidate for president or vice president shall attach to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate’s state of birth. The certified copy shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be made available for public inspection in the same manner as the affidavit of candidacy.

 A candidate for president or vice president who does not comply with the requirements of this section shall not be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for president or vice president anywhere in the state.

Unfortunately, while this bill is technically still pending, it is effectively tabled, as it did not meet submission deadlines imposed by the state senate itself. Nothing in the rules would prevent the measure from being re-introduced in the next session.

In Maine, the state assembly will consider a bill sponsored by Representative Richard Cebra that requires “a candidate for nomination by primary election shall [sic] show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s driver’s license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.” 

Cebra is a tireless and experienced advocate of the restoration of state sovereignty. In addition to his opposition to the REAL ID legislation, he introduced a measure that would nullify the unconstitutional mandates of the federal health care scheme known as ObamaCare.

The "birth certificate" bill that was offered in the Montana state legislature did not make it out of committee, but its sponsors are determined to continue the fight to prevent unqualified candidates for president from being listed on their state’s ballots.

A bill in Nebraska that requires a candidate for president to provide “affidavits and supporting documentation” before being allowed to have his name appear on the ballot is still being debated by a state committee.

Senator Rick Brinkley (R-Owasso) of Oklahoma authored SB 91. That bill would mandate that:

Each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any federal, state, county, municipal or judicial office, or for the nomination of a recognized political party, in any general, primary, or special election shall, no later than twenty-four (24) hours after filing the Declaration of Candidacy, provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the election board at which the Declaration was filed.

In Tennessee, veteran states' rights supporter, Senator Mae Beavers (Beavers battles boldly and relentlessly to beat back the encroachment of federal statutes into the sovereign territory of the Volunteer State), has introduced SB 366 which would require all presidential candidates who wish their names on Tennessee's ballot in presidential election years starting in 2012 to file an "original long form birth certificate" with Tennessee's Secretary of State, along with a sworn affidavit declaring they do not hold dual citizenship in another country.

Said Beavers, "Somebody needs to be overseeing the qualifications of all candidates.”

Last, but never least, Texas, the Lone Star State, is considering HB 295. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying for election any candidate for president or vice-president that does not present his “original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

Could all of these efforts be rendered moot if President Obama would voluntarily release the exculpating documents that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt his own qualifications for the office of president? Perhaps. In the meantime, it is encouraging to see so many of the people’s duly elected state representatives riding to the defense of the Constitution on so many different fronts and using all the constitutional weapons at their disposal.

‘Birthers’ get a new backer

Georgia hopped on the birther bandwagon — again — by introducing legislation last week that requires presidential and vice presidential candidates to produce certified copies of their birth certificates.

Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, who introduced a similar bill in 2010, is the primary sponsor of House Bill 401, according to the Associated Press, and denies he is a “birther” — a person who believes President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. But he said that he hasn’t “personally seen any real proof” of Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president.

“Most people feel it’s an issue to a significant enough portion of our population that it needs to be addressed by the state,” Hatfield said. “It is, in a sense, a response … to the sitting president and his inability or unwillingness to release his original birth certificate.”

Since the “birther” questions started in 2008, this particular conspiracy theory has been discussed, disputed, delivered with stern expressions by talking heads and eventually debunked so many times that another wingnut theory sprung up about where it all began: with Hillary Clinton. Apparently Clinton was so desperate to win the primary, her only recourse was to cast doubt on Obama’s citizenship. Who comes up with this stuff?

During the presidential campaign, Obama released a “certificate of live birth,” an official state document confirming that he was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. Over the last few years, Hawaiian officials have been deluged with requests from people who want a copy of the document — the same document, except from the state. Citing the state’s privacy laws, officials could not comply. So Hawaii lawmakers have proposed a bill revising the law that would make a copy of the document available to anyone who asks — for $100. “All these people are still doubting it because they don’t want the birth certificate from Obama,” Rep. Rida Cabanilla told AP. “They want it from our state office.”

Hatfield said his bill wasn’t specifically for an Obama candidacy and would apply to anyone seeking the office — but he specified that documentation as provided by the state of Hawaii attesting to Obama’s birth there “would not suffice,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. What will? According to the language of the bill: “Evidence of eligibility… (including) a certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s name, time and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signatures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.”

According to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Vital Records division, a computer-generated long-form in our state includes much of that information but does not provide (or require) witness signatures, the time of birth, a specific hospital (only the city) or the name of the attending physician. Thus, if Georgia’s legislation passes,no South Carolina natives need apply to run on the Georgia ballot for president or vice president.

“It could be that this individual really does doubt that Barack Obama was born in this country, despite evidence to the contrary,” said University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock. “There are also people who think we have never sent astronauts to the moon.”

Originally, 92 Republicans and one Democrat signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. As of Monday, 28 had removed their names from the measure.

Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Maine have bills pending. A proposal failed earlier this year in Montana.

Let’s hope it makes a resounding thud in Georgia, too. The South already has enough unfair image problems.

Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

David Hahn, "Publisher, StatePaper.com "

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as "racist," "birther," or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being "too liberal" or an "Obama lover" by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a "Certificate of Live Birth." We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this "Certificate of Live Birth" is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call "Evidence." One of the core tenets of American law is the "best evidence rule" which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the "Best Evidence Rule" and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of "Best Evidence" is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the "best evidence" (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

And now we've got a "Liberal" Nebraska newspaper advising Barry to cough up his birth certificate.

If he can. Anybody ready yet to watch our TelePrompTer-in-Chief taking the Fifth?

Dreams From My Forger

alias Barack Obama: Portrait of a Presidential fraud



FORGED PHOTOGRAPHS were used by the media to generate hundreds of stories about alias Barack Obama's biography. They treated these photos like videos or worse, like eyewitness experiences. A handful of photos were endlessly recycled in countless "puff-pieces about Obama's fraudulent family ties.
The media lied about Obama - a mountain of recycled garbage they have portrayed it as "news" NOW, you will learn the truth about the massive fraud the imposter in the White House and his Democrat collaborators have wrought


Barack Obama is not the person occupying the White House! He is an imposter - born in the Middle East, grew up in Indonesia, and then sent to the US mainland. His mother is not Stanley Ann Dunham. His father is not Barack Hussein Obama Sr. They never met in Hawaii. He never graduated from Punahou. He never attended Occidental College. He never graduated from Columbia. He spent all of one year at Harvard before landing a job as an attorney.


His biography is as bogus as is his birth certificate.


He is the greatest identity fraud in history.

At the end of July, some of Stanley Ann Dunham's passport documentation had been released to Mr. Christopher Strunk by the State Department following a lawsuit brought against the State Department for failing to comply with a Freedom of Information request originally made in October 2008.
The released documents indicate Dunham's husband, Lolo Soetoro, petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the State Department in 1967 to obtain a waiver to return to the United States to rejoin his wife and her infant son, Barack Obama Jr.

As usual, the birth certificate for Barack Obama was conspicuously absent from the documents. Obama's birth certificate would surely have been required for Obama to travel back and forth from Hawaii to Indonesia, and it was likely submitted by Ann Dunham for a passport issued to her in July 1965. However, the records for this passport are lost, missing, and presumably destroyed.

Although Obama's birth certificate was missing, an extremely poor and nearly unreadable copy of Ann Dunham's birth certificate was included with the other documentation. Thanks to some heavy-duty noise reduction software, and a few tricks of the trade, I was able to clean it up enough to read the key information it contained. There were a number of surprises.

Here is the original image. 



Here is the cleaned and annotated image.

  By most accounts, Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. A handful of other sites indicated Wichita, Kansas, and the same hospital name, Saint Francis, one Kansas blog got the location of Ann's mom as Augusta, but none made mention of Sedgwick, which is 21 miles to the North of Wichita and about 190 miles Southwest of Ft. Leavenworth.

The biggest "shocker," which nobody has ever mentioned, is that the first name of Ann's mom is MADELINE - not MADELYN as is universally reported. Father, Stanley Armour's usual address was listed as Wichita, even though the Kansas websites listed it as El Dorado. According to rumor, Stan and Maddy were never married. They certiainly did not live together when Ann was born. However, her BC says "Yes," presumably to avoid all of the different laws pertaining to unmarried parents at the time.

Stan's occupation is "Corporal" in the business or industry of the "US Army." Madeline's occupation and place of employment looks to be intentionally scribbled.

Not exactly "earth-shaking" news, but definitely undermines the "facts" written in Obama's "Dreams of My Father."

Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.


The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "nonvital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.


Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.


The claim made in the Freedom of Information response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.


The records released, however, contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama's mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.


In the released documents Dunham listed both March 15, 1965, in Molokai, Hawaii, and March 5, 1964, in Maui, Hawaii, as the dates and places of her marriage.


Dunham later divorced Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii. The divorce decree took effect Nov. 5, 1980, but the divorce papers do not list the date of the marriage.


No marriage certificate between Dunham and Soetoro has yet publicly surfaced, but a released application to amend Dunham's 1965 passport to her married name Stanley Ann Soetoro includes a checked box indicating a passport officer had seen the marriage certificate.


The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.


Under 22 USC Sec. 217a, from 1959 through 1968, passports were initially issued for three years, but they could be renewed for an additional two years.


Obama, by any other name


Also revealed by the released records is a heretofore unknown, alternative name for Barack Obama.


In the 1968 application to renew her 1965 passport, Dunham listed as her son Barack Hussein Obama, including in parenthesis below the name, "Soebarkah," in what appears to be a variation of an Indonesian surname not previously associated in the public record with the president.


For some unexplained reason, the designation of "Barack Hussein 
Obama (Soebarkah)" is crossed off the 1968 application by five handwritten, diagonal hash marks.
Read more: Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=186677#ixzz1GAdwE0vA