EXCLUSIVE: Hawaii official who “certified” White House “Certificate of Live Birth” and mother of twins who claimed to remember President Obama’s birth both tied to US government eugenics think tank

1. Oh, and BTW:

   Fuddy was just one of FOUR officials who confirmed Obama’s birth certificate including the former Republican governor of Hawaii (a friend of Sarah Palin’s), and all three of the others are still alive. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii back in 1961 (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the paper, called the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii). So, if she were murdered (which is unlikely and the police in Hawaii say that he died from an irregular heartbeat, but say that she had been murdered) then the motive for the murder could have been that she was about to cut someone out of her will or a jilted lover did it, or she was about to investigate a major drug company. All of those motives are just as strong as the notion that Obama killed one
   of four officials who confirmed his birth certificate—-when there isn’t even a shred of a hint that she was going to change her story and NOT confirm it.

2. Oh, and BTW, with regard to Fuddy:

   Fuddy was just one of FOUR officials who confirmed Obama’s birth certificate including the former Republican governor of Hawaii (a friend of Sarah Palin’s), and all three of the others are still alive. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii back in 1961 (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the paper, called the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii). So, if she were murdered (which is unlikely and the police in Hawaii say that he died from an irregular heartbeat, but say that she had been murdered) then the motive for the murder could have been that she was about to cut someone out of her will or a jilted lover did it, or she was about to investigate a major drug company. All of those motives are just as strong as the notion that Obama killed one of four officials who confirmed his birth certificate—-when there isn’t even a shred of a hint that she was going to change her story and NOT confirm it.

3. HistorianDuffus is a willful ignoramus. He is an educated fool pretending to be an authority just because he sees himself as one in his own self-deluded mind. I already informed him of the existence of US Organic Law and yet he shot back that it does not even exist. As Yoda would say: “An asinine claim that was!”

   Time to school him, again, from: https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/

   Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation
   or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance. Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

   Instead,virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”. As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.

   In fact, the issue of constitutional supremacy is more complicated
   since the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation and Northwest Ordinance also carry legal authority comparable to that of the Constitution. While it may be true that the Constitution is
   “supreme” among those four instruments, it’s not necessarily true that
   its supremacy can automatically overrule fundamental principles found in the previous three documents.

   How do I know that the principles of the Declaration (as well as
   Articles of Confederation, NW Ordinance) have as much standing at law as the Constitution?

   Congress said so. Where?

   Volume 18 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as enacted by the 43rd Congress (A.D. 1873-1875) and published by the Government Printing Office in A.D. 1878. (Note that Volume 18 reflects the law as it was
   known to exist after the 14th Amendment was (allegedly) ratified in A.D. 1868.)

   In that Volume 18, the Congress published a section entitled “The
   Organic Laws of The United States of America”. That section includes
   four documents:

   1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

   2) The Article of Confederation;

   3) The Northwest Ordinance; [The Northwest Territory Government]
   and,

   4) The Constitution of the United States.

   There is nothing in that collection of documents to suggest that the
   Constitution is the only component of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. Instead, the four documents are presented as a cohesive collection, each of which are still every bit as much the Law as the Constitution.

   We have legal authority to assert the principles in the “Declaration of Independence” as carrying the force of law. ~~~~

   http://organiclaws.org/

   In the front of the United States Code, Volume One, you will see the title, Organic Laws of the United States of America. [?]

   The founding documents of the United States of America, called the Organic Laws, were written to limit government.
   The chief purpose of the four Organic Laws is to regulate and control government, not you.

   They are the founding documents of this country, which means no statute or code should conflict with principles set forth in these documents.

   Merriam-Webster defines “organic” as; “of, relating to, or constituting the law by which a government or organization exists”.

   ~~~~~~~~~~~

   “…the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations.” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

   ~~~~~~~~~

   http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=16

   THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES [Page 18 begins their posting, starting with the Dec. of Independence, then the Art. of Confederation, The Northwest Territorial Government -1787, and the Constitution.

   BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004) (defining constitution as “[t]he fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government” and “[t]he written instrument embodying this fundamental law, together with any formal amendments” (emphases added)); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) (including in definition of constitution “[t]he fundamental and organic law of a nation or state”

   On this page: http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml
   is mentioned the organic laws with a hot link to….”Document not found” !!!

   The internet archive known as the Wayback Machine lists the missing page as having been crawled about 220 times since 1994, with it vanishing in August of 2013, replaced by “Document Not Found -Document does not exist.” Twenty years it was online but then someone seeking to hide something decided to make it disappear. Gee, nothing suspicious about that….

4. Until the usurper SHOWS us some valid paperwork he’ll ALWAYS be a usurper. All the fancy words out of the deniers don’t mean a thing.

   • 1) You appear to be unclear on the concept. The burden of proof that he is a usurper is yours.

     2) Barack Obama has publicly released more “valid paperwork” proving his eligibility than any other President in the entire history of the United States.

     3) If you are still unsatisfied with his eligibility, then you have a powerful Constitutional remedy for your unhappiness. Do not vote for him.

     • You appear to be unclear on sanity. Obama is the one claiming to be eligible for the presidency, last I checked. BASED ON WHAT??? On nothing!

       Everything is hidden except unvetted counterfeit documents and unattributed “Releases”. When will the fraud produce a real TRUE COPY of an original HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL Certificate of Live Birth?

       Answer: NEVER! because one does not exist. Prove otherwise. You can’t and so you deflect and deny and claim by your own logic that ‘PROOF” is needed for a claim to be legitimate, and yet your marxist god has never offered anything remotely definable by any adult as being “proof” of place of birth.

       Let’s go with your requirement and see what his proof is. The burden of proving the truth of his eligibility is not with the People, it is with the usurper.

       Now, please stop nauseating everyone with your disgusting Pollyanna routine about how Obozo has released anything certified and certifiable. Who has certified ANYTHING? [Only Fuddy, and she was murdered because of what she had done and knew.]
       -The foxes guarding the hen house? What kind of certification is that?
       It is certification for lobotomy patients who are certifiably INSANE!
       That is what you pretend to be but no one believes that you don’t know the truth. You do know but it is your job to bury it.

       • 1. The legal presumption is that Obama is exactly what he claims to be. To challenge that presumption, you must have evidence. That burden of proof is on you, and it remains unmet after more than six years.

         2. Obama has provided more proof of his eligibility than any other President in US history. He did not have to provide that proof, but he did. You’re welcome. He has also not failed to release every single piece of documentation that has ever been voluntarily released by any previous sitting President, along with several others (to include his birth certificate) never previously released.

         3. None of the President’s relevant records are “hidden.” The rest (which are irrelevant to eligibility) are simply protected by the same privacy laws that protect yours and mine.

         4. Hospital birth certificates are not legal documents. They are souvenirs. The President has twice provided true copies of his STATE birth certificate; the short form on June 12, 2008 and the long form on April 27, 2011.

         5. His released birth certificates, both long and short form, have been declared absolutely authentic by the only authority on the planet qualified to so declare. No birther has ever come up with the tiniest shred of evidence to challenge that authenticity. Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, no US court or other governmental institution can fail to accept those documents as 100% authentic, absent evidence otherwise. As as we have established (and you have explicitly admitted) you have no evidence otherwise.

         6. Fuddy certified nothing other than the chain of custody for the certified copies of the President’s long form. The only Hawaiian State Authority that has ever certified or verified the President’s birth certificates is Alvin Onaka. And he is very much alive.

         7. Who “guards the hen house” is determined by law. The law is that the “hen house” of Hawaii’s vital records are guarded by the State Department of Health. You have admitted explicitly that you have no evidence that anybody in that department has ever lied about the President’s birth certificate. We are not at an impasse here. You have objectively lost the argument.

         8. As said before, there is no obligation for you to PERSONALLY believe anything. Nobody can demand that you believe that the President is eligible, or that the earth is round, or that the sun rises in the east. Niether the President, the earth nor the sun is obligated to do anything to try and convince you that these things are true. You may therefore believe what you wish and behave accordingly.

         • “1. The legal presumption is that Obama is exactly what he claims to be.”
           Your serpentine logic is right out in the open for all to see. Why did you insert the qualifier: “legal” when you could have shortened your claim and simply said that the presumption is that Obama is exactly… “?

           Answer: because that would imply that the focus was on the logical presumption in disregard to whatever is the view in our bastardized and compromised legal system. You are aware of that fact and thus attempt to keep the focus on that which is irrelevant to Truth. Next you’ll spout off about “the legal truth” in place of the actual truth.

           “That burden of proof is on you, and it remains unmeet after more than six years.”
           That is only relevant in a court room. Does my media room look like a court to you? In the real world, the stranger who proclaims himself the rightful heir to the throne had better have some damn good proof, and what do we get from Obama? Six years of secrecy and lies, silence and obfuscation, along with hacks like you running interference for the usurper.

           2. “Obama has provided more proof of his eligibility than any other President in US history.” He has provided no certification for anything that he has “released”. It is all unvalidated by any credible examiner. In your lollipops & rainbows Pollyanna world, no such thing as “counterfeit currency, birth certificates, passports, social security cards, etc., etc. even exist so there is no possibility that his “proof” could be bogus. And yet no one is that ignorant or naive, which means that you are just a Luciferian lying hack for the naked emperor.

           3. “None of the President’s relevant records are “hidden.”
           And yet by your own statement, they in fact are hidden by privacy laws which Obama is unwilling to waive because of the damning revelations that would result. He is nothing but an Affirmative Action, marxist & muslim-supported golden boy of the extreme Left.
           Your lies are grand canyon size. Where are his college grades, papers, tests, dissertation, etc.??? Answer: HIDDEN!!

           4. “Hospital birth certificates are not legal documents. They are souvenirs.”

           You’re just displaying your ignorance. All Certificates of Live Birth come from hospitals, signed by the mother and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant. What comes from the state is only a copy, or, in the digital age, an abstract.

           Before digitization took-over two decades ago, all State-issued copies were certified to be either a “True Copy” or a “True and Original Copy”, meaning it was produced directly by the State, and is not a copy of their copy. The Seal confirms that claim.

           After digitization, no birth certificate can be certified as being a “True Copy” of the original hospital Certificate because they are altered by the elimination of the imagery of the original’s paper and its replacement with the the imagery of security paper. So when viewing the Registrar’s stamp that says it is either a “True Copy or an Abstract”, you need to grasp that such a statement is the exact opposite of certification.

           “Here is the gold that you are buying from me. I certify that it is 100% pure Gold…, or lead.” Get the point? Unless you know exactly what is being certified, then nothing is certified because a large unanswered question is left hanging in the air. Is is an original, or a digital? If it is a digitally altered abstract image, it can be faked easily on a computer.

           ” The President has twice provided true copies of his STATE birth certificate.”

           Your stupidity is astronomical. The short-form was NOT provided by Obama, but appeared without any attribution as to origin on the Daily Kos, probably produced by its owner, a devoted Leftist. The WH only embraced it after the press was silent on it, ignoring how easily faked it was, BEING AS… it was NOT as you claim; “a true copy” of anything since it was 100% an abstract. No original exists which could produce “a copy”, you idiot.
           Even worse is: ” his STATE birth certificate”. States, as I said, do not issue Birth Certificates. They only issue certified copies or uncertifiable abstracts which they certify by state authority, not by certification standards. There are no standards for certification of an abstract because the only standard that can exist is perfect replication of an original.

           5. His released birth certificates, both long and short form, have been declared absolutely authentic [FALSE] by the only authority on the planet [LEGALLY] qualified [NOT FORENSICALLY] to so declare. No birther has ever come up with the tiniest shred of evidence to challenge that authenticity.
           AUTHENTICITY?? Wrong word, moron. “Attestation” is the word you mean. They, in various direct or indirect manners, have supported the Obama vital records scam, attesting to the information and the possession of a “birth certificate”. They have NEVER certified (that means under penalty of perjury by written or sworn testimony) a damn thing about the Obama fakes. Their “authenticity” has NOT been established by anything, -not by their sworn statements nor by any document examiner.

           “Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution…,” -back to the damn court room again? You love to run to the security of that clause as applied to a court of law, but you run away from the blinding light that shines in a court of logic. Gee, I wonder why that is? You: “Obummer is unchallengeable before Liberal, Obama-appointed judges! They all bow to the Full Faith & Credit clause so no one will question his birth certificates.” And yet any judge could question the authenticity of an internet image. And all of them should. No judge should accept a worthless digital image as authentic since there is no chain of evidence to show who produced it.

           The full faith & credit clause ONLY applies to real documents, not images on a monitor. Any judge who accepts a challenge to Obama’s birth certificate could order the presentation to the court of the document in question. Then what? Then it would be examined by an impartial expert. Only after passing that examination would it be covered by the full faith & credit clause. You know at least that much, yet run away from openly acknowledging it.

           6. “The only Hawaiian State Authority that has ever certified or verified the President’s birth certificates is Alvin Onaka.”

           And how exactly did he do that in the real world? HE DIDN’T! He may have never certified anything during his entire time as registrar. That would be true if he never signed anything, relying instead on the fakery and pretense and legal fiction of a rubber stamp facsimile. You want to pretend that “legal certification” is indistinguishable from actual certification, even though you know that is a lie.
           In the real world, if a document is not certified by actual certifying methods, then it is not certified, and one of those indispensable methods is a hand signature. Nothing that comes from Onaka is ever signed. You can’t find anything that he has signed, meaning he has never actually certified anything that you know of!

           7. “You have admitted explicitly that you have no evidence that anybody in the [Health] department has ever lied about the President’s birth certificate. We are not at an impasse here. You have objectively lost the argument.”

           Now that is almost sad. Poor little HistorianDuffus can’t tell the difference between something being unproven and something being untrue. Everything ever discovered by science was once unproven. I guess we need to throw out three thousands years of knowledge because nothing can be true if it was once unproven.
           As for having “lost the argument”, you lamely and stupidly and disingenuously pretend that the issue is one of “legal evidence” rather than objective truth. Your mind is shackled in the arena of legal protection, while outside of it, everyone is looking at you like you are crazy.

           8. “As said before, there is no obligation for you to PERSONALLY believe anything.”

           Duh!!! I thought there was one… stupid me! Listen, wise-ass, this debate isn’t about beliefs!!! It is about objective truth. You don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth, only about what is or isn’t provable in a court. Truth is very often the first victim of biased men in black robes, and lawyers fighting to defend lies. That is what you hope will always be the case regarding your Dear Leader Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama.

           btw, did you know that the correct pronunciation of his name is: BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh? That is how the Obama family pronounces it, including his deceased father.

           • Someday a birther will write a comment that is not ironic and I will throw a party. With cake.

             1. The “serpentine logic” is entirely yours. All legal questions must have a starting point, and our system (which has served us well for centuries) begins with the honored maxim, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

             I always insert the qualifier “legal” because every distinction you ultimately try to make is a legal one. The very concept of “eligibility” for any office of position is excruciatingly and exclusively legal. It is merely another example of ubiquitous birther hypocrisy that you object to the legal resolution of a legal issue. If you wish to abandon law to enforce your prejudice, nobody else has any obligation to patronize you. This is why your arguments are relegated both to ad nauseam repetition on Internet forums, and ad nauseam losses in American courtrooms.

             But back to “innocent until proven guilty” and your pathetic distinction between “legal truth” and “actual truth.” As a general theoretical statement it might be true, but as a specific statement of the instance at hand you have to actually SHOW it is true. After all, legal truth and actual truth usually ARE the same thing. You can pretend that in this case there is a difference all you wish. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better. But in more than six years you have been unable to show it. The evidence ACTUALLY supports only one conclusion in THIS case: that the legal truth and the actual truth are the same.

             2. Bigger fleas have little fleas upon their legs to bite ’em.
             And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

             Let me spell out in detail the horror of your predicament and the futility of your whinging. You can move the goal posts all you want. You can ask for certifications of certifications of certifications and nobody will care. The system created by our Constitution is pragmatic and utilitarian. It draws the line not at the impossible standard of when proof is absolute, but when proof is “good enough.” This is why (for example) the standard for criminal proof is so much more stringent than that for civil proof. What is good enough in one case is not good enough in the other.

             Not only have birthers failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the President’s birth certificates, they have failed to come up with any evidence (under the standards of the FRE) that can challenge the simple statement from Obama that he was born in Hawaii. That is how pathetic your arguments and evidence are. With that single five word statement, Obama has met the civil standard of preponderance of evidence in any US civil court. That is the LEGAL truth. And birthers have no evidence that it is not also the ACTUAL truth.

             3. You really need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. With this comment you are setting up and knocking down straw men. It is a silly argument, entirely uninteresting to me.

             4. Your quibble would not solve your problem, even were it true. No… “All Certificates of Live Birth” do NOT “come from hospitals, signed by the mother
             and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant.” Until recently most births did not occur in hospitals, and to this day very a significant number do not. They still get Certificates of Live Birth, and they get them often without signatures of doctors and often without signatures of midwives. Of our 44 Presidents, only four were born in hospitals. Only 8 ever had birth certificates at all, at least three of those not issued until the individual was an adult.

             All legally relevant birth certificates come from the government. Some may have had their original data collection in hospitals, but they are not “Birth certificates” until they state accepts them and registers them. And all certified copies are abstracts. 100% of them. Even “long forms” are actually short forms replicating only about a third of the archived original.

             Another simple error of fact in your incompetent account; the short form was provided by the Obama campiagn and no one else. It was ultimately published by a number of different outlets to include (but not exclusively) the Daily Kos, and the campaign’s own Fight the Smears website, and the critical release was that over Factcheck.com. But yes, the short form absolutely WAS released by Obama.

             5. You remain completely unclear on why birth certificates were invented in the first place. They were created to be THE LEGAL STANDARD for proof of the information they contain. They are self authenticating and require no additional verification. In an echo of point 2 above, if you wish to purse a lesser flea through forensic means you must first provide the little flea of evidence that the bigger flea is questionable. You must have evidence that contradicts the State of Hawaii… and you don’t.

             As to the full faith and credit clause, here is what the Constitution actually says if you bother to read it. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

             So no, Adrien. It clearly does not “ONLY appl(y) to real documents.”

             6. Again on the rubber stamp? Are you old enough to remember what “sounding like a broken record” means? Okay. I can point you to reality just as many times as you insist on closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears:

             “HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature.
             A facsimile of the signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by
             such office assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper
             which the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a copy
             of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such facsimile
             imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of notice or order of
             attachment, except executions, shall have the same validity as the registrar’s
             written signature. This authorization shall apply to assistant registrars
             under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1; gen ch 1993] ”

             7. Blah. Blah. Blah. You have admitted you have no evidence that anybody has lied. Until you come up with such evidence your accusations are entirely uninteresting

             8. The single, ironically honest comment in your entire post. “Stupid me.” That’s exactly what I’ve been consistently pointing out.

             And as to your pointless final comment… no. The correct way to pronounce any personal name is the way the holder of the name wants it pronounced. Your family name might be spelled “Olesczewski.” But if you wish to declare all the letters silent and pronounce it “Smith,” knock yourself out. Nobody else’s opinion matters one whit.

             • HistorianDuffus wrote: “All legal questions must have a starting point,” And once again you run back to the security blankie of what is “legal proof” when constitutional reciprocity throws actual legal proof out the window. Nothing is legally proven until it is actually proven. Legally “accepted” is a whole different thing. Nothing about Obama has been proven by evidence in any court because nothing has been subpenaed.

               The theological equivalent would be the Pope telling Galileo that he has [legally] “acceptable” proof that the sun revolves around the earth because it is confirmed by the authority of the Holy Scriptures (Full-faith & Credit authority) along with his own eyes. Now please, oh wise one, argue that the Pope has established the Truth of the matter by invoking the authority of the Scripture (the Law). What a lame-brain illogical logic you employ. You need a whole lot of lessons from Mr. Spock.

               He blathered further: “The very concept of “eligibility” for any office of position is excruciatingly and exclusively legal.” “The concept”??? No concept is legal at all except in the case of natural law being conceptual and having legal authority. As for qualifications for office, they are all sociological factors and are totally apart from law.
               “35 years of age”… purely a demographic-sociological factor which is inserted into “a law”. It has nothing to do with legal definition or adjudication or case law interpretation. It is a plain and simple true fact of life, or it is a lie someone is attempting to peddle as one. There is no legal reasoning involved. Or are you too dense to comprehend that?
               “This is why your arguments are relegated both to ad nauseam repetition on Internet forums, and ad nauseam losses in American courtrooms.” You moron, my arguments have never even seen the steps of any courtroom. As for the internet, how exactly are you any less prolific than myself as you faithfully defend your naked emperor all over the internet, to a degree that you could fill a large book? Explain that logic, you lame-brain. Again, I refer you back to Mr. Spock and your badly needed lessons.

               “The evidence supports only one conclusion in this case: that the legal truth and the actual truth are the same.” Nixon: “I am not a crook, and the legal evidence does not prove otherwise.” Now, again oh genius, explain how the absence of legal evidence “showed” that Nixon was “innocent”. And don’t go running to your pathetic “innocent until proven guilty” security blankie. Facts are facts. Absence of facts is not proof of innocence. “I’m determined to find the real killer”, OJ Hussein Simpson”.

               “Not only have birthers failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the President’s birth certificates,…”
               “Not only have rebels failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the King’s birth certificate,…” -with that king being a man made king because the king had no heir, and he came forward claiming to be his illegitimate son and therefore royal by blood and heir to the throne.
               His is installed as king. Who dares challenge the legitimacy of the King??? There is no proof that his birth certificate is a counterfeit…. of course it is also true that no counterfeit expert at all has ever been allowed to inspect it. So IT MUST BE LEGIT! ARE YOU BRAIN-DEAD??? Apparently so.

               “It is a silly argument, entirely uninteresting to me.” Fraud! If it’s soooooo “uninteresting” then why the hell have you even mentioned it and taken the time to say how uninteresting it is??? oh… because you are sooooo authoritatitvely aloof up in your royal ivory tower, all while avoiding any response that is factual because you have none. You can’t shoot a target when you have no bullets, so instead you just say “bang!, I’ve dealt with it.”

               And here’s where you reeeeeally showed what an ignorant fake you are: “No… (quoting me) “All Certificates of Live Birth” do NOT “come from hospitals, signed by the mother and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant.”
               That is the most ignorant thing you have ever written, genius! As I already informed you, ALL Certificates of Live Birth come from either hospitals or medical birth attendants. You do not even know what the heck a certificate is! It is documentation of birth, or death. And get this, oh WISE ONE!!! -probably no one who ever lived possessed his or her own Certificate of Live Birth even if they worked for a government dept. that held it.

               Here’s the reality: subject: LIVE BIRTH, -facts pertaining to, certified to be true by both the mother and the attending medical person, signed by both as a legal document, thereby constituting a certification and thus making the document a certificate.
               That certificate is not the property of the people who sign it but is the property of the State and it takes possession when it is received. If a parent wants a COPY(!!!!), she requests one and then receives a certified COPY, which used to be an exact replica of the pertinent part of the original, and it was signed by the certifier of its authenticity (the registrar), and stamped -embossed with an official seal as further proof that the actual signature was not a forgery.
               It could thus be labeled “a True COPY” or “A True and Original COPY of the actual CERTIFICATE of LIVE BIRTH. Only the State possesses actual Certificates of Live Birth. Everyone else gets only a copy, -certified or uncertified.
               A small child can get this, and yet you can’t??? What is wrong with your warped Luciferian brain?

               “Until recently most births did not occur in hospitals, and to this very [day] a significant number do not. They still get Certificates of Live Birth,”

               What a lie! What is your definition of “recently”? Half a century? A century? I have my long deceased grand parents’ birth certificates from the early years of the 20th century, -from HOSPITALS! If you lived in a city, not too far from a hospital, you were born where it was most medically safe, especially if you were a firstborn.

               As for home-births getting birth certificates; so do children who are adopted, and their real parents and their real birth certificate is never seen nor acknowledged. Authenticity is NOT guaranteed by a State dept. “certifying” a so-called “original copy” of a birth certificate. There are about 5,000,000 Americans with fake copies of “original” birth certificates issued by states because of adoption.

               “And all certified copies are abstracts. 100% of them. Even “long forms” are actually short forms replicating only about a third of the archived original.”

               Now you’ve gotten lost in the sewers of oblivion. How stupid does a person have to be to make such an obviously false statement??? Why, oh genius, does the Registrar’s stamp say clearly: “This is a True Copy OR abstract…”??? It does not say “This is an abstract True Copy” because that would be a total oxymoron.

               If it is an abstract then it is not a true copy! They are almost opposites. As for long forms being short forms, THAT is definitely the most stupid thing you have written yet. A “form” is an actual FORM! The short-form is hardly even related to the original certificate except that it contains its information. Nothing more.
               It is not even a “Certificate”, numbskull, because its information is not certified by the mother nor the attending physician or attendant. IT IS AN ABSTRACT CREATION made possible by extraction of information. It does NOT include any extracted signature because an abstract signature certifies NOTHING! -just like a rubber-stamp signature facsimile certifies nothing. The short-form is what it is labeled: “A CertifiCATION of Live Birth”. It is certified by the State to be an abstract of its own creation which certification is proven only by its official seal since a rubber-stamped signature certifies nothing in the real world, especially the worlds of business and wills and trusts and treaties and prison sentencing, judicial opinions, death sentences, etc.

               “Some may have had their original data collection in hospitals, but they are not “Birth certificates” until the state accepts them and registers them. You IDIOT! Their registration alters NOTHING! “original data collection”??? Again, mere “data collection” does not require a legally-binding SIGNATURE which is given under penalty of PERJURY.

               “the short form was provided by the Obama campiagn and no one else.” Look, you pretender, you are capable of certifying NOTHING! Your lying claim is shoveled out without any evidence at all to support it while just the opposite is readily available at sites such a the obamafile.com. The piece of crap first appeared on the Daily Kos without any attribution!
               Poof! “Here’s Obama’s birth certificate.” No proof, no name connected to it, no source, no nothing. You know that full well, but it is a fact that is very damning and delegitimizes it completely. No chain of evidence, no proof of custody, nothing other than an image on a monitor and one without any DEPT. SEAL., no signatures, no certification, no legitimacy. Accept it! It has no legs to stand on and can even be faked in about a half hour. And Obama said: “Thank you, oh Photoshop!”

               “You must have evidence that contradicts the State of Hawaii.” The “State of Hawaii” has issued no legally valid statement regarding Obama’s fakes. Nothing that could put someone on a legal hook can be traced to any living person (since Fuddy was murdered) because everything has been either a verbal lie, or a “letter” that avoided authenticating the fakes presented by the Obama flying monkeys.
               Confirming that the “facts” seen in the fakes “matches” the facts seen in their digital file means only that they confirm that the facts match, -not that the fakes were issued by them. Please point us to an official, hand-signed statement which attests that the HDoH was the source of the fakes. You cannot do that because they have never done that.
               Nothing has been spoken or written in a legal forum so in fact “Hawaii” has so far been silent on the subject.

               You pretend that you are knowledgeable about legal matters all while pretending that you do not know all of this? You are totally a fraud. A Luciferian Flying Monkey for your naked Emperor. “Protect the Emperor at any cost, we must!”

               “And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records,
               and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

               Ha ha ha ha! You have invalidated your own pet security blankie by quoting the Constitution. The founders and framers were not Rainbows-&-Lollipop Pollyannas, unlike you, because they WERE concerned about forgeries and counterfeits.

               “…shall be PROVED,”. And how exactly have the fakes been literally or legally proven? Where and when did that happen? Gee, I must have missed that,.. along with everyone else! They have only been legitimized in your own corrupted imagination.

               • You have fully conceded that you have no evidence that what has been legally proven is not also actually true. Every argument you have tried to make subsequent to that concession is pure noise and completely uninteresting to me.

       • “Everything is hidden except unvetted counterfeit documents and unattributed “Releases”.”

         In what court of law were these documents determined to be counterfit?

5. it has been reported that the Governor of Hawaii investigated and could not find any record of obama’s birth

   • You have been misinformed. Two Governors of Hawaii investigated (one Republican and one Democrat) and both found that Obama was born there. Neither however, was permitted by law to release the President’s birth certificate.

     • Here is the link that says there is no live birth certificate
       wnd.com/2011/01/252833

       • The link is wrong. WND in general and Corsi in particular has long been discredited as a source of true information regarding the birther issue.

         • How come every thing that conflicts with democratic ideas and views is always wrong or a lie,according to liberal democrats? Only democrats never ever lie right?

           • I am not and never have been a Democrat. I do not reject WND and Corsi as reliable sources without reason. I reject them because they have repeatedly proved themselves to be fearless prevaricators in the pursuit of of your purse.

             • Indeed WND and Corsi and Sheriff Joe and Zullo have lied repeatedly.

               Still, the best way to show that WND’s claim that there is no birth certificate is false, is to note that the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly stated that there is indeed a birth certificate in the files and that they sent the legal short form and long form copies of it to Obama and that all the facts on the copy that the White House put online matches the facts on the documents in their files.

               • You are an intellectual invalid. Nothing said by any official in the corrupt socialist state of Hawaii (which defends Obama as its glorious powerful native-son) can be trusted for a single minute. They are closer to Obama than the jury was to OJ Simpson, than Lance Armstrong’s teammates were to their lying cheating champion. Not a one of those liars has ever stated anything under oath or penalty of perjury. Never signed a single affidavit about anything related to his non-existent birth certificate. None of them are on any legal hooks for anything they ever wrote or said now that Obama’s SEIU henchmen have murder Loretta Fuddy. The travesty surrounding her death and autopsy is as opaque as coal. You know all of this and yet dishonestly and corruptly pretend that you don’t, -all while it is actually old news to you.

                 • Blah, blah, blah…. you don’t trust Hawaii. Nobody cares who you trust. Not the US Courts. Not any other State government. Certainly not anybody who has ever actually read and understood the US Constitution.

                   And now you are on the idiotic “Fuddy was murdered” bandwagon? Pray tell, how then is it that Chiyome Fukino and Alvin Onaka are still very much alive?

                   You fail.

                   • “Nobody cares who you trust.” Your brain is still in first gear. Who I trust is irrelevant. What matters is the trustworthyness of Fuddy’s, Fukino’s and Osaka’s worthless statements. Their statements, like all of yours, are backed by no trustworthiness AT ALL because of conflict of interest and the willingness of the Gruberite party to lie at the drop of a hat. No impartial court in the world would take their compromised word for anything.

                     So which is your problem; you are incredibly naive like a 6 year old, or incredibly stupid, or incredibly disingenuous?

                     As for Fukino and Onaka, they were not party to the creation of the counterfeit long form which utilized Ann Dunhams affidavit stored in a safe. That was director Fuddy alone. That was the reason that she was hired just two weeks after her predecessor was hired and fired.
                     Their hands are clean even though they were party to lies about the short-form.

                   • Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, Onaka’s certificateions and verifications are prima facie. You think they’re worthless, but the Constitution declares their worth to be absolute.

                     There is no “Ann Dunham” affidavit. It is a figment of your imagination. And the President’s long form is already self authenticating, prima facie evidence of the information it contains, and was further verified twice.

                     Full faith and credit.

                     The falling boulder will crush you, even when you hallucinate it is an affidavit in a safe.

                 • IFany of the above were true, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and Ann Coulter and at least one member of the 535 members of Congress would have said something about it. But not one of them did. They believe the officials in Hawaii, and not the birther lies.

     • You are a flat out liar. Neither found that Obama was born anywhere. The juvenile naive RINO Obama-loving gov. merely regurgitated what her lying democrat health director told her. She herself never validated anything by any means. As for Abercrombie, he had his person search high and low, and low and behold! No birth certificate anywhere!!!! Just a half-hand written, and half typed piece of paper or form (his mother’s application affidavit seeking a late birth certificate. Now why don’t you apologize to everyone for your blatant lies?

       • Poor, poor, Adrien. Lacking any evidence whatsoever to contradict the proof of President Obama’s Hawaiian birth, you must resort to throwing a temper tantrum and calling everybody a liar. That doesn’t fly among the grown ups.

         Both governors are on the record that Obama was born in Hawaii. It doesn’t matter if you believe anybody. It only matters what those in a position to actually know actually say.

         Deal with it.

         • You must have earned an “A” with gold star in Liar’s School. -Plus an advanced degree in Alinsky tactics of “mockery and humiliation”. But in fact you look like the total fool that you are by your infantile appeal to Big Daddy HONEST GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY FIGURES. Mommy and Daddy government NEVER lie, right? If you like your lie, you can keep your lie, and it will cost you $2,500 less!

           “Both governors are on the record that Obama was born in Hawaii.” You are too stupid to realize that “on the record” means nothing since you deliberately avoided saying which type of record you were referring to; public media record? or under oath legal record?

           Oh great HistorianDuffus, please illuminate all of us in the dark as to when they went into any legal forum and stated anything at all “on the record”. Do that and you will earn a million dollar reward that is waiting here for anyone able to do so.

           • Yawn. You are such a whiny child. Here, let me explain to you how it works in the grown up world.

             You can call anybody you want a liar. But unless and until you can actually show where they lied, you’re just being stupid.

             • That is one of the most stupid things you have said yet, and you’ve said a lot. Understand this: proof of lying is irrelevant to the fact of lying. Many things are true which cannot be proven because the proof is hidden, or destroyed, or never existed. THAT is the everlasting nature behind conspiracies. And what is needed for a conspiracy to exist?? Only one thing, two or more people plotting and planning a crime. Every crime and travesty ever committed by more than one person resulted from a conspiracy.

               You insane approach to truth would have stopped at Nixon’s denial of being a “crook”.
               HistorianDuffus: “Gee, Nixon said he’s innocent, and there’s no proof that he is not, so anyone who accuses him of any guilt is “just being stupid””.
               WOW! Could you possibly look more stupid than you’ve made yourself look?

               • Close, but no cigar.

                 Proof of lying is directly relevant to whether or not anybody cares one whit regarding your accusations of lying. You can walk down the street rubbing your grubby hands on your shirt and mumbling to yourself all day long. Knock yourself out.

                 But if you want people to agree with you that anybody else has lied, you need to be able to show it.

                 And you can’t.

                 • In the atheist world of Alinskyite government and big business, the norm is not to tell the truth but to lie. You pretend that you are an innocent babe-in-the-woods who can’t begin to imagine such a thing. Wolves in the woods? Why that is silly. Who’s ever even seen a wolf? Certainly not me, so I’m certain that they do not even exist. Now lets go skipping into the woods, la, la, la, la, la, la.

                   In the absence of a fear of Almighty God, everyone, especially you, will lie to further their aims. So stop with the 5-year-old-girl routine of being “shocked, shocked I tell you!” that people lie all the time in politics and government. You are embarrassing yourself, and that is something that you do too easily.

                   But I don’t disagree with you that I cannot prove that anyone lied. But I am not the one demanding that the sane people in this country believe something that has no credibility. That would be you and Obama.
                   Prove that what I say is false. You can’t, and that is very likely because it is in fact all true. The burden of proof is on the party that is making a gigantically important claim of authenticity.
                   The proper response to: “Believe it, please believe it, I need you to believe it!” is: “Why should l believe it?? On faith? YOU PROVE IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP!”

                   • I don’t care what or whose word you take anything on. You have a powerful Constitutional remedy for any dissatisfaction you might have with the details of President Obama’s biography.

                     Do not vote for him.

                     But no, silly child. We live in the United States, not Russia. Not Venezuela. Not Iran. In this great country the burden of proof is on the accuser.

                     That would be you.

                   • “But I don’t disagree with you that I cannot prove that anyone lied.”

                     With that final full concession from Adrien, my work here is done.

               • On what basis would you consider a document to be truthful?

                 • It would begin with no one having a gigantic motive to lie. If one party dependent on a document being endorsed as legitimate is unwilling to have it validated by document experts, or even allow it or an original to be seen by the pubic, or photographed or scanned in high resolution, then they clearly have a credibility issue, -a huge one.

                   If they are politically and ideologically connected to the supposed issuing authority, then you have a huge conflict of interest which makes any unsworn claims about its authenticity unbelievable on their face.
                   In that case, experts must examine the original and the copy, and put the authorities under oath and penalty of perjury. That is all very elementary.

                   • Either a document is legal and certified/attested to or it is not. If it is not, it is called hearsay and is not legal in any court of law.

                     The bc’s that Obama showed (and he didn’t have to show them to anyone other than the Speaker of the House after he was elected President) are stamped with the Hawaii stamp and impressed with the Hawaii seal. They could be written in crayon and as long as the raised seal of Hawaii is on it it is legally valid.

                     Choosing not to believe a legal document only means that either you have no concept of legal evidence or that you simply don’t care because you don’t like what it says.

                     Not knowing something can be remedied, deliberate ignorance can not be. You seem to be operating on deliberate ignorance.

                     Question: How many State courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen, based on his Hawaii bc?

                   • The factor you are apparently ignorant of is that there is no HDoH embossed seal on the PDF image of a Certificate of Live Birth that Barry pretends is from that Dept. So how exactly is certification achieved in that case?? It isn’t. If it were genuine then the embossing would clearly reveal the imagery of the dept seal, but all that is barely visible is a faint ring. Hence no certification. Why don’t you know that already? You are pontificating about a subject that you have not studied closely.

                   • “The factor you are apparently ignorant of is that there is no HDoH embossed seal on the PDF image of a Certificate of Live Birth that Barry pretends is from that Dept.”

                     You don’t seem to understand that the Seal for the State of Hawaii is on the bc that Obama showed the US before he was elected. That has been confirmed by many people who have actually had the opportunity to handle, and verify, the document.

                     I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand what a legal document is, or how to tell of a document has been certified/attested.

                     BTW, Notary Public’s can attest to a lot of things but not vital records. Those have to be gotten through the Department of Health of whichever State issued the original document.

                     Not liking what has been proven to be true doesn’t mean that it has not been verified. It just means that you don’t want it to be true.

                     That is not clear thinking and not logical.

6. obama is a fraud! he needs to be tried for treason!

   • Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama’s birth on US soil—in Hawaii—-has been proven by (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “They have one child, born in HONOLULU.”

     Oh, and in regards to the ongoing birther forgery CLAIM:

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

     • “Every child born on US soil is a born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign tourists, foreign guests, foreign attaches, foreign athletes, foreign entertainers all in the US on VISA CARDS!!!! Without any legal right to remain in the country, they are NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOR IS ANY CHILD BORN TO THEM. They CANNOT be DRAFTED, TRIED FOR TREASON, ORDERED TO NOT TRADE WITH IRAN, etc…. When was the last time you had house guests and informed them that it was their job to clean the toilets and wash the laundry? Why not? Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the shared house responsibilities just as guests are not subject to the duty of national defense.

       • The US Supreme Court has declared otherwise. Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is not merely a US citizen, they are natural born US citizens.

         This is because except for the two exception mentioned above, anybody on US soil is absolutely, 100% subject to federal jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the majority decision in The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.”

         It appears that every time you put fingers to keyboard you actually subtract from the sum total of all human knowledge.

         • You are an educated ignoramus who thinks he knows things which he does not even understand. The Supreme Court is NOT the determiner of what is true; only of what the majority believes to be true, or doesn’t believe but wishes to make true.

           Your quote shoots you in the head as it refers to limitation of sovereignty by a foreign–external entity. American governmental sovereignty is limited by an internal force; the US Constitution and the principles of American organic law.

           Congress and the high court only have the lawful authority that they have been delegated, and no more. Neither have ANY AUTHORITY over the national membership of existing US citizens. You don’t quote any such authority because it does not exist.
           Even worse, you have zero support from American law for your baseless claim that only the child of a foreign ambassador or alien enemy born on US soil is not a US citizen,
           Please, oh all-knowing HistorianDuffus, tell us what LAW states that??? NONE! It is not a fact of law. It is merely an opinion and nothing more. It is contrary to American organic law because, unlike your baseless claim, US jurisdiction does NOT extend to those who are born subject to a foreign power, and that includes EVERYBODY born of non-Americans or non-immigrants.

           Your fantasy sucked from ancient British custom has no place in the American principles of citizenship acquisition. Aliens with no connection to America, and even some WITH a connection, do not give birth to citizens unless the parents are subject to the obligations of citizenship.

           THAT is American organic law and nothing will ever change it including ignorance such as yours and the entire ignorant legal establishment of the nation. THAT is the truth but it does not matter at all because all that matters is policy and case law. Truth is a stranger to that cabal.

           • I had no previous idea that your hatred for the US Constitution was quite so extensive. But then again, you hate anything that challenges your prejudices, and certainly the Constitution would have to be very high on that list. Sorry to disappoint you again, but yes. In THIS country, the US Supreme Court (note the word “Supreme”) is absolutely the ultimate arbiter of legal truth.

             Deal with it.

             There is no such thing as “American organic law.” We do, on the other hand, have “common law.” And you ask where in US law it states “only the child of a foreign ambassador or alien enemy born on US soil is not a US citizen,” the answer is 500 years of Anglo-American common law, most recently the 24 courts that have cited this principle from US v. Wong Kim Ark as precedent. By now most people would have figured that out. But not you. You are, after all, a goddamn prodigy of nature.

             US Jurisdiction is absolute over ever person on US soil… except foreign ambassadors and alien armies in hostile occupation. This explicitly includes even the children of aliens.

             “Organic” law. Is that like “organic” apples? Because they’re generally really ugly.

             • I’m glad that you asked, because by doing so you revealed the extent of your ignorance. American organic law is elucidated in the US Code AS America ORGANIC LAW!
               Admittedly, as a non-attorney, I did not know that until I heard about it just a few weeks ago. So,…so much for your high horse. I won’t wait with bated breath for your response.

               You revealed your true Luciferian nature again by warping what I had written. I said the high court is not the determiner of TRUTH, (not “LEGAL truth” as you distorted).

               And again, I challenged you to show exactly where in American LAW the principle of British common law subject-ship could be found, and your lame response was non-responsive to my challenge.

               History is NOT American LAW nor America organic law no matter how many pontificators opine on what should be a part of American law and once actually was under British rule.

               You willfully lie with the false claim that ALL FOREIGNERS are subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington DC and that is because DC is not sovereign. The American People are the sovereigns of our nation.

               The central government is highly limited by the Constitution and its amendments, although Big Brother Statists like you want to pretend that its power is unlimited. You are all traitors to the union and to the Constitution. Why do you hate the Constitution so much??

               SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION:

               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE DRAFTED.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE TRIED FOR TREASON.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE ORDERED TO NEVER TRADE WITH IRAN OR ANY NATION UNDER US SANCTIONS.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE COMPELLED TO REGISTER WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE COMPELLED TO PAY US INCOME TAXES ON THEIR FOREIGN-EARNED INCOME.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH OBAMACARE.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE COMPELLED TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES FOR NO CRIMINAL OR SECURITY REASON WHATSOEVER.
               NO FOREIGN GUEST CAN BE COMPELLED TO SERVE ON A JURY.

               Now, what part of “NOT SUBJECT” does your bonehead fail to comprehend?

               Baby Obama was born subject to a foreign guest, and the both of them were NOT SUBJECT to the jurisdiction that citizens and immigrants are subject to, so the 14th Amendment did not apply to Obama jr. He is therefore NOT a U.S. citizen.

               THAT is AMERICAN LAW!!! DEAL WITH IT, Traitor.

               • You are mistaken. There is no such thing as “organic law.” No idea what SovCit goofball you’ve been listening to, but the phrase is unrefined gibberish. We have in this country four sources of law, none of them “organic.” They are:

                 1. “Constitutional law” as reflected in that founding document and its subsequent amendments.

                 2. “Statutory law” as created by the legislative branch under Article 1 of the US Constitution.

                 3. “Regulatory” or “administrative law” as created by the executive branch under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

                 4) And “common law” as created by the judicial branch under Article 3 of the US Constitution.

                 This is the system created by our Framers and Founders. There is no 5th source of law.

                 I have pointed you directly to where in US law the definition of natural born citizenship is contained. It is in our common law and found in the decision of the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark, and subsequently by 24 lower courts all of whom have declared your definition wrong and Barack Obama to be a natural born US citizen.

                 Again, let us turn from your incompetent hand-waving and failure to locate the “caps lock” to what SCOTUS has actually TOLD is the what jurisdiction means.

                 Writing for the majority in the decision I have repeatedly cited, US v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray said:

                 “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in
                 qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the
                 addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have
                 been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of
                 members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the
                 National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of
                 cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and
                 children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of
                 which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own
                 law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in
                 America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of
                 citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”

                 Ouch. That must sting.

7. This whole essay is based on false “information”. Mrs. Nordyke never claimed to remember Obama and his mother. She remembered giving birth there at that time. She stated that she did not see Ann Dunham and her black baby. Also, Onaka certified nothing. His signature is not found on any document issued by the HDoH. A rubber stamp facsimile of a signature is not acceptable in any court in the world, except by progressive judges in the U.S. who would be facilitators of the cover-up.

   • In point of fact you are wrong concerning the legal weight and validity of the rubber stamp. The point of a signature is to indicate the signer’s intent and exercise of discretion in making the signature. The mechanics of making the mark are less important. In general, unless a jurisdiction has adopted a statute specifying specific requirements as to how a signature can be made someone can sign a document in many different ways. This includes facsimiles and rubber stamps and this is true all over the world. You can read more about this concept in a legal encyclopedia such as 80 Corpus Juris Secundum, Signatures, sections 2 through 7.

     • You are a blind fool is you think that the purpose of a signature is not to verify by its unique individual form the authenticity of a document. With the assumption that all signatures are unique, a legal authority can discern if something (a will) was signed by someone else who signed the name of another.

       You are also an ass if you think that jurisdictions anywhere accept anything in place of a hand-signed cursive signature for all legal documents. Your brain-dead pretense is that courts would and do accept hand-printed non-cursive “signatures” when none do so.

       No court in the world is devoid of the right to require all submitted documents to contain a real hand signature. All the crap about “exercise of discretion” is a total betrayal of fidelity to true certification.

       And btw, please tell us what state of the union allows notary public officers to use a rubber stamp for their signature? Any number of people can get their hand on a lame rubber signature stamp but no one can replicate a natural hand signature without willful deliberate effort at counterfeiting one via lots of practice, -which is a crime.

       ” someone can sign a document in many different ways” and any judge can reject all of them except those signed by an actual human hand. Read the notations of old birth certificates; “signed by my hand”.
       Nothing commands a judge what he must accept as evidence of certification other than a constitutional jurisdiction which follows its own certification laws, which include, universally perhaps, an embossing seal. They also are unique and so with an actual signature, provide a high degree of credibility.

       • Again, I referenced you to a legal dictionary. Stamped signatures and facsimile signatures are accepted as fully legally binding in courts all over the world (and especially all over the United States) every single day. I cannot help it if that offends you. The falling boulder will crush you regardless of whether or not you enjoy the experience.

         You are correct at least that ONE OF the uses of a signature is to uniquely identify the signer. But that’s purely a forensic nicety. Its LEGAL purpose is to validate the intention of the signer. This is why we depend on notaries rather than some subjective assessment of authenticity. In truth, there are only a handful of circumstances where “wet signatures” are required. And certification of government documents has never been one of them.

         Have you ever worked (for example) for a large corporation that cuts thousands of paychecks at a time for payroll? Look at the signature on your paycheck. Notice anything? Yep… it’s not a “wet signature.” It’s a facsimile. Have you ever filed your tax returns electronically? Guess what, no “wet signature” was required by the IRS to accept it. Your “electronic signature” was just peachy.

         And here’s the best part: under the US Constitutions full faith and credit clause, “no court in the world” (well, no court in the US actually) can refuse to accept as prima facie true any document a state wished to send it, regardless of whether it carries a wet signature, or a facsimile. or a stamp, or a lipstick kiss.

         Deal with it.

         • Your context is totally missing, and thus absurd. Of course they are accepted when no issue of authenticity exists, which is almost always. That is NOT the case with counterfeit documents.

           Document can not be certified by anything other than original unique cursive hand signatures and unique official seals. That is why seals exist. They authenticate questionable documents, as does a real signature.

           “~there are only a handful of circumstances where “wet signatures” are required. And certification of government documents has never been one of them.”

           You bonehead. There is no certification that a document is a government document and not a forgery except the presence of an official seal and a hand signature that is authenticated. NOTHING ELSE CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION! In your compromised universe, all documents are assumed to be legitimate, with some exceptions, -like the birth certificate that delegitimizes the President and his constitutionality.

           As for printed signatures, they serve no purpose whatsoever, just as they serve no purpose on paper currency. It is all a great big fraudulent pretense of authenticity where none exists. Tell me this genius, then a Treasury counterfeit currency examiner looks at a fake bill, does he look to see is the printed signature of the Sec. of Treasure is printed on it or is missing? Any moron knows that it means nothing that it’s there. Only actual signatures serve as authentication.

           And as for the full-faith-&-credit clause, it has nothing to do with actual authentication of anything. It is only about the required acceptance of the legal validity of an official document from a State. No judge is required to accept any and every submitted document as being authentic. It is within his authority to require that a questionable document be certified by the State certifier of the document. Only then is it mandatory that it be accepted, otherwise any and every counterfeit would also have to be accepted.

           This is not rocket science, but apparently you would not even pass a 5th grade science course.

           • Adrien. This is not a debate over an ambiguity. It is an objective fact.

             Stamped signatures are absolutely considered legal signatures by every court in the United States of America. And stamped signatures on government documents (when accompanied by the official seal) establish their prima facie authenticity absolutely under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

             If a counterfeit document is counterfeit, it is not the signature that makes it so. And speaking of counterfeits, pull a dollar bill out of your pocket. Look at the signatures of the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Treasury. Are they wet signatures or facsimiles? Is the dollar counterfeit or not?

             Figure it out, Einstein.

             As to whether or not this is rocket science, you are not qualified to even make THAT determination. As a degreed rocket scientist myself, I am so qualified. I will leave you hanging with bated breath over the expert’s opinion on that issue.

             • You avoided addressing anything that I wrote, and that’s because you have no valid response to any of it. You distract and deflect by raising the issue of what is “accepted” when that is irrelevant. Every court in the land could accept fraudulent well-produced counterfeits and they wouldn’t know the damn difference.

               Acceptance is unrelated to CERTIFICATION! “Document can not be certified by anything other than original unique cursive hand signatures and unique official seals. That is why seals exist. They authenticate questionable documents, as does a real signature.”

               You’ve exposed yourself as the dunderhead fake that you are by your reference to signatures on currency. What did I tell you????? that the fake signature printed on currency means NOTHING! Same with rubber-stamped signatures. They also mean nothing. Only a real hand signature has any meaning. Everything else is pretense. And pretense is fraudulence and a con. Like your logic.

               “hanging with bated breath” uhhhhh, that would be “baited breath” oh rocket scientist genius! Pretender!

               • Why continue to chase the argument when the premise is objectively false? Tendentious hand waving is not an argument, especially in support of a premise that is objectively wrong? Stamped and facsimile (and now electronic) signatures are exactly as valid as “wet signatures” and accepted as equally binding by every court in the country. This is an absolute incontrovertible fact. All else is hand waving. There are countless court cases from every state in the union establishing this simple fact. For example, State v. Hickman, 189 So.2d 254 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1966), cert. denied, 194 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1966), where in the decision we read:

                 “In the absence of a statute prescribing the method of affixing a signature, it may be affixed in many different ways. It may be written by hand, and, generally, in the absence of a statute otherwise providing, it may be printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photographed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another. A signature lithographed on an instrument by a party may be sufficient for the purpose of signing it, and it has been held or recognized that it is immaterial with what kind of an instrument a signature is made. Facsimile signature of a person may be a genuine signature.”

                 Worse, the Hawaii Revised Statutes establish the absolute legality of Alvin Onaka’s signature stamp as legally binding:

                 HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature. A facsimile of the signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by such office assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper which the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a copy of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such facsimile imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of notice or order of attachment, except executions, shall have the same validity as the registrar’s written signature. This authorization shall apply to assistant registrars under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1; gen ch 1993]

                 Therefore, the statement that “Documents can not be certified by anything other than original unique cursive hand signatures and unique official seals” is an absolute lie. You had the benefit of the doubt when you began this thread that your falsehood was mere ignorance. That you persist after having been gently corrected removes that excuse.

                 Perhaps you should also brush up on the meaning of the phrase “prima facie.” Courtrooms are adversarial venues. If a plaintiff wishes to accuse a defendant of presenting counterfeit documents, it is their responsibility to offer the proof of their accusation. It is not the responsibility of the court to do the plaintiff’s (or the defendant’s) job for them.

                 And finally, oh non-rocket scientist, no. The proper phrase is “bated breath” as in “abated” or holding one’s breath. “Baited breath” is breath that has been modified to attract fish.

       • No court has asked to see Obama’s birth certificate, and no member of Congress has claimed that it is false, nor has John McCain or Mitt Romney—and you know, they would have if there were a shred of evidence that it was forged.

         The officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online MATCH the facts on what they sent to him.
         Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

         http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

         Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

         http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

         Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

         http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

         Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

         http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

         (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

         Here is the Index Data file:

         http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

         • and as you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers. Fact: a child was born and that is public information.
           Fact; the child is in Hawaii.
           Fact: the mother swears under penalty of perjury that he was born at home.
           Fact: there is NO REASON to not include the notice of his birth with the other births since its full truthfulness is not relevant to newspaper readers.
           Fact: he was born in Vancouver in a last ditch effort to find an adoptive couple willing to take a newborn mulatto baby when no such couple could be found in Hawaii nor Seattle.

           • RE: “and as you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and
             signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the
             source of the information given to the newspapers.”

             Actually, you MADE THAT UP. It is your fabricated LIE.

             Obama’s long form birth certificate shows that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital (which, duh, really did exist at the time and which, in fact, actually had precisely the same name as on Obama’s birth certificate—birther “research” being wrong as it usually is). And, guess what, the WIDOW of the delivery doctor said that she recognized his signature.

             Moreover the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly stated that they sent that birth certificate to Obama and that all the facts on it—-including the hospital—were exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

             • Nash: “and as you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and
               signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the
               source of the information given to the newspapers.”

               Actually, you MADE THAT UP. It is your fabricated LIE.

               Prove that it is not true. I mean real proof, not the lying word of lying socialists in the Dpt. of Health. You cannot prove it is false anymore than I can prove that it is true. That being the case, you have no basis whatsoever to call it “a lie”. You simply have no idea if it is true or not, but you know that it would explain everything that is unknown and kept secret. What PROVEN fact would it NOT explain? I’m still waiting for an obot to find one.

               • Re: Prove that it is false.

                 Well, you see, poor Adrien Nash. Your comment was that the “affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote…”

                 But there is no affidavit.

                 You said that there was an affidavit as if you had seen one—but there isn’t any.

                 Saying that there is an affidavit—without seeing it or even a witness having seen it—and then adding that Obama’s mother signed it because she had given birth at home is your fantasy.

                 HistorianDude is nice enough to call the motive your inability to see the difference between facts and fantasy. That is nice and polite—but I say that it is a lie.

                 Moreover, the widow of the delivery doctor is most likely not a “lying socialist”—and she said that she recognized her late husband’s signature—-and he worked in the hospital and did not deliver infants in homes.

                 There is, of course, this:

                 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol …

                 (But I suspect that you will claim that the operator at the hospital was lying or that the people who told her that Obama was born there was lying)

                 And this shows that the former Republican governor of Hawaii said that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital (and she is for sure not a socialist):

                 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

                 In short, you made up that there was an affidavit and that Obama’s mother had signed it after giving birth at home. There is neither an affidavit, nor was he born at home. He was born in Kapiolani Hospital.

                 • “Re: Prove that it is false.”
                   “But there is no affidavit.”

                   Gee, I looked and I looked, but guess what? I couldn’t find your proof anywhere! Did you misplace it? It seems to be MIA.

                   “Saying that there is an affidavit…is a lie.” Is it??? Prove it. Why don’t you sImply prove that a lie is a lie? Oh, because there is NO PROOF OF ANYTHING!
                   How convenient for Barack Xerxes Obama. And how convenient for your brain-dead logic that by saying that one unknown “fact” is true must mean that it is therefore true, while regarding another unknown “fact” saying it’s a lie means it must be a lie. Gee, Beaver, that’s like having your cake and eating it too.

                   And to fix your inability to read and comprehend plain English, I did NOT say that Obama was born at home. His mother claimed that in her affidavit because it was the ONLY way that he could be recognized as a US citizen since she acquired no birth certificate in Vancouver because she left within a day or two.
                   So he had no citizenship of any kind. We was a stateless person. And still is, regardless of the delusions of Kook-Aid drinkers such as yourself. But I give you an undeserved ding. You do NOT really believe in the hog swill that you dish out, -you know it is all a big fat political, constitutional and criminal lie.

                   As for the signature of the delivery doctor, it is NOT a signature, you moron. It is a digital replication of a depiction of his signature extracted from ANOTHER BIRTH CERTIFICATE DIGITAL FILE! Hello!!!! PHOTOSHOP!!!!

                   “you will claim that the operator at the hospital was lying or that the people who told her that Obama was born there was lying”
                   NEED I SAY MORE ABOUT LYING AND LIARS??? I’ve pretty much covered that topic thoroughly. And neither you nor your cohorts have disputed anything that I wrote about it.
                   Just tell me this; would her reply be admissible as fact in any honest court in the civilized world? How about your so sincere testimony regarding anything related to Obama’s original birth record? No. It’s all crap with no validity and no certification whatsoever.
                   It’s damn easy for you to dishonestly claim anything that you want because you know that nothing can be proven nor disproven. Let’s see…. the king dies without an heir…. here you come professing: “I’m his long lost natural child given up for adoption. You must believe me and make me king because you cannot prove that I’m a lying charlatan fraud.”

                   That is what you ask sane people to swallow??? How stupid are you for thinking that people are as stupid as you pretend they are?

                   • Poor Adrien Nash has lost it.

                     HE claimed that there was an “affidavit”—but did not show it.

                     And after claiming that there was an affidavit, which he did not show, he went on to claim that Obama’s mother had signed one—though he could not show that either.

                     And he did so despite the officials of Hawaii of both parties confirming the facts on Obama’s birth certificate—and among those facts was that Obama was not born at home and was instead born in Kapiolani Hospital.

                     In addition, there is the signature of the delivery doctor, which poor loony Adrene Nash says is only a digital image of a signature. (That is true, but the widow of the delivery doctor recognized it has his signature anyway.)

                     So loony Adrien claims that the officials of both parties including the former Republican governor were lying, and that a forgery of the doctor’s signature was made that was good enough to fool his widow AND that somewhere (though he cannot find it) there is an “affidavit” signed by Obama’s mother saying that Obama was not born in Kapiolani Hospital but was born at home.

                     There may be one or two loony people who believe the fantasy that Nash created—but they’d have to be very loony.

                   • Oh, and regarding the totally absurd “born in Vancouver” story. That also is a creation of Adrien Nash—-and, although the folks in Vancouver are known to keep good records—there isn’t one that shows that Obama was born in Vancouver.

                   • “Nash says a forgery of the doctor’s signature was made that was good enough to fool his widow”

                     This is AMAZING!!! You are either a spectacular LIAR or a colossal IDIOT! Is it even possible for your lame-brain to believe that the subject of forgery was even raised once regarding the facsimile replica of the doctor’s actual penned hand signature.

                     I don’t know which to give you credit for, stupidity or dishonesty. One or the other is off the charts.
                     “the officials of Hawaii of both parties confirming the facts on Obama’s birth certificate”
                     Oh great and powerful OZ, please deign to share with us mere mortals how exactly they “confirmed” any damn thing whatsoever. I always thought that “confirmed” meant something along the lines of verifying, validating, certifying something with something called proof or credible eye-witness account.

                     You, as a five year old, might actually believe everything that the grown-ups tell you, but I have some bad news for you. Santa is NOT REAL! GROWN-UP LIE!!!! Grown-up political hacks in government lie the most, especially the socialist variety.

                     But, unfortunately for the Obamaphiles, no witnesses exist and those who claim to be witnesses in the HDoH are not CREDIBLE!!!!
                     Gee, I thought that fact was already covered. I guess some lying numbskulls are too thick or too dishonest for such facts to sink in.

                     “although the folks in Vancouver are known to keep good records—there isn’t one that shows that Obama was born in Vancouver.” Prove it!

                     What if there was one, -like the one from Kenya that looks perfectly legit? What would that prove? Not much unless it can be shown to be 100% legit. Can that be said of Obama’s fake long-form? When exactly was it shown to be legit???

                     So you want to have it both ways; invalidate what may or may not exist with the mindless logic that if you and yours don’t have proof of something then it can’t possibly be a fact or be true, and yet by that same lame logic Obama is rendered illegitimate since there is no validation of anything claimed by anyone in the HDoH at anytime anywhere in any certified way.
                     “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” NO. IT IS NOT! Absence of evidence is only absence of evidence, nothing more. It proves nothing. Same with the presence of claims that are unproven and unprovable. they also prove nothing. So you have no proof and I have no proof. THAT is the real situation which you must do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to hide.

                   • Re: “Oh great and powerful OZ, please deign to share with us mere mortals how
                     exactly they “confirmed” any damn thing whatsoever. I always thought
                     that “confirmed” meant something along the lines of verifying,
                     validating, certifying something with something called proof…”

                     They issued press releases and official documents that said that (1) they had sent the birth certificates to Obama. Since they were involved in the sending process, they are witnesses to it. And they said (2) that they checked the facts on the published copy of Obama’s birth certificate against what they sent to him and determined that they are the same. Again, they are stating as witnesses that they saw the published copy and the copy that was sent and the facts were the same.

                     THAT would convince a rational person, and I post the facts for the benefit of rational persons—but I realize that facts do not convince irrational people.

                     Here, however, are the facts for the benefit of rational people:

                     Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

                     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

                     Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

                     http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

                     Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

                     http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

                     Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

                     http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

                     (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

                     Here is the Index Data file:

                     http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

                     Moreover, birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths.

                     Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and stored on two separate microfilm rolls both of which are in two libraries in Hawaii.

                   • “They issued press releases and official documents….”

                     “Gee, Wally, someone said it’s so, so it must be so, right?.” Now for a nut-crushing hypothetical: suppose you are in a court of law and under oath and you make that contested statement. How will you provide proof that it is true? The judge orders that you either corroborate your claim or retract it since it is unaccompanied by any prima fascia evidence.
                     What do you do if your whole case rests on the gullible believing your unsupported claim? You crap your pants because you can never prove it.

                     “Since they were involved in the sending process…” Here’s a thought: they were NOT involved in the sending process. “Your honor, he has just committed perjury with that false claim. I demand that he substantiate it with evidence.” And your evidence is….. oh, nothing. Empty lies backed by nothing but lying hot air.

                     “Plus, your honor, he claims that Hawaii claims that the facts seen in the long-form “match” those in “what was sent” when there is no proof that anything was sent, nor, and more importantly, even any claim that the document image posted on the WH website actually is exactly the very document that Hawaii supposedly sent.
                     Your honor, where is their claim that the WH “document” IS what Hawaii sent??? IT IS NOTABLY ABSENT!!! They are not even willing to claim that they are one and the same! Why??? Because everything about it is a big fat LIE!

                     And then, following that stupidity, strauss once again, like a hundred times before (including in comments at my blog, so repetitious that I had to cull them), pulls out his canned quotes and links to substantiate his thoroughly discredited claims, expecting the gullible, (at least), to fall for the almighty word of ALL-WISE and TOTALLY HONEST human AUTHORITIES.
                     Wow! with so many instances of lying hacks farting the same deceptive “facts” over and over, by golly, there must be a big grain of truth to them, right Wally?

                   • Poor loony Adrien Nash continues to show why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers crazy.

                     There is NO evidence that Obama’s mother signed an affidavit and NO evidence that Obama was born in Vancouver, Canada. Yet he insists that both of them are true.

                     The statement of a witness that she or he sent something and that she or he saw something requires no further corroboration. Witnesses make statements all the time, jurors have to decide whether to believe them or not.

                     And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have stated that they sent HAWAII birth certificates to Obama and that they have seen the copy that the White House put online and seen the copies that they sent to Obama, and that the facts MATCH.

                     YOU might not believe those officials, but rational people do—-and that includes Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And, in fact, not one single member of Congress has called for an investigation of Obama’s place of birth—-and certainly not because of YOUR fabrication that he was born in Vancouver, Canada. .

                   • Re: ” Absence of evidence is only absence of evidence, nothing more.”

                     Without EVIDENCE a liar can claim anything at all, and in this discussion there is a person who has claimed that there is an affidavit with Obama’s mother’s signature on it and that Obama was born in Vancouver, Canada.

                     There is no evidence for either of those claims.

                     Re: “When exactly was it shown to be legit [referring to Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate]???”

                     Answer: When the officials in Hawaii of both parties confirmed that they had sent it to him and that all the facts on the published copy MATCH what they sent to him, of course.

                   • You are either ignorant or brain dead. “SHOWN to be legit” is only accomplished by the presentation of PROOF, you duffus, -not by ambiguous, disingenuous statements by the flying monkeys in the socialist Dept of Health.

                     I always thought that “confirmed” meant something along the lines of verifying, validating, certifying something with something called “PROOF” or credible eye-witness account.

                     Nothing that liars say “confirms” a damn thing, -which you know while continuing to pretend that we all live in Pollyanna-land where everything said by any hack in government is like the truth sent down from Mount Sinai.

                     Little-strauss’ la-la-land doctrine: “EVERYTHING SPOKEN BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IS ABSOLUTELY THE UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH!”
                     OK, moron, defend your doctrine.

                   • YOU claim that the witnesses are lying.

                     I say that your claim that there is an affidavit signed by Obama’s mother and your claim that Obama was born in Vancouver, Canada both are lies.

                     Neither of your claims has ANY documents to support them. Obama’s birth in Hawaii is supported by witness statements by the officials of BOTH parties and by the Index Data file and by the teacher who wrote home and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961—when the DOH only sent birth notices to the papers for births IN Hawaii.

                   • The certificate itself is proof under the law. As such, in the absence of evidence to contradict it (and after more than 6 years no birther has come up with any evidence to contradict it), no additional authentication is needed. I refer you to the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 902.

                     You have explicitly admitted yourself that you have no evidence to contradict it.

               • Go here:

                 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

                 Look in field 23. It is blank. That is absolute legal proof that the certificate has never been altered or amended.

                 Thanks for playing. Trya again/

           • Where, exactly, did you get the idea that Obama’s mother made such an affidavit? Where, exactly, did you get the idea that either of Obama’s parents were attempting to find someone to adopt him?

             Please, point us to verifiable proof that either of these contentions are true.

     • regardless of your supposed ‘facts’ regarding rubber stamping…Michelle Obama said in a speech, that Obama was born in Kenya.
       And, I would love you to debate Zullo’s/Arpaio’s professional document examiners who worked on these documents – they would laugh you under the table on the details of all this.
       Do you think they would waste all the time they have done on these documents, if they did not know for a certainty, that the documents are all falsified forgeries and fraudulent?
       You have to be kidding!…Let’s put this guy ‘historianDude’ in a meeting with Zullo/Arpaio and their team of investigators…L.

       • You are badly misinformed. Michelle Obama has never once, at any time or in any speech ever said her husband was born in Kenya. But nice try.

         I’d be happy to take on “Zullo’s/Arpaio’s professional document examiners” at any time, primarily because:

         1. None of them have ever even laid eyes on the President’s birth certificate, and so nothing they would have to say about them is any better informed than anything I would have to say.

         2. I know more about digital imaging technology than anybody the Posse has ever involved in their phony “investigation,” especially including Reed Hayes.

         And of course 3. The documents have been declared absolutely authentic by the only authorities on the planet with the legal right to even have an opinion.

         I am always amused by the dissonance birthers must feel between their absolute certainty of forgery on on hand, and the absolute impotence of the Cold Case Posse to accomplish anything for three and half years other than whine about it.

         Smarter people don;t take 3 1/2 years to catch on.

   • Onaka stated along with Fukino in a press release that he had seen Obama’s birth certificate in the files. Subsequently Onaka confirmed in official confirmation of birth forms sent to state officials that he had seen the copy of Obama’s birth certificate and the facts on it MATCH those on the original in the files.

     http://www.kitv.com/Obama-s-Birth-Certificate-Verified-By-State/26950514

     Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii—-including Onaka’s—-that the facts MATCH (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

     Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

     http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

     Also, there is no indication whatever that Obama’s mother even had a PASSPORT in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy—because of the high risk of stillbirth (and Obama’s mother
     could not have traveled earlier because of the college schedule). And she would have had to have traveled ALONE, since WND has proven with a FOI request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

     Yet birthers hope a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that Obama’s mother had a passport and took that risky and unusual trip alone——and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor) are lying, and that the Index Data and the birth notices are forged, and that the INS inspector made an error in his “one child, born in Honolulu” note, and that the teacher who wrote home was lying. But you’d have to be terribly GULLIBLE to think that all of that happened.

     • Osaka stated nothing. There was no “Press Release”. As I have meticulously exposed in an entire exposition devoted to debunking it, it was all a carefully crafted lawyer-devised scheme to defraud the public and the press. Every “statement” in the fake press release was couched in quotation marks to shield the persons to whom they were attributed from legal liability. There is no attribution as to where, when, or by whom the statements were recorded, meaning that they were simply made up.

       Real press release facts are not shielded by quotation marks. They are printed as the words written by the signer of the release. But guess what? No one signed it. It contains no signature at all. Just a worthless facsimile from a rubber stamp. Thus, the so-called release is non-certified and the author is unknown. Onaka could have been in Davy Jones Locker for anyone knew, or in a Siberian prison.

       He has never testified to anything in any court or deposition or affidavit. He is totally absent in every way from validating that Barry Obama is the subject of a real Hawaiian HOSPITAL certificate of live birth. He has NEVER stated to anyone that one exists. That is because one does NOT exist, and never has until one was fabricated from Ann Dunham’s “Late Birth Certificate Application” affidavit.
       It required witnesses to attest to the birth since her word alone was insufficient evidence of birth within the United States. There were no witnesses since he was not born in the United States, hence no birth certificate was ever issued.

       • Hilarious. You have actually completely reversed the operational, grammatical and legal meaning of quotation marks. In the real, non-bizarro, non-backwards, non-birther universe, quotation marks actually signify that the words and phrases they contain are the verbatim and exact words spoken by the person being quoted. Rather than “shield(ing)” the person quoted, they hold him or her accountable for them.

         We have settled the issue of your ignorance regarding fascsimile signatures in the other thread. But in the interest of completeness, let’s do so here as well by quoting directly from the Hawaiian Revise Statutes. Just for fun I’ll even use quotation marks, and yet shield nothing from nobody:

         “HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature. A facsimile of the
         signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by such office
         assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper which
         the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a
         copy of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such
         facsimile imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of
         notice or order of attachment, except executions, shall have the same
         validity as the registrar’s written signature. This authorization shall
         apply to assistant registrars under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1;
         gen ch 1993]”

         Full faith and credit, Adrien. Full faith and credit.

         • Moreover, here is an article based on Fukino/Onaka’s original statement:

           http://www.kitv.com/Obama-s-Birth-Certificate-Verified-By-State/26950514

           (That is in response to Adrien Nash’s claim that there was no press release.)

           And in response to: ” He has NEVER stated to anyone that one exists…”

           http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

           (Note the comment at the bottom of the the pages of the THREE “Verifications of Birth” that there is a signed statement that reads: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”)

           That means, of course, that there is indeed a vital record (a birth certificate, since the event being verified is a birth and not a marriage or a death) on file at the DOH of Hawaii—which is what Adrien Nash said did not exist.

           Oh, and BTW, the reason that Onaka, Fukino and Fuddy did not testify on this at any court was, duh, because no court ever asked them to do so.

           BTW, Ann Coulter, Genn Beck and the National Review have all callsed birtheres crazy. (And Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee have all simply said that they do not believe the birther story.)

           • hmmmm…. which are you??? the dumbest person who ever lived or the biggest liar??? THERE WERE NO VERIFICATIONS OF BIRTH!!! Nothing was verified by anyone because not one of the three letters was signed by anyone! No signature??? No verification, validation, certification. Especially, nothing was conveyed of any legitimate substance by the rubber-stamped or printed impression of a rubber stamp stating a boiler-plate pseudo-validation. it was all 100% PRETENSE!!! and suckers like you fell for it just as you fell for the Great Obaminator, your god.

             As for your laughable appeal to authority in referring to others who have been as deceived or intimidated as many others who are known and unknown, no one wants to end up face down in a lake somewhere, or to succumb to suicide by shooting themselves when they have everything to live for.
             The Gruberites will lie endlessly, and the SEIU thugs will intimate that your children seem so vulnerable as they go about their daily life here and there without a body guard….

             • Let’s go read those Hawaii Revised Statutes again, shall we?

               HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature. A facsimile of the signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by such office assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper which the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a copy of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such facsimile imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of notice or order of attachment, except executions, shall have the same validity as the registrar’s written signature. This authorization shall apply to assistant registrars under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1; gen ch 1993]

               Full faith and credit , Adrien.

             • ” Nothing was verified by anyone because not one of the three letters was signed by anyone! No signature???”

               As long as the raised state seal is on the document it doesn’t matter if there is a wet signature or not. In fact, as long as that seal is on the paper, the whole document can be written in crayon and it will still be legal and certified.

               BTW, the state certification seal is stricktly monitored. One of the things that is impressed on those using raised seals, or even notarization stamps, is the you should NEVER use them on a blank document. And the seals and the stamps are in locked drawers, bags, etc. unless they are actually being used.

               • You are speaking from Obtuseland. ” legal and certified” ONLY pertains
                 to other state governments; not to individuals, researchers,
                 investigators, validators, or courts when the embossed impression is
                 highly suspicious.
                 As for those fake “verification” “News Releases”,
                 they had no Dept. Seal embossing nor did the letters to the other State
                 officials.
                 And… neither did the long-form counterfeit. It only had
                 an faintly embossed ring of some sort. It could have been from any
                 number of sources. So no certification was achieve by a fake signature
                 and an almost invisible embossed ring.

                 • No, I am speaking as someone who has used legal certified documents for most of my life.

         • I was half way through demolishing your lame logic when my stupid IPad jumped to another page and then failed to retain what I had written, so I’ll compose my reply to your inanity on my desktop.

           But just to give you a brief look at the true context in matters of CERTIFICATION!: “Full faith and credit” are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Acceptability is NOT certification. Try to use that inter-state requirement on the World Court or any court of any other nation when serious questions of authenticity are involved. No lawyer would even dream of attempting something so stupid, except maybe one like you.
           Plus, only hand signatures qualify for the meaning of the word “signature”. Everything else is pure crap and inauthentic. Just because a lame government allows its authentication process to be bastardized does not mean that actual validation via actual certification is at all weakened in any way. The SAME RULES APPLY REGARDLESS! A thousand morons and a thousand judges could accept a counterfeit as “valid” when it is a fake. How could they do that??? Because of a lack of certification.

           • Poor, poor Adrien. How’s that boulder feel about now?

             “HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature. A facsimile of the signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by such office assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper which the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a copy of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such facsimile imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of notice or order of attachment, except executions, shall have the same validity as the registrar’s written signature. This authorization shall apply to assistant registrars under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1; gen ch 1993]”

             Game, set, match. At this point you are arguing only with yourself. The rest of us have moved on. Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to figure out the difference between Onaka and Osaka.

             Oh yeah, don’t forget full faith and credit.

           • Who give a crap about “The World Court?”

             Are you one of those “globalists” who want the US to give up sovereignty to the UN?

             • ” No lawyer would even dream of attempting something so stupid, except maybe one like you.”

               • And yet… it happened in Mississippi.

                 You fail fractally.

           • See? Even your iPad knows you’re full of shit.

         • Your mind is in backwards-land. Quotation marks are not used by the person making a statement, you lame-brain. That would be quoting yourself!!!

           A Press Release by Onaka would be something that he wrote, or had written, and then signed. None of that is what is seen in the fake validation. Only an unknown source making claims that are not directly attributable to anyone since there is no signature by any human being and no human being testifying that the statements are his and he stands by them and would do so in any court of law.

           Instead, Onaka is a GHOST! His fingerprints are nowhere to be found on those statements. And that is why they have to be taken as fakes. If they were real then there would be some evidence of that, but there is none.

           • Perhaps you need remedial second grade grammar. Quotation marks mean one thing only, even when they surround a euphemism. They mean that the words contained within are the verbatim words written or spoken by the person being quoted. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.

             As to Dr. Onaka’s “fingerprints.” Take a closer look at the Mississippi verification. Look particularly at who initialed the Registrar’s Stamp.

             http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg

             Your attention to detail is astoundingly selective. One would almost have to consider your omissions and errors as being deliberate dishonesty.

             • You cannot be as stupid as you pretend. If I make a statement for the press, I do NOT quote myself!!! I write what I want to convey and sign it.

               Don’t give me your crap about some mysterious unnamed person quoting him when there is no attribution given by any named quoter that the statements herein quoted were from the mouth of the handless Onaka.
               Can’t you comprehend how foolish your pretend position looks? And your attention to certification is astoundingly absent! Who certifies that the initials were printed by Onaka?

               Did the MIA Onaka certify anything about the “official Press Release”? No, he did not. His hands are no where to be found connected to that fake release. He is prosecution proof.

               “I didn’t authorize that release, nor make those statements, nor sign my name to it, nor print my initials on it. I don’t know who did.” Who the hell can prove otherwise? You?

               • That’s your best shot? That I cannot be a stupid as I pretend? Well, Adrien… you certainly can. At this point you are completely incoherent regarding who was quoting who in what. The Hawaii Department of Health issued two statements. The statements THE DEPARTMENT issued quoted Fukino. That you are confused by something so simple and ordinary is… well… just you being you.

                 And we’ll ignore that in just about every press release by every birther lawyer from Klaymann to Taitz to Berg… guess what? They quote themselves. And unlike the Hawaii Department of Health releases, they normally quote themselves in the third person.

                 Onaka didn’t have to certify anything about the press releases. Press releases are press releases. Not certifications. Of course, if he had you would simply demand a certification for his certification. And when you got that, you would move the goal post once again and demand he certify the certification of his certification.

                 Bigger fleas have little fleas upon their leg to bite ’em.
                 And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

                 Onaka certified both the President’s short form released in 2008 and his long form released in 2011. He has since verified that birth certificate twice; once to the Arizona Secretary of State and once to the Judge in Taitz’s Mississippi ballot challenge.

                 Full faith and credit, Adrien. Full faith and credit.

                 The only one of us who has an unmet burden of proof here, Adrien, is you. Whining like a beaten stepchild and calling everybody else a liar will only get you laughed out of court without the laughter.

                 • Hey Historian…. uhhhh what’s your name? I didn’t get your name yet. Would you kindly inform me who it is that insults my intelligence with his stupidity? It good to be on the same playing field, right? Or do you prefer to keep hiding behind your mommy’s apron??

                   Here is why you are stupid: you have no comprehension of what “CERTIFICATION” even is. Yet you toss the word around in your baseless claims as if you are using it accurately. I can’t fix your ignorance. All I can do is inform you that no “Press Release” was ever “certified” by anyone in anyway.
                   No signature. No attribution by any known person of the source of “the quote”, nor the time and place it was supposedly given. It floats in the air suspended by nothing, -like a foul fart that stinks of something rotten.

                   But then that pretty well describes just about everything that you’ve written also.

                   “Full Faith and Credit!” the little baby cried, oblivious to the fact that required legal recognition of actual other-state documents has nothing at all to do with their actual authenticity. In other words, in WARPED WORLD; counterfeiting DOES NOT EXIST so it’s not even an issue even in a matter of the utmost highest importance possible!!!!!

                   Your problem is that even if the still living Hawaiian officials supported the two fake birth certificates, and even did so under oath, there is no basis on which to believe anything that they say because they are utterly 100% partisan and biased in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s favor. Gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST! CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

                   But that doesn’t matter to you, nor does the truth, because it is only all about FORCING everyone to *accept* the forgeries. Truth is irrelevant, and hell, -it is even the enemy.

                   • Why make it easy for you? I mean, seriously. Other birthers in these threads have been repeatedly referring to me with my real name. How come they can figure it out and you can’t?

                     1. Press releases are not certified. Your repeated whining about no certified press release is like a little girl whining about no unicorns.

                     2) The quotations in the Hawaii Department of Health Statements are clearly and explicitly attributed.

                     3) Until you do something no birther has ever done (i.e. come up with the tiniest shred of evidence that the Presidents documents are not completely authentic) it stops dead at full faith and credit. Period.

                     4) I have no idea how many times it must be brought to you attention that throwing a childish tantrum and calling people liars deserves no attention from anybody else. You must actually show that they have lied. And you can’t.

                     5) Chiyome Fukino is a Republican, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence that Alvin Onaka is a Democrat… not that it would matter since he has the job and all the legal authority that goes with it. So even your simpering about imaginary conflicts of interest is founded on your own personal ignorance.

                     In other news: water is wet.

                   • “Other birthers in these threads have been repeatedly referring to me with my real name. How come they can figure it out and you can’t?”

                     I couldn’t care less who you are, and have spent zero seconds thinking about such an irrelevant subject. But it’s noteworthy that a lying bomb thrower is hiding behind a pseudonym.

                     “1. Press releases are not certified.” Man, oh man, your two-bit brain just caused you to shoot yourself in the head. You’ve just invalidated your main source of validation of the lying “facts” regarding a fictional birth certificate.

                     Nothing seen in the “Press Releases” is intellectually valid in any way. Shielding a statement in quotation marks shields everyone from legal liability since there is a total absence of attribution. Who quoted whom? When?

                     Who swears that the quotes are real and not part of a president-protection racket? Who can be held accountable? No one. Where does that buck stop? Nowhere. No signature, no named quoter, no certification of authenticity, exactly what you would see in a statement that was bogus.

                     And yet the Kool-Aid drinks will drink it down when a liar such as yourself authoritatively proclaims its contents to be “the God’s honest Truth!” There is one born every minute, and you hope to deceive everyone of them.

                     “Chiyome Fukino is a Republican” You know nothing about how a man in a socialist, federal government-dependent state (ruled entirely by democrats) votes. He is what he looks like, what all Democrat bosses hire, compliant sheep who will toe the party line if they know what’s good for them.

                     ” Gee! Are there really people like that Wally?” “Yes, Beav, there really are.” …and so it goes in the Peter Principle world…

                   • Then stop whining about the pseudonym.

                     Chyome Fukino is a woman not a man, and yes. We know that she is a Republican. I’ll ignore that you have just argued against your own prior claim.

                   • Frank Arduini

                     https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/tag/historian-dude/

                   • Don’t feed the trolls…here’s another professional pajama boy with ties to OFA and the commie Axelrod clan…

                     SMRSTRAUSS: The Total Reveal & Their Tangled Web | by EricaThunderpaws

                     http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/smrstrauss-total-reveal-their-tangled.html

8. That has simply got to be the most incoherent Venn Diagram I have ever seen in my life.

   Question: What is either suspicious or unusual about people who live in the same community having “connections” ?

   • Nothing suspicious about connections, Stalin was connected to Lenin, and Himmler was connected to Hitler, their common community was called ideology. I see your point here History Dud, “nothing to see here, move along.”

     • So… the ideology they all had in common was … capitalism? Because that is what Ann Dunham dedicated her life’s work to; the expansion of capitalism in the 3rd world through micro-finance.

       That’s certainly a shared ideology I can get behind. So… do you hate capitalism or something?

9. Will this information prove useful to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s volunteer Cold-Case-Posse?

   • Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama’s birth on US soil—-in HAWAII—-has been proven by:

     (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “They have one child, born in HONOLULU.”

     Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

     http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

     Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

     http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

     Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

     http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

     Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

     http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

     (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

     Here is the Index Data file:

     http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

     • All canned lies copied and pasted from his lies folder. Nothing new and nothing true. I’ve debunked all of the falsehoods and false logic and distortions that he religiously peddles to the gullible. Example of flat out lies is the story told by one of Obama’s adoring Punahou teachers which is perverted to include “facts” that are lies, all from the terse reply that “A Stanley had a baby.” How the hell do those words imply birth location? They don’t. A Stanley was seen along with her baby. There is no implication that the baby was born where it was seen. The truth is that after giving birth in Vancouver, B.C., Ann and baby (and probably mother) flew to Honolulu a day or two later, and due to complications, they went to the maternity & children’s hospital for medical attention. It’s all laid out as plain as day in the indisputable exposition: “Why baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver”. found at http://obama–nation.com

       • I hope you do yoga regularly. Otherwise the desperate conceptual contortionism that you depend upon to avoid having to accept simple and true statements from other people must be physically debilitating.

         • And, of course, there isn’t any proof of the claimed “born in Vancouver, Canada” event—though you’d think there would be to back up such a blatant claim (and the Canadians keep good records, I’m told).

           • I can attest to that, being a ‘Vancouverite’…L.

           • You moron. There is no proof of his birth anywhere on planet earth that has ever been uncovered. No photos, no letters, no witnesses, no actual certifiable records. No nothing! Kind of like the inside of your skull.

             • Except of course for his Hawaiian birth certificate.

               The falling boulder will crush you even when you refuse to believe it is real.

             • Poor Adrien Nash. He has not seen the evidence, and he just assumes that the officials in Hawaii are lying and that for some crazy reason EVERY single member of Congress plus Mitt Romney and Huckabee and Gingrich and Santorum and Ann Coulter all believe that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. (IN contrast, he made up the ” born in Vancouver” story and admits that there is no evidence to support it—but claims it anyway.)

               And now responding to the nutty claim “there is no proof of his birth anywhere…”
               Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

               http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

               Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

               http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

               Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

               http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

               Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

               http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

               (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

               Here is the Index Data file:

               http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

               Moreover, birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths.

               Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and stored on two separate microfilm rolls both of which are in two libraries in Hawaii.

               AND so is the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley.

               And BTW, birther sites LIED about the Kenyan grandmother. She never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly. Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just BEFORE she was asked where he was born (I wonder why they did that??) Her answer to the question where Obama was born was “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” (But birther sites refused to quote her and cut off the tape that included her statement.)

         • No, Adrien is not like you…you, who obviously ‘does’ dabble in eastern Occultish practices, such as yoga, which is known to mind-bend and create physical ‘changes’ to the body, not always healthy to the one who practices it.
           We have to consider your ‘bent’ condition, and your sad ‘everything is awesome’ meme…;) L.

         • You are either an infantile naive Pollyanna, or you want everyone else to be one, -or you are a Luciferian liar. I’d be willing to bet a boatload on the latter. You corruptly pretend that there is no such things as CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!!!!!!!!!! No one with a gigantic conflict of interest can be trusted! That includes you, you pathetic boot-licking, redistributionist Obamaphile. Wait, is that too harsh??? Forgive me please, I didn’t mean to hurt your black-hearted totalitarian feelings.

           • Poor Adrien. It must be a horrifying thing to live inside your head.

             In the meantime, Obama is still President. Birthers have still lost almost 250 court cases and won zero. Now that it is March, Zullo and Arpaio are officially a full year late with their “universe shattering” information.

             Grow up. Get a clue. Deal with it.

             • Yes, it would be horrifying for you to live inside my head where there is a great amount of light and truth, -both deadly to vampires like you.

               You have now devolved to your final gutter position of implying that all that matters is power and not truth. Winning is everything. Truth be damned. The Constitution be damned -especially since it reveals that he not only is not a qualified president but that he is not even a US citizen at all since he was born subject to a foreign power.

               But that’s just the ignored constitutional truth and it doesn’t matter at all to traitors such as yourself. The ends justify the means for Luciferian Gruberites like HistorianJerk (still hiding behind his mother’s pseudonym user name)

               • You believe in vampires too?

                 Loved your whole “Truthed be damned” speech.

                 It’s what all the losers say.

       • Citizen – naturalized
         Born citizen – born here – corrupted meaning in which the anchor babies are eligible
         Natural born citizen – parent citizens with no outside allegiance.

         You really don’t give the founding fathers any credit.

     • that’s bull crap…those documents have been proven to be false…pal…even his ‘wife’ has said in a public speech, he was born in Kenya…a British Protectorate, at the time.

       I was born in a British Protectorate, just over the border from Kenya, in Somalia…and though, I have an American-born Grandmother and tons of Patriot Pioneer American Ancestors (greats and cousins), I am still not considered an American Citizen. L.

       • 1. Those claiming t have “proved” the documents false are all, without exception, people who have never seen the documents in the first place.

         2. His wife has never once said he was born in Kenya. Birthers believe the dumbest things.

         3. Who could possibly care on whit whether or not you were a US citizen?

         • “the documents”??? Where are “the documents”? I know exactly where they are. they are in ashes in a landfill, burned in a White House fireplace after being waved around in the press conference where Obama was not allowed in the same room with them and never once even mentioned their existence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

           Read the transcript and get the shock of your life. It is such a transparent fraud on the press and the nation. His WH attorney who presented them resigned the very next day just in case some internet sleuth debunked the fake pdf image as happened to Dan Rather’s Bush counterfeit “document”.
           He then switched to being Obama’s personal attorney. Gee,… attorney–client privilege. What purpose would that serve??? No one can force him to divulge a damn thing about the criminal creation of the fake hard-copy or the pdf.

           • Your convenient (if puerile) imagination is not an argument. And if you insist on asking rhetorical questions and then answering them, they should not have such obvious answers that make your own look quite so cretinous. The following documents are all individually adequate to legally establish the place and date of the President’s birth. And we know where all of them are.

             1. The original is in a bound volume at the Hawaii Department of Health.

             2. At least one certified copy of the short form is in the archives of the President’s Chicago Campaign Office.

             3. At least two certified copies of his long form are in the archives of the White House Press Office.

             4. One certified verification is the records and files of the Arizona Secretary of State.

             5. One certified verification is in the case files for Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and the Mississippi Secretary of State.

             Let’s now lovingly look at the wild fiction contained within your latest comment. I will recommence numbering at “1.” (Ooooh. Quotation marks. I must actually mean the letter “A.” Nope.)

             1. There is no evidence that “Obama was not allowed in the same room with them.” They simply were not in his hands during his part of the press conference.

             2. The certificate was not merely “waved around in the press conference room.” It was actually circulated among the journalists present. We know this because at least two of them photographed it, and one of them reported that she felt the raised seal.

             3. There is nothing shocking about the transcript, except perhaps to people like you hallucinate that people always hiding secret messages in otherwise ordinary prose and who believe that quotation marks are supposed to indicate a lie.

             4. What possible protection from malfeasance would resigning “the next day” provide a lawyer? As usual, you are making less sense than a nursery rhyme. That said, I have no idea who you are talking about. Robert Bauer (who was White House Counsel at the time of the release) did not resign until June 2 more than a month later.

             5. Attorney client privilege does not end when a lawyer and client sever their relationship. So it wouldn’t have mattered one whit what Bauer’s next job was. You know Adrien, to connect the dots, you must first actually have dots.

             Arguing with you is the functional equivalent of being stoned to death with popcorn.

             • “The following documents are all individually adequate to legally establish the place and date of the birth of anyone except the President of the United States, regardless of who he is or what party her represents…”

               That is the truth of the matter regarding certification of original vital records needed to verify presidential eligibility, which no birth place record can do since eligibility is based not on birth location but on blood lineage political inheritance.

               What is at issue with Obama’s birth place is the fact that the ignorant public thinks that birth place confers citizenship, and citizenship equals eligibility not just to every other office in the land but also to the presidency. Both erroneous assumptions have been proven over and over to be totally false.

               “And we know where all of them are.” Who the hell is “we”??? Is that you and the hamster in your pocket? Duffus.
               WE KNOW NOTHING AND YOU KNOW NOTHING because nothing has EVER, EVER been proven in any way.

               None of those documents currently exist. They have all been destroyed because they are evidence of criminality and conspiracy. Only a fool would allow them to not be destroyed, and when it comes to criminal conspiracy, Obama has the best people in that regard.

               “4. One certified verification is the records and files of the Arizona Secretary of State.”

               Too late to use that old falsehood. I’ve already exposed it and even wrote an entire exposition debunking its clever pretense that would naturally fool suckers as gullible as you pretend to be, you lying fraud.

               “1. There is no evidence that “Obama was not allowed in the same room with them.” They simply were not in his hands during his part of the press conference.”

               And thereby you expose that you have not done your homework. The White House attorney, Baer, himself stated when asked by a reporter, that he would not allow the birth certificate to remain in the room when Obama was present.

               Totally plausible deniability for his client. “I never even saw nor touched (nor mentioned) anything about a “long-form birth certificate” so how can I be accused of being a part of a conspiracy? I’m innocent your honor!” Yeah, as innocent as Bernie Maddoff, or John Mitchell -ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES! (convicted and sent to prison!)

               “at least two of them photographed it, and one of them reported that she felt the raised seal.”

               Oh, Oh, Hallelujah! They photographed it and Guthrie “felt” something but couldn’t tell what the heck it was. ALL BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT IMPLICATION!!! IT MUST BE GENUINE!!! PHOTOSHOP DOES NOT EXIST!!!

               “What possible protection from accountability for malfeasance would resigning “the next day” provide a lawyer?”

               Good grief! Your warped bias has warped your thinking. The protection was not for himself; it was for the White House and Obama. He was no longer the white House attorney, so any criminality would not taint his former employer, he hoped. He announced his resignation the next day, regardless if he waited a month to finish all unfinished business.

               “Attorney client privilege does not end when a lawyer and client sever their relationship.”
               I didn’t imply that it did. I pointed out its continuing protection for Obama since his corrupt attorney would never be testifying against him, unlike non-attorney personnel might.

               After shepherding the fabrication of the fake long-form, there was no one that Obama was more beholden to than Baer, so keeping him as close as a brother was Obama’s reasonable intention.

               And btw, please explain to us all: Why did Obama refused to accept Trump’s offer of $10,000,000 to show his original birth certificate????? What’s that? I could quite hear that answer….

               • So much of this last comment of yours is a psychotic descent into baseless delusion. Unlike those of us who are neural normal, you possess no capacity to recognize the difference between what are established objective facts and what are the products of your fevered imagination. There is no evidence that any documents have been “destroyed.” There is no evidence that anybody has lied. There is no evidence that anything has been “amended.” There are only these facts for which birthers have no contradicting evidence:

                 1) The President was born on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu Hawai’i.

                 2) The legal documentation of that event is in perfect conformance with the legal standard for proof of that fact. No “evidence” ever offered that the documentation is forged has been able to stand even minimal critical scrutiny.

                 3) The definition of “natural born citizen” as per more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law, the SCOTUS decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, and 24 court cases filed by birthers over the last six years is anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

                 These are the facts. If you want to contradict them, you must do so with more facts, not with hand waving, bluster, wild hypotheticals or tendentious speculation If you don’t believe Savannah Guthrie, nobody can force you to. But nobody cares whether you believe her or not. She has reported what she saw and did. You have nothing to contradict her other than your prejudice.

                 Just for fun, though, lets address and handful of your irrelevant red herring.

                 A) The comment ” The White House attorney, Baer, himself stated when asked by a reporter, that he would not allow the birth certificate to remain in the
                 room when Obama was present,” is of course a complete lie. Bauer said he was not leaving the certificate behind when Obama entered the briefing room. One room. In the real universe there are many other rooms, and the claim that Obama was never in the same one of any of them with the certificate is a declaration of omniscience that puts you firmly in the same category as those deluded to believe they are the Emperor Napoleon or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

                 B) You are very unclear on the concept of “plausible deniability.” It must first be deniable, and it must second actually be plausible. The idea that the President could ever have plausible deniability fo the forgery of his own birth certificate is so stupid as to deserve little more consideration. Not having him in the same room with the certificate at a press conference would certainly never establish it. At least, outside of the crackpottery of birthistan where no idea is too stupid to embrace.

                 C) Bauer’s resignation would offer no protection for the White House or President Obama from anything. A crime, if it committed, is committed by specific people at a particular point in time and place cannot magically be carried away like a pink stain from a Dr. Seuss book.

                 D) Your “point” regarding attorney client privilege has gone from obtuse to banal. Yeah. Lawyers and their clients have it. Welcome to law kindergarten.

                 E) His name is Bauer, not Baer. My daughter has an Australian Shepherd with attention to detail superior to yours. Have you found Osaka on a map yet?

                 F) Ignoring that Trump never offered Obama a penny to show his birth certificate, the president ignored the offer regarding his college records because it is morally offensive to feed the trolls.

                 • Actually, there is evidence that ONE person lied, Adrien Nash.

                   He said about a day ago: ” the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of
                   her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers.”

                   And he made that all up.

                   • There is no doubt he made that all up. But I am more generous than you. Rather than declare Nash to be a bald faced liar, I lean more to the opinion that he is simply not mentally well, and cannot tell the difference between reality and delusion.

                 • Dear HistorianDuffus, Your psychotic descent into baseless delusion is made manifest by your utter failure to recognize the facts right in front of your face. You are pretending to be standing on a solid foundation when in fact you are suspended in mid-air by the hot air of your security-blanket fantasy about your lord and master, Obozo.

                   You fail to recognize what are established objective facts and instead invent products of your own fevered imagination. There is no evidence that any documents exist or that any statements are certified and true. If there were any evidence then you would have shared it. But you didn’t because you can’t because it does NOT exist.

                   You moan about there being “no evidence” of this or that… what a fool! The objective approach to science and highly important political, financial, and legal matters is NOT to take the side of the claimant but to take the opposite attitude to all claims made.

                   “You say you have a new theory of creationism? And you want me to believe it unquestioningly? And you offer no proof of your claim? Sorry, only a fool would believe that which is unsupported by anything objectively provable, and everything that you’ve submitted is totally unproven by anything certifiably true.”

                   There, now do you see your Pollyannaish problem, Polly? You’ve taken the attitude of a religious true believer and assumed that everything that you want to believe is incontestably factual when there is no basis for it. “Apostates’ heads are to be cut off? Ok, oh great Imam, if you say so then it must be so!” “The sun revolves around the earth? Ok, oh great holy Pope; if you say so, then it must be true.”

                   Could you possibly make yourself look more juvenile and naive than you do? Nope, not in any sane world.

                   “There are only these facts for which obots have no contradicting evidence:
                   1. There are and were no witnesses to the birth of Obama.
                   2. There are no photos of a pregnant SAD.
                   3. No official of any hospital has ever attested that Obama was born in their facility nor shown any record that he or his mother were ever patients in it.
                   4. No original hard-copy nor image of an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate has ever been seen nor even mentioned. No damned “Abstract” serves as “a True and Original Copy” of anything.

                   5. No evidence exists that the fake birth certificates are NOT fakes, and the first one has been thoroughly exposed as an unvetted fraud that is easily replicated in under 30 minutes.
                   6. No person of any professional background has been allowed to examine the print-out of the pdf that was shown only once the day of the press conference.
                   7. Just like expertly-made counterfeit currency, any superficial look at it gives the impression that it’s real, and who is the only person claiming to totally believe an claim that it is in fact real? That’s right, the counterfeiter and his gang, only in Obama’s case, he is not include in that gang out of fear of what happened to Dan Rather.
                   Oh great and wise Duffus, please explain why Obama was unwilling to even mention the existence of a new birth certificate during the press conference called for the purpose of releasing it? Why, oh why???? [attempted plausible deniability insurance to the extreme!]

                   8. *”**The definition of “natural born citizen”* does not exist in any law or any court ruling, ever, anywhere, -especially in British common law history which only covers royal subjects and not citizens who are NOT subjects of any monarch nor any government. Oh great and wise one, please point your humble student to the section of US law or judicial holding where the simple English words were given a “definition”. What’s that?? You can’t? There is none? hmmmm…. it must still be a matter of unsettled opinion.
                   And what is needed to settle it? Very simple, a common understanding of the English language. A natural citizen is a citizen by nature, by inherited political character or status or membership, i.e. by birth to citizens.

                   Just to demonstrate your degree of ignorance, please illuminate the difference between these two statements:
                   Natural born citizens are those born of citizens.
                   A natural born citizen is one born of citizens.

                   If you are unable to distinguish the huge difference between those two statements, then you are normal and unable to detect inherent language ambiguity. That flaw is the reason for your misconception, along with that of the entire legal establishment. I will await your response, but I doubt you will be able to respond.

                   “If you don’t believe Savannah Guthrie, nobody can force you to.” Here we have a great example of falsehood by false implication. You are the one asserting that I disbelieve Guthrie when you know that I never said nor implied any such disbelief. (Your first falsehood.)
                   But your main falsehood is implied by your deliberately ambiguous, over simplistic assertion that there is some meaningful thing to believe or disbelieve, when in fact there is nothing. She said she felt an embossing of the paper. That is irrelevant to the authenticity of the seal that was used.

                   As your pathetic brain apparently fails to grasp, authenticity and certification are not the result of the presence of some sort or other of embossed impression. It is the result of nothing other than an embossing made by a unique seal that is compare-able to the published requirement and/or image of what the state mandates that an official seal looks like. So what is it again that one is to not disbelieve? Clearly, by implication, it is that Guthrie, as a professional Seal Examiner, has stated “on the record” that the raised surface her fingers detected was identical to the official HDoH seal. That is what you want to run up the flag pole and salute? Only an idiot would do that.

                   “Bauer said he was not leaving the certificate behind when Obama entered the briefing room.”
                   More baseless implications. So, he simply had to remove it when he left while everyone waited for Obozo to appear because…. one of the reporters might steal it right out in the open? And even if that happened or could happen, the down side would be so catastrophic because…. because of nothing, It was not needed for anything because it was not ever again shown to anyone else in public or private, nor needed for any legal purpose, nor its fictional duplicate.

                   Who has ever seen the “two copies” together? No one because there never was a need for two print-outs of the pdf. “Two copies” was a tactic to reinforce the falsehood of the authenticity of the fake that was produced and printed. After all, who would order the production of two fakes?? No one, therefore no one would come up with such a story if it were not true, right? WRONG! That was EXACTLY why that story was fabricated. The low thinkers would simply fall right into that false presumption. It is a perfect logical deflection.

                   *”**The idea that the President could ever have plausible deniability for the forgery of his own birth certificate is so stupid as to deserve little more consideration.”* And there you fell off your horse. His plausible deniability was not regarding the forgery, but the ordinary acquisition of his birth certificate, which, “Your honor, I sincerely believed existed, and was legitimately acquired. I had no idea that my people would engage in forgery. I never ordered them to do that nor knew of their scheme to do so. I’m innocent.”
                   Protect the emperor and his unsullied reputation at all costs. By your own attitude about Obama, that would be his legitimate response if accused because of course, he would have to be innocent of any such nefarious conspiracy. OBAMA IS INNOCENT! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

                   “*Bauer’s resignation would offer no protection for the White House or President Obama from anything.”*
                   More disingenuous BS. You use the word “protection” in the legal sense, but that was not the consideration, you bonehead. It was reputational protection. The White House and its Dear Leader had to be protected from the stinking stain of criminality that would attach if a forgery was connected to Obama’s closest aides.
                   “No, honestly, he hasn’t been the White House attorney for a long time”… -so he has nothing to do with the impeccable reputation of the White House. “Bill Ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood.” Sure, and Santa Claus is real.
                   btw, did you see the photo I came across yesterday which shows Obama sitting next to Ayers at a table and microphone? Some stranger, hey?

                   • At this point you are becoming a parrot of your tormenters. The falling boulder has turned you into a sticky red spot on the road, and all you have left is to mimic us. Well, as they say, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am flattered. I also rather clearly struck a nerve.

                     Almost nothing in your prolix expectoration is worthy of attention. It is little more than your continued delusional gyrations. But just fr fun, I’ll go down your numbered list:

                     1. There are in fact two witnesses to Obama’s birth, You will find their signatures on his birth certificate.

                     2. Unless you are professing to be God again, there is no possible way you could know if there were or were not pictures of a pregnant Ann Obama. There are literally billions of women who have been pregnant whose pictures you have never seen.

                     3. It would a violation of HIPAA laws for any hospital to officially declare that Obama was born there. But that’s okay, because Kapi’olani has done the next best thing. But that’s okay. We know he was born at Kap’olani because a) it’s on his birth certificate and b0 it is the only hospital that has ever been claimed as his place of birth by anyone in the actual position to know.

                     4. His bound paper original has been viewed and attested to by at least three people. His certified and sealed paper short form has been reviewed, photographed, handled and reported on by at least two people. His signed and certified long form has been circulated among dozens of reporters, at least two of whom then photographed it and one one of whom reported on it. You really have to stop making shit up.

                     And by the way, an abstract under the law is just as legally probative as a “true copy.” You’ll note I did not use your absurd phrase “True and Original Copy” because “original copy” is an oxymoron.

                     5. There is the formal declaration of authenticity by the appropriate legal authorities. That is all that is needed to prove they are not fakes.

                     6. Anybody can examine a printout of the PDF anytime they want.

                     7. The burden of proof that the documents are counterfeit rests entirely on your shoulders. You have failed to meet it.

                     8. The definition of natural born citizen is found in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

                     The rest of your post? It’s just noise.

Comments are closed.