Red Flags in Hawaii
People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked
by so many. The same way these "birther" red flags were not only
overlooked but ridiculed:
1. DOH Director Fukino
illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing
that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original
birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has
said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission.
HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the
disclosure of vital records, and the
current rules -- Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -- would allow any
election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot
to receive a certified copy.
2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits
disclosure of government processing records. There are 2
kinds of records -- the records of the vital events themselves,
and records of the government’s
handling of those
Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a)
says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and
divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by
law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH
Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may
be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring "any disclosure" as
claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified
abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C),
or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for
it. However, a public statement of where someone was born -- such
as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama -- is not allowed by the
rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).
All other records are
public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are
allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest.
Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the
documents are not prohibited -- which, according to Hawaii’s "Sunshine
Law" (UIPA) means they
must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as
for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public
interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .
Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in
September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by
claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.
3. Though ridiculing "birthers"
publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed
Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries -- a fact the DOH has known since the
beginning. Because processing information is subject to
disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to
reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP
interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a
fee to have his certificate amended at the
very time he was considering a run for the presidency.
Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has
known this entire time that both the Factcheck.org and
FightTheSmears.com COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment
4. The combination of certificate number and filing date on
the Factcheck.org COLB is not possible. The DOH has
confirmed that the certificate number is assigned by them when they file
the certificate. The Factcheck.org COLB says it was filed at the
DOH, 3 days before the Nordkye twins’ certificates but has a later
number than theirs. The DOH has refused to release the certificate
number for Obama even
though they are
required by UIPA to do so.
5. Every government agency in Hawaii
contacted thus far has explicitly denied
that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have
refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This
includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices
(OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House
and Senate. Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law
forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate -- even that
it’s a critical, very public forgery. The Ombudsman’s Office has
said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover
themselves. See no evil…
6. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate
renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.
Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie
evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t
result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1, &
HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee. Legal name changes
also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s
confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named
Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or Sutoro.
7. Kapiolani Hospital received a
signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming
Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s
amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had
been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been
responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH
responsible for any clerical typos. The only way Obama would be
charged for an amendment is:
a) if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the
certificate themselves and erred, or
b) if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.
8. The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make
changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would
protect Obama. In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they
will no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This is in
direct violation of the current rules, without following
HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes -- the first
several such violations within the past year.
9. Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records
verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that,
since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. According to PHR
Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or
group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document
is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities
to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has
refused -- even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than
risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no process by
which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.
10. Having made the illegal statement, Fukino
refused to obey UIPA which required her to
release the documents on which her statement was based.
11. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored
for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the
UIPA request or
invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s
of Practice & Procedure" (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored
as long as the case can be contested -- August 2011 in this case.
12. Fukino averted discipline against herself by
promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has
designed the DOH’s deceptive responses. Six days after
Leo Donofrio’s blog
said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against
Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama
resigned from the OIP to take a
promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He
granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and
asked her to
Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings
up to the DOH. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1&2, including
disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of
birth, marriage, and death certificates. They deny that documents
exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their
instructions which are mandated in HRS 91,
This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the
OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s
offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from
citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as
well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they
don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.
|Hawaii AG Will Not
Corroborate Fukino's Statements
|The Post & Email is in
receipt of a letter signed by Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General
of the State of Hawaii, which affirms her email early last month to our
Editor-in-Chief, Mr. John Charlton, stating that her office will not or
cannot corroborate any of the Department of Health’s public statements
regarding the alleged facts of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in
Ms. Nagamine’s March 19, 2010 formal letter was sent in
response to the Hawaii Petition Campaign’s request for Hawaii officials
to release Obama’s birth records and proof that he is a "natural born"
citizen, as required for the office of President by Article II, Section
1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
On July 27, 2009, Dr.
Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health,
public statement which declared that Obama was "born in Hawaii" and a
"natural-born American citizen." She did not expound on how she
arrived at her conclusions.
The office of the attorney general
has now contradicted, in a formal letter, the content of an email
sent by Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer at the Hawaii
Department of Health, in which she responded to a student researcher
that the attorney general, Mark Bennett, "had reviewed and approved" Dr.
Fukino’s July 27 statement.
To what lengths are Okubo and Fukino
willing to go to protect Obama? Why are they doing it, and what do
they expect to gain from it? What do they fear they will lose if
they do not continue their charade? There is no one else in Hawaii
claiming that Obama was born there. No other public official will
here . . .
|The Summary CNN Doesn’t Want You to See
|Butterdezillion's blog says the Hawaii
Department of Health (HDOH) has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s
Factcheck COLB is a forgery because:
1) They have made a statutory admission that
his certification of Live Birth (COLB) has been amended, which is
required to be shown on a legitimate COLB, but is not shown on the
Factcheck COLB, and
2) Director Okubao has said that Oahu
birth certificate’s have always been given the birth certificate
number by the HDOH on the "date filed." The Factcheck COLB has a
3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins' but was given a number
later than theirs. This statement by Okubo rules out past
explanations (hospitals numbering the birth certificate’s or being
given blocks of numbers, or birth certificate’s sitting in piles at
the HDOH for days before being numbered). This means that
either the "date filed", certificate number, or both have been
altered on the Factcheck COLB.
Because Obama’s genuine birth certificate is
amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that it has no legal value unless
it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or
body and they rule the birth certificate to be probative. Obama
has fought lawsuits to make sure that his birth certificate could never
be presented as evidence, even though it is the only way he can have any
birth facts legally determined.
The 20th Amendment of the
Constitution says that if a President elect "fails to qualify" by Jan
20th, the Vice President elect is to "act as President" until a
Because the required procedure to legally
determine Obama’s birth facts has never happened we know that Obama
could not have "qualified" by January 20th, and anybody who certified
his eligibility documentably perjured him/herself since even his age has
never been legally determined and could disqualify him from eligibility
for the Office of President.
The president elect becomes
president automatically at noon on Jan 20th, but there are 2
Constitutional requirements that must be met before a sitting president
can "act as president" or exercise the presidential powers: he must take
the oath of office and he must "qualify." Doing one of the 2 is
not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.
Obama has "failed to qualify" and the only person the 20th Amendment
allows to "act as president" is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.
All this is known simply because his birth certificate has been amended
and he has never presented it as evidence so it could possibly gain
legal evidentiary value.
These claims are documented
|News reports stated that in Mexico, drug lords
killed a rival member and sewed his face onto a soccer ball. The
difference between Mexico and The USA is law enforcement. In
Mexico law enforcement is sold to the highest bidder. If America
ever reaches that point, guard your children because anything can happen
to them and you can’t do a thing to stop it.
is, and always has been about law enforcement, because our entire system
of law enforcement of already-existing laws has utterly failed.
This has nothing to do with politics.
It doesn’t much matter
whether the guy with his face sewn on the soccer ball was a democrat or
republican, or whether he favored or opposed healthcare reform or any
other political issue. If there is nobody willing to enforce a
law, that law doesn’t exist. Period. Why argue about what
laws get made and by whom, if the laws we have are enforced like
That is the issue here. You can say, as did our
Senators a few years ago regarding perjury and obstruction of justice,
"Tee-hee. It’s just about sex. It doesn’t matter." Or
in this case you can say, "The Birthers are crazy. Move on."
The subject of the investigation is irrelevant; the fact that law
enforcement refuses to investigate is the issue. When lawless
people get control of a system and manipulate what gets enforced, you’ve
become Chicago. Or Mexico. Today the subject not being
investigated is the violation of open records laws and government
cover-up of known forgery. Those crimes have allowed a person into
office who has committed extortion (threatening
anyone who would report on Obama’s eligibility, as well as lawyers for
car dealers), and who violated bankruptcy law to steal money from
secured investors and give it to unions instead. For a wider-angle
view of Obama's actions so far (with links) see
here. (I gave up on keeping score after 6 months).
can laugh at extortion & government cover-ups of forgery and perjury if
you think it’s just about -- tee-hee -- Birthers, but I’m telling you
right now: If law enforcement doesn’t matter, then welcome to Mexico.
I hope your children have a good time kicking your face when they see it
sewn onto a soccer ball, because by refusing to address this you are
consigning your children to that kind of world.
|Certificate Of Nomination Summary
Butterdezillion explains why Pelosi and Germond signed a different
Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii.
Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd
here, and here, Canada
Free Press broke a
showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives
of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of
Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another
that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii
included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally
qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.
That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in
this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is
Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that
Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results
of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any
Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is
eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim
that Obama’s eligibility was verified.
And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came
to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General,
and the public at large need to know.
First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health
confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either
the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has
ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond
did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the
HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office
they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and
has no legal value.
It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published
their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody
claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC
relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for
candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that
the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional
eligibility of the candidates.
But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the
Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in
order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done
for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify
on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a
duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of
the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO
CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.
I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the
certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party
(HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and
2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention
and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their
certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and
national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President
and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of
Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.
A summary of the documents:
2000 DNC Cert - standard certificate with typed eligibility
2000 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language.
Signed about a month after the National convention and received at
Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered)
2004 DNC Cert - standard certificate, no eligibility language
2004 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language.
Signed about a month after the National Convention.
2008 DNC Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language
2008 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language
removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the
DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC
Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter
In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the
Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National
Convention, on the day
BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then
apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler,
who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and
Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility)
and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal,
to the Hawaii Elections Office.
So instead of acting independently a month after the National
Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the
HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language
from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler
before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were
not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with
Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections
Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s
special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify
The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic
Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to
successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?
A former DNC official allegedly
said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that
doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had
always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either
doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had
always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been
tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert
they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates
other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility
certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of
caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed,
just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always
worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never
been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the
HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their
certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would
have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did
they do that?
Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the
law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the
protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions
they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner
didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the
requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified
I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had
authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I
spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to
answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I
specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes
to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation
for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that
Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that
they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up,
with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their
legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find
who had represented the HDP in
lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have
now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the
Hawaii court site) was
William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in
her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has
actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii
BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes,
but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for
kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security
number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has
Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s
campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at)
Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year
in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s
visit to Kenya
shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of
Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for
lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.
The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it
is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has
probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.
All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers
Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was
almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special
certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent
the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections
Office. Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.
The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”.
I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers
before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep
Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy
Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney
|Dear Mr. Malcolm
Dear Mr. Malcolm,
editorial regarding Luke Scott you mentioned that Obama -- for whatever
reason -- refuses to release his long-form birth certificate from the
Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).
The HDOH has already told us
enough to know why he refuses to release it. Everything I say here
is documented on my
blog. I and my colleagues have been in contact with the HDOH
itself and have the statements from them and other government offices,
as well as the laws, rules, legal rulings on Hawaii’s open-records laws,
etc to back up everything I am about to tell you.
official communications the HDOH has made a statutory admission that
Obama’s birth certificate (BC) was amended/altered in 2006. As the
Certification of Live Birth (COLB) form says, "ANY ALTERATIONS
INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE," and HRS 338-17 says that the probative
value of an amended/altered and/or late BC can only be determined when
it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or
In other words, Hawaii has no legally valid BC for Obama.
Look at the announcements by Fukino and Okubo and you will see that they
are very careful to never say that what they have is legally valid.
Fukino’s phrase was "on record in accordance with state policies and
It also means that the State of Hawaii cannot
legally say where Obama was born. Fukino’s statement was that she
had seen the VITAL RECORDS WHICH VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii.
"Verify" means that they swear. Fukino has never, herself, said
that Obama was born in Hawaii because the law doesn’t allow her to say
that since the BC is amended. What she says is that the vital
records swear he was born in Hawaii. Whch is legally irrelevant if
those vital records are not legally valid.
The HDOH is required
to release a non-certified COLB for any person to anybody who asks for
it. And once an announcement has been made regarding records ALL
the records that were used for making that announcement are also
required to be disclosed to anybody who asks to see them. Fukino
referenced content on Obama’s actual vital records; therefore all those
records are supposed to be disclosed upon request, according to Hawaii
She refuses to follow either of those rules/laws. And
she illegally hid the Administrative Rules until a year after the
election. And the HDOH knows that what Obama posted online (which
his lawyer requested Judge David Carter to take judicial note of in a
legal proceeding) is a forgery. They have indirectly confirmed
that to the public in 3 different ways:
1) by admitting that Obama’s genuine
BC is amended, since amendments must be noted on a COLB but Obama’s
amendment wasn’t noted on the FactCheck.org COLB;
confirming that the BC# was given by the HDOH on the "date filed"
for all Oahu BC’s (The FactCheck.org BC# is later than the Nordyke
twins’ BC#’s even though the "date filed" was 3 days earlier.
The HDOH statement eliminates previous attempts to explain the
3) by just a few days ago disclosing
an image of their official seal stamped onto a piece of paper (the
seal does not match the one on the FactCheck.org COLB).
Janice Okubo told me in an official communication
that Hawaii law forbids her to disclose to anyone -- even law
enforcement -- what she knows to be a forgery. In truth, however,
failing to disclose a known forgery is the federal crime of misprision
of felony. And deceiving in matters of federal jurisdiction (such
as not correcting the reports saying that you have confirmed that
FactCheck.org is genuine when you actually know it to be a forgery)
violates the Federal General False Statement Act.
So crimes have
been, and continue to be, committed by government personnel in order to
hide the fact that Hawaii does not have a valid BC for Obama.
That is the reason this issue won’t go away. This isn’t about
Obama. It’s about the rule of law. And there are similar
crimes being committed by other government agencies who are supposed to
have records for Obama as well. The Selective Service
Administration actually has a forged Obama’s draft registration, as seen
by the ‘08 automatic date stamp on it (rather than ‘80). The
Passport Office has submitted to a judge what is almost certainly a
forged Department of State "cable" claiming that retention schedules
were changed and passport applications destroyed without leaving any
paper trail as required by law. Etc.
This is a huge story
that the general public is aware of but the media will not report the
facts. Just like the WikiLeaks stories, when this story finally
comes out it will be no big surprise to the people, who knew all along
the truth of everything that was leaked and that the government was
lying to us about it all. We just didn’t have access to the proof.
The HDOH has already given us the evidence of Obama’s documentation
problem indirectly. When the direct evidence comes out the
question we all have will be brought to the surface: How was this able
to happen in America? At that point it will be more than egg on
the faces of those who perpetrated and abetted this fraud on the
American public and Constitution. At that point there will be
legal ramifications and those who have laughingly perpetrated this will
be sitting in jail.
As the election revealed, Americans are not
amused by the "fundamental change" being crammed down our throats, even
if the media and politicians laughingly call us "Birthers" while they
dismiss our demands for the rule of law.
I apologize for the
length of this, but I’ve only scratched the surface of this story here.
I do know how this was able to happen in America, and it involves much,
much more treachery than you probably care to hear about. If/when
America is out of the danger zone the whole story can come out.
For now, everything I’ve given you is straight from the horse’s mouth.
According to the HDOH itself they do not have a legally valid BC for
Obama and they know the FactCheck.org COLB is a forgery, but went along
with a pretense of having a normal, valid BC for Obama. If it’s a
conspiracy, it is a documented conspiracy.
If you have any
questions or comments, or are interested in learning more, don’t
hesitate to e-mail or call.
|Hawaii's Cover Up Continues
says that according to a recent report and an interview reported by
Michael Isikoff, the Hawaii government is now claiming that not even
Barack Obama himself could make a copy of his long-form birth
certificate, much less get a certified copy. What I will document
here is that Hawaii law REQUIRES ALL the records the Hawaii Department
of Health (HDoH) has for a person to be available for inspection and
copying, and that certified copies of the entire birth certificate --
including even the confidential medical portion -- are required to be
issued when the registrant or anybody named on the certificate
specifically requests it.
For the last 2+ years the HDoH has been
claiming they won't issue certified copies of long-form birth
certificates, but there is a video clip and there are certified copies
of long-forms issued during that time proving that what they said
publicly and what everybody in Hawaii knew was really happening were two
different things. They HAVE been issuing certified long-form birth
Enter Donald Trump, who very publicly wonders why
Obama won't just disclose his long-form. Not only has Obama
refused to disclose it, but he has spent his own, taxpayers', and
concerned citizens' money in court cases where he has argued he
shouldn't have to disclose his long-form because it would be
"embarrassing" to him. He allowed a decorated military surgeon and
veteran, Lt Col Terry Lakin, to go to jail and lose at least $3 million
in savings, career wages, and retirement benefits rather than simply
disclose his long-form.
Now, after 2 years of ridiculing
"Birthers" and sending Lt. Col. Lakin to jail, the HDoH Director who
replaced Neal Palafox (after Abercrombie, Janice Okubo, and the Attorney
General's Office did a hit-job to cover that Abercrombie asked him to
resign) has decided to change the policies so they can say that Obama
CAN'T disclose his long-form because he can't even GET a copy of his
The problem for them is two-fold:
1) This doesn't explain why Obama wouldn't
disclose the documents when the HDoH was still issuing certified
copies of long-forms, or why he won't disclose it in COURT, where a
subpoena or judge's order overrides the routine policies of the HDoH
2) The policies they are implementing right now are
illegal, and actually reveal that they are so desperate to cover for
Obama that they will even break laws to give him an excuse he can
use to the Average Joe who reads articles like Isikoff's. This
is the HDoH Director and the Hawaii Attorney General's office,
breaking the laws to cover for Obama in full view of everyone.
In summary: In a desperate, vain attempt to put the
"Why doesn't Obama just disclose his long form?" horse back in the stall
after 2+ years of that horse galloping all over the country, the Hawaii
government has decided within the past few weeks (since Trump raised the
visibility of the issue) to openly break their vital records and open
records laws -- denying everybody else their lawful right to access
their own records and get certified long-forms as required for a variety
of legal purposes, all to cover for Obama's refusal to simply show the
long-form that supposedly has the same information as what he has
already disclosed publicly.
On June 6, 2009, according to a
now-scrubbed article in the Hawaii Star-Bulletin, the State of Hawaii,
Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates
as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The
department only issues the "Certifications of Live Birth", and that is
the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she
said, and, "it's only available in electronic form."
That's a lie. Here's a long-form birth certificate
issued on September 28, 2010.
here's one issued in
June, 2009, The Obama File discovered an item that demonstrates that
Hawaii was actively participating in the conspiracy to support Obama's
usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.
Since 1920, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands only accepted a
certified copy of the long-form "Certificate of Birth" to be accepted
for eligibility for some Hawaiian state government programs. When
questions about Obama's eligibility surfaced, Hawaii changed the rules,
and scrubbed their website sometime between June 8, 2009 and June 18,
2009 in support the Obama mythology --
here is the story
In January, 2010, the HDoH
launched a defense against Obama
birth queries. The Department of Health has posted a "vital records"
Web page -- "obama.html" -- that says they aren't answering any more
questions about Barack Obama, the mysterious circumstances surrounding
his birth, and/or what documentation is in their possession.
In May, 2010 the Hawaii legislature
passed the "Vexatious Requester" law (SB2937/CD1), that amends the
state law to allow for a state agency to refuse the release of
government records under certain circumstances -- like covering up for
Hawaii is run by Democrats. They
filed fraudulent nomination
papers to get Obama on the ballot, and have knowingly conspired to cover
up their misdeeds ever since. THis is the greatest fraud in
They have to. They have no choice.
Can you spell "Leavenworth?"
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved