The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Over the weekend, I decided to look into what information has already been released to the American public, and what information is contained on a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. In other words; what information, if released, would violate Obama’s privacy?
From what I can tell; If Obama has been completely honest with us, the only information, that has not already been released to the public, would be the name of the person who affirmed his birth (i.e. doctor, midwife, or other) and the signature of the local registrar.
Obama is currently spending taxpayer money to keep the name of the doctor who delivered him, and the name of the department of health employee that registered his birth, from being known
to the public.
Does that make any sense to you?
The name of the local registrar isn’t likely to create any controversy.
The name of the doctor; now that’s a different story. Just kidding! Who would care about the doctor that delivered him?
There is, however, another possibility. One that is sure to cause controversy. What if his birth WAS NOT affirmed by a physician? What if Obama’s birth was affirmed by Grandma Dunham? Now that’s something Obama would want to hide!
If Grandma Dunham affirmed his birth;
1. Obama’s declaration, that he was born at Kapiolani Maternity Hospital, would have been fabricated.
2. The possibility of his birth having taken place in a foreign country would be much more likely to be accepted.
We have two records indicating that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, (both of which, contrary to previous claims, are proving to be valid) and we have a birth record in the vault of the Hawaiian DOH. (of which, the name of the person who affirmed his birth has been hidden from the public.)
It’s time for Obama to come clean. If the records of Kenyan birth are true and correct representations, and Obama’s Hawaiian birth affirmation was signed by Grandma Dunham, we have a fraud in the White House. Tell Obama to authorize the release of the name of the person who affirmed his birth, and we will have the answer.
Welcome back Vince. I see it didn’t take take long for you to resume posting your personal opinions as though they were fact. Is that standard for trial attorneys?
1. As to the rumor that all Hawaiian COLBs list Oahu as the Island of birth, and Honolulu as the county of birth; Vince Treacy states; “This is just another rumor. It is false.”
-Vince, Support your claim. You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief. Show us an Hawaiian COLB that supports your claim.
Caught by Richey at Dr. Conspiracy” “I just noticed something about the Smith birth certificate which I missed before. The stamp identifies the hospital administrator as Helton Haganga, but the signature says Helton Maganga. Hmmm…”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/emergency-hearing-in-barnett-v-obama-in-ga/
Taitz is so incompetent that she asked for a jury trial in an injunction proceeding. Jury trial is guaranteed in suits at common law (remember?), but an application for temporary restraining order is a proceeding in equity, not common law, and the right to jury trial does not apply. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/
Rhodes, wherever you are, fire this lawyer now. She is totally incompetent and can ruin your career just as she ruined Cook’s.
It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.
Rhodes has already had a day in court in anotear fedral district court, and her claim was dismissed.
Read the article.
The hearing is set for today, Monday Sep 14.
Written prediction™ ®: case dismissed.
From the Ledger Enquirer
A U.S. District Court hearing to determine if a Army captain fighting deployment to Afghanistan because of the challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency was rescheduled for Monday.
Capt. Connie Rhodes filed the complaint last week and Judge Clay Land granted an emergency hearing Friday afternoon in the Columbus federal courthouse.
Rhodes, a medical doctor who was with her unit in Fort Riley, Kan., did not attend the hearing. That prompted Land to reschedule it for noon Monday.
Ausprung said the Army would make Rhodes available.
Rhodes is scheduled to arrive at Fort Benning Saturday and deploy within seven days.
Rhodes’ attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement — was in Land’s court. Rhodes was ordered by her commanding officers not to leave Kansas, Taitz told the court.
“That is not the information I have from Fort Riley,” said Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington. Rhodes had not informed her supervisor, Ausprung told the court.
Land made it clear he wanted to hear from Rhodes.
“I am going to require her to appear, so I can ask questions of her,” Land said.
It appears that Capt. Rhodes was prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing. She was threatened with a charge of AWOL and would be court martialed if she left the base to attend the hearing.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/164/story/836629.html?storylink=omni_popular
Six minute interview with the reporter from the ledger examining the BC and confirming parts of Mr. Lucas research.
Vince I was just talking about you, matter of fact gave you a fine compliment. In short told all, with the recent mediation of Professor Turley on civility on another thread and because the Professor has time constraints, he may be better served by appointing a moderator. I chose you. Welcome back.
Alot of interesting questions have been popping up since the last time you posted. I won’t describe it a sense of temperature but I do believe the outer layers of clothes are beginning to shed an soon, we will have the bare naked truth. The Pelosi double document story is what has the clothes starting to fall to the ground. The ground is wet and there’s gettin ready to be a little mud slinging.
The focus now will shift to finger pointing and lies how this could of happen. The BC/COLB are no longer the main issue. Now you have alleged fraud in documentation, you have active cases questioning eligibility and members of the military questioning orders with some online attorney from Russia, no less, flying around the United States appearing in Federal Courthouses. I would roll on the floor laughing my you know who off, if she ever made it to argue in front of the Supreme Court and she’s licensed to be there. We are now one ring short of a three ring circus. Sing the circus song and use the word duped.
It really is sad the way that this really is but, it is what it is.
Anyways nice to have you back Vince
It’s guys like you that help me stand corrected.
bd says “The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.”
This is just another rumor. It is false. It may be spread far and wide on the birther web, but it is still untrue. The World Nut Daily keeps including in many of its articles the false statement that Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born out of state showing Hawaii birth.
Here are the facts for the readers. Hawaii has had a law since the 1980s permitting parents of minor children born out of state to be issued state birth certificates, provided that the parents meet a residency requirement. These certificates have to show the real place of birth. They cannot show birth in Hawaii, because that would be fraudulent, and the law specifically prohibits “fraudulent applications.”
It is also claimed that all certificates list birth in Honolulu, Oahu regardless of where the birth occurred. That is inherently ridiculous, and no proof is offered. Even if it were true, and it is not, so what? All of the islands are part of the U.S., so the COLBs would still prove birth in America.
Keeping to the facts, here is the full statute, citation, and link:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Sources: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
According to wiki, birthers have “pointed to a provision of Hawaiian law that permits the issuance of certifications of live birth to those born outside the state or even outside the country.”
The implication is that Obama could have been issued a birth certificate in 1961 even if he had been born in Kenya. But this suggestion was rejected by Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.” That statement was quoted in the Washington Independent.
So the false statements just keep piling up.
bd says “The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.”
This is just another rumor. It is false. It may be spread far and wide on the birther web, but it is still untrue. The World Nut Daily keeps including in many of its articles the false statement that Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born out of state showing Hawaii birth.
Here are the facts for the readers. Hawaii has had a law since the 1980s permitting parents of minor children born out of state to be issued state birth certificates, provided that the parents meet a residency requirement. These certificates have to show the real place of birth. They cannot show birth in Hawaii, because that would be fraudulent, and the law specifically prohibits “fraudulent applications.”
It is also claimed that all certificates list birth in Honolulu, Oahu regardless of where the birth occurred. That is inherently ridiculous, and no proof is offered. Even if it were true, and it is not, so what? All of the islands are part of the U.S., so the COLBs would still prove birth in America.
Keeping to the facts, here is the full statute, citation, and link:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Sources: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
According to wiki, birthers have “pointed to a provision of Hawaiian law that permits the issuance of certifications of live birth to those born outside the state or even outside the country.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
The implication is that Obama could have been issued a birth certificate in 1961 even if he had been born in Kenya. But this suggestion was rejected by Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.” That statement was quoted in the Washington Independent: http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
So the false statements just keep piling up.
For those who say it’s racial
Some blacks now have doubts about Obama
By Star Parker on September 12th, 2009
According to the Pew Research Center, the president’s approval rating nationwide is now 10 points lower than last April. Included in this is a three-point drop in his approval among blacks.
You might say, Star, a drop in approval ratings among blacks from 95 percent to 92 percent is trivial. But I say not so.
If we assume this reflects the 16 million blacks who voted for Obama last November, a three point shift means there are about a half million blacks who now have buyer’s remorse.
NH SECRETARY OF STATE AGREES TO INVESTIGATE
by John Charlton
Rep. Lawrence Rappaport, and his wife
(Sept. 12, 2009) — New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.
His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.
Gardner’s stunning response: an investigation will commence.
I interviewed Mr. Rappaport by email, and asked him, on what basis did he make his complaint; he responded, “The basis for all of this is possible fraud. I don’t know what penalties will be assessed if fraud is proven.”
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/nh-rep-rappaport-requests-investigation-of-obamas-eligibility/
Here is an interesting post at Free Republic about the governmental jurisdictions controlling Mombasa over the years. Mombasa is now part of the country of Kenya. In 1961, when it is alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya was not a separate country yet. It was part of the British Protectorate of East Africa, and was not part of Zanzibar as the claim online in blogs to confuse issues. In 1961 what is now Kenya and what is now Zanzibar were both part of the British Protectorate of East Africa. Read the post at Free Republic for more details. Also, links are provided there to some neat historical maps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334186/posts
Mike, the Lucas Smith document could be a forgery in which he paid the administrator or some one who works for him to put the official stamp on it, ANYTHING is possible. The other thing that is possible is the president could place a call to the Hawaiin Dept. of Health and authorize them to release the original document. Instead we have an official from that Dept. who makes two statements claiming to have personally seen and verified that the state holds the original document in accordance to state policies and procedures. What is so secretive that only one person that we know of can claim they’ve seen the original document. Now we have four U.S. Attorneys at the tax payers expense trying to get yet another case thrown out on a technicality. The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.
The real question here is why does the president continue to allow this controversy to continue for almost a year now.
Senator Inhofe is quoted here and maybe it’s part of the whole skeem.
You, as a citizen, can say “this is unconstitutional.” File the lawsuit, go through the whole thing. Now, on the whole idea of the birth certificate for Obama, for example. You can do that. By the time you got a decision, it’d be ten years from now. And then the damage is already done.
http://washingtonindependent.com/58545/inhofe-its-not-worth-suing-obama-for-his-birth-certificate-because-it-would-take-ten-years-to-get-a-decision
The question about Mombasa/Kenya/Zanzibar is easily settled by looking in a Brittish Publication from 1922 called “The Statesman’s Year-Book”. Here’s a link to the appropriate page http://books.google.com/books?id=TR8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=mombasa%20%2Bkenya%20%2Bprotectorate&as_brr=1&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20+kenya%20+protectorate&f=false
There you will see that Mombasa was a protectorate of the British Empire.
As far as Lucas’ past and his willingness to break the law:
I don’t know the circumstances of his past. I can tell you this; I was no angel when I was younger. I just didn’t get caught. People change a lot from the time they’re teens and early twenties to their late twenties. They recognize that their future is affected by their past. Sometimes all it takes is a change of peers.
If Lucas’ wasn’t willing to break the law; Obama and his cousin (the Prime Minister of Kenya) would have potentially continued the perpetration of a fraud. -If this document is found to be authentic, would you still have a problem with how it was obtained? Or would you thank this man for protecting America?
I don’t know the motivation behind the Ebay auction. Perhaps he just wanted Obama to come clean. I sure wouldn’t find anything dishonorable about giving Obama a chance before you used the MSM or the courts against him. Would you?
As far as cards on the table: You know I’ve done a lot of research on the merits of the entire case, including locating supporting evidence. I may provide support for Orly if asked. I wouldn’t want to give something away that may be beneficial to her trial strategy. I hope you understand.
My comment is awaiting moderation. -Oops. That’s what I get for trying to support it with links.
Here’s half
Mike Appleton,
Kenya uses both date formats. I’d find the use of such to be a mess. When in long form, I have seen dd/mm/yr and mm/dd/yr. When abreviated, I have only seen them use m/d/y. Here’s the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date
And, since I don’t just trust wikipedia, here’s an Ebay auction for a stamp postmarked from 1906
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400041113527&_rdc=1
As you can see, both date formats were used in Brittish Protectorates.
Mike Appleton,
Kenya uses both date formats. I’d find the use of such to be a mess. When in long form, I have seen dd/mm/yr and mm/dd/yr. When abreviated, I have only seen them use m/d/y. Here’s the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date
And, since I don’t just trust wikipedia, here’s an Ebay auction for a stamp postmarked from 1906
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400041113527&_rdc=1
The question about Mombasa is easily settled by looking in a Brittish Publication from 1922 called “The Statesman’s Year-Book”. Here’s a link to the appropriate page http://books.google.com/books?id=TR8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=mombasa%20%2Bkenya%20%2Bprotectorate&as_brr=1&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20+kenya%20+protectorate&f=false
There you will see that Mombasa was a protectorate of the British Empire.
As far as cards on the table: You know I’ve done a lot of research on the merits of the entire case, including locating supporting evidence. I may provide support for Orly if asked. I wouldn’t want to give something away that may be beneficial to her trial strategy. I hope you understand.
Parts two and three come at the end
Mike fast forward to the two minute mark.
BIRTHER, I have two concerns. First, I previously mentioned the manner in which the dates appear on the document. They are written in the American form (month, day, year) rather than the British form one would expect (day, month, year). Secondly, I have been told that Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until 1963 and was not part of the British protectorate. I also have concerns about Mr. Smith personally due to his background, his willingness to break the law to secure the document and his efforts to sell it on eBay before patriotism or something else apparently got the better of him.
With regard to laying one’s cards on the table, that’s something I routinely do unless someone has already perjured himself and I am preparing for an appropriate impeachment opportunity. But since neither you nor I are involved in the litigation, your reluctance to reveal what you purport to know is inexplicable.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKw6knnQUdo&hl=en&fs=1&]