About Me

My photo
I'm a simple man, not a simpleton. The worst thing any of our leaders can do is to get those two things confused. I'm a warrior for those things I believe in. I stand up for my friends, family, God, and country. All I truly want is for the government to stay as far out of my life as I can get it. Oh and just in case you haven't guessed it; I'm conservative in my bones.

Search

Custom Search

Saturday, August 29, 2009

If You Speak Out, Look Out

The best way for a person that is in opposition to the powers that be to determine their effectiveness can be found in the amount of resistance one receives in answer to his efforts. This can be illustrated simply by the Pat Dollard sites. Let's review the last 3 months, the day that Twitter and other social sites got hit, PatDollard.com also got hacked. Site operation has been disrupted ever since. Then, due to "someones" complaint, Pat's paypal account was suspended last week, due to his site being "anti-Muslim". I would like to point out that it's not anti Muslim, it is however, anti-Islamo-fascist and anti-Jihadi.

And now, starting 2 days ago, we received a DOS attack (denial of service) designed to shut us down. This morning, sometime after 5 a.m. both the Active site and PatDollard.com were both brought down and are still shut down.

The interesting thing is, one of the last posts that I put up on Pat Dollard's site was the article by CNET about the bill that would give Barry direct control of the Internet. I do not believe in coincidence.

Understand patriots, if you come onto the opposition's radar, you will be targeted and every attempt will be made to shut you down. Pat says things on his site that most are not willing to. The fact that he allows me to post my observations without editing to make it politically "safe" is a testament to his willingness to push the bounds of Truth. To get messages out there, that the Left doesn't want spoken.

His effectiveness is the reason that both Patdollard.com and accdf.com have been targeted. The war is on, patriots. Make yourself ready.

God bless you and as always, keep your powder dry.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Great Conspiracy

I posted these three articles yesterday on Pat Dollards site because I've had a "feeling" that something wasn't right. It's like looking at a maze and you know that there's a way through, you can instinctively tell, you just can't really see it.

Perhaps it's because the more I look into our Government, the less I like or trust. So here it is, all in one chunk. I'm putting them all in one post so I'm sorry that it's going to be so big. The information I give really can't be condensed any more.

The Great Conspiracy


Friends, today's post is going to be one of those that will make you want to put on your little tinfoil hats and start looking out of the side of your eyes at everyone around you. Or at least at anyone that drives a big black SUV with out of state plates. I want to provide you with some interesting facts and a rather disturbing hypothesis about certain events and chains of events that have been happening for the last several years. But before I get into those events I have to ask you to do a couple things for me: First, I must ask you to suspend your disbelief of the possibility of a government conspiracy. For some that will be easy as you see the government as the root of most if not all evils that are rampant in our Republic today. That is a topic that we can and most likely will debate later. For now, let's focus on this little piece of the pie. The second thing that I am going to ask you to do is to try to look at our government through the eyes of our Founding Fathers.

First things first; I need for you to go ahead and put on your little tinfoil hats and seriously consider the idea that our government has been planning for decades to disband and dismember our Constitution and do away with our Representative Republic as laid out by our Constitution and its creators. I need you to seriously think about how this might be possible given the advanced state of Leftist execution of their goals over the last 18 months.

Whenever a crime is committed in the public arena, one of the very first things that law enforcement tries to determine is whether there was a conspiracy. Many times, this does indeed seem to be the case. It seems that it is the natural tendency for those with ill actions on their mind to seek out others of a compatibly sullied soul to help them with their chores. Why then would we expect anything less from our government?

Our founders saw the government as an Evil. One necessary to the preservation of social order, but evil none the less. Much like a vicious dog can never be trusted off its chain, the government must be held under tight control with specifically designed powers to keep it from utterly devouring its own people.

James Madison put it like this in Federalist #51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Please keep this in mind as you read what follows. It is merely for your edification and an attempt to get you to look past the blinders that we all put upon ourselves in able to allow us to trust those that are called on to serve and protect us. We want to trust that they have our interests at heart, so we fail to see the evil that taints their actions.


Part 2: Pieces In Place

OK, so if you've come to this article, then you've possibly agreed to follow through on my two requests. Thanks, now hold on because we're heading down the rabbit hole on this one.

Now we are going to look at the tools and implements already in place by our government that could be used to strip us of our Constitutionally confirmed Rights and Liberties that we have enjoyed up to this point. In the last part of this series, we'll discuss current events and how they could be used to bring my Great Conspiracy to fruition. So let's get started.

The first and most glaring tool that the government has in it's Constitution pruning arsenal is probably the most successful PR campaign in the history of the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is the “benevolent” bureaucracy that everyone comes to for handouts when the City that was built below sea level gets flooded due to the funneling of moneys designed for structural upgrades to levies gets siphoned off by a crooked leftist local and state government. It's also, who will come running in the event of a national emergency, such as, but not limited to, epidemic, civil unrest, natural disaster, economic disaster, or just about any other local, state, or national “emergency” that might cause the government to declare a state of emergency within the U.S.

Upon such a declaration, the amount of power given to FEMA to perform it's mandate is staggering. Almost all of FEMA's powers are derived, not from enacted law, but by Executive Order. Here are the ones that empower FEMA in case of a Presidential Declaration of Emergency:

  • Executive Order #10990: allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
  • Executive Order #10995: Seizure of all communications media in the United States.
  • Executive Order #10997: Seizure of all electric power fuels and minerals, public and private.
  • Executive Order #10999: Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.
  • Executive Order #11000: Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision including the splitting of families if the government finds it necessary.
  • Executive Order #11001: Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, public and private.
  • Executive Order #11002: Empowered the postmaster general to register all men, women and children in the U.S.
  • Executive Order #11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft.
  • Executive Order #11004: Seizure of all housing and finance authorities to establish Forced Relocation Designated areas to be abandoned as "unsafe."
  • Executive Order #11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.
  • Executive Order #12919: Signs June 3, 1994, by President Clinton. Encompasses all the above executive orders.
  • Executive Order #11051: Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
  • Executive Order #11310: Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
  • Executive Order #11049: Signs emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
  • Executive Order #11921: Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
  • Executive Order #12919: Signed June 3, 1994, by President Clinton. Encompasses all the above executive orders.


With these Executive orders, FEMA is given the ability to suspend every Right given to us in the Constitution. And all that it really needs is for the President of The United States to declare a national state of emergency. It doesn't have to be a certain type of emergency either. This could be political insurrection, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or Michelle waking up with a bad hair day. There is no limits on what could trigger the uses of the above mentioned powers.

The next tool that the government has at its disposal to help destroy our Constitution is the Military Organization called Northern Command. The following is taken directly from The U.S. Northern Command website:
“U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established Oct. 1, 2002 to provide command and control of Department of Defense (DOD) homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities. USNORTHCOM defends America's homeland — protecting our people, national power, and freedom of action.

USNORTHCOM’s specific mission:
USNORTHCOM anticipates and conducts Homeland Defense and Civil Support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests.”

In the past, having an organization like UNSNORTHCOM wasn't a problem because of a post civil war era law called the Posse Comitatus Act. This act made it illegal, punishable by imprisonment, to use military forces inside the United States. With the exception of uses according to the Insurrection Act.

However, in 2007 G.W. Bush pushed for and got a provision added to a bill that allowed the President to use the military as a police force instead of being limited to use only in case of insurrection or rebellion. This drastically changes the balance of power and makes the creation of a martial law declaration much much easier.

To put the Feather in the cap, so to speak, in October of 2008, according to The Army Times, the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team was assigned to USNORTHCOM for one year. These extremely combat hardened troops would then be rotated out and replaced with another combat team for the following year. This is a permanent shift to having combat ready troops deployed inside the U.S.

The germane point in the article, at least as far as this piece is concerned, is this part here, “In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...

Now, let's leave this particular part of the puzzle alone for a second and jump to December, of 2008. A report by the U.S. Army War College, in December, 2008 talked about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks, “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

OK I'll throw one more little piece of information at you, and I want you to look at it in the context of what I've given you so far.

This is from an interview with Gen. Tommy Franks in 2003 with Newsmax: “Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that 'the worst thing that could happen' is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, '... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.'”

If our form of government and democracy itself can be set aside in the event of an attack inside the heartland, what other “Emergencies” might also trigger the loss? That's the topic of my next and final part in this series: The Great Conspiracy (The Triggers).

Friends, in my first post, I asked you to suspend your disbelief in a government conspiracy and take a trip down the rabbit hole and look at the things that have happened and been put in place that makes the idea of a conspiracy not only believable, but likely.

In my second post, I laid out the tools and authorities that the government could use to bring about a coup to upset the rule of law as laid down by our Constitution. I tried to lay out the “shadow government” that is FEMA, who would have control over all aspects of our lives. I showed you the military arm of the government. All governments rule implicitly through the threat of force. Through USNORTHCOM and its combat hardened troops, the people that gave us Waco massacre and ruby ridge have all the firepower needed to help suppress the citizenry. I also showed you that plans have been drawn up for how to deal with civil unrest by the Army War College, since shortly after Barry became the alleged commander in chief.

Part 3: Triggers

Now in this final post, I'd like to take you through the scenarios that are in place, any of which could be used as an excuse to remove the Constitutional restraints placed upon our government.

First, there is the very real possibility of a Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical attack (NBC) by militant extremists. I don't care if they are Islamic Terrorists or La Raza punks, or Mexican street gangs. Or even some other as yet unknown group that decides to take advantage of our alleged President's lack of backbone when dealing with homeland security and defense of the intelligence community, the resulting loss of life, according to Gen. Tommy Franks, be the trigger needed.

However, thanks to G.W. Bush pulling the pin and fragging the Posse Comitatus Act, the reason for the use of military force in America is much easier, so perhaps it won't be anything like that.

How about this scenario, starting with G.W.'s famous quote about abandoning free market principles in order to save the free market, and the reality of his opening the door to Barry's out of control “stimulus” bill, Cap and Trade bill, and the current incarnation of the House medical care bill and it's public option, and Barry's insistence on “comprehensive immigration reform” (translated: amnesty) our nation is fast approaching a financial Force Majeure. Simply stated, our debt would reach a point where we could no longer even service the interest and still keep our nation running in the black.

When this happens, the dollar will collapse causing a financial meltdown that will make the Great Depression seem like a summer stroll through a forest meadow. The civil unrest caused by such an event would decimate our ability to keep law and order and people would demand that the government step in and quell the uprisings, as well as provide for the basic needs and necessities of life.

Thus would FEMA be activated and total control of life in this nation would be transferred over to the Dept. of Homeland Security and FEMA.


The next doomsday version has to do with the dreaded H1N1 virus. This virus is currently responsible for the deaths of just over 500 Americans. This late in the year, that places the virus on track to take out a little over 800 people. Does that sound bad to you? Well, according to the CDC, the regular seasonal influenza is responsible for the deaths of, get ready for this, over 40,000 people on average. Some years more, some less.

And yet, what is it that they are using for their fear mongering nearly every day. H1N1 has become the new boogie man. This next part of this particular scenario requires you to put on your tinfoil hats.

When was the last time the government ever planned anything correctly with any specificity? The word you are searching for is “never”. And yet, last January, USNORTHCOM said that they had just completed training exercises preparing for an epidemic of swine flu coming from south of the Border. This was in the same month that the H1N1 virus was first discovered. To paraphrase Arsinio Hall... Things that make you go, “WTF?!?!” And if that doesn't make you pull your tin hat down farther, the senior scientist that helped to create the vaccine, says that in his opinion, the virus was created in a laboratory.

This is backed up by an article in a science news site called The Tech Herald. In the story it claims that the WHO was investigating the claims that the H1N1 escaped from their labs. Later, they denied the possibility and ridiculed the very idea.

If it was released with nefarious intentions as indicated from the admittedly circumstantial evidence, then it too could be used as a trigger for the activation of FEMA.

In light of these theories, Barry's championing of the South American treaty that would limit gun ownership and trading as well as reloading of ammunition by private individuals, and the House's attempts at passing bills, including the House's version of health care reform, that would create roadblocks to citizens being legally able to own a weapon without a federal license, becomes understandable.

Theories aside for a moment, there are some facts that I think need to be considered in context of my postings. First, with few exceptions all three branches of our government are populated with socialists and Marxists that see the Constitution as an inconvenient obstacle to the furtherance of their agendas. We have a potential usurper in the Oval office who has surrounded himself with self described Marxists, Communists, and Leftist activists. And the alleged president himself has more than once shown nothing but disdain for Constitutional governance.

So take the information I've given you in these posts and think about them. They may or may not be Truth, but they are worth tracking.

Thank you from the Oklahoma Patriot. God Bless you and keep your powder dry.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Leftists Vs. Conservatives: Why There Will Be Blood

Bad blood between those that are in favor of an all-powerful federal government and those that believe in the power of States and their citizens is nothing new. It's been around since before the Revolutionary war. Each side believes that they are right, and each side believes that the other is full of revolutionary ideology that they see as dangerous.

I'll give you a current case in point, Gramma2Many stopped in and left a request for aid on my website, as well as(judging by the number of people that showed up on her site) a good number of other sites. Apparently, a Leftist from the UK decided to go on her site and start bad mouthing Americans that don't want socialist healthcare.

Long story somewhat shorter, several of my fellow patriots took exception to her statements and came back at her with proof(or at least as much proof as we could get from this side of the pond). To which she mocked each source and told us we were listening to the same old right wing lies.

When she finally decided to quit the field of battle, I gave her one last salvo just to make sure that she got the idea, here it is:

Yes, diddleymaz, this conversation is and should be brought to conclusion. What you fail to understand is that very similar to the Founders of this nation, we conservatives see government intervention as a means of weakening the people. Government subsidies are designed to make the people dependant upon a government for sustanance, so that the people have to keep coming back to the teat for more and more. All the while, their ability to stand and succeed on their own is taxed and limited due to government's never ending hunger for resources.

More and more Rights are taken away and replaced with suposed rights. Free speech for free healthcare, Right to Bear Arms for the right to Welfare. I could go on and on but I won't. The fact of history is this, Socialism has always failed in the end. It weakens the people and creates a moral equivalancy that destroys the family and society as a whole. Strength comes from self reliance and a true sense of community. These things can not be instituted by a government beurocracy, but rather by the removal from governmental interferance in daily life.

Europe has never come to understand that government is at best a necessary evil. Like a viscious dog it must be kept on a strong chain or it will devour the very people that it is to protect. We Patriots of America, refuse to give our freedoms up for supposed security. We refuse to lose the sovereignty that so many of our forefathers died to aquire for us.

It is a point of view that Europeans mostly fail to understand because they do not have our heritage. It is a point even some of our own Leftists don't understand because they still look to Europe with envy. They see the old world as an attempt at the failed idea of human perfection. Socialist ideals clothed in "culture". For those of us who value our history and heritage, its poison in a sweet cake.

You will never understand our point of view because you have allowed yourself to become dependant upon your government for your existance. God forbid that happens here.Is it any wonder why projections for Europe show the muslims becoming 20% of your population? Or why your governments have folded to Islamic rule so often? Europe is weak and the Jihadis know it. They outbreed you and have a strength of conviction your will never have.


So of course, she had to come back with this little rejoinder:

Greywolfe you are the sort of deluded fascist who gives me nightmares! we dont have spree killers all the time (no guns) and if you believe the rest of that stuff about europe your as stupid as i thought you were.

Because I point out the differences between Euro-trash and American heritages and because I showed her the ways in which her value system was killing the European nations, I am a "deluded fascist".

Leftists are supposed to be the all inclusive, big tent, Cumbaya types aren't they? Aren't they the ones that preach tolerance? I've noticed that in every conversation that has taken place between Leftist organizations like ACORN or the SEIU, that the Leftists don't seem to be all that tolerant or inclusive. Unless you count becoming violent and threatening violence to be inclusive and tolerant.

Here's the argument as best as I can boil it down. Leftists want the government to ensure that they never have to worry about the chaos and insecurities of this thing called life. They are willing to sacrifice any amount of other peoples money to make sure that this is the case. They are willing to sacrifice any Freedom, Liberty, or Right that other people might enjoy so that they can secure the government's promise for "security" for themselves and others that have not earned it. (See also the illegal alien argument). The point that there is no place in the Constitution that gives the government the right to do this is moot and beneath them to the point of being rediculous to debate it. The government can do as it sees fit in their eyes.

Conservatives on the other hand, see the promise that our Founders started for us in this Constitutional Republic and want the power to go back to where it was originally placed by said Constitution; the states and the people. We want the government to stop interfering with our lives and to allow each state to govern it's people the way it was originally intended. We want a strict constructionalist view of the Constitution and we want ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL ATTEMPTS AT COERCING THE STATES ILLEGALLY.

As you can see, the two opposing views are truly diametrically opposed and beyond reconciliation. We have reached a point of critical mass in this country. It is my fear that if the current legislation on healthcare, climate change, and illegal amnesty gets pushed through congress, the only options left to a responsible patriotic people will be to pull out that document that started our first war of independance, dust it off, fill in the appropriate places, and march on Washington with weapons in hand, ready if necessary to do battle, but demanding first the resignation of every member of our national mis-leadership.

Well, that's my little bit of sedition for one night. Good night and God Bless.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

There Will Be Blood


I posted this on Patdollard.com tonight. You can see the original here.




Way back before Barry’s coronation, I predicted on my site and others that I frequent that there would be blood in the streets. Not because, as the media would have the public believe, Barry is Black, indeed I’d have voted for Dr. Alan Keyes in a heart beat, but because I forsaw the death of our Republic. I saw the rapid jumps in Nationalized Socialism coming to this country, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany during the 1930’s.

Socialism isn’t new to America, but because we have had no ruling class, historically speaking, socialism has had to take slow baby steps compared to the leaps and sprints of the European Countries. However, just as in every great nation that has come to peril, ours has reached a point where the wolves are not at the outer gates, they are in our very midst. We are indeed in a Revolutionary War in this nation. One unlike any seen in this country before. For this is a truly revolution minded group that sits in our places of power and tramples on the Rights and Freedoms that our Founders fought and died for, and that our God granted with grace.

The question was once asked of me how I saw the fight starting. As I saw it then, there were two conceivable triggers for the coming fight: First, I saw the possibility of someone assassinating Barry which would spark a race war from one coast to the other to make the race riots in the 60’s look like a walk in the park with your children. The second possibility was for the government to so constrict our Freedoms and Rights that the American people would lash out at the government which would respond with greater and greater strictures on the freedoms of the body politic.

Now we stand on the brink. As I now see it, the run up to a full fledged conflict with our government will take a natural progression. First, there are the protests starting with the April 15th Tea Parties, Over 1000 individual peaceful protests in over 300 cities, towns, and municipalities and the resident of the White House says he doesn’t know anything about them. Again on July 4th there were Tea Parties held and again they were ignored.

Now we have further demonstrations at these so-called Town Hall Meetings. Meetings where protesters are shut out, beaten by Obama supporters and refused entrance by leftist supporting Police.

Despite the outcry of anger and resistance to the socialization of 1/5 of our economy, not to mention ruining the best health care system in the world, along with the incredible hit in the polls that the democrats and Barry in particular are taking, our leaders in D.C. Have decided that they are going to follow through and ram this thing down our throats whether We The People want it or not.

When a people lose their voices, or the government loses its ability to hear their voices, then it becomes a Tyranny. We are on the brink of the rise of the soft tyranny of Nationalized Socialism. But always a hard tyranny follows the soft. I predict that Our nation will not long stand for this type of bullying. Pressure is rising in the hearts of patriots. Something will have to give and when it does, There Will Be Blood.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Town Hall Meeting Taken Back By Citizens- Seniors No Less

Video courtesy of PatDollard.com
I'll just let this one speak for itself. I love these folks to death.



Oh Snap! Clearing the Barry vs. Birthers Air



This is from PatDollard.com this morning. All I can say is, "Damn. Sucks to be him." It's a long article....but it's worth it.


Western Journalism’s Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.

June 10, 2009 Report, updated July 18, 2009

The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii

I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.

Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).




In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.

It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.

Here are 2 of Polarik’s websites: http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/

http://bogusbithcertificate.blogspot.com/

Because the disputants know far more about this subject than I do, I am an agnostic about Polarik’s argument. However, the likelihood that this computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was forged, is, I believe, increased by the fact that it has been pretty clearly established that Obama “either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently. The documents indicate that it’s one or the other.” http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html The forgery of Obama’s selective service registration was necessary, because according to Federal law, “A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.” http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm)

It is also very strange that Dr Fukino’s statement in no way attested to (or even addressed the issue of) the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” (and the information that appears on it) that the Daily Kos blog and the Obama campaign posted on line. Dr Fukino merely stated that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

If there is no hospital or physician record in the vault birth certificate, then he wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then be ruled out for the following reason.

When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.

And if there is no hospital record in the original vault birth certificate, then he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii.

Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?

If you combine an awareness of what the Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet really is with 1) a knowledge of the relevant statutes in 1961 and 2) Obama’s stubborn refusal to permit the release of the real birth certificate and his determination to fight any legal actions that would compel him to do so, it becomes clear that there is no logical explanation for Obama’s refusal without taking into consideration the relevant statutes. Then his behavior becomes clear. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii is the missing piece of the puzzle.

Most people think of a birth certificate as a statement by a hospital or midwife with a footprint, etc. (That may be why some main-stream journalists have straight out lied about this. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, for example, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.

FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.)

Most people would not consider a mailed-in form by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or a sworn statement by one of his grandparents or by his mother or even a sworn statement by himself many years later to be sufficient evidence (when set next to the statements by his maternal grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador that he was born in another country). Unless the American people are shown the original birth certificate, all of these are possibilities. And if Obama refuses to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a Hawaii hospital or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife. A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of one of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section1 for the Office of President of the United States.

It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.

Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

1765

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]

The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.

Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any courts-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his vault birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.

It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’

“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.

“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”

“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html

The following may be relevant:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

Saturday, April 19, 2008

“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.

“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “

There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp. This certainly at least should be looked into.

July 11th Addendum to Report

1. Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy. Given the slipperiness that characterized the statements of Chiyome Fukino, the Dept’s Director, and Janice Okubo, the Dept’s spokesperson, to the media on this issue, it is, I think, also reasonable to regard these steps with suspicion.

A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii 6 months ago. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same abbreviated computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.

On June 12, 2008 the title for this abbreviated form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. There is no footprint etc. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the abbreviated “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

But whether it is called (as it was last year) a Certification or (as it is now) a Certificate of Live Birth this abbreviated document provides none of the probative information that was or wasn’t on Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Unlike the Certificate of Live Birth of the time when Barack Obama was born, this new Certificate of Live Birth provides no real evidence of where a child was born or indication of where such evidence might be found. It provides no information that would demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. (As is permitted under Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii.)

2. On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state 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 ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth:

“In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

Ms. Okubo’s statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or release “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, and that it was the DOH’s policy rather than his own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this Certificate. This was an obvious deception. The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

Only the information on the original birth certificate, “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, can demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat.

3. On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408

Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates and the recently renamed abbreviated computer printouts] and Certifications of Live Birth [as the abbreviated computer printouts were up till recently called] because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth… Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009. http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange

Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the State of Hawaii changed its rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove Hawaiian ancestry, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the abbreviated Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?

4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.

4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.

Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.

See Original Story Here

Better To Laugh Than Cry

This joke was sent to me by one of my relatives. I'm not sure if it was as funny as I thought it was at the time. But I still break out in giggles reading it. You decide.


Barack Obama was visiting a primary school and he
visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a
discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher
asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion
on the word 'tragedy.' So our illustrious president asked
the class for an example
of a 'tragedy.'

One little boy stood up and offered: 'If my best friend, who lives on a
farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him,
that would be a tragedy.'

'No,' said Obama, 'that would be an accident.'

A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying 50 children drove
over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.'

'I'm afraid not,' explained Obama. 'That's what we would
call great loss.'

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Obama searched the
room. 'Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a
tragedy?'

Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet
voice he said: 'If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a
'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens that would be a
tragedy.'
'Fantastic!' exclaimed Obama. 'That's right. And can you tell
me why that
would be tragedy?'

'Well,' says the boy, 'It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly
wouldn't
be a great loss...and it probably wouldn't be an accident either.'

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Back To Work At Pat Dollard.com

Well, as most of you may or may not know (I believe that covers all of you) I was let go some two weeks ago from my job due to a collapse of our company's finances. The fortunate thing is that I have other resources to draw upon.

In fact, many thanks go out to Pat Dollard who, upon hearing of my situation, put me on his site as a paid contributor. So, from time to time, I'll be posting followups here on the news of the day that I post there.

Also, If you'd care to you can follow along on my Twitter account. I hated to do that, as I generally detest the site, but it is a good marketing tool. Feel free to drop in and leave me a note on any site where you might find me.

Web Site Hit Counter
discount climbing gear