Completing the Case for a Birth Certificate by Affidavit from Statements of Neil Abercrombie Governor of Hawaii
We are now at a point to discuss Neil Abercrombie’s remarks of January 18, 2011 in detail and to refresh our memory about not being able to release Obama’s records as shown in this quote from the Daily Mail a United Kingdom newspaper dated January 20, 2011:
Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser: ‘It actually exists’ was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
In Part Six, we were introduced to the kernel or fingerprint of the evidence we have been looking for on the type of birth certificate Obama actually has. Neil Abercrombie appears to be an honest man, at least in January. What he has actually described is an affidavit for birth registration that was not attended by any medical personnel. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act of 1955 was fully in force in 1961, and a birth certificate by affidavit would have all the information he describes.
He drops the quest to release Obama’s information and retreats from his earlier remarks. However, Governor Abercrombie has solved the riddle on what actually is in Obama’s records in Hawaii’s vital statistics vault in a bound volume of birth records. His statements allude to only an “unspecified listing or notation”; however, this is just politispeak for a birth registration by AFFIDAVIT, which can now be taken as an implied FACT with the Governors statement:
Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
This is the very definition of a birth certificate by affidavit available in 1961 in accordance with the Heath Statistics Act of 1955 for the Territory of Hawaii.
In regards to the publishing of Obama’s birth announcement in the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star occurred on Sunday, August 13, 1961, we also know that both newspapers shared office space and used this department for birth announcements. The fact that the publication is triggered by a registration application being received by the Hawaii Department of Heath in 1961 means that they will complete a birth certificate for the registration, in this case for baby Obama.
The “certificates of live birth” copies given by Ms. Fuddy, Director for Hawaii’s Health Department on April 25, 2011 to Obama (a short four months later) contradicts the Governor’s entire statement regarding a “birth certificate” if we assume the “certificates” are the forged document residing on whitehouse.gov. The certificates that were given to Obama are in all likelihood “certificates of live birth” by affidavit, if we believe Abercrombie’s description of the records. The forgery was switched for the genuine article. We have no reason to doubt his description, as he was forthcoming on his investigation of Obama‘s records in January and the substitution is blatant and obvious given his statements.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.