A must-watch video for anyone who continues to believe that Obama is not a fake:
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.
In another bizarre twist to this story, Governor Abercrombie, on the same day that Obama issues his now famous “sideshows and carnival barkers” statement, issues a press release reiterating Ms. Fuddy’s letter of the 25th. Only this time, he mentions that Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies; this detail was missing in Ms. Fuddy’s letter since she stated she witnessed the copying of Obama’s record.
There is also a statement from the Attorney General, David Louie, about how Obama’s records were released according the “letter of the law”, in an attempt to lend credibility to this about face by Obama. We have already established that government requests for documents already have “special status” under Hawaiian statute §338-18 (2), (3), (4) and (5) for these issues. Ms. Fuddy also dispels this myth, as it was only a discretionary rule she invoked as allowed under the statute as “departmental policy” and not “law” as the Attorney General states. However, I am still puzzled by the fact of the Governor’s remarks to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of January 18, 2011.
Given the hyperbole in the press release, we are still left with the decisive factor for a birth certificate by affidavit when all of the evidence and statements are considered with the pivotal statement he made that Tuesday:
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.
Neither Governor Abercrombie nor any of his staff have attempted to explain the above statements he made in January; all of the obfuscation in this press release is cover for incompetent remarks by the governor made back then, or they are camouflage and fabrications for a cover-up now.
Then we have this Alice in Wonderland story from Fox News about Governor Abercrombie and his friend Mike Evans, who retracts his remarks from the previous day after making an appearance on a syndicated radio show (the quote is from the Fox story):
Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week and said he’d been told by the governor himself that Obama’s birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:
“Yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ….. there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.”
Later on in this article, it corroborates the Governor’s statements made to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on the 18th with this excerpt from the article:
“Halfway down the story it said the long form certificate was not on file at the two hospitals,” Evans said. “It says the hospitals say there’s no birth certificate and says Neil says he couldn’t find it.”
(Note: When I first looked for the Star-Advertiser article, it was missing from their archives, leaving me to use a foreign source as the story appears to have been scrubbed from their archives.)
The question at issue is: how does a record in a bound volume go from an “unspecified listing or notation” to a full-fledged “certified certificate of live birth” that was hospital-generated in four short months signed by the deceased Dr. David A. Sinclair who passed away in 2003? Four people have attested to the fact that his record resides in a bound volume, three of them Hawaiian officials, and in all likelihood, this record has been moldering there since sometime in early August 1961 as evidenced by the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspapers.
We can now accept that the idle speculation that Jerome Corsi reports on February 25, 2011 was the start of an actual cabal to place false documents on whitehouse.gov and intimate through a negative and false assumption for them to be considered genuine by the media and public at large. We can only surmise that it was. Not the president or any of the presidents agents, or any officials of the State of Hawaii, have made any definitive statements regarding what it was that was placed on the White House website on April 27, 2011.
Dr. Fukino’s comments are immaterial and incompetent as she is no longer an Official of the State of Hawaii. She is damaged goods as she has violated Hawaii Statute §338-18 and impeached herself with her previous comments; Obama’s long-form birth certificate is yet to be posted on whitehouse.gov. This would not happen for another 16 days, so she cannot shed any light on this matter! As stated earlier, her comments are fortuitous, or they are complicit.
In addition, we have Obama’s incompetent remark, “no matter what we put up.” Operation Sideshow appears to be an actual operation ran by Obama and his aides, aided by the press and officials of the State of Hawaii to place a forged document onto whitehouse.gov. What has been established by at least four sources, Bob Bauer, Dr. Fukino, Ms. Fuddy, and Mr. Wisch, is that Obama’s actual Birth Certificate exists as of at least the 25th of April 2011 by Ms. Fuddy’s letter and that is more than likely in a bound volume in the Hawaii State Vital Statistics archive.
We have a legal conundrum since the document image on whitehouse.gov has been declared a forgery by Maricopa County Sheriff‘s investigators and is a composite image that was substituted for one of the certificates received by Ms. Corely on April 25, 2011. Furthermore, it is not a simple scan of one of the original documents discussed by Ms. Fuddy.
These facts constitute a prima facie case for a criminal act being committed by a person or persons unknown on Obama’s behalf and possible direction. However, it has unquestionably been aided by a pliant and fawning press corps and past and present officials of the State of Hawaii whose statements, actions, and silence has assisted these acts to fruition.
Late Breaking News:
Doug Voght, an international expert on scanners and digital documents, has filed a 22 page Criminal Complaint with the FBI charging that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate that he released on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulent document.
I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011, is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs, and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense.
Part Nine discusses the forensic difficulties to place a forged document into a bound volume of birth records in the vital statistics vault in Hawaii. Then we examine why Obama and company chose a digital forgery as an alternative to a hard copy forgery.
Requirements of an Agency of the State of Hawaii Contradict Officials Statements
Until sometime in 2009, the State of Hawaii required a “Certificate of Live Birth” to prove Hawaiian ancestry, supposedly unavailable since statements by DOH and Vital Statistics personnel declare only COLB available from 2001 forward. Certificates of Live Birth were not available since the mid 1980’s as well, according to a statement of Bob Bauer, White House counsel.
In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
This statement was taken from an investigation performed on behalf of a retired CIA officer to look into Obama’s birth certificate. He produced evidence that the State of Hawaii, through their Department of Hawaiian Homelands Homestead and Ancestral lands program, needed the “Certificate of Live Birth” or more commonly known as the long-form birth certificate.
The Governor, the Director of the Department of Health, two spokespersons for the Health Department, and the State Attorney General’s office have all made duplicitous and misleading statements in this matter. Why?
These statements look like opening salvos in Operation Sideshow and could be the culmination of these efforts, and entail not only the president and his aides but officials of Hawaii as well.
Jerome Corsi’s article of February 25, 2011 is prophetic, or there actually was and is an active conspiracy to give credence to the now discredited and forged documents that reside on whitehouse.gov.
The only statements we have are Obama’s lame “no matter what we put out” and Dr. Fukino’s impeached remarks of April 11, 2011 to Michael Isikoff on what it is that is contained in Obama’s bona fides regarding his birth and the forged certificate placed on whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011. None of these statements is from any State of Hawaii official, then or now!
The president’s stubborn refusal to submit his documentation to third party verification leaves gaps in the narrative, through which a semi truck can now be driven and makes Operation Sideshow appears to have spanned at least 2 ½ years in the making, with 3 ½ after execution.
Is There a Dirty Secret Behind Obama’s Birth Certificate, Making the Case for a Birth Certificate by Affidavit
The question we should be asking is: what type of birth certificate does our president have? Obama’s long-form birth certificate has been declared a forgery. We are wasting our time in spending any more effort on what is posted on whitehouse.gov and need to turn our attention elsewhere. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act of 1955 and the revised laws of Hawaii allowed for the issuance of birth certificates by filing a sworn affidavit for any births that occurred in the Hawaiian Islands from 1911 to 1972.
The Birth Certificate was the same as any other issued by Hawaii Dept. of Health at that time.
Medical personnel or midwifes did not need to make any statements or physical examination of the child or mother for this type of application; a parent, grandparent, or anyone that had knowledge about the birth could submit the application. This type of birth certificate was filed by mail or in person and was mostly rubber stamped without any official of the State of Hawaii ever seeing the child or parents that filed the application.
Certificates were mailed to the parents of the child after being recorded.
Many locations in the Hawaiian Islands were extremely remote with few hospitals and clinics, so many Hawaiians were born at home; Hawaii needed a way to record these births.
The office of Health Statistics was required to announce all birth registrations in the local newspapers; the office would periodically release this information that they recorded. The much ballyhooed notification(s) Obama’s supporters point to as proof of his birth in Hawaii, as well as a hospital in the newspaper announcements of his birth, are now discredited.
The Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star published Obama’s birth notification on Sunday August 13, 1961 nine days after his birth with his grandparents address in Honolulu as that of his parents.
It is possible that Obama could have been born anywhere in 1961 since all his mother had to do is call her parents in Honolulu to get the ball rolling. Having his birth registered in Hawaii would benefit little Barry and his 18 year old mother. A forged signature or even a pre-signed or signed application by her parents would have made the birth certificate a fait-accompli. Combine the application by affidavit with five other facts and it not only seems plausible, but most likely:
1. Obama’s mother was last known to be in Hawaii in January 1961. She went to Seattle in the fall of 1961 with baby Obama to attend the University of Washington thru spring of 1962. Where was she for these 6 ½ months, February thru September of 1961?
2. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama or early Soetoro passport records are missing from the State Departments archives. These records tell of her travels and Obama’s early years, as young children were placed on their mother’s passports in the 1950′s and 60‘s.
3. Extensive examination on Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB), his one and only “Birth Certificate” in June 2008, was declared a forgery by Ron Polarik, PhD, and others.
4. Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” and his “Selective Service Registration” card were declared forgeries by Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” on March 1, 2012. What type of application does Obama have in Hawaii‘s document vault?
5. The sheriff’s investigators determined that the “microfiche records” of INS forms for Hawaii for the week of August 2nd thru 7th 1961 are missing from the National Archives in Washington D.C. New York records are still in play.
We know that his original birth registration application records exist because of the request to the Hawaii Director of Health (Ms. Fuddy) dated April 22, 2011 from Obama and his counsel. This resulted in her stating that she “released two copies” of his original “Certificate of Live Birth” in her letter of April 25 to president Obama. Ms. Judith Corley of the law firm Perkins Coie personally received these certificates on April 25 and verified in the press gaggle transcript on the morning of the 27th given to her on behalf of her client president Obama.
The questions are now: was Obama’s birth actually attended by Dr. David A. Sinclair (died in 2003) as shown on the forged birth certificate, or does he have another type of birth certificate, one by sworn affidavit? The forged certificate was switched with the real “certified” certificate received on April 26, 2011 and placed on the White House website. This forgery is purported to be the “genuine” article without any statements from anyone in the Obama administration about this documents authenticity (see Part 4 for this conclusion). Obama’s claim to citizenship and his entire birth narrative would cease to have any validity if it was proven that he had a birth certificate by affidavit.
Part Eight continues with making the case for a birth certificate by affidavit and specially looks at the statements of Hawaii’s Governor Neil Abercrombie on January 20, 2011 and his April 27th press release.
Photo credit: aaron_anderer (Creative Commons)
I used to watch O’Reilly for several years, but it is his failure to report on issues such as ForgeryGate that pushed me away from him, as well as Fox News in general.
Attorney Larry Klayman is a patriot in trying to get to the bottom of the Obama eligibility issue in Florida. We all should pray for his safety and hope he doesn’t die of a heart attack (like certain other people trying to get to the bottom of who Obama really is.)
Like him or not, Rubio is not eligible to be Vice-President for reasons this video will explain:
For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being “marginalized” held reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of “natural born citizen” applied to Obama was taboo.
The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables have turned.
Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The evidence of Obama’s forgeries is not going away.
Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the talking points and burden of proof.
Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii, Obama played games with his purported birth certificate. We were told for three years that Obama’s birth certificate had been posted online in 2008 — though it turns out that it was a scant certification. In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people, Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama “released” the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image online.
Read More at American Thinker. By Monte Kuligowski.
Photo Credit: Dustin C. Oliver (Creative Commons)
Hawaiian Officials have been duplicitous and need examination before a full accounting of “Operation Sideshow” is completely exposed
Hawaiian officials have never stated that the documents posted on the White House website are the true, genuine, and certified copies of what they have in their document vault. All they have stated is that they have seen or released to Obama what they have of record without saying what that record consists of.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii’s Department of Health made this statement to Michael Isikoff of NBC News on April 11, 2011 in a rare telephone interview.
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
This is troubling because her most recent statement is embellished from what she stated on October 31st 2008.
There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
Dr. Fukino makes another statement on July 27, 2009.
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.
In October of 2008 a week prior to the general election, she personally inspected Senator Obama’s records and made a statement regarding his his records that were on file with Hawaii’s vital statistics agency. Why she did this is not revealed since his “certification of live birth”, COLB had been released in June of 2008. She uses couched and non-committal phrasing on what is in the record since she only states that she has seen and verified a “record” in possession of the vital statistics archive leaving out the all important details about what is in the record. Then in July of 2009 she reiterates essentially the same statement she made in In October 2008. However, her declaration adds a new twist contradicting her statement that she did not have anything “new” to add to this issue when she states emphatically that Obama is a natural born citizen, her quote is shown below:
and is a natural-born American citizen
Her title is Director of Health for the State of Hawaii – how is it that she is now a constitutional lawyer, attorney general, or judge that is qualified to make such a distinction? The reason for this statement is also curious, why would she even make it since it is immaterial and incompetent and has no bearing on her current or previous statement(s)? Another question that needs to be examined was why was she making this statement at this time? And the addition of the “natural born citizen” status of her statement is curious, was she directed or coached to do this, if so by whom?
We are now faced with an intriguing problem in 2008 and 2009 she states essentially nothing, then 2 ½ year later when this issue is heating up with the focus Donald Trump brought to this tawdry affair she has a completely different story, which is it?
Dr. Fukino still has a duty of non-disclosure after leaving service as the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, so her statement of Aril 11, 2011 is a violation of this duty. We also have the law itself, so she violated confidentially requirements under Hawaii Statute §338-18 as well and are clear on this matter.
There does not appear to be an exception in this statute for former Directors of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, this leaves her statements in serious doubt as to their veracity since her departure as director in December of 2010. The timing of her statement is suspicious, it appears timed to coincide with the planned execution of Operation Sideshow, which will launch in sixteen days, it is either fortuitous or complicit?
Obama is never going to press the issue on this breach of his vital records, as it is an implied declaration of corroboration on what will be posted on whitehouse.gov before the fact; we also have Neil Abercrombie as the current Governor of Hawaii a Democrat so I doubt he will prosecute her for any violation of Hawaiian law either.
Prior to Dr. Fukino making her statement of October 31, 2008 Governor Lingle seals Obama’s records on the 26th, five before days before her carefully crafted statement of the 31st. This was the response from the Governor on a request made by Dr. Jerome Corsi a correspondent on behalf of WND to receive a copy of Obama’s birth certificate:
It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks,
Her statement is a direct citing of Hawaii Statute §338-18 and appropriate, given current law, though seems misguided as Hawaiian law directs how vital statistics data is released not administrative or executive directives from the governor.
In this same WND article, an unnamed source makes the following statements:
Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama. The source also refused to answer WND’s question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.
The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama’s original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.
These statements on the handling of vital statistics data by Hawaii state employees and officials of the Department of Health is verbatim per Hawaii’s statutes for vital statistics data and is procedurally correct. However, it is clear that the only one stopping release of this information is Obama himself.
It is disturbing that references to withholding the information was “political” in nature and portends that this matter is far from being fully vetted and disclosed, by Obama. Now that Maricopa County Sheriff’s investigators have declared his long-form birth certificate, a forgery provides tacit foundation to these statements. Dr. Fukino now stands as a full participant in Operation Sideshow as an active member along with White House personnel to facilitate the acceptance of the forged document posted on the White House website. As stated previously it is either fortuitous or complicit.
Part Six looks at the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, and his conflicting statements about what Obama actually has in the vital statistics vault. Other officials of the State of Hawaii make misleading statements as well.
Operation Sideshow is Mission Accomplished (the White House and Press Connection)
Photo credit: aaron_anderer (Creative Commons)
You may recall our most recent meeting at the Red Mountain Tea Party, on April 2nd…but then again, you may not. So let me take just a moment to go over what took place.
You possibly recall my asking “What does your oath, to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, mean to you?”
I must say that I found your response to be quite revealing, to wit: “It means that I will support…policies…that give effect to that oath which I’ve taken; that I won’t do anything that…would…put me in a position where I’m violating that oath. That’s what it means to me.”
In order to be fair, Jeff, perhaps we could review together exactly what that oath contains. Here it is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Oops! Looks like I misspoke, Jeff. I said “defend and protect,” when it actually reads “support and defend”! How clumsy of me…but the meaning, of course, is identical! There’s obviously more to it – “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” for example, and I presume that that is what you were referencing in your eloquent answer.
My question, however, clearly went to the first stipulation of that sacred oath (which you have now had administered to you by various Speakers five times over the past ten years.) So I didn’t ask if you yourself would “support…policies…that give effect to that oath,” Jeff, but rather, “What…your oath, to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, means to you….”
I don’t know if you were “reading ahead,” anticipating where I was going with that question, and thus avoided answering directly…or whether you had simply not considered that critical component of your oath…”So help [you] God.” I’m sure you know the history of the oath you took, Jeff, starting with the oath taken by the very first Congress in 1779, but we’ll review it just the same.
The stipulation for such an oath was, of course (and still is, of course) contained in Article VI of the Constitution itself. Here it is:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….
Being very particular to follow the recently ratified Constitution, the first Congress which had sufficient Representatives present by April 1, 1789, to form a quorum, appointed a committee on April 6 to draft a bill on how the oath of office was to be administered. It was entitled An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths, and was signed into law on June 1, 1789, becoming “Statute I,” the first official law in the “Laws of the United States.” Here is the original language contained in the oath:
I, A. B. [a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof,] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently, the position held by the various parties taking the oath was added at some point for clarification. This oath remained intact until the time of the Civil War. From the Senate website (referenced and quoted earlier) we find:
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.
The first qualification added was that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” While I wasn’t actually there, Jeff, that part seems to stick in my mind of late…. I wonder why?
Now that we have thoroughly refreshed our memories as to the origin and evolution of the oath that you swear before both God and man, let’s look at your “conclusions” regarding the Arpaio Investigation, or that of Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse. Let’s dispense with the nicities at this point and state the obvious, shall we?
Neither you, nor Jon Kyl, nor John McCain have even troubled yourselves to watch either of the fully-recorded press conferences on March 1 and March 31, 2012. If by some bizarre stretch of the imagination that you have, then of necessity, you are alleging that Sheriff Arpaio and his posse are guilty of prevarication (a fancy word for “lying”) on this most serious issue of historic national import.
This, of course, raises an issue which pretty well sums up the truth of the whole matter, Jeff, and it is this: Given the seriousness of the charges, if there were substantive points raised by the posse’s investigation, which could be contested, we would have seen that as the immediate response from the White House and its army of attorneys and media cohorts, would we not? But what did we hear instead? Alinsky 101:
5) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972: 130).
Having watched both press conferences (and attended the second of the two as well), I am keenly aware – as should you and your own AZ contingency of “representatives” of the People (I’m referring to the Republicans) – of the stark contrast between the questions asked by “ordinary” people, citizens, and the vapid attack dogs apparently in the full-time employment of the state. Curiously, Jeff, your response mirrored that of the latter in substance…or, that is, in the glaring lack thereof.
Your first response was potent, even menacing:
I’m the number one opponent in the House or the Senate of the president’s agenda, so I do not think much of the president’s agenda. I think that he’s going in the wrong direction on the economy and a number of issues…
You came out swinging, Jeff, but in the end, you sounded like a junkyard poodle, lacking both bark and bite…not to mention either facts or reason:
but I think that he is our president; I think he was duly elected , and I believe he is a citizen; and I do believe it is a distraction…and my job…my job…my job is to make sure that we beat him in November. If we do that….
I’ll stop you here again, Jeff, just as I did when we last met…on tape. I assume you are, at least, of average intelligence, although admittedly I have no basis for that assumption,other than, perhaps, wishful thinking. In any case, I would expect that – at a minimum – someone of your rank, distinction, or class would base his opinions or beliefs on something…anything, Jeff.
So what is it that has convinced you that “he’s a citizen”? If you had bothered to watch even the preliminary results of the posse’s six-month investigation presented at either of the Arpaio Press Conferences, you would have seen clearly that the man whom you pretend to oppose (but so strenuously “support and defend” ) lacks the most fundamental of all identifying documents– a real, certified (hard copy) birth certificate…not a digitally-created virtual image thereof.
Like both the brilliant and tenacious judges, Michael Malihi of Georgia and Jeff Masin of New Jersey, who without any supporting evidence whatsoever (or witnesses – including the court-defying defendant, Barack Hussein Obama, in the Georgia case), unilaterally proclaimed the most enigmatic president in all of American history “born in Hawaii.” (In an unprecedented as well as uncharacteristic show of judicial restraint, however, the two prescient jurists stopped short of affirming his virgin birth…which would have been problematic in any case.)
Having heard enough of your woefully unsubstantiated defense of the most undocumented occupant of the People’s House (when not off at a five-star resort in some exotic vacation spot or golf course) in the two hundred and twenty-three year history of the country, I did what you may never have done, Jeff, and asked the People:
“How many of you would like to see Congress investigate the president? Please stand up if you can!”…at which point the vast majority of those present stood up, amidst cries of “impeach him,” etc. A mutual friend of ours, Jeff, upon watching our encounter via the Internet (along with tens of thousands of other voter/constituents) said to me: “You kind of put Jeff between a rock and a hard spot”…to which I replied, “No, Jeff did that to himself!”
To which I will only add, Jeff, that next time – if there is a next time, or a next term – I suggest that you and every other public “servant” named herein take a second look at your sacred oaths of office and recall vividly what it entails…especially the preeminent first and final points:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. So help me God.
Perhaps we’ll meet again soon, Jeff. Until then….
Tom Ballantyne – A Constituent (one of those you are also sworn to represent)
P.S. While I am, in fact, indignant over your failure to stand up for the obvious and irrefutable truth here, Jeff – apparently for fear of retribution from the Ruling Class, in both the establishment media and the “leadership” of your own party – I am sincere in my hope that my standing for the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that may be to some, will cause you to reflect seriously on your one and only authorized, and therefore legitimate role…that of upholding, as well as defending, our sacred and God-inspired Constitution.
A name not mentioned enough in the ForgeryGate controversy is Ms. Fuddy, the current Director of the Hawaii Department of Health
Ms. Loretta J. Fuddy does not even get a shout out from the Obama administration during the press gaggle, given the “extraordinary” levers of the Hawaiian governmental organs she needed to pull to make this happen for Obama. Having her letter buried as page 4 of 4 was not surprising, given the false narrative they created to cover their actions on Obama’s about face and sudden U-turn on this issue. An honorable mention needs to be made when she discusses her strained and disrupted state agency over this matter, and one wonders just how much of this hyperbole is true? If in fact she is telling the truth, then we have significant evidence that many citizens see this as a critical issue for our elected representatives and courts to resolve and should be dealt with immediately.
This letter is the most important part of the documentation that is at the center of this tawdry and sordid affair and is quite telling on what actually transpired on April 25th, 2011 and subsequent to that date. In her letter to president Obama, she states she gave “two certified copies of his Certificate of Live Birth.” They were hand delivered to Ms. Judith Corley of the law firm Perkins Coie, Obama‘s personal counsel as detailed in the press gaggle transcript on the morning of April 27, 2011.
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.
Ms. Fuddy continues the legalese artifice and alludes to some special process herself, she should be intimately familiar with Hawaii Statute §338-18 which was discussed in detail in Mission Accomplished, Part 3 so it is superfluous. So maybe there really are some unbreakable bureaucratic rules in her agency? Which Ms. Fuddy then gives special dispensation to, though I doubt it, much less since 1980? Hawaiian law seems quite clear and gives government requests special status for whatever their specific needs and circumstances are.
She states that she has personally witnessed the copying of these certificates with,
“I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”
This all important statement is completely lacking in the transcript of the press briefing on the morning of the 27th, since they did not lay the foundation for the authenticity of the posted certificate(s) on the White House website, far from it as we will soon see.
The press corps did not attempt to ascertain what it was they were actually looking at or given in their press packet, except for the following:
With a question from a reporter on page 3 paragraph 8:
This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
Bob Bauer answers this in the next sentence:
That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.
Then we have this question by an unnamed reporter on page 6 paragraph 14:
Just to clarify what this document is –
Dan Pfeiffer answers this question in the next sentence:
This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.
Coming back to Ms. Fuddy in the first question it is stated by Bob Bauer that it is from the State Department of Health as coming from a “bound volume“, however; it is not stated that it is specifically one of the “two” copies given to Ms. Corley. In the second question there are missing words, or possible editing as to what exactly the copy is?
During the press briefing Dan Pfeiffer, Bob Bauer or Jay Carney did not state what they would do with the copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate they received from Ms. Fuddy through Ms. Corley other than the question by an unnamed reporter found on page 4 paragraph 3:
Will the President be holding it?
Dan Pfeiffer answered this on the next line:
He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
Please notice the missing words. This is now a pivotal statement by Obama’s Communication Director, which leaves serious doubts on what it is he actually has. Much less the whole “sideshow“ message was created to stifle debate on this issue as they released the forged birth certificate into the public domain.
No one declares in the press briefing what is to be done with these documents, other than Obama in his short statement to follow
After reading the eight-page press gaggle briefing numerous times in an attempt to determine what it was they are going to do with the certified copies of Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”; the principals that held this briefing are silent on this matter. The press corps does not ask any questions on what they will do with them either. The only one to state what that may be is Obama himself in his short statement that followed the press gaggle briefing for Operation Sideshow.
Obama only intimates with a vague reference during his short statement though does it in a way that it is a negative statement that is not specific to really anything with the following:
I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest. But I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press.
(Note: underlined words are my emphasis.)
Obama’s remark is a self-fulfilling prophecy since he and his aides have failed to state anything about what is actually posted on the White House website. Is the image on whitehouse.gov in fact one of the ‘certified” documents made and received on the 25th of April from Hawaii’s Department of Health and given to Obama’s personal counsel? We simply do not know as no one in the administration has stated publicly that they are one and the same.
Bob Bauer, Dan Pheiffer, Jay Carney, Judith Corley, Loretta Fuddy or Obama have not made any statements about what actually resides on the White House website. What we do know is that investigators of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of the State of Arizona have deemed this “certificate of live birth” to be a forgery. It should not be a stretch of anyone’s imagination that the forgery was substituted for the genuine certified certificate(s) received on the 26th by person(s) unknown and posted on whitehouse.gov, a classic bait and switch con.
Operation Sideshow was a rousing success as pointed out in the beginning of this investigation
When Obama used his “sideshow” line, with its ability to influence and resonate with the media, internet blogosphere and pundits of all stripes and persuasions was nothing short of amazing. The whole point of the press corps being primed was to make it a predetermined outcome in the press gaggle on the morning of April 27, 2011 before he gave it his classic one-two punch and introduced the “sideshow” message to the world.
With the now famous or infamous words depending on your perspective:
We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.
The repulsive moral condemnation that Obama and his supporters hold for anyone on this unanswered question is reprehensible:
We do not have time for this kind of silliness.
The condescending manner in which the presidents aides and he himself holds for anyone that dares question him or his supporters on this, is contemptible in and of itself. It is Obama’s obligation to provide beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is in fact who he claims to be. It is not our responsibility as citizens to do this work for him, after all he works for the American people, all of us, whether he recognizes this fact or not.
We need to make sure he understands this all important distinction.
It is amazing how one simple phrase “sideshow” has caused a false narrative about his birth certificate(s), which have now been discredited and declared a forgery to circle the globe in a matter of minutes as a bona fide document by Obama and company. The swiftness of the “sideshow” message to give instant cover for this deception is an indictment on a news media and press corps that has relinquished their status as the “Fourth Estate” to challenge and ascertain any truth or deception in our society from any source. They have relegated themselves to nothing more than overpaid cheerleaders lacking any dignity or moral character. By doing so they have sealed their fate and reputation with that of Obama and his leftist supporters, and tossed the nation and the American people over the railing.
The silence, arrogance and audacity out of Obama on this matter is reminiscent of Napoleon and many other despots that have come before him and is a portent on the erosion and destruction of the rule of law in our Constitutional Republic. Which has given the rise to the oligarch and the resultant tyranny that follows if this is allowed to stand unchallenged.
Part Five discusses actions and statements of officials of the State of Hawaii in the Five-O Pineapple Express connection.