It has been certifiable madness that there are so many lawsuits in the courts in an effort to get Barack Obama to provide his “vault version” of his birth certificate in order to prove his eligibility to become President. Instead, we the public are shown a fraudulent birth certificate (short version)- a certificate of live birth, that was deemed credible by factcheck.org (which by the way, is funded by the Anneneburg Foundation–the board Obama sat on for years with William Ayers of–no conflict of interest there!). Instead of making the lawsuits go away instantly by providing the vault version of his birth certificate, he has refused to do so. Wouldn’t logic dictate to provide it and the lawsuit would go away? Instead, we have a Democrat, Philip J. Berg, Esq., http://www.obamacrimes.com/ petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his, case Berg vs Obama, et al has standing, and requests that the entire Presidential Election not occur on November 4. Berg vs Obama No. 08-cv-04083. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
Yesterday it seems that privacy laws were broken in Hawaii. “Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo told the Tribune state privacy laws and attorney general guidance barred her from confirming the certificate’s authenticity. But, “It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate,” Okubo said.” HOW DOES OKUBO KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/30/Rumor_questions_Obamas_birth_certificate/UPI-64261225393575/ Hiding for months behind privacy laws and legal wrangling, the Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has refused to issue a copy of his vaulted birth certificate. Then, just in time for Halloween trick and treats we have Fukino saying in a report from Associated Press: “HONOLULU (AP) – State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino says she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. Fukino says that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently from any other. She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest in it.” http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=9275581 “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,” said DOH Director Chiyome Fukino. “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.”
In a complete head spinning act like the girl from the movie The Exorcist, she makes a statement that not only has she seen Obama’s birth certificate, but that it is authentic and he was in fact born in Hawaii. Well, that’s a bunch of vomit. This is the woman who once said, 
“All of the evidence that we have says that the beaches are as safe now as they were before the sewage spill.” http://thinkexist.com/quotes/dr._chiyome_fukino/ Seeing that she is so well versed in crap, we are expected to believe that she got off her high horse and broke the law to peer into a sealed document that is protected by her own state of Hawaii’s laws on privacy?
Governor Lingle, clearly has indicated that Obama’s birth certificate not be handled any differently, yet we see a government employee doing just that and breaking the law. Why now, after months of legal filings has she decided to come forward to admit that she has seen That One’s birth certificate? When did she see it? Under who’s authority did she act? Why is spokesperson Janice Okubo claiming to have knowledge of what Obama’s birth certificate looks like. If Okubo, a lowly employee got a glimpse of Obama’s birth certificate, at the very least there must be others who may also attest to its content.
Perhaps Obama should sue in the state of Hawaii since it is obvious that a crime was committed against him by Hawaii’s own Health Department in releasing an opinion, opening a sealed document, and blatantly violating Obama’s own right to privacy. Had the Hawaii Health Department claimed that Obama was in fact born some where else than Hawaii, the outcome would have serious repercussions on the election and immediate actions would be taken, most certainly in a court of law. I do not believe that any Court in the land would accept testimony in place of the presentation of an actual document which is easily accessible to an expert witness. Obama, before he became a politician was a graduate of the Harvard School of Law, and would certainly have never accepted a statement from an expert witness when there is documentation available.
Further implications and a nice write up of her statements are made at http://michaelpatrickleahy.blogspot.com/2008/10/show-us-birth-certificate-hawaii.html
Until Obama himself releases the authentic, vaulted birth certificate, this will not go away, nor should it. The debate rages on as to who has standing to enforce the rules of eligibility, and in an effort to protect anyone from taking the Office of The President of The United States who is not a citizen, we the people need to see our nominees birth certificates and not take just take someone’s word for it.
America needs to move past this and Obama needs to once and for all release his own birth certificate. While Obama is in full disclosure mode, he should at the very least make a statement about the dinner he attended for Khalidi with his wife and William Ayers.
“If I were to make public these tapes, containing blunt and candid remarks on many different subjects, the confidentiality of the office of the president would always be suspect. ”
Richard M. Nixon
Ahrcanum. Latin origin Arcanus. Mysterious, having special knowledge, information accessible or possesed only by the initiate. Secrets revealed.
Ahrcanum 
[…] A few of our most favored articles on the subject: https://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/obama-birth-certificate-missing-birthers-want-to-know/ and https://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/obamas-birth-certificate-in-hawaii-certifiable-madness/ […]
Bring the arguments over here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/6-ways-challenges-to-obamas-citizenship-fail/
Harvard Ph.d. comments on Obama Birth Certificate issue
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.
To see full article see: http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=16283
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued
———————–
Plaintiffs In This Suit Against Obama Include A Former Presidential Candidate, A Pastor, And The Chairman Of One Of The Third Parties
Obama Birth Certificate Update
Posted on November 7, 2008
I’ve been told that another challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president was either filed yesterday or will be filed today. While I cannot get into any details, the plaintiffs in this suit include a former presidential candidate, a pastor, and the chairman of one of the third parties.
The suit will focus on the constitutional requirement that a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen, and that Obama fails to qualify since the evidence indicates he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as he has claimed.
http://thevalleytruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/obama-birth-certificate-update/
====================
PA State Rep Authoring Legislation on Candidate Eligibility Based on Obama Citizenship Questions
This morning, Jeff reports via PolitickerPA.com that Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County) is authoring a bill regarding Presidential eligibility:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=340
=====================
LOTS OF LAWYERS GETTING IN on CASE V OBAMA!
Even today, Nov 5th, been very busy coordinating with lawyers across the country who are picking up this baton and running with it. It is not over. Not even. Here is a rough explanation and functional chronology. Following on the heels of two major lawsuits aimed at Obama directly in Pennsylvania, then Hawaii, I in Washington, followed quickly by other citizens in their respective states who sued the complicit or at best oblivious Secretaries of States for dereliction of duty; Ohio, then Virginia, Connecticut, Texas, Connecticut, California – There are others and there is no master command – all grass roots with each of us helping each other as we could. One thing was common, we each demanded to know if Obama has proof of US citizenship or withhold certification of electors for Obama.
=======================
Obama and our coming constitutional crisis
Professor Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School Posted: November 08, 2008
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT LEFT OR RIGHT. IT IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.
===============
Andy Martin triggers new Electoral College opposition to Barack Obama
Martin creates Electoral College confrontation in marathon live radio drama
http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-triggers-new-electoral-college-r900563.htm
First, the certification of live birth is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved that you had money in the bank. The certification has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. They are thus confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” – and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
This sounds like the nut who was convinced that the government had implanted a radio in his head to control him, and so a friend took him to have an MRI, which naturally showed that there was no radio.
But the nut was not convinced. He said “Ah! But can you prove that that is really an MRI of me?” So they called in the MRI operator, who certified that that MRI was the MRI of the nut. But the nut was still not convinced. He said: “He certifies that that MRI is an MRI of me. But how do we know that he is not working for the government?”
In your case you are saying that even though the officials in Hawaii, who have no reason to lie, have given the impression that they have evidence that Obama is a naturally-born USA citizen, they are misleading us in some way. They are deliberately misleading us.
You are saying that the officials in Hawaii, having seen Obama’s file and from its contents knowing that Obama was either (1) not born in the USA, or (2) has legally become a citizen of another country at a later date (which is a more complicated issue. It is probably legally impossible for a natural born child to lose his citzenship, no matter what his parents may have done) have issued a statement implying that there is nothing wrong with his claim to be a natural born US citizen.
The obvious question is why?
To be sure, their statement was carefully written. (So what. Why should it have been sloppy?)
But why was it carefully written in Obama’s favor? Are these two officials Democrats? (Probably not. They were appointed by a Republican governor.)
Moreover, if it subsequently turns out that Obama was not born in Hawaii or had something in his file along the lines of losing his citizenship, then they, who had said that there was nothing wrong, would be subject to criticism at the very least. They could be accused of being part of a conspiracy, or of a fraud, and at the least they would not get a job in a Republican administration again. So why would they do it?
Thus the officials had absolutely no reason to lie about what they saw in Obama’s file. And they had absolutely no reason to MISLEAD by issuing a statement that implies they saw something more in Obamas file, when all that they saw was the “certificate of live birth.” Their statement implies that they saw something that confirms the certificate of live birth. In fact, they said that they saw his birth certificate.
All of which indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, all the allegations that he was born in Kenya now look pretty empty, since the guys who claimed to have evidence proving that Obama was born in Kenya have never released the evidence.
So, why won’t Obama release his birth certificate?
Possibly because it shows that his mother and father were not married.
That is embarassing, but it is not a constitutional grounds for barring someone for being president. Maybe some people would vote against a bastard. Others would vote for him anyway. In any case, that is Obama’s decision to make. You are welcome to vote against him because you feel that he is not a citizen, or because he is a bastard, or because you don’t agree with his policies, or because he was associated with terrorists.
But you could do that anyway. The content of the files and the fact that Obama did not release them does not change the situation.
What has changed? The constitutional issue over whether Obama was born in the USA. That is required in the Constitution. The Hawaii officials have confirmed that he was born in the USA. He is therefore eligible to be president.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. Obviously Hawaii has a document but the question is not whether they have his original certificate, but whether that certificate indicates he was actually born in the U.S. and not born the child of a Hawaiian citizen abroad. The latter of which is what has been alleged by Philip J. Berg based on an eyewitness account of Obama’s birth in Kenya from his paternal grandmother. Up to l972, a child over the age of one in Hawaii could get a birth certificate by an affidavit of the mother that he was born at home…. The US deserves the facts!
If Barack Obama ultimately wins on Tuesday, this issue is not going to go away without the official “vault” birth certificate being produced. I hope there isnt a constitutional crisis.. I hope Obama is not like John edwards (love child), Sptizer (prostitution) and McGreevy (gaylifestyle) who ran for office hoping these problems would not show up.
Of course this entire issue would go away if Barack Obama would simply authorize the release of the document. Why does he continue to fight this issue and not just put it to rest?