In my recent eligibility update posting where I discussed the Cook v. Simtech (that had been dismissed in the great State of Florida), I had posted Orders from Judge Richard Lazzara dated July 27, 2009. It appears that Dr. Orly Taitz, the attorney who has been assisting Major Stefan Cook with this case, has taken exception with my posting by saying that I am spreading “disinformation” regarding this Order.
Let’s go through what has transpired with this case, to date. The following is the Docket:
Summons Issued as to Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, Defense Security Services, Louis B. Wingate, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (BSN) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
ORDER ATTACHED denying without prejudice 1Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 7/23/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
COMPLAINT against Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, Defense Security Services, Louis B. Wingate, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama with Jury Demand filed by Stefan Frederick Cook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(BSN) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
ORDER ATTACHED denying 4 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Original Verified Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction and dismissing case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 7/27/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
Summons Issued as to Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, Defense Security Services, Louis B. Wingate, Robert M. Gates, Barack Hussein Obama, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (BSN) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
MOTION to alter judgment, MOTION for ReHearing re 6 Order on motion for reconsideration, 3 Order on motion for temporary restraining order by Stefan Frederick Cook. (BSN) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
ENDORSED ORDER denying 8 Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
ENDORSED ORDER denying as frivolous and wholly without merit 9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and 9 Motion for Rehearing re: 6Order on Motion for Reconsideration of 3 Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
The actual order originated from entry 6 dated 07/27/2009. Dr. Taitz believes that entry numbers 10 and 11, “Endorsed Orders,” should have similarly had opinions attached thereto and she subsequently thinks that I am incorrectly reporting on this case.
As a recent commenter has similarly made note, and as an “opposition” web site (pointed from the NativeBornCitizen link provided by the commenter) ObamaConspiracy.org notes:
Sorry, Orly. Nothing was sealed. The judge just dismissed these frivolous motions without comment. Nothing requires the judge to deliver a lengthy opinion to dismiss a frivolous motion. If Orly doesn’t like it, she can appeal. [emphases original]
I received my documentation from a concerned citizen with access to PACER. The Docket and the Order are in good form. And any Judge is not obligated to always provide an opinion for every order that they produce.
To be perfectly honest, I am beginning to wonder why it is that individuals such as Dr. Taitz are essentially blaming sites like mine for merely presenting the evidence as it is. After all, just because a Judge doesn’t provide verbose commentary on every action they create doesn’t mean there’s an agenda behind such non-action either.
So — not to worry. There is no disinformation being purported here; only a relentless pursuit of the truth.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
It should be noted that in the above recounting, “Dr. Ron Polarik’s” identity was allegedly revealed:
A lot went back and forth. One of the things that became very clear is that Ron Polarik’s identity, Ronald J. Polland, has indeed been confirmed.
However, when I corresponded with “Dr. RonPolarik” about the above claim, he said the following in response:
This post is very biased towards to Ed Hale and Linda Belcher, even though it was both of them who threatened to reveal the identities of all of Berg’s witnesses, whose names and addresses were under seal.
There was no “Obot” who did it. THEY did it, and it’s tantamount to tampering with a witness and contempt of court.
It puts a lot of people in great danger, which the reporter fails to recognize.
Allen v. Soetoro: As Mr. Allen has put it: “The White House has accepted service for Barry Soetoro on July 31st 2009… I will be filing proof of service on Monday.”
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, when referring to then-candidate John McCain, that “everything should be public” when running for President:
Via CitizenWells, CBS3 in Philadelphia, PA reports that a police officer with the 18th District performed a background check on the President. The officer currently remains on duty while awaiting disciplinary action. This follows on the heals of 2 police officers here in Georgia (DeKalb County) who allegedly performed the same check.
TulsaWorld.com reports that Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) made comments about the President’s failure to release his long-form birth certificate while talking to the Tulsa Republican Club about Mr. Obama’s treatment of the opponents of his healthcare plan.
GulfCoastNews.com posted an article entitled “Book of Days” in which writers Perry Hicks and Keith Burton talk about a brief history of constitutionalism and end with the tools that the Constitution provides to reassert foundational principles.
Zach Jones takes on Glenn Beck in a recent CanadaFreePress.com posting entitled “Obama eligibility – Glenn Beck – Don’t Tase Me Bro!” wondering why Mr. Beck appears to be castigating those who are asking for the presidential eligibility clause to be taken seriously.
There’s a false argument floating around which goes something like this:
We should not discriminate against non-natural born citizens by taking away their right to be President since all citizens have equal civil rights.
The problem with that argument is that Presidential eligibility is not a protected “civil right” guaranteed by the Constitution to any citizen. In fact, not all natural born citizens can be President. Only those who are 35 years old and have been US residents for 14 years can be President.
If being eligible to be President was a protected “civil right”, it would require Constitutional protection across the board to all citizens. We couldn’t legally enforce the 35 year age requirement to be President since that would discriminate against all citizens 34 years old and younger.
After all, 34 year old citizens are not supposed to have less civil rights than 35 year old citizens.
QUESTION: Why has the 35 year POTUS eligibility requirement been free from attack all these years and election cycles?
ANSWER: To be President and Commander In Chief is not a protected right of citizenship.
The framers protected all of our rights as best they could by excluding many citizens from Presidential eligibility via Article 2 Section 1 requirements. Exclusion was the desired outcome.
It’s a a loaded false emotional argument which tries to convince us that the natural born citizen POTUS qualification is somehow against the American way. The children of immigrants from all nations may become President – as long as – prior to birth – their parents became naturalized US citizens by following our laws and taking an oath to our nation and Constitution. There is nothing wrong with requiring such a standard. It is the best protection for all of our civil rights. [emphases original]
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
After much speculation concerning various images posted to the Internet regarding an alleged Kenyan Birth Registration form and an Australian form of the same type, WorldNetDaily is now reporting that their “operatives” say the Kenyan document is likely not authentic (in fact, some on TRSOL claim that it, too, was a blatant fraud):
NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND’s investigative operatives in Africa, though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.
WND obtained several samples of Kenyan birth certificates in use around Aug. 4, 1961, the date of Obama’s birth, showing differences from the Taitz document.
Here are copies of what Kenyan birth certificates (registrations?) are said to look like:
Unfortunately, WND didn’t elaborate on a number of their points throughout the rest of the article, such as which officials were the ones allegedly interviewed or contacted in Kenya.
However, unlike Hawaiian officials, if we are to take WND at their word, Kenyan officials aren’t necessarily denying that Mr. Obama could have been born in the east African country.
While we are on the subject of vital documentation, I wanted to revist the alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that purportedly represents Mr. Obama’s birthplace. Daily readers of my site will note that certain comments have been bandied about by the opposition saying things to the effect that “reporters” have physically analyzed and manipulated the actual HI COLB. Yet, this is what FactCheck.org actually says:
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.”
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. [emphasis added]
Notice that FactCheck’s rendition of handling the document involved only their staff and not other reporters. If this is the case, then how do we know that the images posted online are of the same document? Further, what if they, too, had been unwittingly given potentially fraudulent images of documents and/or a document, per se?
So, just as I did with the HI Department of Health, so, too, am I going to be doing with FactCheck.org. I will be corresponding with them to determine if they are aware of any other reporters or, more importantly, forensic document examiners to investigate the actual document and, if so, how I can follow up with those reporters themselves to confirm that a proper, independent investigative process has, in fact, occurred.
Otherwise, everyone is looking at questionable images all the way around!
Update: As an aside, for insight into validated fabrication, check out Jeff Schreiber’s “Manufactured By Whom?” posting regarding all those “mobs” of people showing up at healthcare town halls.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Following up on the developing story in which attorney Dr. Taitz is attempting to verify an alleged Kenyan Birth Registration for Mr. Obama, WorldNetDaily Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has released an email calling on Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate as Mr. Farah “works with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity”:
Joseph Farah calls on Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to end growing controversy
WASHINGTON — The unauthenticated document purporting to be a Kenyan certificate of birth for Barack Obama has refocused the debate over his presidential eligibility.
Released publicly yesterday by California attorney Orly Taitz as evidence in her court case challenging Obama to prove his constitutional qualifications to hold office, the document raises new questions about the president’s birthplace.
WorldNetDaily.com is working with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity.
“We’ve had less than 24 hours to consider its authenticity or non-authenticity,” explains Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of the first news agency to publish the document. “Our goal, as always, is to seek the truth. This is not our document. It is evidence that has presented in a high-profile court case. And, thus, I believe we had a journalistic responsibility to publish it — just as I think every other news organization does.”
Farah says there are many questions still to be answered about the certification of live birth that Obama has disseminated — including the fact that the Public Health Department of the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm is it an official Hawaiian document issued by that office.
“This is why it is so important that Obama release his original, long-form birth certificate to end the speculation and the growing uneasiness Americans are increasingly feeling about his eligibility,” explains Farah. “More and more, people are puzzled and mystified as to why he is refusing to release that document, as well as his school records, his college transcripts, his university papers and his travel records.”
Farah says WorldNetDaily.com, which has led the way in investigating this story, will continue to do so relentlessly until it is resolved to the satisfaction of most Americans.
Contact: M. Sliwa Public Relations, 973-272-2861, [email protected] [emphasis original]
WND has also posted that the Hawaii Department of Health continues to be tight-lipped over whether or not any purported images of Mr. Obama’s alleged certification of live birth are legitimate…
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.
Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.
And now prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan wonders why we should be only trusting what officials tell us when a birth certificate could be immediately produced to end all speculation:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
But why are we supposed to rely on the testimony of Dr Fukino, whom I believe entirely. It is not my job as a journalist or yours as a citizen to take public officials on trust. They are not to be trusted, whoever they are. It is our job to demand all the evidence we want or need. I know the electronic record is legit. I have no doubt that Obama has every constitutional right to be president. I think the Birthers are nuts. But there is no reason on earth that the original cannot be retrieved and shown. Jon Klein and CNN were wrong, and I retract my apology of yesterday.
Obama promised total transparency. Where is it? Or will it arrive at the moment when he tackles the deficit, and withdraws from Iraq?
Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition for the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit has been filed today by Attorney Mario Apuzzo.
Also last week, James Schneller, Plaintiff pro se in Schneller v. Cortes, has announced that he is applying to pay fees in his dismissed case:
Schneller files Application for Permission to Pay Fee in Obama Appeal
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 12:30 PM (EST)
Contact James D. Schneller | 610-688-9471 | [email protected]
500 East Lancaster Avenue
Radnor, PA 19087
Appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Regarding Natural-Born Status Of Barack Obama Was Dismissed – Not Denied — Aggrieved Citizen James Schneller Raises Right to Pay Fee if Court Has Found Verity in Petition for Writ of Certiorari but Has Balked because of Series of Free Appeals Allowed to Schneller Since 2004 — Schneller Requests Permission to Pay Fee, and Further Action By the Court Upon Payment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Pennsylvania citizen whose Obama – Citizenship case was reviewed at a conference of the United States Supreme on June 18, 2009 and dismissed, has filed an application for permission to pay the filing fee so that the case may proceed further in the Supreme Court. The Court at the time of dismissal of the petition for a writ of certiorari, denied the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed the Clerk to not accept further petitions from him without the filing fee.
The fee situation boils down to the Supreme Court’s deciding to no longer provide free appeals to the plaintiff, James Schneller, who has been waived the filing fee of $ 300.00 in six appeals involving : deprivations of access to Courts by State Rules of Court; question of whether Congress’ Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act allows private suits for unwanted physician-caused deaths; failure of Pennsylvania law enforcement to implement laws protecting rights of nursing home patients; improper decision making as to advance health directives, and failure to investigate injuries to elderly, by Pennsylvania Protective Services for the elderly, and others.
Schneller’s reasons for asking the US Supreme Court to accept the fee and review the Obama natural-born-citizen case further include:
- A petition’s being dismissed, as opposed to denied, is a recognized indicator in the Federal Courts of a right to pay the fee, especially since the Supreme Court decided Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (“dismissal . . . does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations”)
- The standard of review is different in a paid case, so that the Court conceivably may review the matter further, or all over again, upon payment of the fee.
- The petition was not dismissed “with prejudice.” The appellate Courts have consistently found that a plain dismissal does not warrant a case’s wholesale defeat.
- Perceived posture in the language of the order of the Supreme Court that it has seen some merit to the petition, or has left a window open for further argument, or has decided that before Schneller may again expend the Court’s resources, even to decide this petition, the legal fee must be paid.
- Allowance in the Circuit Courts of a “reasonable time” to pay the fee, and the Third Circuit’s alleviations to Schneller in other cases : either waiving the $ 450.00 fee, or allowing times of three months and five months to pay the fee. State Court’s frequent waiver of the fee to Schneller.
- the intentional impoverishment to Schneller, constituting unconstitutional obstruction and retaliation for his court actions, by third parties.
- the fact that a filing of a number of petitions, without any proven misuse of the Court system, should in no way support a designating of a litigant as malicious or overactive.
- consistent Court policy that sanctions like those made to Schneller are made only in cases where prior direct orders have been openly disobeyed a number of times, with warnings given each time, which has not occurred in any conceivable way in Schneller’s actions.
- the undeniable constitutional right that access to courts and rights to appeal may not be conditioned upon a litigant’s financial means. Lecates v. Justice of Peace Court No. 4 of State of Del., 637 F.2d 898 (C.A.3, 1980.)
Numerous other cases are also being litigated in regard to the failure of Barack Obama to qualify for office. Americans are increasingly concerned that Barack Obama refuses to release any but the most meaningless information about his past.
Schneller is litigating this case on his own initiative and out of concern for national security and longevity of liberty and the Constitution.
Schneller’s appeal asks reversal of denial to Schneller of his petition for writ of mandamus and injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008. That petition requested a delay of the vote by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully based on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all Pennsylvania county officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.
Schneller, in the suit, demands that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen. He claims that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December2008, before the vote was certified and delivered to the electoral college, and objects to the nationwide absence of such action despite most State’s having statutes on the books requiring proper screening of candidates.
The appeal also requests a finding that the Pennsylvania law that makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit that they are eligible for office, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Schneller raises the fact that the Pennsylvania handbook for elections states that candidates for national President and Vice President may be requested to provide all additional information necessary regarding their eligibility and qualification for office.
To receive a copy of any documents please request the above named contact.
Regarding questions of eligibility, Florida realtor Robert Quinn, whom I had reported was petitioning the State’s Governor and Secretary of State promising to file a complaint against the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party if they did not respond to his requests, has confirmed that the following complaint has been received by Attorney General Bill McCollum on July 30, 2009:
Phil – I have received no response from SOS Browning or Governor Crist. Yesterday I sent via certified mail the official Election Fraud Complaint and Request for Investigation to Fla. AG Bill McCollum. I have attached a copy to this email for you to use … . My goal from the very beginning has been to fix the system so that birth certificates are required before any presidential candidates name is placed upon future ballot. Since only the DNC has the authority and responsibility to demand such, they should be required to do that now or remain a part of the fraud charge. Why not??
I am but a layman but the denial of we voters fundamental due process constitutional right to see the eligibility verifying documents of all presidential candidates is so clear to me, and I think most voters, I don’t see how anyone but a person that has something to hide could object. 2010 is an election year and I hope this idea can be picked up as an issue. All of these guys are in the game.
In Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Cook v. Simtech, Judge Richard Lazzara issued the following order in the case where Major Stefan Cook sought a temporary restraining order on his now-rescinded orders to go to Afghanistan contingent upon a confirmation of President Obama’s eligibility:
Unfortunately, similarly to what Judge James Robertson remarked about “twittered” vetting, I found the following from this Judge equally as appalling:
Plaintiff’s first attempt to involve a federal district court in this ongoing conspiracy theory that President Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States of America because he is not a native-born citizen was rebuffed just eleven days ago by United States District Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia based on lack of standing. …
First of all, we’re not talking about “native-born” cititzenship (I do believe this was the term that Major Cook used in his case); we’re talking about “natural born” citizenship, and even that with respect to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. I think we can all admit that the Judiciary hasn’t exhaustively nailed that definition down yet.
Secondly, what in the world is the Judge doing calling what is otherwise a legitimate question of eligibility a “conspiracy theory?” Does the Judge not know that a true conspiracy theory is one that cannot be proven? On the face of it, it appears to me like the Judge prejudged (prejudiced) the case solely by his irrelevant allegation within the Order.
In the future, it would be nice if judges could simply stick strictly to the law, administer their orders without editorializing, and be done with it.
“There was no reasoning, no nothing,” said Maj. Cook, who noted previous legal decisions in his case included three or four pages of legal explanations.
“It’s ridiculous. They’re not even saying why it’s frivolous and without merit. You can say that to anything with no justification or reason. That’s crap. So much for jurisprudence in this country.” …
WND asked the Lazzara’s office about why there was no explanation in the judge’s “endorsed order,” and Sandra Hartman, Lazzara’s judicial assistant said, “That’s standard procedure if a judge wants to use it.”
She also indicated, “There’s nothing sealed in this case. It’s a public record.” …
“I don’t have another job yet,” said Cook. “I’m working on trying to find something. I have a very broad but deep background in a variety of subjects and I have built my experience that way just in the event of some catastrophic experience like this.”
He also said his legal fight was for “the greater good of the country.”
“I might get crushed in the wheels, in the gears of the Chicago machine, but if it’s for the greater good and if we can gain some kind of definitive ruling or clarity on eligibility, then that’s OK.” …
With so many rumors swirling around the blogosphere as to the context of Major Cook’s timing for filing his suit, he made the following statements to substantiate his position:
Cook also wants to clear up confusion among some who suggest he had some sort of ulterior motive to “set up” the government by volunteering for duty and then filing legal action.
An article in Stars and Stripes noted, “the Army reservist’s intention appeared not so much to fight for America as to fight against President Barack Obama, in furtherance of a bizarre conspiracy theory.”
The Florida resident tells WND he originally volunteered for duty in Afghanistan last October, before the presidential election ever took place. He was responding to a “help wanted” ad placed by the military.
But a potentially serious health threat known as a pancreatic neoplasm put his plans in jeopardy, and he asked officials in December to stop the deployment process due to his condition.
“I actually had [deployment] orders, then got a positive diagnosis,” Cook said, explaining he still wanted to go overseas after a recovery time of about six months.
Cook underwent surgery in January of this year, but doctors were not successful in removing the tumor on his pancreas.
By February, the soldier says he had seen Internet traffic that raised questions about the legitimacy of Obama to serve as president, and he contacted attorney Taitz to sign on as a secondary plaintiff in her California litigation. He stresses he did not seek to be a primary litigant.
Despite still having the tumor, Cook was making good medical progress, and continued his effort to get deployed in Afghanistan.
“I wouldn’t have even thought about putting in for orders unless I had thumbs up,” he noted.
In May, he got the medical green light, and by early June, was given the order to go to Afghanistan.
“I was doing my pre-combat checks, getting my personal affairs in order, doing my training, preparing my self to go to Afghanistan and then maybe about two weeks or 10 days out from report date, I started thinking about the whole legality thing and lawfulness of orders. And that is the time when I contacted Orly and said we need to file [in Georgia where I was based] because of this. This was early July.”
Cook maintains that even to this day, he’s ready and willing to be deployed “in a heartbeat.”
“This is what I do. This is what I trained for the past 21 [expletive] years,” he emphasized. “If I have the opportunity to deploy tomorrow to Afghanistan, I wouldn’t even think twice about it if the guy sitting in the White House issuing orders was certified as legitimate, [issuing] a lawful order. I ‘d be on the next C-17 across the pond.”
The opposition would do well to consider the truth behind a particular individual’s situation before going off on a quest to devalue, besmirch or otherwise assassinate the character of someone who questions this President’s eligibility.
In related news, concerned citizens have been relaying to me that Carl Swensson, Georgia citizen grand jury foreman and eligibility activist, has filed in the US District Court for DC the case, Swensson v. Soetoro:
Another lawsuit just filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, Swensson vs. Soetoro, charges Obama with document fraud for posting a fake “birth certificate” on his website.
I’ll be on the look-out for the documentation on this case.
According to the following entry at Dr. Taitz’ site, it is conceivable that the birth certificate numbers on Mr. Obama’s alleged HI COLB may not be as solid as originally thought:
Attached are the Obama alleged “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) as published by FactCheck.org showing the number of the COLB to be: 151 1961-010641 with Date of Birth Aug. 4, 1961. The very next day, Aug. 5, 1961, Susan Elizabeth Nordyke, one of a twin, was born at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu. Attached is her long form Hawaiian Birth Certificate, yet her certificate number is 151 61 10637- a number lower than Obama’s number yet for a child born a day later. Also notice that the truncated numbers “61″ were used in the long form Nordyke birth certificate for the year, not, “1961″ and also the leading “0″ in the last part of the section of numbers is omitted in the Nordyke birth certificate. Also, on the long form, a doctor signs and attests to the following: “”I hereby certify that this child was born alive on the date and hour stated above,” none of which appears on the short form COLB. Is it possible that another child was originally issued the number 151 1961-010641 which was then used by Obama? Janice Okubo, Dir. of Communications for the Hawaii Health Department has stated that she does not know what the Obama alleged COLB first appearing on the Daily Kos website appears to be.
The Kenyan Certificate look convincing! Keep up the great work!
attorney [emphases original]
Since the numbers appear to have been issued within 48 hours of each other, and while other factors could reasonably explain why certain digits were left out, the question becomes whether or not the numbers are arbitrarily generated or if there is a sequence protocol that is used.
And lastly, for your viewing pleasure, I’ve had forwarded to me the following YouTube videos from Sean Hannity’s Hannity’s America show that are said to have been edited from the broadcast. The account under which the videos are found dates back to late 2008; nevertheless, old news remains true to this day:
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
On the heels of a purported Kenyan Birth Registration said by Kenyan officials as likely not being authentic, and with Dr. Orly Taitz’ motion for a Letter Rogatory having been stricken by Judge Nakazato on account of being improperly filed (with all due respect, how hard is it to properly file paperwork?), Newsmax.com is reporting the following:
Contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama’s original, “long-form” birth certificate, state officials confirm to Newsmax.
Many media reports have insisted the president’s actual birth certificate is available on the Internet for anyone to download. It is not.
Barack Obama’s “certification of live birth,” was issued by the state of Hawaii and was posted first on the Obama presidential campaign Web site.
Such a certification sometimes is called the “short form” — some agencies accept it as an equivalent of a birth certificate, some do not.
The document is essentially a summary of the actual long form birth certificate. The certification does not list the attending physician, the address or hospital where the delivery took place, or the parents’ occupation. Typically, this information is included on the birth certificate.
Newsmax asked Janice S. Okubo, communications director for Hawaii’s State Health Department, whether the department had released any of the president’s vital records to anyone other than the president or a direct relative. Doing so would constitute a violation of HRS 338, Section 18, the Hawaii law intended to protect personal information and prevent identity theft.
Okubo’s response: “The Hawaii State Department of Health complies with state laws” — meaning no public release of the document has occurred.
Throughout the so-called “birther” controversy — birthers suspect Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president — anchors and reporters have assumed wrongly that Obama’s “certification of live birth” contains the same information as an original, long-form birth certificate:
MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews interviewed Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., on July 21, lambasting him for co-sponsoring a House bill that would require presidential candidates to submit documents to establish their constitutional eligibility to serve as president.”What you’re doing is appeasing the nut cases,” Matthews said. “As you just pointed out, this [bill] won’t prove or disprove whether Barack Obama is a citizen. By the way, let me show you his birth certificate” — Matthews held up a document — “That’s the way to deal with this: Mail a copy of this certificate to the wacko wing of your party, so they see it and say, ‘I agree with this. It’s over.’”Matthews held up Obama’s certification of live birth — not his birth certificate.
Talk host Rachel Maddow stated on June 11: “This baseless, mouth-breathing, whack-job theory became such an issue during the presidential campaign that Mister Obama did actually release a certificate of his birth from Hawaii, showing that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. And yet, the ‘birther’ movement persists.”What the Obama campaign released was the certification-of-live-birth summary.
In response to a question from correspondent Les Kinsolving on why the president doesn’t simply release his long-form birth certificate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied incredulously: “You’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet.”
CNN anchor Rick Sanchez recently held up a document for cameras to zoom in on. “This is a reprint of his birth certificate . . . or as it says here, certificate of birth.” The document presented by Sanchez was clearly marked “certification of live birth.”
The certification of live birth qualifies an individual to receive a passport, a driver’s license, or otherwise establish residency for official purposes, Hawaii says.
When the birth-certificate issue emerged just before the November election, Hawaii Health Department Director Chiyome Fukino released a statement saying that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Dr. Fukino added in an apparent effort to head off conspiracy theorists: “No state official . . . has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
When the blogosphere tempest flared up again recently, Fukino issued another, slightly different statement, saying she has “seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Several courts have sided with the Hawaii Health Department’s position that birth records must be protected as private. In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment to hear a case that challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.
Hawaii health officials have stated in the past that they maintain Obama’s original birth certificate and have it in their possession. The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin carried the announcement of Obama’s birth about nine days after it occurred, although that has not convinced the birthers.
Why the ongoing interest in the long-form, original birth certificate, even among conservatives who don’t dispute that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii?
Obama’s critics complain the birth certificate echoes a pattern of promising transparency on the one hand while refusing to release key documents on the other, including detailed personal health records, Obama’s correspondence while an Illinois senator, his attorney client list or billing records, or his college transcripts.
They also point out that Obama is the only modern president whose precise place of birth remains undetermined. Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has been widely cited as his birthplace, but another Honolulu location has been mentioned as well.
The hospital has declined to address whether Obama was born there. Presidential birthplaces typically receive recognition and commemoration.
Pamela Geller of her AtlasShrugs.com blog expressed her sentiments via her new home at Newsmax.com regarding the story of the fraudulent certification of live birth that she first broke.
In light of the above, I have recently sent FactCheck.org correspondence regarding the certification of live birth that they presumably still possess (as I promised) to see if there have been, in fact, independent reporters, forensic document examiners and the like who have physically analyzed the document as well as any contact info for those individuals that is available. I expect to report on that development soon.
With the above, we now move into the reality that Mr. Obama has released absolutely zero original evidence that substantiates his eligibility regarding the office of the presidency. As the above article by Newsmax points out, while the alleged HI COLB contains information that is perfectly suitable for State Department purposes of getting a passport or driver’s license, it does not show enough information to absolutely confirm or deny presidential eligibility. In fact, the State Department has no law by which to determine presidential eligibility, nor does it have the authority to make such a determination.
The game has now changed.
Update: How has the game changed? Allow me to explain.
There are two things we know for sure regarding Mr. Obama’s birth documentation:
The long-form birth certificate has not been released;
The short-form “certification of live birth” provides, in theory, some of the information (but not all) that would otherwise be found on a potential long-form birth certificate
Now, what do I mean by, “in theory?” Simply put: as with the case of China-born Sun Yat-sen, since all that the HI Department of Health has ever said is that the documentation they have on file says Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, it’s still very possible that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii.
However, before getting lost in the geographical location argument, think about this: Since there currently is no law that legally enforces the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution, and since there is subsequently no law that dictates the degree to which any available information is “enough” to substantiate eligibility, we are practically left nowhere.
Nowhere? How is that? The opposition to questioning eligibility insists that the certification of live birth (not a birth certificate) has “enough” info to determine eligibility, in that Dr. Fukino claimed that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen, so why question a public official? Meanwhile, individuals such as myself say that the COLB is not complete enough to make such a determination and that Dr. Fukino has only ever claimed to be making such determinations based on the documentation that the State has on file (which could be very similar to what Mr. Yat-sen submitted to the Territory so many years ago).
Therefore, the argument has systematically turned into a “they-said, they-said”-type of argument; since there is no definitive guiding law for determining eligibility, it is therefore at this time solely up to the court of public opinion to continue churning the argument with, apparently, no end in sight, save a legitimate revelation of documentation.
And this one is modified to show some coded jokes:
This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump)
#5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : “Problem with Windows REGISTRY”, a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH’s age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font “Oh” not “Zero”) EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP
The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644. [emphasis original]
The Scribd link actually shows the “bad” registration image.
Not only this, but it can now be revealed — via both commenters and the blog TheSteadyDrip — that an Australian registration image could be used as a specimen to help determine authentication (via bomford.net) [Oops! They took their site down; here's another copy]:
Click on the image above and then click here for a full copy of one of the Kenyan Birth registration image for comparison purposes.
Thanks to more comments on TRSOL, the WashingtonIndependent site takes note:
- The design is identical, down to the seal at the top and the classifications (”Christian name,” etc) used for identifying the baby.
- The “registrar” on the Bomford document is G.F. Lavender. On the Taitz document, it’s E.F. Lavender.
- The “district registrar” on the Bomford document is J.H. Miller. On the Taitz document, it’s M.H. Miller.
- The number of the book is identical on both documents: Book 44B, Page 5733.
What’s more likely — that two Kenyan bureaucrats shared last names with two Australian bureaucrats, and that the numbers on both certificates were identical? Or that someone used this document, available online for anyone who wanted to look, to forge the Obama “certificate?”
The story has now fundamentally changed. We now have two distinct images of the Kenyan Birth Registration form and what appears to be a legitimate Australian Birth Registration form image.
In fact, the question subsequently becomes, was the Australian image used as a basis for the Kenyan image? Are there enough inconsistencies to substantiate this claim? Or, could the Australian image be used as the basis for a “proof-positive” specimen showing that the “good” Kenyan image is, in fact, legitimate?
Let’s up the ante. As FreeRepublic.com commenters analyze the images, maybe the Australian form image is the forgery? Or, maybe both images are fraudulent?
Let’s go further: Assuming that all the images are fraudulent, why would someone go about taking a Australian Birth Registration image and manipulate it to be representational of a “forged” Kenyan Birth Registration image?
You may have jumped the gun there. The Bomford/Australian certificate image seems to have disappeared from all the “debunking” articles. Check out post 1,139 about 2/3rds down the page, re the Kenyan coat of arms emblem: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?q=1&;page=1132#1132 Looks like the Aussie cert was copied from Taitz’s, and not vise-versa.
“Koyann (Steve Ellis), who fabricated the fake “Australian” certificate, didn’t take the time to replacte the crest, instead he cropped the upper part of the template, as you can see: the words “South Australia” are cut in half. It’s clear that he used the Kenya image as template and not the other way around. The typed letters are not distorted by the paper creases as they should.”
It’s looking a lot more like the so called “Aussie” version is a fake.
For one thing, the folds between the Kenyan doc and the Aussie doc are different not only in number but also where they are located on the documents.
Look at that bomford version. Zoom in and look at the lettering on the doc where the folds are. There seems to be no distortion at all (especially the bottom portion). In other words, the letters “float” over the folds. Discussion found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ … =1019#1019
I’ve found lists of participants at 2 international conferences, one hosted by the UN, in which a Richard Bomford attended with a Richard Bamford email address, as someone working for the Aussie Governent, Regional Unit for the Environment, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
Richard Bomford is listed as the domain holder for Bomford.net where this David Jeffrey Bomford Certification of Registration was found.
The problem is that Richard Bamford was just involved in a massive fraud case adjudicated in Australian on July 10th of this year.
Bamford seems to go by the name Bomford.
Also GIM International lists Richard Bomford as a GIS expert. It is my understanding that GIS information experts have software to produce maps and edit images of such quality, that forging a BC would be child’s play.
So the Bomford could be the fake; as its provenance is in doubt.
As far as I know, date stamps on images can also be faked. So that proves nothing. So can lead codes and other identifying facts.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the Bomford and Kenyan BCs. On the Bomford there is no tilting of the typed line at the bottom of the page, on the Kenyan there is. Only an expert could avoid the tilting problem when typing on the final inch of a single page of paper. Yet the Bomford has raised capitals, which often occur when typing fast on a typewritter and not fully depressing the capital shift key. The Kenyan does not have this problem.
The currency in Kenya was shillings. “d” in English currency means pence or cents. The Aussie has a seal different from the crest; the Kenyan seal is indiscernable. Both have the capital O instead of the zero for the number Zero and the capital O. Both seem to use the same typewriter font. Its a 25 years not a 26, because the loop for the 5 is larger not small and squat like the six.
etc etc. etc..
Update: Dr. Orly Taitz posted the following on her blog:
Debunking Obama’s thugs in the media
Recently Obama’s thugs in main stream media came up with this Bomford report in order to stop my efforts in exposing and prosecuting Obama. Though typically I don’t have time to waste on each and every dumb obot, since it got to National TV and my children”s friends called my children, I’ll spend a few minutes to debunk the obots:
1. Kenya became an independant country in 1963, not 1964. The seal of Kenya was correct.
2. More then one person had certified copies of this document.
3. the document was not issued at birth, but rather was a certified copy obatained in1964, when Kenya became independent
4. The documents from that time would not show Zanzibar, but rather Kenya
5. Bomford report was created to try to discredit my efforts
6.lastly, I am not supposed to waste my time and money on this issue, Obama us the one who is supposed to provide evidence of legitimacy
7. Kenyan BC provides more info than the piece of garbage Obama posted on the n et, which doesn’t have the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures.
8. Chioumi Fukino and Obama and all their Nazi Brown Shirts in the main stream media need to give it a rest and provide an original hospital BC and the corresponding big thick hospital Birthing file from the Kapiolani hospital. If they don’t have such a file, all of them need to resign immediately or they will be prosecuted for massive fraud and treason to this Nation. (in case you didn’t know, treason carries punishment of life in prison or death penalty).
Update: WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi was on G. Gorden Liddy’s radio show en route to verifying the Kenyan document’s authenticity (via MediaMatters via OilForImmigration):
David Wiegel is a regular poster at the Politijab Forum. Many of you who have been keeping current know about the now banned “Koyaan” who’s blog can be found here. Koyaan is also a regular poster of the Politijab forum.
The source of the Australian document on FreeRepublic was from Koyaan. Politijab is an astroturf site according to Alexa. Please view their stats. Their main external links according to Alexa are four as follows:
Type in FreeRepublic in Alexia and you will see 6,463 external links.
You can draw your own conclusions, however a betting man would find favorable odds that a one “David Weigel” is part of the fraud campaign.
You can draw your own conclusions on which one is “definitely” a fake:
The original posted Kenyan:
Or the Australian that appeared out of thin air.
Update: David Weigel of the Washington Independent specifically cited this posting in his latest commentary in refuting the above FReeper comment (thanks, Mr. Weigel, for the honorable mention!):
This thread at the Right Side of Life, keying off of a FreeRepublic.com thread, is actually a pretty useful look at the way facts bounce off of the “birther” community like so many eggs off of a Humvee.
Actually, no: I joined the site in order to read the threads at that superlative Web forum for “birther”-debunkers. I’ve never posted a comment there.
The rest of the argument posits that “Politijab is an astroturf site” because its inbound links come from AOL News, Daily Kos, Topix, and Democratic Underground. How that proves that the site is astroturf, I have no earthly idea.
You can draw your own conclusions, however a betting man would find favorable odds that a one “David Weigel” is part of the fraud campaign.
The “fraud campaign” is a new conspiracy theory, which argues that David Bomford’s birth certificate (used to forge the infamous “Kenyan birth certificate”) is itself a forgery, despite David Bomford’s acknowledgment that it’s real, and despite the failure of anyone responsible for the “Kenyan” certificate to come forward. One more reason to doubt that even the release of every Obama record would please the birthers; with the Bomford certificate, they have a genuine document that predates this conspiracy theory, and their forums are abuzz with “proof” of how it’s forged.
In reality, sites like mine are instead pointing out that we’re dealing with images, not documents, per se, so there’s lots of room for malfeasance to occur until such time as actual documents can be obtained for independent verification.
Also, Mr. Weigel, you’re operating under a leading conclusion with no basis in fact that a full release of Mr. Obama’s background documentation would not satisfy those of us who are questioning his presidential eligibility, and my site is full of evidence to support my notion.
Update: Previously frequent commenter on my site “Koyann” similarly responds to the above FReeper allegations:
By the way, I like that the person claims that I didn’t have time to replicate the crest, and instead cropped the upper part of the template, but yet somehow I had found the time to add a whole new section to the Bomford certificate that doesn’t exist on the Kenya certificate.
On the Bomford certificate, there’s a section titled “Name and Description of Authorized Person, and Name, Description and Residence of Informant” that appears just below the “Signature, Description and Residence of Informant” section.
There is no corresponding section in the Kenya certificate.
Now, if I were to have created the “fake” Bomford certificate based on the “genuine” Kenya certificate, ostensibly for the purpose of trying to discredit the “genuine” Kenya certificate by misleading people to believe that the “genuine” Kenya certificate was modeled after the “fake” Bomford certificate, why on earth would I go adding something to it that doesn’t appear in the Kenya certificate?
C’mon, Phil. Give your ol’ buddy Koyaan a little more credit than that.
1. It was dated Feb 14, 1964 and had the designation Republic of Kenya. However that designation was not official until December 1964.
That does not mean that the documents prior to then were not marked Republic as it would be common for a state after recently declaring it’s independence to act independently rather than continue under old rule.
Kenya declared its Independence from Great Britain in 1963 and evidently started to call itself “The Republic of Kenya”…
2. It’s number 44 O 47 is a bit coincidental with 44th President Obama 47th President
The # appears to read 44,047. Look at the “O” in “MOMBASSA” on the same line, it is a different character than the “0″.
NOTE: Senator Obama was the Rep. for the zip code 60606, so does that make him a Hoax? or “the Antichrist“?
3. The name EF Lavender. Earth Friendly Lavender is a detergent.
Also the name of a flowering plant. Lavender is also a SURNAME!
4. Mombasa did not become part of Kenya until 1963. It used to be part of Zanzibar
The document was made in 1964, so pointless to mention.
9. Obama’s father’s village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.
Mombassa, a coastal trading center, would have better facilities than Nairobi where Obama Sr. probably had little or no ties.
10. The place was called the “Central Nyanza District,” not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.
There were districts, provinces and finally regions. There is a lot written about provinces before 61…after 63 regions also were delineated. Provinces and districts are 2 different things. Provinces in Kenya are made up of many districts. This is more like what County is to a State in USA. …
All 15 points can be found at the referenced link.
WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah promisesthat the Kenyan Birth Registration image wasn’t the “big story” he promised on his Twitter account:
The big story I promised you last week on eligibility issue was NOT the Kenyan birth document. I didn’t even know about that last week.
It’s still coming — maybe tomorrow
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancersurgery – even details about George W. Bush’s hemorrhoid troubles.
The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers. …
As WND has reported, Obama has not released his long-form birth certificate, college transcripts, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records or his adoption records. …
Whille not comprehensive, the following is a list of publicly available documents and personal information the media published on Republican and Democrat candidates Sen. John McCain, George W. Bush, Sen. John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush:
Sen. John McCain
Medical records: During his first presidential campaign in 1999, Sen. John McCain released 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records collected by the Navy. In 2008, McCain allowed reporters to spend three hours sifting through 1,200 pages of health records.
Naval Academy: The records released to the Associated Press included details about McCain’s years at the U.S. Naval Academy from 1954 to 1958. According to his own 1999 memoir, “Faith of My Fathers,” he graduated 894th out of 899 in June 1958.
“My GPA earned me fifth-from-the-bottom-of-my-class status, but since that was in the Coolidge administration, it was a different measurement,” McCain joked during a college appearance. “But I can assure you that by today’s standards it would be barely passing.”
Divorce: The Associated Press thoroughly examined records from Sen. John McCain’s divorce from his first wife, Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia. The news agency listed a detailed summary of the settlement, revealing that McCain gave up two homes and agreed to pay $1,625 a month in alimony and child support. According to the report, he maintained insurance policies worth $64,000 with their children as beneficiaries, agreed to pay for their daughter’s college education and paid $3,005 in joint debts. Carol McCain got the family’s Audi, while McCain kept a Datsun 810 and personal belongings. McCain also agreed to provide insurance or pay for medical treatment for his ex-wife.
Passport: John McCain has not released his passport files, documents that contain sensitive personal information including place and date of birth, Social Security number, parent citizenship information, marital status and travel records. However, his files were improperly accessed along with then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in early 2008.
McCain’s office released a statement saying: “The U.S. government has a responsibility to respect the privacy of all Americans. It appears that privacy was breached and I expect a thorough review and a change in procedures as necessary to ensure the privacy of all passport files.”
According to the State Department, passport files are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 USC 552(a)). Third-party requests for passport files must be accompanied with a notarized consent from the owner of the passport records, proof of guardianship, a death certificate or a court order signed by a judge of “competent jurisdiction requesting the Department of State to release passport records.”
George W. Bush
Medical records: President George W. Bush allowed the media to view about 400 pages of personal medical information in 2000 and again in 2004.
Bush basic traiing photo, 1968 (photo: Department of Defense)
Military and personal records: The White House released Bush’s complete military records in 2004. News reporters lined up at the White House press office as workers distributed copies of his files, the New York Times reported. Those documents included the following personal information:
Bush had his tonsils removed when he was a young boy and suffered from appendicitis at the age of 10
At 14, he had surgery to remove a cyst from his chest.
When he applied for the National Guard, he had a hemorrhoid
Bush had two ”negligent collisions” in the month after he turned 16 in July 1962
He was issued two speeding tickets in the summer of 1964 and was fined $10 each
He was charged with a misdemeanor for a Yale prank in 1966, but it was later dropped
Bush received a score of 25 on his January 1968 pilot aptitude test. A score of 95 percent is considered “officer quality.”
He obtained a secret security clearance during his service
Arrest record: The media also released copies of Bush’s arrest record, including one 1976 incident in which he was charged for driving under the influence of alcohol when he was 30 years old. Reports included a summary of his DUI conviction from the Maine Department of Motor Vehicles.
College records:Bush’s campaign posted a copy of his Yale transcript online. The Washington Post obtained his SAT scores and revealed that he earned a 1206 on the college admissions test. Bush’s lowest grades were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were in history and Japanese.
Bush campaign released George W. Bush’s Yale transcript
Medical records: In 1999, Al Gore released medical records revealing “mildly elevated” cholesterol levels and removal of skin cancer from his forehead in 1997. The records were compiled after a complete physical examination by several military physicians.
Military records: Gore enlisted in the Army in Newark, N.J., in August 1969. He was stationed in Fort Rucker as a public affairs officer. At the end of 1970, Gore went to Vietnam as a military journalist assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade at Bien Hoa, 20 miles northeast of Saigon. He applied for discharge and exited the Army in May 1971. His discharge paperwork is not available online.
College records: The Washington Post obtained Al Gore’s college transcripts and test scores from St. Albans high school, Vanderbilt University’s divinity and law schools and Harvard University. It outlined his scores in a March 19, 2000, article titled, “Gore’s grades belie image of studiousness.” The newspaper revealed Gore earned a total of 1355 points of 1600 on the SAT college admissions test. Gore’s lowest grade was a D in natural sciences. His high grades were an A in French and English, an A in visual and environmental studies and an A- in social relations.
Medical records: Former President Bill Clinton released only summaries of his annual physical examinations, including his cholesterol count, his pulse rate, his blood pressure and his hemoglobin and white blood cell and platelet count. According to the New York Times, then-White House spokesman Michael D. McCurry said he saw ”no reason” not to disclose more information, ”given the President’s overall health.”
College records: Clinton majored in international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford in England. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas. While his scores were presumably high, copies of his transcripts are not available online.
Bill Clinton runs for president of the student council at Georgetown University in 1967
CBob Dole is sent home in body cast after being wounded in Italy in 1945 (photo: NPR)
Medical records:In July 1995, presidential candidate Robert Dole released a detailed summary of his medical records. His doctor told the media that he had received serious wounds in World War II that paralyzed his right arm and led to the removal of one kidney. He also underwent surgery in 1991 for prostate cancer. He made all of his medical records public in 1996 and demanded that Bill Clinton do the same.
College records:The Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics houses Dole’s official records, personal letters and other items relating to Dole’s college years, his military service, and his legal career as Russell County, Kan., attorney and lawyer in private practice, memos, reports, newsletters, speeches, casework, statements, testimony, campaign and Republican Party records. Copies of Dole’s official transcripts are not available online.
George H.W. Bush
Medical records:George H.W. Bush released medical records during his campaign and yearly during his presidency, revealing he had mild degenerative osteoarthritis in his hips, normal X-rays, EKG, urinalysis and blood work.
George H.W. Bush’s college transcripts and military records are not available online.
Prolific blogger and commenter “jbjd” created a posting on their blog regarding the following question about birth announcements from a concerned citizen:
I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals. Is that confirmed anywhere? What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?
I conducted some research to prepare my response, and stumbled across information that blunts another arrow of authenticity in BO’s quiver.
jan C: Welcome.
I generally stay out of discussions as to whether photocopied or scanned documents posted on the web are real. (Your guess is as good as mine.) Instead, I try to find out where the image came from.
I remember BO did not post that newspaper birth announcement image on his FTS [FightTheSmears] web site. (I don’t mean now that the site belongs to the DNC; I mean even before the switch, back when it was still paid for by Obama for America.) I always thought this was odd. He posted the COLB, and the admission that he was a British subject at birth whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. And I can picture the official logo of Annenberg Political FactCheck.org, which linked to APFC’s web site, where more testimonials were printed as to BO’s Constitutional legitimacy. I recall how incredulous I was at the time, that he would publicly tout Annenberg as an “independent” arbiter of his eligibility to be POTUS, since that was his boss when he was Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Doesn’t everyone know that?) I did remember seeing that birth announcement posted on APFC’s web site; so that’s where I went first.
The image of that newspaper birth announcement is still there, with a lead-in consisting of a few lines of text beginning with, “In fact…”
[Image no longer available]
I clicked on the image to trace its origin. But wherever I clicked, I kept getting back to the blog named td, or texas darlin. That is, I got to a screen with a td header and message saying ‘what you want is no longer here.’ Well, I post on td’s blog; in fact, she calls me their “resident lawyer.” (She is on my blog roll.) So the first time this happened, I figured, too many windows open, too many thumbs. Then, it happened again. And now it dawned on me, could it be that td’s site is the source of the picture of the newspaper announcement APFC posts on their site and uses to prove BO is a NBC; and APFC merely copied it?
Just below the image, I found my answer: The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Say what? But APFC must have conducted their own investigation, right? Surely, they contacted the Honolulu Advertiser to check the facts surrounding this birth announcement publication. Of course they viewed the archives and located that same image from microfiche or other medium. Reading just a little further, I was bound to find the record of such comprehensive investigation. But here was APFC’s last word on the subject.
Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
In sum, the image of that announcement of BO’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC came from an anonymous poster on the td blog. APFC usurped that image, posted this on its site, and with no further evidence of authentication declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”
Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence the image of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC and all over the internet, is fake; BO tried to fool a federal judge into finding this was real, too.
Hollister v. Soetoro et. al is only one of the many unsuccessful lawsuits filed against BO in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether he is a NBC. As in every other case, BO submitted a Motion to Dismiss. (Defendants’ Motion in Hollister argued Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and failed to establish the court had jurisdiction. This was all procedural; the court had not yet reached the substantive merits of the case.) I had read Plaintiff’s Complaint when it was first filed; I knew it was infirm, and the reasons why. So, I would not have read BO’s Motion to Dismiss if someone hadn’t asked my opinion. And there, in footnote 1 on the front page of the Memorandum in support of his Motion, I found this sneaky little gem of propaganda, arguably placed there to reap maximum attention from the public as much as the court. Written quite cleverly so as to disguise its real meaning, the footnote is more easily understood with translation.
1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. (BO left out that by “publicly produced” he meant, he posted the image of a COLB on the internet.) ( You already know the difference between a certification and a certificate, at least before October 2008, when HI began using the terms interchangeably.) See, e.g., (this means, to back up the point I just made, I am going to use a reference that is not directly on point and only kind of related.) Factcheck.org, (He leaves out the Annenberg Political…) “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). (Now, this is a double slight of hand. First, BO says (AP)FC “conclud[ed]” that the BC is real, so as to reaffirm for the court, the statement he made above that he produced a birth certificate must be true. Notice he fails to draw any nexus between his producing the BC and, APFC “concluding” it is real, only implying such nexus exists.) (Look at how cleverly he slipped in a reference to the meaningless newspaper announcement of his birth. He says, APFC “not[ed] a contemporaneous birth announcement.” But he does not say they only made this note of it: “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”) (By formatting his cite in this way, he maximizes the likelihood that a quick read would bamboozle a clerk into mistaking this to be a holding of law from a court case instead of merely a reference to the opinion of his former employer expressed in a blog posting.) Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (He is clearly trying to put one over on the court. As I explained in detail in a prior post, ” jbjd BIRTHER,” HI officials did not say that the “original birth certificate” “on record” they are referring to, confirms BO was born in HI; nor did they confirm the COLB he posted saying he was born in HI, is authentic; or that the information contained in that on-line COLB matches the information in their files.) See (This means, the next reference is not directly on point but is kind of related.)“Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. (Whoever wrote this is playing fast and loose with the canons of ethics. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice means, the court accepts as true that fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known as true, or it is capable of accurate and ready determination. The process of judicial notice is the easiest way for the parties to get evidence into the record. TECHNICALLY, everything BO alleges here is easily verified as true. Of course, nothing he says here can be understood to mean what he intends the Court to hear. But if the Court took judicial notice of the fact, APFC said, he’s for real, he would spin this into the narrative, the federal court has ruled he is a NBC, much in the same way APFC insists, an image of a newspaper birth announcement stolen from a blogger is “clear” “evidence” BO is a NBC.) See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). (Presumably, these are cites to cases that contain some vague indication that judicial notice could possibly be taken under the set of facts alleged here; and in light of the fact, the case hasn’t even progressed past the Motion to Dismiss stage.)
Thankfully, the only thing the court granted BO in Hollister was a Dismissal.
Hollister was filed in January 2009. But beginning back in July 2008, I surmised, the strongest piece of evidence BO could produce to verify his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, is that COLB he posted on FTS, which means nothing. By placing that footnote in his Motion to Dismiss in Hollister, he validated my suspicions. If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that. And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS. (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)
In sum, the newspaper announcement of BO’s birth is a sham, making the rest of your questions moot. [emphases original]
WND had originally reported on the more than $1 million spent by the Obama Campaign from the very end of the presidential race through to the early months of Mr. Obama’s first term. They now show that this figure has gone up:
President Obama may be using his political action committee funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as he has paid more than $1.35 million to his top lawyer since the election.
Federal Election Commission records for “Obama for America” show that the lobby organization has paid international law firm Perkins Coie exactly $1,352,378.95 since the 2008 election.
FEC records show the following payments made to the law firm from Oct. 16, 2008, to June 30, 2009:
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2009 July quarterly report (covers April 1, 2009, to June 30, 2009)
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2009 July quarterly report (covers April 1, 2009, to June 30, 2009)
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2009 April quarterly report (covers Jan. 1, 2009, to March 31, 2009)
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2009 April quarterly report (covers Jan. 1, 2009, to March 31, 2009)
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2008 year-end report (covers Nov. 25, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2008)
FEC record for payment to Perkins Coie, 2008 post-general election report (covers Oct 16, 2008, to Nov. 24, 2008)
The FEC shows Obama’s campaign has made regular payments to Perkins Coie since Jan. 1, 2007 – the month he formed a presidential exploratory committee and only weeks before he formally announced his candidacy for president.
In total, Obama has paid Perkins Coie, a single law firm, $2.3 million since he announced his campaign for presidency. By contrast, a cumulative total of all of Sen. John McCain’s legal consulting fees from Jan. 1, 2007, to June 30, 2009, amounts to $1.46 million.
As WND reported, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
WND also reported that Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro, threatening sanctions if he doesn’t withdraw his appeal of the eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the issue already had been “twittered.”
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
What do you get when America’s Chief Executive Officer looks upon town hall after town hall after town hall after town hall and sees that the “mob” (read: everyday concerned American citizens) just isn’t quite getting it regarding his/Pelosi’s/Reid’s health insurance plan?
Well, his 42 Czars (h/t I. O.) just aren’t enough to deal with the “unwashed masses.” He absolutely must go one step further.
Mr. Obama makes the ultimate decision to begin turning American citizens into secret police informants!
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]. [emphases from RS]
What is the White House officially saying on the matter (as if the above paragraph and fantastically bizarre video at the site isn’t enough)? Well, nothing…
The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.
UPDATE: As Erick, one of RedState’s resident lawyers, points out here, this program may go beyond sinister and actually be a violation of current U.S. law.
Further, [email protected] is not currently subject to Freedom of Information Act requests — something a freedom-loving legislator (Jim DeMint? Tom Coburn? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor?) should seek to correct at his or her earliest convenience.
And from the embedded link:
According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”
The White House may take the position that certain of its offices aren’t subject to the Privacy Act (that is a longstanding Office of Legal Counsel position, see here), but most Presidents instruct their staffs to comply. This will be a the first significant time the White House has ignored the Privacy Act and may open President Obama up to litigation.
This is another example of the Obama administration ignoring long time precedent when it is no longer convenient for them. And ignoring this precedent lets them collect data on and potential harass individual American citizens.
The [email protected] email address is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Some enterprising legislator should introduce legislation to make it subject to the FOIA. [emphasis original]
Update: Via Rush Limbaugh, the site Sweetness-Light.com demonstrates how the modern national Democratic Party may not be too unlike the NSDAP.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused protestors at Democrat healthcare town hall meetings of carrying swastikas:
Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?
Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”
Yet, take a look at the following pics:
And it has been suggested that receiving Botox injections can cause blurry vision.
Of course given that she was talking about Democrat town halls, her confusion is even more understandable given the overlap between Nazi programs and Democrats’ pet issues anyway, as we all know.
The Nazis being: against big banks and capitalism in general, against big department stores, against pollution, for two years mandatory voluntary service to the country, for make-work projects (such as the autobahn), againstvivisection and cruelty and to animals, against smoking and all tobacco products, for abortion and euthanasia of the infirm and undesirable – and, of course, for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare.
In fact, if you look really hard, you can sometimes even find a hint of anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party.
Now that we’ve seen the tyrannical side of politics beginning to play out, it’s time to show you why it is sooooo important to treat everything that’s found on the Internet with an exceptionally large grain of salt until you’re able to corroborate it with what you already know to be true.
Guess where the following image came from?:
(Pretty slick, huh?)
It can from KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com! Now do you see why it’s important to always question everything, in love, for the truth, and then hang onto the truth for dear life once you’ve obtained it?
…The “Kenyan birth certificate” (“KBC”)(which is admittedly not a birth certificate eo nomine) was filed in a federal court. There is a high probability that the document is a forgery.
But who forged the KBC? Was it opponents or proponents? When was the KBC forged? I have publicly adduced one theory, and suggested the existence of a second, more sinister, explanation for the appearance of the document. But no one really knows.
Someone apparently forged a birth document concerning the President of the United States. The American people have a right to a thorough and impartial investigation of this matter.
If it turns out that someone in fact forged the KBC to obstruct justice, then that person should be criminally prosecuted. There is no place for forgery or lies on either side of the Obama birth controversy. I have consistently rejected lies as an appropriate response to Barack Obama’s own stream of distortions and fabrications.
Because the document is on file in a federal court, and because the document may represent an attempt to obstruct justice, the Department of Justice indisputably has jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of such a document.
Most respectfully, I would urge you to do the following:
First, I would suggest you consider appointing an independent counsel (or “special prosecutor”), preferably someone who is a Republican but an attorney who has a criminal justice, and not an actively political, background.
Second, if a preliminary review of the document reveals that it is not authentic, and I am sure that will not take a great deal of effort on a threshold basis, I would suggest you allow the counsel to convene a grand jury to investigate the provenance of the material. Even a forged document can have a continuing corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the president. …
TexasDarlin echos Mr. Martin’s sentiments; I similarly believe that an investigation into Mr. Obama’s background documentation is a worthy endeavor.
To that end, TCOTReport posted an interview they had with Hawaii Democratic State Senator Will Espero, confirming that he is, in fact, going to be introducing legislation that would allow disclosure of documents such as Mr. Obama’s vital records…
In an exclusive interview with The TCOT Report, Hawaii Democratic State Senator Will Espero today confirmed that he intends to introduce legislation that will allow the public disclosure of Barack Obama’s 1961 Certificate of Live Birth.
“I have no doubt President Obama was born in Hawaii. Most of us have no doubt. We believe he was born here. I don’t know what’s wrong with being able to confirm someone was born in the USA.”
“ The purpose of the legislation I’m considering is to make original birth records open for everybody. We should allow someone to look at the birth records. Whatever information we are utilizing should be public…not public on demand, but if you make an appointment, you can look at it, the original document. It’s just a matter of transparency that needs to be answered.”
“At present, the bill is being worked on internally in my office. I have not discussed it with Dr. Fukino, our Secretary of Health.”
When asked his response to the question if the Obama Administration might oppose his legislation, Espero responded: “ I never thought they would view it unfavorably. If they do I’m just going to scratch my head. What’s there to hide? My intention is to introduce the bill when the legislature reconvenes in January.”
News of Senator Espero’s intention to introduce a birth certificate transparency bill was first reported in the Honolulu Star Bulletin last month.
Espero was first elected to the Hawaii State Senate in 1992. A graduate of the University of Seattle, Senator Espero was born in Japan to Filipino parents. His website states that it his personal goal to be the first United States Senator of Filipino heritage.
Northeast Intelligence Network founder Douglas Hagmann and journalist Judi McLeod have posted an article on CanadaFreePress in which they claim that there is documented evidence that the mainstream media explicitly censored any mention of presidential eligibility during the 2008 election cycle:
Do you remember Watergate? Thirty-five years ago this Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixonadministration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall ofthe Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution.
Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy.
Although we do not have the birth certificate or proof of ineligibility, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press have documentation of a cover-up relating to the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office.The proof we possess not only exposes a well orchestrated cover-up, but also provides critical insight into why the topic of Obama’s eligibility has failed to gain traction in the corporate media.
The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse – should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November.
After receiving and authenticating the document, US based veteran private investigator Douglas J. Hagmann opened a full scale investigation into the media blackout, with specific emphasis on tracing the blackout origins to those issuing them. This investigation was conducted in conjunction with Judi McLeod, founding editor of Canada Free Press and Brian Thompson, CFP Information Technology chief following a meeting near Toronto, Ontario last December. At that meeting, it was decided to keep the existence of the document secret until additional evidence could be obtained.
Today, after an extensive eight month investigation, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are breaking their silence and revealing explosive information about a widespread cover-up that began at the earliest stages of the Obamapresidential campaign. The cover-up traces back to some of the most powerful and influential people in the U.S. and continues today.
Summary of the Evidence
As noted above, we are in possession of a written account by a well known national talk show host who details how he was prohibited to discuss the controversy of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility as president of the United States. This signed document cites exact dates and times when he was forbidden to discuss any aspect of the birth certificate controversy, and includes direct references to the individuals responsible for such prohibitions. Further, his statement identifies the individuals who originated the orders and their positions, and confirms that failure to adhere to the order would likely end his career in that industry. He also confirms that other, less specific but more menacing threats were implied during conversations with those making the subject off limits.
Although we possess the original document containing the name and contact information of the talk show host, we have decided not to publish his name or network affiliation at this time. Based on the correspondence from this individual and respecting the nature of the threats to him personally and professionally, it is our decision to allow him to enjoy anonymity until such time as he decides to reveal the facts himself at a time of his choosing.
From multiple interviews conducted within the last eight months, we have obtained information from other sources, independent of the above, who have also been instructed to avoid any discussion of the birth certificate issue at all costs, to wit:
The account of an administrative assistant employed in New York City by a cable network news station who provided significant, detailed information of a 2008 meeting between the top network executive and four-(4) well-known news anchors. This source confirmed that she drafted the memo to the various hosts to notify them of the date, time and location of this high-level meeting at the request of the network’s top executive.
Present at this meeting, she verified that the network official issued “warnings” to the personalities “to avoid any on-air discussion of the birth place, eligibility, and news accounts of litigation compelling [Barack Hussein] Obama to produce a legitimate copy of his birth certificate.” She stated that the network executive had her arrange the conference immediately following a meeting “between [the network executive] and an attorney closely associated with candidate Obama who was acting on his behalf.”
The statement of a corporate secretary for a major news network confirming the existence of a one-page inter-office memo, bearing the markings “confidential” and “not for dissemination,” addressed and distributed to news anchors and on-air talent” that specifically instructed the recipients to avoid any discussion pertaining to the Obamabirth certificate controversy. The memo was written and distributed in October 2008, and specifically instructed on-air talent to “advise guests, as necessary, to refrain from citing any news story, legal proceedings, Internet ‘blogs’ or other sources that pertain to the ongoing eligibility controversy of future President Barack Obama.”
As outlined above, our Investigation has uncovered both direct and indirect evidence of threats being made against some of the nation’s top radio and television personalities, which would explain some giving this topic mere lip service. As one source interviewed during the course of this investigation stated, “I’ve got a career and family to think about.”
Although no one should be surprised over the manipulation of the news, the nature of this manipulation, and the extent of the threats against journalists, should shock even the most well grounded.
Any reasonable person must question the motivation of the media moguls. The individuals who have – and continue to threaten talk show hosts, news anchors, and others are the top people. We are not talking about mid or upper level management – this is from the very top in all cases. If there is nothing to the birth certificate issue and the question of eligibility, why the secrecy? [emphases original]