Certificate of Nomination Summary

Note to my readers: I have updated this post to reflect the true origin of the research and story about there being 2 different certifications signed by Pelosi and Germond. My apologies to blogger jbjd for wrongly attaching someone else’s name to her work.


Update: Based on new information, I can’t say whether the method of delivering the certificates to the Hawaii elections office was different in 2008, because the certs were delivered by the HDP rather than by the DNC in 2008. Without seeing date stamps for the certs in past years there is no way to know how the certs got to the Elections Office those years. Jbjd claims to have rebutted my theory. I responded to her rebuttal here.  My response to the personal and professional allegations she made about me is here.

Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii

Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and he re, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states (correction: most states), and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

 That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited. The best place for info on this is probably at jbjd’s site; it may be a while before I get back to this.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

 And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

 First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

The HDOH has also confirmed that at no time since Obama declared his candidacy has either the HDP or DNC received a letter of verification confirming the facts of Obama’s birth. So the two legal means by which the HDP or DNC could have received confirmation from the HDOH were not utilized.

 It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

 But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

 I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot. It complies with the requirements in HRS 11-113, which is also cited here.

A summary of the documents:

  • 2000 DNC Cert – standard certificate with typed eligibility language added
  • 2000 HDP Cert – standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National convention and received at Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered)
  • 2004 DNC Cert – standard certificate, no eligibility language
  • 2004 HDP Cert – standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National Convention.
  • 2008 DNC Cert – standard certificate with eligibility language
  • 2008 HDP Cert – standard certificate with eligibility language removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter (NOTE: new information says the HDP actually forwarded this to the Elections Office)

 In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office (Correction: sent or gave his certification and transmittal letter to the HDP who relayed it to the Elections Office).

 So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention (NOTE: they didn’t have a month to get the certs in because of the late convention) and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office (again, the HDP forwarded everything together to the Elections Office). Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

 The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

 A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.

 I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

 Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

 Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.

 The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.

 All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office (correction: to the HDP to have them forward it). Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.

 The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.

Most likely they all know something the rest of the country deserves to know as well.


  1. Joe Marine
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 2:58 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am a Freeper and a Birther and closely follow your threads and comments with regard to “Obama Natural Born Citizenship/Ineligibility Conspiracy.”

    I believe that two of the most revealing illegal activities in this conspiracy are the SR 511 “deal” for the cover-up of Obama’s AND McCain’s ineligibility (Read: “Obama Knew He Wasn’t Eligible For POTUS” from Zapem’s Blog); and the fraudulent DNC Nomination Certification.

    With regard to those illegal acts, the following persons are traitors to Our Nation and should be charged and prosecuted for High Treason: Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator McCaskill, Senator Leahy, Senator Coburn, Senator Menendez, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi AND former VP Cheney.

    Keep up the good work and stay safe!

    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 12:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I have no firm evidence, just speculation, but I have a strong gut feeling that some of the people who appear to be in on the cover-up are doing so under duress. If not, then they bear a heavy responsibility which will have to be sorted out legally – hopefully soon.

  2. tdr
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 2:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    Once again I need to congratulate you on your great work. Interesting that Hawaii did not require the HDC to include the constitutional language. Do you remember the blogger who was investigating this? Back then there were rumors that the pelosi and germond signatures on the hawaiian DNC certification were forged. They did look odd but I’m not a handwriting analyst.

    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, I do remember him. He’s pretty busy these days but I’ve been in contact with him in the past. His postings of the 2000 and 2004 DNC and HDP certifications were what enabled me to start making the connections that led to my own research on this. It’s neat how each person plays a role, and how interconnected it all is. I love it that we need each other, and that it helps us stand firm together. The worst feeling in the world is feeling totally alone. Divided we fall.

      Hawaii doesn’t care whether it’s the state or national party that certifies eligibility, as long as somebody does it. It really shouldn’t matter either way because in order to be compliant with the DNC rules the Constitutional eligibility requirements have to be met, but there’s always the legal wrangling over whether somebody having to be eligible means that somebody has to CHECK whether he’s eligible. To sign an oath means you bear witness to the fact that you KNOW something to be true. There is no way ANYBODY could know Obama was Constitutionally eligible – if for no other reason than he has no legally-determined birth facts based on the Hawaii BC. The only way Pelosi and Germond could know Obama is even old enough is if they saw his Kenyan BC (in which case they would also know he was not a natural born US citizen) or if they required Obama to submit his amended BC to a judicial or administrative person or body so the probative value could be determined.

      I just read this morning that SC requires Constitutional eligibility to be verified, and that the SC Democratic Party certified that. So I need to get the links for that and update the post to reflect that there is one other claim of Obama’s eligibility being verified. But the SC Dem Party has the same dilemma as Pelosi and everybody else: an amended BC has no legal evidentiary value so if they saw the BC they knew they couldn’t certify anything, and if they didn’t see it then they were swearing they knew the truth of something they couldn’t possibly know the truth of.

      That amendment screws up every legal argument these people might try to make, because it means that Obama has no legally valid birth certificate claiming he was born in Hawaii.

  3. Troy
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Joe Marine Says:

    September 9, 2010 at 2:58 am | Reply

    With regard to those illegal acts, the following persons are traitors to Our Nation and should be charged and prosecuted for High Treason: Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator McCaskill, Senator Leahy, Senator Coburn, Senator Menendez, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi AND former VP Cheney.
    Don’t forget about Chief Justice John Roberts for knowingly and willingly swearing in a usurper…..The SCOTUS had already reviewed the suits brought by Donofrio and Wrotnowski….Roberts knew damn good and well that Barry was ineligible…..The little charade of intentionally bungling the language during the swearing in ceremony isn’t going to provide him cover….He just thinks it will….Bastards!

    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The only defense I could offer for Chief Justice Roberts is if he and the other members of SCOTUS have been told that if they ruled wrongly Soros and the Islamists would create a financial panic which would destroy the entire world economy. I know it sounds crazy. I’m still mulling it through in my mind, but there’s a lot that would be explained if such a thing was the case – not the least of which are the blatant breaches of judicial ethics on the part of at least SCOTUS and Judge Carter, if not also Judge Robertson, and the obviously bad judicial reasoning used in the various cases. When somebody as ignorant as me can spot the legal inconsistencies and violations of precedent, you know it’s blatant.

      And these judges doing these blatant acts may be their way of signaling that their decisions are being made under duress. Putting in a zinger so people will smell a rat and know something’s not right. A lot of us are infuriated by those zingers, but that may be exactly what the judges need us to be, might be what they’re aiming for – not to deliberately make us mad, but to give us ammunition to show that the decisions and process are corrupted.

      The people arguing that those zingers are actually wise or ethical are Obots counting on people to not check out the code of judicial ethics or the precedents or actual laws being ruled on. What serious attorney would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s claim that a case was frivolous because the issue had already been Twittered? Using Twitters to make a decision would be a breach of judicial ethics – ex parte communications. Every law scholar knows that, and not one serious law scholar would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s decision.

      Robertson is stupid and crooked enough that he might possibly have made a stupid argument (he is, after all, one of Clinton’s “Magnificent Seven” who have conspired to take the cases to protect Clinton’s political buddies) but to use what is such a blatant violation of ex parte rules is beyond mere stupidity. It could only be a deliberate red flag, obvious because of its absurdity and illegality.

      SCOTUS having a private meeting with Obama when cases involving him were pending is another breach of ethics, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s a red flag put out to show the world something is wrong. Sort of like Alito apparently pretending to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing of the eligibility cases even though Thomas later mentioned in an unsolicited, serious comment (later covered by a smile) that SCOTUS had been evading the eligibility issue. They knew these cases were before them, and Alito acting ignorant threw up red flags; Orly immediately questioned whether the SCOTUS clerk had hidden information from the justices. Scalia’s red flag was perceived, which may be exactly what he hoped for, doing the only thing he thought he could to protest what they’ve done while Soros holds a gun to the neck of the country and threatens to shoot if SCOTUS doesn’t obey orders.

      So I’m going to withhold judgment on SCOTUS. I have a nagging feeling that they’ve been shown that Soros and the Islamists have a gun to the nation’s economic neck, which will be fatally fired if SCOTUS doesn’t dance the charade Soros tells them to dance.

      • Posted September 16, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

        > Soros and the Islamists would create a financial panic which would destroy
        > the entire world economy. I know it sounds crazy.

        yes 😉

      • Posted September 16, 2010 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        The language of George W Bush, Hank Paulson, and Ben Bernanke should have sounded crazy to everybody in September of 2007 also then. They were saying that there already WAS a financial panic which would destroy the entire world economy if TARP wasn’t passed.

        Did you consider them crazy?

        Chavez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad were all saying that “since capitalism has failed…..” Why do you think they said that? Were they crazy?

        I just read a little blurb about France revisiting the Soros “insider trading” case. I need to read more on it, but it’s definitely interesting to me that Soros may be all of a sudden wanting the history of his economic terrorism struck from the legal record. Martha Stewart spent time in jail for “insider trading”, for heaven’s sake, and Soros received from France a mere pittance of monetary punishment. Now Soros wants even that changed. Curious timing. Very curious timing.

      • Posted September 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

        Here’s a link to the article about Soros’ appeal for a 2002 conviction suddenly moving forward on Sept 15, 2010 almost 4 years after he filed the appeal in Dec 2006. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d488e5a4-c10c-11df-afe0-00144feab49a.html

        Almost seems like Soros was suddenly willing to pay the right price to get a judge to strike his conviction of economic terrorism from the public record.

        Very interesting timing, given the connections being made regarding his union with both the communists and the Islamists – at a time when Obama’s union with both (and Obama being the stooge for both) is becoming increasingly apparent to the American public.

  4. DABIG
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great work here Butterdezillion. I do believe it was “jbjd” who broke this story not JBJD.
    Credit should be given to her NOT CanadianFreePress who claims to have received his info “anonymously.”


    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 5:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Did she break it in either Part 1 or Part 2? I read through Part 3 – very interesting stuff; I was unaware of the shenanigans. Nothing like trying to keep people ignorant of their legal obligations! I didn’t see the part about the certifications; if you can find that for me and it pre-dates the CFP article I will certainly add that to the post.

      I also saw something about the SC Democratic Party certifying eligibility; I think I’ve seen jbjd write about that. I need to check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility (though they can’t have seen his BC and still said he was eligible because his BC is not legally valid).

    • azgo
      Posted September 17, 2010 at 7:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Great information and research on HDP!

      jbjd is the one who researched and brought forth the “Certification of Nomination” (CoN) research and issue.

      JB Williams nabbed the HI and SC CoN’s from jbjd and her reseachers’ site twisting the information into a theory and story that is misleading to readers with no credit given to the source.

      “…Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond … had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii.” -(From your article above)

      Not all CoN’s were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond. There are several states with presidential eligibility laws on the books. Some of these states require the state political party member to certify and sign the certification.

      The HI DNC CoN uses the language as stated in the HI election statute in that “each candidate is legally qualified to serve”.

      There are six ‘model letters of complaint’ on jbjd’s site which citizens have asked her to draft up for those and other citizens of that particular state in which they can use to complain to their State Attorney General. We know of at least three other states with these laws but no one has asked for a model letter of complaint, yet. We have not researched all of the states.

      Texas SOS received not one but two CoN’s signed ONLY by Boyd Richie, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi did not sign the Texas CoN. Check out the format of the letter content on the second CoN – identical to DNC CoN format but with the Texas Democratic Party letterhead.


      And of course, there is SC. Check out the hand written qualification by the state treasurer on the democratic state party chair, Carol Fowler’s certification.

      Another state, Alabama has signatures of Nancy Pelosi, Alice Travers Germond and the state political party chair, Joe Turnham. Do you know any one from Alabama, Indiana or Utah that would like to file a complaint with their state AG?

      Citizens need to act!

      These bigwigs think they are hiding a great big secret over us, but they did not account for all of us searching for the answer and finding out the fraud(s)!

      Read this one, it’s fun!

      Butterdezillion, …keep up the good work you are doing !!!

      P.S.- I left HutchNews a comment about these eligibility laws in the several states linked to jbjd’s work, …just to give them something more to think about. I don’t think they ever posted it though.

      • Posted September 17, 2010 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for those links. There’s a lot of research represented in those links, and sorting out who had responsibility for certifying eligibility will tell us a lot about how we got where we are, and how we can keep it from ever happening again. Very critical work. Thank you for getting us up to speed.

        One of the things that stinks the worst out of all this is the way that Fukino hid the Administrative Rules which reveal that a Secretary of State could have requested and received a certified copy of a birth certificate without the permission of the candidate if it was in order to effect a transaction on the candidate’s behalf (such as placing their name on a ballot). There is a legal question of whether a SOS could request a copy of a BC if his/her own Administrative Rules didn’t specifically spell out that procedure, but Fukino’s statements all along implied that there was no way for anybody to be able to see a BC without the candidate’s consent, and that is just not true.

        How many of us called our Secretary of State and were told – like me – that the SOS couldn’t do anything? I get hot under the collar just thinking about the conversation I had with my own SOS before the election.

        The sleeping giant has awakened. This will not happen again.

        Thank you, again, to you, to jbjd, and to everyone working to confront this big mess.

      • azgo
        Posted September 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

        Thank you!
        By the supreme laws of the Constitution, the states conduct and are responsible for their own elections, by the same Constitution, there are supreme requirements for the President and the Vice President. The SoS and/or other government officials (HI) cannot ignore the laws especially since their state constitutions are tied to the U.S. Constitution. The SoS oversees and can promulgate rules to provide a quality and adequate election process. So if the SoS must abide by the laws, s/he can say ‘if you are not eligible for office, you cannot be on our ballot’.


        Now if only more of the masses of the sleeping giant will wake up!

        To read and understand laws, one must be non-partisan.

      • Posted September 17, 2010 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. =)

  5. DABIG
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    butterdezillion, My apologies, I gave you the incorrect link yet the correct site!
    I’ll find it and post back.

    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 5:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      No problem. I’m the LAST person who could throw stones over an honest mistake. =)

  6. DABIG
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 6:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Okay Butterdezillion, hope this helps. She (jbjd) starts out in February of 2009 (7 months prior to JBJD’s “anonymous” tip) and ends in Sept. of 2009. As you can see jbjd has also worded and put up on SCRIBD for easy download/printing so that
    those who live in states where NBC IS a requirement and was left off of the DNC nomination. Those particular state residents can (I have) send into their respective Attorney General.
    jbjd does, unlike JBJD of Canada Free Press, hold a Juris Doctorate, as her last two initials indicate (jd). After jbjd cited JBJD for possible copyright infringement he stated he received the info “anonymously”, jbjd had no problem with
    him using her research findings, she only wanted due credit for her tireless work.
    If you have any questions for her (along with her brilliant mind) you will find her quite approachable and willing to help as I have.





    • Posted September 9, 2010 at 7:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I added to the post; let me know if you think there’s a better way for me to say it.

      I’ve read on jbjd’s site; she does excellent research, and I am happy to forward her work to anyone and everyone. Everybody has their role, and jbjd has contributed so much in pursuit of the truth. Give her my respect and appreciation. =)

      • Michelle
        Posted September 11, 2010 at 3:36 am | Permalink

        Just wanted you to know jbjd has some great interviews with drkate on her web-site. They are approximately an hour and a half, felt like 5 minutes, it really helps to understand all the illegal frauds that took place and how jbjd was able to figure things out.

      • Posted September 11, 2010 at 4:55 am | Permalink

        I’ll have to give that a listen. Thanks for the heads-up.

  7. DABIG
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, wasn’t aware you were going to do that! Great job, butterdezillion, she’ll appreciate that. You’re right, everybody has their role. Good luck to you here, I’ll be back….

  8. JJ
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Exhibit 1 clearly has the wording:

    THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:

    But Exhibit 2 specifically leaves out the qualifying verbage:

    THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

    the entire sentence was left out after respectively:
    and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:

    The CYA faction.

  9. tdr
    Posted September 10, 2010 at 12:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    some good stuff here when you get a chance to watch some videos


  10. MissTickly
    Posted September 10, 2010 at 12:52 am | Permalink | Reply

    Outstanding. So interesting about the SAD divorce lawyer. Keen eyes on that one!

    You are chip, chip, chipping away. Soon you will rip off his costume and show him for what he is!

  11. Posted September 10, 2010 at 4:58 am | Permalink | Reply


    • Posted September 10, 2010 at 12:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting. Maybe that order will make it into the federal register before the passport retention changes from 1984 do. lol.

      I can’t read the “By the power vested in me as President…” part without gagging big-time. Obama knows perfectly well that the 20th Amendment only invests Joe Biden with any Presidential powers since Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009. And Justice Stevens called Joe Biden “Mr President” after swearing him in. These guys all know this is a communist coup. And America is waking up to that fact more each day.

  12. {^_^}
    Posted September 11, 2010 at 12:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    Such great detective work. Truly awesome.

    If you were to put all you’ve found, and going to find, in a book, I know I’d buy it. It would make “all the president’s men” look like child’s play. I mean lets face it. This is an infinitely bigger scoop than woodward and bernstien ever thought about getting. Unfortunately, since we’re on the ‘wrong’ side of the investigation, as far as the elites are concerned, deep throat won’t be enough. We’ll actually need the birth certificate. Will we be able to find anyone in DC who’ll help?

    • Posted September 11, 2010 at 4:54 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks. I’m always amazed that there are people who are willing to wade through all this muck with me. So much of it is so complex that it’s no wonder most of the public doesn’t get into the nitty-gritty. But I think the general ideas are becoming more widely known and that’s good.

      I sure hope our leadership hasn’t totally abandoned us. We’ll probably find out pretty soon.

  13. Posted September 11, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    > There is no way ANYBODY could know Obama was Constitutionally eligible –
    > if for no other reason than he has no legally-determined birth facts based on the Hawaii BC.

    if I understand the triple negation correctly then you mean, that an incorrect or non-existing
    original longform Hawaiian BC would prove Obama’s ineligibility and this is the only
    way to prove it.

    > The only way Pelosi and Germond could know Obama is even old enough is if
    > they saw his Kenyan BC

    if it exists in an original, nonfrauded form

    > (in which case they would also know he was not a natural born US citizen)
    > or if they required Obama to submit his amended BC to a judicial or
    > administrative person or body so the probative value could be determined.

    or they just spoke with Obama and he did show it to them ?!?

    > an amended BC has no legal evidentiary value

    source ?
    The certificate which Obama claimed to have is “amended” ?

    • Posted September 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The documentation for Obama’s BC being amended is in my “Red Flags” post at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ – . HRS 338-17 (found at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm )says that the probative value of an amended and/or late BC must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or person before whom the BC is presented as evidence. IOW, the document is not considered prima facie evidence; the State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of information on a late or amended BC. Until it is presented as evidence and ruled to be probative it has no legal value.

      Based on the responses the HDOH has given to me and on the fact that his name was missing from the 1960-64 birth index in March (and anomalies with what the HDOH is currently saying is their 1960-64 birth index while they refuse to actually release to anybody the genuine 1961 birth index)…. I believe that the amendment Obama made in 2006 was actually to add a missing piece of information, so that Obama never even HAD a BC from Hawaii until 2006. So anything genuine Obama could have shown Pelosi personally would have noted both that it was late and that it was amended. In which case, Pelosi would have immediately have known not only that Obama’s birth certificate was deficient but that the Factcheck COLB was a forgery. So if Obama showed Pelosi anything genuine then she is complicit in not only perjury for herself, but also misprision of felony by not reporting Obama’s forgery.

      The Factcheck COLB did not have a seal on it when it was photographed. The seal was added to the scan of the photo digitally. That’s evident because the so-called raised seal is on a fold but doesn’t distort with the fold like the pre-printed circle dissected by the other, simlar-angle fold on that page. And the COLB Obama posted on his own campaign website didn’t even have a seal on it, or a bottom fold on which the seal would have been placed if that document had matched the Factcheck version of Obama’s COLB. So if Obama tried to show Pelosi either of those documents Pelosi would have immediately known they were forgeries because they lacked the authenticating seal. If Obama had a forged document with an authenticating seal on it he would have simply used that for his online scan, so I don’t think he had a forged one with seal that he could have shown Pelosi.

      And if Pelosi had seen what she believed was Obama’s genuine birth certificate and refused to tell anyone that, then she’s a bigger jerk than even I can imagine. Given the very public claims of Factcheck being a forgery she should have known the only source she could trust would be the actual document certified to be from the HDOH itself.

  14. Posted September 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    trying to get the abbreviations as a foreigner …

    HDOH,DOH: Hawaii Department of Health
    COLB: certificate of life birth
    CNN: cable news network
    BC: birth certificate
    ASAP: as soon as possible
    SCOTUS: supreme court of the United States
    BDZ: butterdezillion
    IMO: in my opinion
    Fox: FOX news channel
    IOW: in other words
    US:United States
    UN:United Nations
    OIP: Office of Information Practices
    CDC: Center of Diseae Control
    FBI: federal bureau of investigation
    DC: district of columbia (region in town Washington)
    DNC: Democratic National Council
    HDP: Hawaii Democratic Party
    POTUS: president of the US (=Obama)
    VP: vice-president
    JBJD: other blogger
    CYA: cover your ass (ascertion that you are not guilty on this issue)
    red pill:

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 12:48 am | Permalink | Reply

      lol. You’re actually doing very well by figuring out what you’ve got so far. I shouldn’t laugh out loud (LOL) though. I hate it when I get lost in acronyms and I meant never to do that to anybody else. Obviously I haven’t lived up to my intentions. I’ll fill in what’s missing from your list:

      FCC – Federal Communications Commission (the US government agency which controls the media)
      CIC: Commander-in-Chief (military role of the President). Can also be CINC.
      BHO: Barack Hussein Obama II
      UIPA: Uniform Information Practices Act – the Hawaii law requiring government records to be available to the public upon request
      PHR: “Public Health Regulations” – the Administrative Rules for the Hawaii Department of Health
      HRS: Hawaii Revised Statute – usually followed by a set of numbers to show which Hawaii law is being referenced
      FOIA: Freedom of Information Act – the federal law requiring federal government records to be accessible to the public on request
      DNC: Democratic National Committee – the committee that decides issues for national Democratic Party
      CFP: Canada Free Press – an online news website
      SC: Supreme Court (can also be SCOTUS – Supreme Court of the US)
      SCDP: South Carolina Democratic Party – the South Carolina branch of the democratic party (South Carolina is one of our states)
      NBC: Natural Born Citizen (the phrase used in the Constitution to describe one of the requirements for somebody to be eligible to be president.
      SCRIBD: an site for people to publish their documents online so anybody can see them
      red pill: That one somebody else will have to help you with, because I’m not sure of it either. lol.

      Do you think it would be helpful for me to spell out rather than use acronyms each time they come up, or just to make sure I give the whole thing at least once (showing the acronym) before using only the acronym?

      I truly do apologize for this. When my sister read my blog she said the same thing as you said so I tried to do better, but I’ve obviously lapsed since then.

      • Posted September 12, 2010 at 4:23 am | Permalink

        I’d prefer an alphabetic list and an
        acronyms/deinitions-link to it

      • Posted September 12, 2010 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        I’ll see what I can do. If I can monkey around with the fonts and use a JPEG I could maybe have an alphabetized list that shows up large enough in the preview feature so a person can just put the cursor over the link to the alphabetized list and can find the acronym they’re looking for. Or maybe just that acronym. I’ll see what I can do. I appreciate the feedback which helps me know how to improve things.

    • Posted September 14, 2010 at 4:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      Red Pill

  15. Posted September 11, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    this is all very lengthy and hard to follow…

    Obama required in 2006 an amendment to be made to his BC and it was done ?
    the original longform one, which he mentioned in his book

    and this amendment must be verified by a “judical or administrative body” to come into effect ?
    And without the verification even the original BC suddeny becomes invalid by the amendment ?

    it should be easy to get it verified by a “judical body” and probably was done ?!

    > …I believe that …

    so all what follows is only what you believe.

    I speculate that Pelosi and Germond did see the 1961 certificate and realised
    the associated embarrassing thing(s). From the story that Obama told them
    about the BC it was most evident to them that Obama was eligible

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 1:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      It is lengthy and hard to follow. I don’t blame anybody if they get lost in the details. What makes it even more difficult is the fact that the bureaucrats sometimes give half-truths, sometimes quarter-truths, and sometimes total untruths. They have hidden documents which alone would allow us to know whether their responses are correct, and they keep no written records of anything (if you believe what they say).

      If I go into the details of why I believe as I do I could totally lose you because it’s complicated. If I don’t go into the details it would be very easy for you to say it’s just my opinion so I could be pulling this out of my rear end for all you know. That’s the challenge I face. I’ll try to compromise as best I can.

      The HDOH seems to have said that Obama does not have a DELAYED birth certificate, which is what he would have to have if the HDOH had nothing in their office for Obama at all within the first year. There was a period of time where a person could file a special form (delayed birth certificate) a year or more after the birth. At a certain point all delayed birth certificates were then called a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. At some point after that they were called “late birth certificates”. So it gives the HDOH a lot of ways to obfuscate based only on what name they call a certificate filed after a year. But the “delayed birth certificate” is a form that is different than a long-form birth certificate. The HDOH has generally always responded to requests for specific documents by saying they can’t tell the legal status of a birth certificate (whether it is delayed, late, pending, no records, amended, etc), but there was one time they did tell me that a delayed birth certificate for Obama does not exist.

      However, even if a person did not fill out a “delayed birth certificate” they could have a long-form birth certificate that was delayed and had to have a notation on it saying it was “delayed”. If all the legally-required information for the BC was not entered on the BC by 30 days after the birth, the original long-form BC would be notated as “delayed”. Any changes to it after that point (besides adding a child’s name) were noted as amendments. If a BC had note of being either delayed or amended Hawaii would not recognize the BC as prima facie evidence. It would have no legal value.

      So if the HDOH was truthful on that response to me, it seems that somebody must have filed a long-form birth certificate for Obama sometime within the first 30 days after his birth.

      But when a researcher looked in the 1960-64 birth index at the HDOH office in March he looked many times to quadruple-check what his eyes had seen, because Obama’s name was not in that birth index list. Since then their list has changed (imagine that!) The handwritten list which would clarify what records they truly had for Obama as of the end of 1964 is required to be permanent and the HDOH is supposed to have it but they say they don’t (how convenient, and how convenient that nobody in the Hawaii government seems at all concerned that those permanent public health statistics records may have been illegally destroyed). All they have is the computerized list.

      The computerized 1960-64 birth index list they currently have is different than all the other index lists – lacks something very important that all the other lists have; for the sake of ongoing investigation I’m not going to reveal that anomaly right now but it’s pretty blatant. In addition, the list they have now has Obama’s name, which it didn’t have in March – which tells you that there’s been some monkey business there between March and now. And the name directly above Obama’s name in the list now is “Obado, Duplicate Mae”. Nowhere else is there a Mae Obado, as it seems there should be by the use of the word “Duplicate”. What happened to the duplicate record for Mae Obado? Was a duplicate record created for Mae Obado and then Obama’s name substituted there just for this one print-out that they have in their office to show the public? Those questions deserve answers but the only way we’ll get answers is if a criminal investigation is launched, and nobody in the government has the political guts to do that.

      When all these things and a couple other things (I’m still investigating and so I can’t reveal yet) are taken into account, it seems highly likely that the 1960-64 birth index list that the HDOH shows the public in their office now is actually a printout based on the actual 1960-64 index but which has been manipulated in order to include Obama’s name. I haven’t posted about it yet, but the HDOH’s recent refusal to disclose the 1961 birth index which only a week earlier they had said they could disclose… makes the issue all the more suspicious.

      I think you’re beginning to see why I haven’t included all my documentation and reasoning when I simply say “I believe” this or that. It is complicated, and every conclusion I eventually reach has taken literally hundreds of hours of research and sorting through dodgy answers from the HDOH.

      Based on the evidence I have, I believe that somebody submitted a long-form birth certificate for Obama within the first month after his birth, but it was not fully completed by the end of 1964 (which explains why there is all this obfuscation and record-changing in the 1960-64 birth index). And based on the HDOH ruling out other amendments that could have been made in 2006, I believe the amendment in 2006 was actually to COMPLETE the birth certificate – and that he didn’t have any complete birth certificate from Hawaii before 2006. That would also explain why the certificate number and “date filed” are incompatible on the Factcheck COLB: Obama’s birth certificate number is a 2006 number so he had to steal somebody else’s number.

      According to law and the rules, the certificate number for certificates issued before 1988 is supposed to be REQUIRED to be public information. But though the HDOH has indicated that either the certificate number, “date filed”, or both have been altered on Obama’s Factcheck COLB, they will not reveal Obama’s certificate number as required by law – nor will they release a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate for Obama, as their own rules allow (and thus the open records law requires) them to release to ANYBODY WHO ASKS TO SEE IT. And the HDOH denies the existence of a birth certificate for a specific person who is listed on their birth index and may well hold the certificate number that Obama stole to put on the Factcheck COLB.

      So we’ve got the HDOH refusing to release required information – the 1961 birth index, certificate numbers for certificates issued before 1988, and non-certified abbreviated certificates. And we’ve got the HDOH claiming in 2 separate instances that permanent vital records which are absolutely critical to knowing what really happened in 1961… have been illegally destroyed: the handwritten birth index for 1961, and the birth certificate for a child on their birth index list, who may well hold the certificate number on the Factcheck forgery (which the HDOH has indirectly confirmed as a forgery in 2 different ways).

      I hope you’re beginning to see why I and others are saying there is a big problem here.

      So basically, in answer to what you brought up – the birth certificate that Obama mentioned in “Dreams” was almost certainly not a Hawaii BC because it is almost certain that he didn’t even HAVE a completed Hawaii BC until 2006. He has never presented his amended Hawaii BC as evidence to anybody and has spent LOTS of taxpayer money to make sure it will NEVER be submitted it as evidence. The only way his amended BC could have any legal value once Obama’s name was on the ballots was through a court case, but Obama has fought every court case so a judge would never see his BC. Because of that, we know that he has no legally-valid (probative) BC at all from Hawaii, even now.

      Pelosi could not have seen his 1961 birth certificate unless she saw one from Kenya or whatever BC he was using before 2006, because Obama only got his from Hawaii in 2006. And if she saw his Kenya BC then she knew he was not only ineligible to be president but that he had perjured himself to deceive the entire world. Not cool.

      Sorry for the length of this. It’s sort of like tax evasion. Nobody goes into all the details of a politician’s tax returns in news reports because they don’t have to; law enforcement does the analysis and charges the person with a crime. The news reports have only to say that investigators found this crime and the details are sorted out in the trial. But this particular case is complicated by the fact that the people who are supposed to be investigating the crime…. are actually helping to perpetrate the crime.

      And that is why this is a big deal to me. In this long post I have given you a FEW of the many, many details on which I base my statements. You can see that there is evidence that the HDOH has altered and destroyed records and refused to reveal other records as required by law. It is inconscionable for this to remain uninvestigated by state and federal law enforcement. And that is my gripe.

      It is possible that the HDOH has simply made mistakes in answering requests (although if so they have repeated those mistakes multiple times). It is possible that I am misinterpreting. But there are enough inconsistencies, anomalies, and outright alterations of records that aren’t supposed to be altered, that it deserves an investigation. If somebody had the power to subpoena the records they could tell in a day whether the thousands of hours I have put in scrounging around with details is accurate. Why won’t anybody do this?

      • tdr
        Posted September 13, 2010 at 1:45 am | Permalink

        Thanks so much for this explaination. I read through all your posts a number of times and plan on it again until this is clear to me. Are you convinced they destroyed the records? This appears to be the same argument being used in the FOIA for the SAD passport investigations. Could it be they are saying they are destroyed but are only making a convenient excuse for shutting down your inquiries?

      • Posted September 13, 2010 at 2:25 am | Permalink

        I’m hoping they’re just lying about it. It sure seems like that’s the case at least for the BC of the person who may well hold the Factcheck BC#, since the name is in their birth index still to this day.

        The fact that what they’re saying doesn’t match what is in the records and in the rules is what makes it unconscionable that nobody will investigate this.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted September 18, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        Excellent post. Applause, applause!

        Excellent recap of SOME of the problems with his so-called abstract of a birth certificate as well as the obfuscation of government entities who work FOR US and who, BY LAW, are supposed to SERVE US.

        You certainly have a way with words and a razor-sharp mind, as well as an eye for details most cannot see. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for persevering.

        Like you, I’ve been plugging away, researching this and other Obama-related issues, for several years now. Isn’t it amazing how quickly you can write, off the cuff, to summarize everything that’s WRONG, WRONG, WRONG with this situation?

        We’re like canaries in a coal mine. Or Cassandra. It’s frightening and daunting, but I’ll never give up and I know you won’t either. Thanks, again for standing up. God bless you.

      • Posted September 19, 2010 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for the kind words. We’ll keep plugging away. =)

  16. Posted September 12, 2010 at 5:02 am | Permalink | Reply

    it claims to be a summary (headline)… I need a summary of the summary

    BC – birth certificate
    DBC – delayed BC, filed 1year or more after birth
    LFBC – longform original BC
    CGBC – computer generated BC like Obama’s
    LFDBC – longform delayed BC
    ABC – amended BC
    ALFBC – amended LFBC
    CBC – completed BC (?)
    LVBC – legally valid BC
    PBC – probative BC (?)

    > there was one time they did tell me that a delayed birth certificate for Obama does not exist.

    but they refuse it now ? “they” is not official, just some employee saying something ?

    > So if the HDOH was truthful on that response to me, it seems that somebody must have
    > filed a long-form birth certificate for Obama sometime within the first 30 days after his birth.

    or just only a CGBC or ACGBC without any LFBC ?

    > Obama’s name was not in that birth index list

    but it is in the newspapers

    the first handwritten birth index list was maybe incomplete, only partial

    could it be that their (Hawaii) whole archiv is just a mess and they have problems
    to search/sort/computerize it ?

    Hawaii-“legally valid” could be different from DNC-“legally valid”, they may still see
    some value in it. I.e. if it matches with other stories or documents

    > we know that he has no legally-valid (probative) BC at all from Hawaii, even now.

    who says that ? Obama ?

    > Obama only got his from Hawaii in 2006

    that was the CGBC put on the web in 2008 ?
    He could still have or have had a LFBC or DBC but didn’t want to show it because
    it had some embarrassing details.

    A Kenyan BC would have been bad for him and probably not mentioned in his books,
    if it existed.

    surely it deserves an investigation !

    being lengthy still allows summaries.

    May I say that I feel you are better at investigation than at summaries ?
    Maybe someone else who understands this all can give a shorter summary.
    In tabulary form, what are the keypoints, who said it, who confirmed it

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 1:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Again, I’ll see what I can do for a summary. The difficulty with summaries is that there’s so much background information and terminology that has to be understood. But I’ll try.

      “They” is the HDOH responding to official requests for records. These are the official, legal communications – as opposed to statements to the press, which are off-the-cuff. Okubo, the HDOH Communications Director, has made a host of off-the-cuff statements which, when queried by official records requests, have been shown to be inaccurate.

      For instance, she said in an interview that Obama’s Factcheck COLB is a “genuine COLB” – based just on the way it looks, which people took at a confirmation of it being Obama’s genuine COLB. But in official communications she revealed two thing that show that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery: 1) that Obama’s genuine birth certificate is amended (which their rules say has to be noted on any certificate the HDOH prints for that person, including a COLB, which is technically an “abbreviated birth certificate”); and 2) that the certificate number for Oahu birth certificates were always given by the HDOH on the “date filed”. The Factcheck cert# is later than the cert# for the Nordyke twins even though the “date filed” is 3 days earlier than theirs. So either the cert#, “date filed”, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB according to Okubo’s own statement.

      People keep telling me that I must be interpreting the official communications wrong because Okubo wouldn’t make these off-the-cuff comments that contradict them if she was really saying these things in the official responses. That’s sort of like saying we shouldn’t believe what’s in the fine print of a contract because the lady on the advertisement said it was a miracle pill.
      There weren’t any computerized records back in 1961 so there must have been a long-form BC drawn up for him. Probably what happened is Obama’s grandma reported his birth to a local registrar, who was then supposed to round up the rest of the information so the BC could be completed. But to actually complete the BC required information that could only be gotten by a Hawaii doctor actually examining the child within the first 30 days after birth. That’s why it is so damaging for the BC to only be completed in 2006: one immediately questions why Obama’s mom or grandma didn’t just take him to the doctor and have the BC completed. Considering that Obama did have a legally-valid BC that he used to get into kindergarten, etc, he had to use a BC other than a Hawaii BC – and that BC would probably tell us where Obama was for the first 30 days after his birth, that he wasn’t able to see a Hawaii doctor.

      I believe that the reference to Obama’s birth certificate in “Dreams” was made so that people would assume it was a Hawaii birth certificate, when in reality the only birth certificate Obama had before 2006 was probably a Kenyan birth certificate. Hawaii could not have printed out anything for Obama at all until the BC was complete, which wasn’t until 2006.

      The handwritten birth index was sort of like a receipt register. If anybody’s birth certificate was received it had to be entered in the book, along with all the cross-referencing like the child’s name, certificate number, etc. This would be the most complete record there would be anywhere, for what actually entered that office from 1960-64. It would be much harder to manipulate that data because it would have to be forged, as opposed to a computer record which can be easily manipulated. The manipulation would show up in the embedded computer transaction logs, which are the way that these records are audited. But the HDOH refuses to show those logs. If somebody with subpoena power investigated they would need to look at those logs to get the whole story of what happened with the computer-generated data.

      Their computer is able to find the information very easily, when they want to find the information. They have had the computerized system since the late 1980’s, when the archived information was added to the database. No names should be added or deleted from that historic information – especially not in 2010. I suspect that Obama’s name is in their system in the 2005-2009 birth index, since that would match the cert# he was given, since his BC was completed in 2006 (although it should actually only be in their index of LATE BC’s). They had to manipulate the 1960-64 birth index to try to get Obama’s name there, in order to hide that Obama’s was late. They couldn’t add a brand-new name so they added a duplicate record for Mae Obado and then manually changed it to Obama’s name just for that report that they printed out and call “the 1960-64 birth index”.

      When I requested the 1961 birth index the official response estimated that they would need 4 15-minute increments of office-worker labor to “segregate” information. This is a list where they would simply tell the computer to print everything in the date parameter from 01-01-1961 to 12-31-1961. What “segregation” would they have to do after that list was printed out? I thought their response was revealing.

      The DNC is not authorized to make a LEGAL determination of birth facts. Only an administrative or judicial person or body is authorized to do that, according to Hawaii laws. And our Constitution says in the “Full Faith and Credit” clause that the laws and documents of the states are to be honored by the federal government. When the DNC certified the candidates they were certifying that the candidates met the requirements of the Constitution. The Constitution requires that the documents be satisfactory according to HAWAII LAWS. Because nobody in the DNC nor Congress is a “judicial or administrative person or body”, none of them could satisfy Hawaii’s evidentiary standards for determining Obama’s birth facts. The ONLY way for the Constitutional requirement to be met legally would be for Obama to present the amended BC to a judicial or administrative person or body and have the probative value legally determined.

      Before his name was placed on the ballot would have been the perfect time to do that – and the HDOH Administrative Rules would have allowed any Secretary of State from the individual states to have received a certified copy of Obama’s long-form BC for the purpose of putting Obama’s name on the ballot. But HDOH Director Fukino at that time was publicly saying that only Obama could authorize that release. My own Secretary of State told me that he could not get Obama’s BC because Obama had not authorized release. Fukino could get away with saying that blatantly-false statement because her office was illegally hiding the Administrative Rules which would have shown the error of her statements.

      See, none of this could have happened if the laws and rules had been followed all along. They weren’t. One lie is never enough, and there is a tangled web of lies and deceit all along – which is why I say this is WAY beyond just Obama. This is really about the utter corruption that covered for Obama by breaking all these smaller rules and laws along the way.

      We know there is no legally-valid BC because the HDOH has confirmed that Obama’s BC is amended. Amended BC’s have no legal value unless they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. Obama refuses to do that. At this point ANYTHING genuinely from the HDOH – whether the original long-form or any computer-generated COLB (certified or non-certified) would show that his documentation has no legal value. That’s why the HDOH won’t print even a non-certified COLB for Obama – which their own rules allow anybody on the globe to ask for and receive. Even a non-certified COLB would have to show the 2006 cert#, the note of the 2006 amendment, and the notation that the BC is LATE.

      At this point if everything was being done according to law in Hawaii, anybody on the globe could get confirmation from the HDOH that the President of the United States has no legally-valid birth certificate from Hawaii. That is how corrupt this system is.

      I’m glad you agree this deserves an investigation. Ideally, a prosecuting attorney would be making the summary that I have such a difficult time making understandable. If I could make general statements it would be easy to summarize; it’s taking care of all the loopholes that could be argued which makes things so complicated. Sort of like a molecular biologist trying to explain the human genome project’s results so that both his colleagues who want proof of everything and the average housewife could all understand and be satisfied. It’s difficult to do that with something so complicated. But I will try to come up with a summary that is easier to follow for somebody coming to the issue fresh.

  17. Joe D
    Posted September 12, 2010 at 6:16 am | Permalink | Reply

    Did William H Gilardy, Jr. sign all the others in the past?

    And if he did, have you called William H Gilardy, Jr. to ask him if he was asked to sign this one?

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The Hawaii Democratic Party didn’t ever submit a letter of transmittal for their certificates. They hand-delivered theirs to the Hawaii Elections Office. So there is no place that Gilardy’s name would be included, since the attorney doesn’t sign the certificate. That’s why I tried to ask the HDP worker who their attorney is. All I had been able to find regarding who the HDP’s attorney was were articles on the web calling Gilardy the HDP’s attorney.

      I had looked up as much as I could regarding how branches of political parties are formed, and what I found said that a political party needs an attorney to formulate and approve their forms and procedures. That’s why I wanted to find out what attorney had approved the changes to their standard certificate of nomination. The HDP worker said no way, no how was he going to tell me that.

  18. Joe D
    Posted September 12, 2010 at 6:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    Wait a minute William H Gilardy, Jr. didn’t sign the others either, I am confused.

  19. Posted September 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Looks as if Hawaii(HI) needed more time to officially verify eligibility
    But HI may have been in contact with Pelosi+Germond in late Aug.2008
    presumably telling them that they have the records and will verify them and
    will issue an official statement by Oct.

    Why the 2nd statement in Jul.2009 ?
    Doesn’t it just say the same ?
    Well, “original BC” was changed (corrected ?) to
    “original vital records on file”.
    They must have felt the urge to reformulate it this way.

    HDP signed their certification without eligibility text Aug.27,2008
    Pelosi and Germond sign the CON Aug.28,2008
    > HDOH has Obama’s original BC on record (Oct.2008)
    > HDOH has original vital records on file, that verify Obama is a NBC ,Jul.2009

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The State of Hawaii can’t “verify” anything in regards to Obama’s birth certificate unless and until the birth certificate is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. There is no process whereby Fukino would be presented a BC as evidence. Hawaii has never been able to say where Obama was born, when, or to whom. That’s why it is such a serious thing that Obama’s BC is amended. It means that the State of Hawaii can’t verify Obama’s birth facts without going through a particular procedure – a procedure Obama has fought dozens of lawsuits to keep from happening.

      This is the announcement that Fukino made in July 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.”

      Notice that all she claims that SHE has done is to see the records.

      What she claims “verifies” Obama’s Hawaii birth is the “original vital records”. “Verifying” in a legal sense means to swear the truth of.” Fukino is saying she has seen the records which swear that Obama was born in Hawaii. No more, no less. She does not, herself, verify Obama’s Hawaii birth because she cannot. The State of Hawaii could have 100 sworn statements saying Obama was born in Hawaii and his BC would STILL have no legal validity if it was amended and/or late (and Obama’s is both).

      As to why she issued that statement on that day, there is a whole back-story to that. “Terri K” (Miss Tickly on Free Republic) had made requests asking whether Fukino could verify that they had Obama’s “AMENDED birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” – simply adding the word “amended” to the announcement Fukino had made in October of 2008. If the HDOH was able to reveal that they have an original birth certificate on file they should also be able to reveal whether they have an amended BC – particularly because the legal status of the BC is critical.

      Okubo sent out the statement I quoted above to “Terri K” before she ever made it as a public announcement. The statement was originally a response to a question of whether Hawaii has Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate.

      And the use of the words “vital records” (plural) also confirms that the birth certificate is amended. Fukino was all too happy to say in Oct of 2008 that they had a birth certificate for Obama, but in order to claim that there were documents swearing to a Hawaii birth they had to use the term “vital records” because without the documents used to amend the BC they didn’t even have a complete BC for Obama. They had to refer to all the documents, not just the birth certificate itself, because without the supporting documents for the amendment the BC would be incomplete.

      So what we’ve got is Hawaii officials who KNOW they can’t verify anything legally without Obama first presenting the amended BC as evidence – which Obama refuses to do. Pelosi didn’t ask to see anything from Hawaii but even if she had there is nothing they could have given her and nothing they could have said which could have legally verified anything. That’s how serious that amendment in 2006 was (plus the BC being late).

      The HDOH can NEVER verify Obama’s eligibility unless and until Obama goes through a court case in which that BC is examined by a judge. Obama refuses. And that’s where we’re at. Pelosi and Germond have sworn to something that cannot possibly be known until Obama yields and actually presents his documents to a judge, which he refuses to do.

      That is precisely what Hawaii law says. The Constitution insists that Hawaii’s laws must be honored within the federal government. The “birthers” that Obama and his corrupt media buddies have so ridiculed are only standing on Hawaii law and the Constitution, asking Obama to do the only thing that could possibly have allowed him to qualify as President. He refuses, ridiculing all of us who want the laws to be followed instead. And the whole world joins him in that ridicule.

      But people are waking up and are seeing not only that the emperor is naked, but that our entire government, media, and law enforcement system is naked too. And we are not one bit happy about it.

    • Posted September 14, 2010 at 7:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Why the 2nd statement in Jul.2009?

      I think it’s because the birth had been reported by a family member, not a hospital, and the State of Hawaii didn’t have any witness to confirm what had been initially reported.

      That is, until the U.S. House of Representatives became witnesses by unanimously voting in favor of a resolution that contained the words “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

      Mere hours after that resolution passed, Dr. Fukino issued her second news release.

      Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

      (It was NOT The Hawaii State Department of Health!)

      • Posted September 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

        The timing of that was awfully suspicious, wasn’t it?

      • Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:06 am | Permalink

        they were in contact and coordinated their statements.
        They did put together, what they had.

        Without disclosing the embarrassing details and keeping the number of people small who know them.

        What do you think who all know those details ?

      • Posted September 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        I don’t believe there are any embarrassing details. I believe there are criminal details, and failing to disclose a felony such as forgery and perjury is misprision of felony – even if the people in these government offices claim that the laws forbid them from reporting a felony to law enforcement.

        As to how many people know the truth about this, I don’t know. All those you mentioned certainly do. Joe Sandler does. Gibbs does. Biden does. Probably Hillary does. I believe all the judges who have made decisions do, and the SCOTUS justices do. I believe GW Bush and Dick Cheney do. Beyond that, it depends on who all they had to tell, versus who all would obey orders without knowing why. Probably Bernanke and Paulson do, although they wouldn’t necessarily have to know about the eligibility part.

        I’d like every member of Congress to be deposed.

        Red Pill, do you know anything more about what happened with Michele Bachman? At the beginning of the day on July 27, 2009 she was talking about blocking that resolution with the “whereas” about Obama being born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961, but by the end of the day she voted for it. What’s up with that? Why the change? I’d like to learn a lot more about that. Do you know of anybody who has more info on that?

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted September 18, 2010 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        Good point, Red Pill. IOW, maybe another “vital record” on file that day was little more than a copy of this resolution by the US House of Reprehensibles.

  20. Posted September 12, 2010 at 6:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    well they clearly state that they verified the BC and vital records.
    They should know. Maybe “verify” is not clearly defined ?!
    That procedure, which you say is required, (who else says it ?)
    doesn’t look so difficult. It could be done or was already done.

    > She does not, herself, verify Obama’s Hawaii birth because she cannot

    she demonstrated that he can. That verification may not be
    enough to you – but it somehow justifies putting O as candidate.
    Do you think O was not born in HI or only that they followed
    an incorrect procedure to verify it ?

    > So what we’ve got is Hawaii officials who KNOW they can’t
    > verify anything legally

    so they verified it illegally ?

    > without Obama first presenting the amended BC as evidence

    or having a juridical person or state official to confirm it, as I understood

    >– which Obama refuses to do

    not in public, but why should he refuse to do it in HDOH who have to keep
    things confidental ?

    this exact process of verifying the eligibility which you think is required,
    is it regulated in the constitution or in some laws ?
    Validity of a BC for passport,school etc. could be different from validity for
    presidency-eligibility, where the high-rank officials are involved directly.

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 7:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Let’s look closely at Fukino’s statement, as if we were going to diagram the parts of the sentence:

      “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.

      The subject is “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health”.

      Now what is the verb that says what she did? “have seen”.

      What’s the object of the verb? What did she see? “the original vital records” which are further modified by 2 phrases: “maintained on file by the Hawaii Department of Health” and “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen”

      All Fukino claimed to have done is to have seen documents. She does not claim to verify anything. She claims to have seen vital records. “Maintained…” and “verifying…” are phrases describing the vital records. They say what is on those vital records.

      But we know that because those vital records are ALSO amended and late, what is on those vital records is legally irrelevant unless they are first determined to be probative, which has never been done.

      It’s sort of like me saying, “I have seen The National Enquirer which verified that a man with five heads just gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago.” If I saw The National Enquirer and it actually contained an oath that a man with five heads just gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago, then I just said a true statement.

      Does it mean that a man with five heads just gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago? No.

      Does it even mean that I CLAIM that a man with five heads just gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago? No.

      It only means that I saw that claim sworn in The National Enquirer.

      That is all Fukino claimed in her statement.

      It would be different if she had said, “I have seen the vital records AND verify that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.” But she didn’t say that – then or ever. She has never verified Obama’s birthplace, age, or parentage – all of which factor into his Constitutional eligibility.

      The BC Obama has from Hawaii right now could not be used as legal documentation for ANYTHING, because it is late and amended. It has no more legal value than Monopoly money has.

      The HDOH has indices for all the documents they have to keep. They have an index for birth certificates that are incomplete. They have an index for delayed birth certificates. They have an index for birth certificates they’ve looked for and not been able to find. The “For Office Use Only” portion of their request for a copy of a birth certificate lists the different indices they are supposed to check off when they check that index. If they say they have “birth index data” for somebody that could technically mean that they have a pending or late BC for them. It could mean they’ve got a napkin with a name jotted down on it that was submitted to their office and they can’t throw it away.

      When Fukino said in October of 2008 that they have Obama’s original birth certificate on file in accordance with state policies and procedures, that could simply mean that they’ve got a half-filled-out form in a file somewhere. What she said is no indication of the legal status of what they have for Obama.

      When I asked to see Obama’s BC from the “pending”, “late”, “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” and “no records” indices the HDOH told me that they cannot reveal the legal status of a birth certificate. IOW, they are saying straight out that they cannot tell us whether they have a LEGALLY-VALID birth certificate for Obama because that information is restricted by confidentiality laws. If that is truly restricted by confidentiality laws then nothing Fukino said could legally reveal the legal status of Obama’s records. Neither statement. Unless Fukino is claiming to have broken the confidentiality laws by those 2 statements, she did not say what everybody thinks she said.

      Oh – and you probably won’t be surprised to find out that the indices that the office workers are supposed to check off when looking for birth certificates, according to the request form they’ve been using since Nov of 2005 (found at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf ) ….. don’t exist, according to the claims of the office worker at the HDOH in March.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted September 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        I love your analogy about the Enquirer and Bill Clinton. 🙂

        In addition, you stand accused of using logic aforethought.

  21. thinkwell
    Posted September 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Bdz,

    I think Fukino stepped in it big time by added the “natural-born American citizen” comment to her official statement. It is pure propaganda and a blatant lie on its face because she clearly has no authority to affirm that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” in the Constitutional sense of the term. As has been pointed out by you and others many times, this is because the SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the NBC status of someone born as a dual American-foreign citizen (because of one parent being a non citizen at the time of the birth event – regardless of place of birth).

    Since the internet COLB images are just legal hearsay and most likely forgeries anyway, I suppose there is an outside chance that a genuine American citizen rather than Obama Sr. was actually listed as the father on Obama’s true original birth certificate, but, if true, this would contradict existing divorce decree evidence and the claims of Obama’s relatives as well as his own published claims (and would reveal him to be a massive liar and probably a criminal fraud, disqualifying him just as well).

    Fukino just wanted to “have her cake and eat it too” by playing semantic word games that she may suppose protects her from outright lying in the legal sense while at the same time has the desired effect of misleading (i.e., lying to) the public. She may think it is clever to conflate the legally meaningless term “natural-born American citizen” with the Constitutional phrase “natural born Citizen”, but that doesn’t absolve her from fulfilling her duty to follow the spirit of the law as well as its letter (something I seriously doubt her semantic contortions qualify as doing anyway).

    I look forward someday to seeing her in court on the witness trying to explain what she really meant by that phrase and how her intent was anything other than to deceive the public.

    Anyway, thanks for what you do. I read most of your posts on FR (I’d love to chime in – to bad they banned me – I wonder if a few recommendations of Freepers in good standing could get me reinstated, hint, hint). You know, there haven’t been any new eligibility threads there lately. I wonder if JR or one of the mods is actively suppressing them? Hmmm

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 8:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In my mind there is no question but that Fukino is guilty of the federal crime of concealment. Telling only half the truth when a matter of federal jurisdiction is involved is basically the same as perjury. For Fukino to keep talking about them having a BC for Obama but concealing the fact that it is not legally valid is big-time concealment.

      If you send me an e-mail telling me what your FR handle was I’ll put in a plug for you with Jim.

      My latest thread on there is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2585683/posts

      • tdr
        Posted September 13, 2010 at 4:09 am | Permalink

        Yes, I have often wondered at her use of the NBC claim. How well orchestrated do you think these press releases were? Were they coming directly from DOJ? McCain seems to have been the guinea pig for bho in defining eligibility per the senate resolution which makes me think that bho is in the same status, born of two us citizens but possibly not on us soil. Well what a dilemma because he has spent all his time talking about being born on us soil with dual citizenship at birth. Which means there is something very strange about this narrative of SAD from 1960-61. If bho was born on aug 4,61, how could he also have been born outside the country when SAD was registered for courses at UW in Sept 61? Remember when ms. tickly suggested that the amendment had something to do with a date? Was that ever determined to be the most likely information amended on the bc? If he was born prior to August 4, 1961 then it brings into question the identity of the birth father. myveryownpointofview showed some real issues with the announcements in the Hawaiian papers which some may think was to cover the birth location but what if it was to cover the date? Why were all microfiche for the Star Bullitin for the period of April 61 thru Nov (?) 61 in special storage? There is no evidence that bho senior ever married SAD or even lived with her. No one recalls them being together. So what drew her to UW after having just moved to Hawaii. And then why go back to Hawaii after only one semester? Does no one find that strange?

      • Posted September 13, 2010 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

        At this point I can’t even begin to describe all the scenarios that could have happened, because nothing we have been told matches the evidence that’s out there.

        The HDOH responses are basically worse than not even responding at all. They won’t tell anybody whether their response is a Glomar response (which reveals nothing) or something else. In at least one instance they claimed that they had no birth certificate for somebody who was still on their birth index list a month later. The long and short of it is that nothing they’ve said can be trusted. I’ve based my conclusions on what they’ve said, but who knows if anything they’ve said has any accuracy at all.

        At this point all we can know for sure is that there is foul play and there needs to be a full legal investigation with nothing that has ever been told us being taken for granted.

    • Posted September 12, 2010 at 9:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      (tongue in cheek) I discovered there was a thinkwell on FR. I put in a good word for you with Jim. I hope you’ll be allowed back on. =)

  22. Posted September 13, 2010 at 5:18 am | Permalink | Reply

    > She does not claim to verify anything. She claims to have seen vital records.
    > “Maintained…” and “verifying…” are phrases describing the vital records.
    > They say what is on those vital records

    you think she was lying ?
    you think, she tricked us with some deliberate tricky wording ?

    > have seen the original vital records verifying Obama was born in Hawai‘i
    > and is a natural-born American citizen

    is pretty clear in that she was convinced the records did show eligibility.
    Or do you think she wasn’t and just made something up ?
    Or she was ignorant in how to interpret documents correctly ?
    “verifying” corresponds to “the records” or to “I” ? Can records verify or only
    people ? Subleties of (American) English

    And we have the statement from Oct.2008:
    > I have personally seen and verified that the HDOH has Obama’s original BC on record

    so it does exist at least. But what’s on it, does it show eligibility ?
    The 2nd statement from July 2009 was presumably made to address this
    missing part.

    > The BC Obama has from Hawaii right now could not be used as legal documentation
    > for ANYTHING, because it is late and amended.

    HDOH and DNC seem to differ.
    is eligibility verification a legal documentation ?

    The confidentiality preumably is not necessary when the owner doesn’t object.
    I assume Obama did approve the publishing of the Fukino statements before they were done.

    Should it turn out that Obama was not born in Hawaii, Fukino would be guilty
    of wrong statement, or not ? What would be the penalty ? Presumably she
    would lose her job.

    (I still don’t fully understand the different sorts of certificates and who supposedly
    created/amended which when why)

    basically, does Fukino believe Obama was born in Hawaii ?
    How sure is she about it ? She could just give us that subjective
    probability, that would be nice. And doesn’t violate confidentiality
    requirements (?)

    • Posted September 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think she deliberately deceived everyone, which is the federal crime of perjury and/or concealment, that would put her in prison if anybody has the decency to charge her with it. In the responses they have given to me they claim that the legal status of a birth certificate is protected from disclosure (which is a bunch of rot if you look at the actual rules they’re supposed to be following). That would mean that even if they had a birth certificate that was totally false they would have to act to the public as if it was totally true. If that’s what they are claiming they have to do, then nothing anybody has said from the HDOH could reveal ANYTHING about the legal status of the BC.

      Read Fukino’s statements with that in mind and you’ll see that she’s not saying anything. She’s saying they have something in their office for Obama which claims a Hawaii birth. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper and signed by a paw print for all we know. She says she’d have to treat a paw print as if it was perfectly legal, according to what they have said to me.

      And in her statements she never says the she or the State of Hawaii verify or claim anything about Obama’s BC. She said they have it and she’s seen it. Period. Everything else is just what the BC claims, which means nothing if the BC itself is not considered valid by the State of Hawaii. And it’s not, because it is amended and late. It has as much legal value as if it was signed by a pawprint.

      According to Hawaii law Fukino CAN’T determine where Obama was born. At this point only a judge can do that, and only when the amended BC itself is presented as evidence in a legal proceeding. All this was supposed to have been done BEFORE Jan 20, 2009 because the 20th Amendment to our Constitution says that if the President elect has failed to qualify by Jan 20 the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. Right now Obama doesn’t even have any legally-determined age, birthplace, or parentage – all of which factor into eligibility – so there is no way he could have legally qualified by Jan 20, 2009. Our Constitution thus only allows Joe Biden to “act as President”.

      This is way beyond just embarrassing. This puts our entire nation in jeopardy because we have somebody besides the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief giving orders to our military. We’ve got appointments and Supreme Court nominations by someone who is not Constitutionally able to do those things. Basically we are a nation without a President, because Joe Biden is being kept from doing his Constitutional duty by Obama acting as if he can “act as President”. It’s like a 2-year-old grabbing the keys of the car from the parent and driving straight toward the nearest cliff. It’s not cute. It’s not imaginary. It’s not insignificant. And nobody is crazy for saying it has to be stopped.

      Nancy Pelosi’s job was to stop such a thing from happening by simply checking the legal qualifications (and yes, her certification is a LEGAL oath). Routine type stuff. Instead, she did everything in her power to give the keys of the car to somebody she knew was not qualified. I believe that she herself has committed the crimes of perjury, concealment, and misprision of felony, and I believe what she has done rises to the level of treason as well, which I believe is a capital offense.

      This is not a joke. This is not piddles. America will not be sold into slavery for a song and a dance, grinning all the way. A person can try to cover up anything – including rape, murder, and treason – by laughing it off, as Obama and his media minions have tried to do with this issue, but in the end murder is still murder and eventually when the people realize it’s happened they are going to demand justice. America is waking up and finding there’s been a murder in the house – the murder of our laws – and justice will be demanded.

    • SapphireSunday
      Posted September 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It is called a lie of omission. It’s like when Bill Clinton made his statement about not having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. It all depends upon what the definition of “sexual relations” is and, in fact, as he so speciously claimed, “what the definition of is, is.” Got it? It’s called lying by carefully parsing in order to mislead, to obfusate, to avoid telling the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth.

      • Posted September 19, 2010 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        What Fukino has done could be used as a textbook case for a violation of the Federal General False Statement Act. Concealing when you have a duty to not conceal, in order to deceive.

        We’ve been trying to find instances where Obama outright lied. He did so in the documents he signed to get on the ballot in Arizona, swearing that he was Constitutionally eligible. He could try to claim ignorance of the Constitutional requirements. I believe he took the forgery off his campaign website so he could claim that his campaign didn’t post a forgery, but by failing to tell the world that what Factcheck posted was a forgery he violated the concealment portion of the Federal General False Statement Act.

  23. Posted September 13, 2010 at 5:24 am | Permalink | Reply

    it is clear that Obama doesn’t want to release the records, there must be something
    embarrassing in them. I think this isn’t his birth-status itself but something else.

    He could allow some trusted birther to check the records when that person promises
    just to verify eligibility and keep silent about other things.

    • Posted September 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      By Hawaii law there is nothing left on a birth certificate that would embarrass a person. If Ann and Barack were married when Obama was born, Barack is listed as the father. If they weren’t married when Obama was born but married after, the BC is changed to look as if they were married. If he was adopted it has only the post-adoption information. If there was a gender change only the gender he is now is listed.

      There is nothing on there that could embarrass a person unless the person has been lying publicly about their story – in which case it is not the BC which embarrasses them, but their own lies and (perhaps) perjury.

      This is way beyond embarrassment. And even if there was something that Obama could be embarrassed by on the BC, the fact remains that his BC is not legally valid and he has thus failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 as required by our Constitution.

      Fukino is actually REQUIRED to reveal the legal status of birth certificates. That’s why anybody on the globe is supposed to be able to ask for and receive a non-certified COLB for Obama – which would reveal the legal status of his BC. If Fukino had kept that law for even one person requesting that document, the whole world would know all we need to know about Obama’s BC – that it is not legally valid. No more search, no more embarrassing disclosures. That’s all we need to know. It’s what we are legally entitled to know. The fact that it’s been illegally concealed shows that this is an illegal COUP.

  24. Posted September 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    the DP has no interest in nominating someone whose eligibility is doubtful.
    They must have (positively) checked Obama.
    Just not by the procedure that you require(and the law,constitution ? I don’t know)
    The details will probably come out earlier or later…but unlikely
    before the next election.(IMO)

    The withholding of Obama records is not just with the BC,
    giving evidence that there are “problems” other than

    • Posted September 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There is no other procedure they could have followed to find out the legal facts of Obama’s birth.

      The democratic party is owned by George Soros (according to his own declaration that he has bought and paid for it), who has said he’s afraid that America will win the war on terror because then America and capitalism will be strong, and he believes those are the ultimate evils in this world. IOW, Soros is aligning himself with the Islamists in order to bring down America – and he tells the democratic party what they will do.

      The communists in America through a couple of Columbia University professors – Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven – created a plan to destroy America and take it over as a communist country which would be divided with other worldwide communists including Fidel Castro. They had several legal planks to their plan, including corrupting the electoral process by allowing voters to register without documentation and breaking the capitalist economy by forcing banks to do subprime lending because of racial quotas. Those 2 legal agendas were carried out by a lawyer in Chicago. His name was Barack Obama, and those 2 cases are the only substantial legal efforts he ever used his law degree for. They have broken the capitalist economy in exactly the way they described, which is what the world economy experienced in September of 2007. And they have corrupted the electoral integrity in America, which may be part of the reason they got moderate democrats to go along with a radical agenda as if they would never face the angry voters and be voted out. The ability to corrupt the elections gets rid of the accountability to the people.

      This is the same Barack Obama who told the Egyptian ambassador that he “was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda.” When Prince Charles got together moderate Muslims a few years ago to denounce terrorism he wanted them to denounce Muslim radicals’ claim that the Koran requires non-Muslims to be executed. He ran into problems because NOT ONE of these moderate Muslims would denounce that. They all said that the Koran requires a worldwide Islamic caliphate which oversees the execution and/or slavery of all non-Muslims. I would say that if the “moderates” say that is the Muslim agenda and nobody would say otherwise… that’s probably the Muslim agenda. That, and the destruction of the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel). The Egyptian ambassador was on TV in the Middle East saying that Obama had told him privately that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda, and that Obama first has to do some domestic things like healthcare reform, and then he can devote himself to the worldwide Muslim agenda.

      That’s not some right-wing extremist claiming this. This is the Egyptian ambassador telling his Muslim people to be patient because Obama has confirmed that once he gets the job of destroying America out of the way he can really concentrate on the Muslim agenda.

      So we’ve got Obama, who has carried out the chief 2 legal planks in the communists’ Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America, telling the Egyptian ambassador that he supports the Muslim agenda. And we’ve got Soros – the self-proclaimed owner of the democratic party, including Obama, Hillary, Pelos, Reid, etc – saying that he is uniting the powers of world communism and world Islam in order to overthrow America and capitalism.

      This is all in the public record now.

      So why should we doubt them when they say they are working together to destroy America and capitalism? It fits everything we’ve seen them do. If anybody is a conspiracy theorist it is THEM – because they’ve publicly admitted it already. And they’ve walked the talk in front of the whole world. Why does anybody still have questions about this?

      • satindolz
        Posted September 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

        Good Gawd, butter! You’re brilliant – what insight you have here!

        Please put the above statements on Free Republic as a vanity. You must share it widely, and FR is a good start.

        Here’s why. I know I would be interested in the extent of any responses you receive, in how many people with knowledge of the activities you’ve outlined above will step forward and provide evidence.

        More and more formerly dedicated Democrats are showing up at conservative online sites because they’re disgusted and horrified at what their own political party is doing to this nation. Many of them quite possibly have information that can fill-in or add substantial facts to what you’ve already gathered.

        If you have sources for the above (I know it’s a pain in the rear) this makes it difficult for the Obots and ‘progressives’ to mount even a reasonable counter-attack.

        I hope you’ll consider my request.

      • Posted September 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        I know the evidence that jbjd has of the foul play within the democratic party is eye-opening, and it’s disgusting that all they wanted was a fair chance and instead they got these shenanigans. I think there are people on both sides of the political aisle who are realizing that we have to have fair rules that we play by. The rule of law is absolutely necessary, or we’re all just waiting to be the next victim.

        I can’t tell here in the moderation panel which comment you were replying to so I don’t know which comments you were suggesting I put on Free Republic. If I haven’t posted anything about it yet I would be happy to post, once I’ve got my ducks in a row. (You know how those ducks are. lol)

        I’ll have to see if my computer will let me do Free Republic; it wasn’t letting me do FR this afternoon.

      • satindolz
        Posted September 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

        Your statement was at ‘Certificate of Nomination Summary’ in reply to: gsgs Says: September 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm, where he says “the DP has no interest in nominating someone whose eligiblity is doubtful.”

        Your reply stated that George Soros owns the Democratic Party, that corruption runs deeply in the U.S.A., and…well, I just think your whole statement was brilliant.

        You laid out exactly how Soros & his communist gang have joined up with Islamists to destroy capitalism and Western Civilization.

      • Posted September 15, 2010 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

        Thanks. I am hoping to put my ducks in a row on that subject and have a big post about it, but it would be good to get input from people who have other insights about it also.

    • tdr
      Posted September 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm | Permalink | Reply


      you seem like a really nice person and want to believe that there is still someone out there that is concerned and law abiding and there are always those that will do the right thing and I can almost assure you there is not. think of all the events that have happened here, there is a forged colb, numerous dismissed lawsuits, all the nonsense with the hdoh. think of the number of people involved at this point. think of what it is taking to pull this off, all the quid pro quo. you see that’s what our “goverment” has been reduced to, deal making and threats. people are researching this issue like bdz are very brave. we have a load of congressman and senators that even if they did want to do something they will be squashed like a bug. it’s a hard pill to swallow but it’s true. it’s almost always been true but we never knew it. what this whole fiasco has shown is the total depth of the corruption that exists, actually its beyond corruption. every organization at the top, including the military, fbi, cia, state dept, are all complicit and they have a complicit media hiding there every move. we are in very serious trouble here. the eligibility issue pales in comparison to everthing else going on. i hope i do not sound dramatic but i truly believe that we are in the matrix. there is completely different reality than what you have been taught in school and that ideology you have is so entrenched in your psyche you cant comprehend the true reality, you would deny it at all costs if someone tried to tell you. this is how false flags become effective. they can always manipulate you based on the deep held belief system that they have indoctrinated you with. we are in a postmodern world where the reality is being defined by those who want to accomplish an agenda. bho is only a small part of this mind game and sadly most people wouldnt be smart enough to figure it out.

      read this series of articles and you’ll know what we are up against:


  25. Posted September 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    > There is nothing on there that could embarrass a person
    > unless the person has been lying publicly about their story –
    > in which case it is not the BC which embarrasses them,
    > but their own lies and (perhaps) perjury.

    which could be revealed by the BC – showing inconsistencies
    with his stories,books

    is there someone that you would trust to repeat Fukino’s sighting
    and report it ?

    does the constitution require some procedure to verify NBC ?
    who must prove it ? Was it done for previous presidents,
    do they have a public LFBC ?

    suppose there is no LFBC but Obama can otherwise “prove”
    that he was born in Hawaii

    • Posted September 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The time for Obama to prove anything is long past. That had to be done by Jan 20, 2009. The only point in proving anything now is so Congress will remove him and let Joe Biden do what he should have been doing all along – and to sort out who all was responsible for this mess so they can have justice served on them and we can prevent this from ever happening again.

      The Constitution doesn’t say who is supposed to verify eligibility. It only says that the judiciary is to decide all cases, both in fact and in interpretation, arising from the laws and the Constitution. So the documentation isn’t a problem unless somebody raises a case about it. And there have been dozens of cases raised regarding this. SCOTUS refuses to hear any of the cases.

      Four of the SCOTUS justices have created anomalies that seem to protest what SCOTUS itself has done in allowing Obama to become President. Three conservative justices and Justice Stevens, who retired shortly after Obama was in office. I can’t prove it, but there are enough anomalies that I believe SCOTUS, GW Bush, VP Cheney, and at least one or two of the eligibility judges have been told by the Soros machine that if they don’t allow Obama’s coup by playing along with the charade of legally installing Obama, Soros and the Islamists will make another electronic run on the bank and create a financial panic that will destroy the worldwide capitalist economy.

      Sounds crazy, but ask the Chinese, Russians, and French about the economic terrorism Soros is willing to do. It’s all he’s been doing the last 20 or so years. Taken together with Soros’ own statements of alignment with Islam with the goal of destroying America and capitalism, you see that Soros has both the desire and the ability to do exactly that. And the bizarre behavior by conservatives and the willingness of even moderate democrats to jump off the cliff with Obama doesn’t make sense unless there is more to the story than meets the eye.

      If you remember back to September of 2007 when there was the electronic run on the bank, George W Bush was saying that it would be the end of the western world if we didn’t pass TARP. That wasn’t because the market was acting like it was going to collapse. The debate over TARP went on some time without the markets collapsing from fear. But GW Bush who told the terrorists to “make my day” was in full panic mode believing that the entire western world was at risk. Why?

      At the same time, we had Chavez and Castro suggesting that since worldwide capitalism had failed, the world should try communism. And we had Ahmadinejad saying that since worldwide capitalism had failed the world should try Sharia-compliant Islamic financing. Indeed, the very week after the electronic run on the bank Bernanke and Paulson began having seminars on Islamic financing.

      There is much, much more I could say about this to substantiate my belief, but I do need to go to work now. I realize that what I’m saying sounds crazy to a casual listener. But I’ve only come to this after looking at a lot of things that just don’t add up otherwise.

  26. Posted September 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    > There is no other procedure they could have followed to find
    > out the legal facts of Obama’s birth.

    then maybe the factual facts as in “the facts are the facts”

    > The democratic party is owned by George Soros
    > … is aligning himself with the Islamists in order to bring down
    > America – and he tells the democratic party what they will do.

    haha, nothing in your constitution to prevent this ? Buy America and own it.
    But it’s still the people who vote ?!?. And they want Soros ?
    Maybe Soros can be the next president.

    • Posted September 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You have very quickly grasped America’s vulnerability in a way that Americans themselves don’t. Or at least haven’t until now.

      What should prevent something like this is the American electorate. But the electorate can be deceived by a lying media and by corrupt government that breaks laws and rules while everybody thinks only a conspiracy nut would distrust the government and media.

      We can look at the documents from both the communists and Islamists which say how they intend to defeat America. And they are playing exactly by their playbook. To those of us who have seen what’s in those playbooks it is maddening to see the calculated moves and realize that the American people have been conditioned to think that we have no real enemies, that our enemies are as blase’ and ho-hum about life as the laziest of our people are. While the enemies are seizing vital infrastructure we are watching “Dancing with the Stars”.

      I don’t know what country you’re from, but what is happening to America will ultimately affect the entire world economy. They are not just holding America hostage. They are holding YOUR future hostage as well. Your future is in many ways in the hands of an American society more interested in “Dancing with the Stars” than in defending itself from enemies that have been planning for a long time how to kill and eat the wandering seemingly-defenseless sheep, oblivious to the danger with a wolf acting as shepherd.

      When America saw what had happened with Russia and China, in particular, we should have seen what was coming. We should have stood with Russia and China against the economic terrorism that hit them. I believe both those countries feel betrayed by us, and I can understand that. I’m not a financial wiz so I don’t know the details and could be mistaken on this, but I believe the world has to stand together against economic terrorism just like we have to stand together against any other kind of terrorism. I think the only way we can do that is if we identify that there ARE economic terrorists and that the entire world is vulnerable.

  27. tdr
    Posted September 13, 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink | Reply


    Here is another for you to look at, not sure if it was in the previous string of articles but this is the best description of what is happening politically.


  28. {^_^}
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 7:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    butter said:
    “Fukino is actually REQUIRED to reveal the legal status of birth certificates. That’s why anybody on the globe is supposed to be able to ask for and receive a non-certified COLB for Obama – which would reveal the legal status of his BC. If Fukino had kept that law for even one person requesting that document, the whole world would know all we need to know about Obama’s BC – that it is not legally valid. No more search, no more embarrassing disclosures. That’s all we need to know. It’s what we are legally entitled to know. The fact that it’s been illegally concealed shows that this is an illegal COUP.”

    So here’s the thing. If some court would compell the hdoh to give up the bc, how could we believe it to be real?

    Is there any doubt that, having gone to the lengths they’ve gone, they would simply manufacture a bc for him? I’ve come to the conclusion that if it comes down to them being faced to having to admit they’ve been lying and breaking the law all along, we can count on them going the rest of the way and just forging a bc.

    • Posted September 15, 2010 at 8:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree, which is why I really believe this needs to be approached not only from a judicial perspective but from a law enforcement perspective. World Net Daily at one point interviewed a guy who is an expert of some kind who believes that Obama is eligible, but who said that the only way to truly know the genuine legality of a computer-generated birth certificate is by auditing the embedded computer transaction log for that record to see when it was entered and what’s been done to it since. At this point, with all the laws that have been broken, any investigation should include not only the original paper document but also an audit of the embedded computer transaction logs. Regardless of what that shows, there should also be depositions for everybody involved, starting with (but not limited to) Fukino, Okubo, Pelosi, and the authors of the Factcheck article covering up the COLB forgery.

      At this point Obama himself is the smaller part of the picture. We can survive Obama (hopefully). But we can’t survive government, media, and law enforcement that is this corrupt. They are a threat to this nation’s continued existence and MUST be dealt with.

      • tdr
        Posted September 15, 2010 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

        I am not sure they would fabricate a BC. That’s going really far. Right now thay have been pretty cute with wording. Although they are required to reveal the legal status, they can get away with it unless challenged in court. No one has tried to get via the courts.

      • Posted September 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

        I’m not sure how far they would go. I do know that they claim that permanent records have been destroyed. If that is true, and not just a lie, then they are willing to do blatantly illegal things. But I don’t know whether they’re destroying records, or just lying about having destroyed them.

        I do know that they’ve altered the 1960-64 birth index so they can present what they CLAIM is the 1960-64 birth index to the public which also has Obama’s name in it, so that’s alteration of records and passing off an altered document as authentic.

        It seems extreme to think they would totally fabricate a birth certificate, but given what we’ve seen I’m not sure it’s beyond what they would do. And that’s a sad and scary thing to have to realize about a government agency.

        There’s supposed to be a response tomorrow from the Passport Office, but at least so far it appears that the Passport Office has fabricated a memo from 1985 and included it in an affidavit in Strunk’s court case. This is serious stuff we’re talking about here – stuff that should be unthinkable. It’s a sign of the level of corruption on this issue, that these things appear to be a very real possibility for these government agencies.

        So I don’t know. I’d like to believe they wouldn’t, but I’ve seen a lot of things that I never in a million years would have thought possible even just one short year ago when I became involved in this research. “Anything’s possible” has always been a hopeful statement to me, but on this issue that reality has become a nightmare. Anything really is possible, and that’s both a hopeful and a frightening thought.

  29. Larry
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 12:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Dear BDZ.

    As usual, I am so impressed and grateful for your work.

    Today there are posts on your work at ORYR:


    and Citizen Wells:


    Also linked to ORYR coverage in the comments at The Conservative Monster:


    Well deserved.

    Thanks again!

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 12:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. All the research in the world means nothing unless we can convert it into either legal or political results, and that takes people spreading the word. I can’t see everybody who helps in that effort to thank them personally but I just need to keep saying over and over how critically vital that work is and how thankful I am for the people who quietly and without fanfare do that part. Those are the real heroes here, and I wish I could give a hug to every last person who is doing that, because they deserve that and more.

      So consider yourself hugged, Larry. =)

      • Larry
        Posted September 16, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

        A great honor and joy!

        You are right, the work needs to translate to results. But only with work like yours, and that of many other citizen researchers/bloggers, will there be a chance.

        God bless.

  30. tdr
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You make some good point about Hawaii, maybe they will. Very dangerous game if puzo gets to the supreme court.

    Here is another blog with a post of your work, it is via ORYR:


    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That’s actually another thing that leads me to believe that the judges have been threatened; a bureaucrat would have to know they were legally covered somehow before doing such blatantly illegal acts. There is no legal excuse for outright manipulation and misrepresentation of the official records, so they must believe that the laws will never be enforced. With so many court cases, and especially since Lt Col Lakin has worked himself into a position where he will obviously have standing, there SHOULD be some fear that these illegal acts would be found out in court. For some reason that normal deterring fear is not present.

      They are placing all their trust on the courts refusing to hear any of the eligibility cases – which is just plain crazy unless they’ve got a secret weapon to make sure those judges won’t. Given the bizarre behavior of the judges and the lack of fear on the part of government workers doing blatantly illegal acts, I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.

      The Passport Office is supposed to respond today to Strunk’s accusation that they forged a 1985 memo in their affidavit for his case. Again, to have a worker at the Passport Office submit IN AN AFFIDAVIT what appears by all the available evidence to be a forged memo shows an incredible trust that no court will ever honestly take up the issue. The leadership in this country needs to be seriously asking why that is.

  31. Posted September 16, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    so many people involved, so much conspiracy ??
    Not likely, IMO.

    If only one of them would say what’s going on, she
    would become famous …

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Famous for causing the entire world economy to collapse. Right.

      • tdr
        Posted September 19, 2010 at 1:45 am | Permalink

        it seems most people invloved dont take the constitution too seriously. they dont see the dangers of their ways. most are probably young. people that have ventured out and look at his files have paid the price. There were some that looked at his college records. they were prosecuted. they did not break into the files, they just had access to them. where’s the crime, they never released any information, and what if they did? is it really a crime? what is so personal about a college record? every company i know wanted mine. remember the poor guy in DC that was going to cooperate with the FBI on the passport break in, he’s dead.

      • Posted September 19, 2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

        It’s not like Obama was somebody really critical to national security, like Joe the Plumber, or something. (sarc) How many criminal charges were filed against the gal who told her workers to snoop on him, or against the workers who did as they were told?

  32. Posted September 17, 2010 at 7:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    > jb writes that Hawaii is the only state that requires a party certification to
    > affirmatively certify that the candidates are eligible under the Constitution.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I added a link in the post to jbjd’s summary about this, which includes an update saying that both South Carolina and Texas have certifications of eligibility as well, and I think there are anomalies with both of those situations in 2008 as well. So I need to get myself up to speed on those issues and correct the paragraph where I said that Pelosi’s was the only one. I’m amazed when I think of the amount of work jbjd has put into checking all this out. So thankful that she makes this information available for the rest of us to know and act upon.

  33. azgo
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry, I did not see your comment as I started to write mine yesterday, slept and worked this morning and decided to send my previous comment.

    Here is another good one regarding how the law defines the online computer image birth document;

    “Here is where all the goobly-gosh about the evolution of the credit box on the now OFA/DNC BC page, http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html, comes from as discussed a while back.”


    Yep, …just a paid political advertisement!

    Have a great day!

  34. Posted September 18, 2010 at 3:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    is there a commonly accepted primary discussion forum
    and people who write
    good summaries like in wikipedia ?
    Or does it mainly work in independent blogs ?
    Seems to me that birders are not well organised.

    • Posted September 18, 2010 at 4:31 am | Permalink | Reply

      Blogs are about the only places where the facts are seriously researched and information/documentation disseminated.

      The difficulty is that a lot of it is very complicated, as you’ve seen. If a person makes generalized statements people write them off as “crazy birthers”. If they go into the details they lose most people. Many of us have tried to find a happy medium by giving summaries but allowing conversation to clear up questions and by posting links to the more detailed analysis and documentation. I know it’s not perfect but I don’t know of a better way to do it.

      And we have no spokespeople in the widespread media which will address any of this. The entire growth of the knowledge base and concern on these issues has come from word of mouth, because the normal “media” outlets will not report the truth even when it is brought to their attention, and refuse to correct the lies – which is what I documented on the “Hutch News” post. What happened with “The Hutch News” is just one example of what has been going on in every newsroom in the nation. So yes, we’re disorganized, because we have no loud public voice.

      World Net Daily has done a lot of reporting on the issue, but they won’t touch any of the documentation I’ve got, or that jbjd has, or a lot of other stuff. And even they are considered fringe by the elites. So there is no credible, widely-respected voice that will even address these issues.

      Doug Hagmann of Canada Free Press wrote an article where he claimed that a popular talk radio personality signed a letter saying that his media company threatened him with career, family, health, and life jeopardy if he reported anything on the birth certificate or allowed any of his guests to bring it up – the threats being given once before the election and once afterwards. Hagmann says that he has 6 affidavits of people somehow involved with the meeting where Obama’s lawyer made those threats to almost all the heads of the major TV broadcast companies. He says that he is waiting for the original source to give the signal and then he will come forward with the documentation, which he has stored in secure places in 3 different countries.

      When people say this is a conspiracy theory, they are correct. But it is substantiated by lots of sources. And despite all the major news networks ridiculing the issue and reporting falsely on it, more and more people are seeing we have a big problem – not just with Obama but with the government, media, and law enforcement corruption which allowed it all to happen. And those corrupt systems are what we have to work within in order to try to expose those systems. Unsurprisingly, they resist being exposed. That’s why people like myself who would much rather be sewing and building things are instead researching and telling one person after another – anybody who will listen, because the people we pay to guard the henhouse are actually the foxes eating the chickens when we’re not looking.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted September 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        Just last night, on Greta Van Susteran’s show, both she and Newt Gingrich took pains to state that Obama was born in Hawaii. Why? Because they MUST, for some reason.

      • Posted September 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

        Is there any record of that? We don’t get cable and rarely watch any TV, but looking at their statements may help me understand what sources they are relying on, to say that, and help me know how to inform them of the error of what they are saying. Once they know it is in error they can be held accountable if they keep saying it.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted September 20, 2010 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        Tea Party Power and ‘Kenyan Anti-Colonial’ Worldview Explained Sept. 17, 2010

        If you go to her page, you can play the video. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/#/v/4341675/tea-party-power-and-kenyan-anti-colonial-worldview-explained/?playlist_id=86925

        First you have to wait through a long discussion of Christine O’Donnell. Finally, they get around to talking about Newt Gingrich’s comments and Dinesh D’Souza’s article and book about Obama being anti-colonial, an attitude he got from his Kenyan father.

        Greta leads off by stating that some people talk about Obama and “Kenyan” and say that he wasn’t born in the US. Then she goes on to flatly state, “He was born in Hawaii.” Then Gingrich agrees, “He was born in Hawaii.”

        This is that knee-jerk bull that they all spout so they don’t look like “birthers.” It’s almost as if, before every story about Obama’s background, they’re under orders to go through this routine where they MUST say that he was born in the US.

        It seems as if it’s something they have to get out of the way before they start talking, like a commercial break. Maybe even seems as if they don’t believe what they’re saying themselves. Gingrich gave a strange little nervous laugh/smile when he said it.

        They don’t cite any sources. Of course they don’t. If you asked them, they’d probably say he showed his birth certificate already. Or that he was vetted during the campaign. And that all “birthers” are just crazy loony conspiracy theorists.

      • Posted September 20, 2010 at 1:35 am | Permalink

        Thanks. Just doing the disclaimer I guess. Probably Fox demands it.

  35. Posted September 18, 2010 at 4:43 am | Permalink | Reply

    but discussion here is badly organized, I can’t edit, start threads,
    include graphs,pictures,tables, limited search.
    blogs stand for competition
    forums stand for cooperation

    let’s found the birther-organization
    someone will spell it out interpreting
    BIRTHER as an acronym…

    • Posted September 18, 2010 at 5:31 am | Permalink | Reply

      I understand the frustration. WordPress is free and I appreciate it a lot, but it does have its limitations. Another place where there’s always good discussion and a person can post their own threads is the forum of Free Republic. Have you been there? http://www.freerepublic.com . You can sign up there and then post. It gets a quite a bit of exposure and there are a lot of people there with a lot of knowledge. I’m still learning how to post HTML, graphics, etc so I’ve got a long ways to go but it offers a lot of flexibility.

  36. Posted September 18, 2010 at 5:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    I probably was there before, maybe I’m still registered, but don’t use it much.
    Runs with special software, I don’t know how to post/search etc. properly
    or if that’s even possible. I’m used to vbulletin or phpbb forums.
    Do they have or will they create a “birthers” subforum ?
    Well, I remember one birther forum but they banned me, won’t
    need a foreigner complaining about the US-constitution 😉

    Also, in USA most people are “Dems” or “Reps” , that forum seems to be a “Rep” forum.
    And people are “birthers” or “antibirthers”, and those groups
    won’t cooperate to figure out the truth (?).
    Rarely you find “doubters” like me.

    • Posted September 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Wow, you’ve really pinpointed the oh-so-human parts of this issue which get in the way. People are so prone to be defensive when they can’t immediately win someone over to their side. And the Obama administration has hired people to go onto forums and provoke divisions, give disinformation, and pretend to be someone they’re not. The result is that nobody knows who they can trust so there’s not as much latitude for people to doubt. If they doubt they are often viewed as “Obots” or “anti-birthers”.

      The “dem” and “rep” issue is another thing, especially as we’re going into another election. Those who wanted Hillary to be the dem candidate have been pursuing the truth on what happened in 2008. An example of that is jbjd, who has done so much research. Though she and I probably don’t see eye to eye on a lot of politics, we both see the need for the rule of law, and that is stronger than whatever political differences we might have. I’m not sure what sense the world haves of the “Tea Party”, but though it is a conservative movement it is bulldozing over republicans just as it bulldozes democrats. One of the standards is whether the person wants government that truly follows the Constitution.

      More and more people are realizing that people are going to disagree on politics and that’s fine, as long as we negotiate those issues within a lawful framework, with boundaries, rules, fair play, enforcement of the rules and laws, etc. When the game is fair it’s OK for this or that team to win or lose on a given night. What doesn’t work is when the winners are able to make up the rules as they go, have their best pals act as referees, bet everyone else’s money on the predetermined outcomes so we all lose and they get rich from it, and the game becomes something nobody recognizes.

      That’s what a lot of people – on both sides of the political aisle – are realizing has happened in America. We’ve been sliding that way for a long time, but since Obama has been in power we’ve seen power grabs that were never supposed to even be possible. But they’re possible because the referees are all owned by the team on the field.

      That’s why, for me, the biggest issue is that of corruption within the government, media, and law enforcement systems. That’s something we all have reason to care about and which has nothing to do with politics.

      Yet even on that, there are people who balk at any suggestion that the systems have been corrupted. When you heard the evidence you acknowledged right away that there was cause for investigation. That’s all I hope for with what I share. I know that it’s possible I don’t have all the information necessary or that I’ve misinterpreted. And often that’s the reason people say they reject my claims. All I want is a legitimate investigation, to find out whether I’m mistaken, or whether massive crimes have been committed. Anybody who can agree that there are enough anomalies that the issues should be checked out by people with authority to get to the bottom of the facts is definitely a friend of mine. And I wonder about the motivations of those who see the anomalies and insist that it CAN’T mean the system is corrupted.

      The media ridicules the concerns, calls us wacky, unintellectual, racist conspiracy theorists who will never be convinced by evidence. The real problem is that the evidence they want us to blindly accept has been confirmed by the HDOH as a forgery, and there is a lot of evidence that laws and rules have been (and continue to be) broken. I’ve tried to post on so-called “news” websites, and have had my postings blocked. I don’t think I’ve ever been able to post on Fox News or Wall Street Journal websites, even though they are owned by the same company and are supposedly “conservative”. I’ve posted on places like obamaconspiracy.org but found very few there who were willing to engage with the actual evidence rather than just calling me a “bat-guano crazy birther”. Dialog is a two-way street, and there don’t seem to be very many who are willing to really do it.

      So the doubters are caught in the middle. Two sides are shooting at each other and neither side believes there could be anybody legitimately undecided. I think the option most people in the middle have had to use is just to watch the shooting and quietly make up their mind based on what they see and then join whatever side makes most sense to them. What I really, really crave is a chance for honest questions to be fielded, to keep things factual. Sounds like that’s what you’d like too.

      I’m a computer moron. Definitely technology-challenged. lol. Do you have expertise or connections that would help you to set up or find the kind of forum you’ve mentioned?

  37. Posted September 18, 2010 at 6:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not so much with you that the constitution must be met very precisely.
    (what suffices as “proof” ?)
    The constitution is ancient and outdated, I think you Americans should allow foreigners
    to be president if the people wants it. (am I banned now ?)

    I’m just trying to figure out, how much Obama and America can be trusted
    in general ! How would he have handled Cuba-crisis or such.

    A forum is easily created (like a blog), no expertise or connections needed.
    google for “free forum hosting”. Free –> they include ads, pay –> no ads,
    you can get backups . Or get a subforum on an existing forum –> they would
    even moderate for you but visitors may identify you with the forum
    whose moderation policy or attitudes you might not agree with.
    Splitting the discussion to many forums is not so good, IMO.
    In the long run there should
    be one authority, one big forum. Hosted or linked to by the elected chief-birther 🙂

    • Posted September 19, 2010 at 8:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      We’ll have to agree to disagree on the importance of the natural born citizenship requirement in the Constitution. And no, disagreeing won’t get you banned. There’s always room for dialog.

  38. SapphireSunday
    Posted September 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m betting that Obama knew Imam Rauf when both were in NYC in the 1980s. Rauf’s father had a mosque only blocks from where Obama and his friend Siddiqi lived. Rauf himself founded a mosque in ’83, the same year Obama supposedly graduated from Columbia U. Now Imam Rauf is working with Madeline Albright to smooth the way for Islam in America. He’s building his mosque at Ground Zero, despite solid opposition from the American people. Is this the way to build bridges and promote understanding? I think not. Somebody needs to ask Obama how long he has known Rauf and why the Obama’s State Dept. selected Rauf to go on a taxpayer-funded junket as emissary to the Muslim world.

  39. Pat
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I have found this very interesting and informative. I wish I knew about this website before. Please keep me informed on future information. Thank you, Pat

    • Posted September 22, 2010 at 4:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, Pat. I think there’s a way to subscribe, which just means that you get sent notifications when there’s a new post. (I’m actually mostly clueless about how blogs work. lol)

      Does anybody else know how you subscribe? =)

  40. tdr
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 5:25 am | Permalink | Reply

    BDZ, wow, you certainly have them running. Do you know if there is anyone reading this blog that would be collecting information for use in future investigations? Can you tell by the IP address..lol..i am pretty clueless.

    • Posted September 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m probably even more clueless than you. lol.

      They’re probably not worried at all because no matter how many people know their shenanigans we can’t force the US attorney or the HI AG to do anything about it, so they’re scott free.

      That’s why I think we need to figure out a way to fix the law enforcement system. When the only people who can investigate cases are political appointees or elected (IOW, who need the political machine to get where they’re at) there are no checks and balances built in to protect the interests of the people.

      So that wipes out the possibility of criminal investigations. And the “standing” issue can always be used to wipe out the possibility of civil lawsuits. The machine has effectively wiped out the ability of the people to “bite”. All we have is bark, and the HDOH knows that. They’ll let me bark all I want because they know it’s all I have as long as their cronies in the law enforcement system are covering their arses.

      The system is broken.

      • tdr
        Posted September 23, 2010 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

        I believe the system is broken also, but some days I like to believe that someone is collecting all of this and will “handle” the situation. Not sure what form that will take but anything will do in my book. We can never expect to see justice in the legal sense of the word thru the legal channels. I wonder, everyone is leaving the white house, all the big shots, rahm, axelrod, others. i wonder if they dont want to be there when shite hits the fan.

      • Posted September 23, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

        I’m wondering if Soros is realizing this puppet isn’t working so they’re going to throw him under the bus so they can try Hillary next time instead.

        This issue isn’t really about Obama though, so the mess is not going to just go away if he goes away. It took a whole broken system to perpetrate this fraud and until the whole broken system is exposed and fixed we’ve solved nothing.

  41. tdr
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 3:41 am | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, very astute comment. No this will not go away after Obama. They will morph the story. We are in very serious situation here. No one will listen because the story is so frightening. Too bad because if we did we could fix it. Be prepared to hear more stories regarding militias and right wing nuts. All false flags. They are so powerful at brainwashing. How they sleep at night I’m not sure. Did you hear Bill Clinton today speaking? That man is very dangerous. I hope someone does a slap down on him.

    What changed my life was an article I came across written by a woman named Lisa Guliani. It’s here:


    Very well written. I started googling her. She is still doing some journalism so you can track her. She had kind of a following when she wrote the article. She was married with three boys. When she learned the real state of our country I think she must have “lost it” (lack of better wording). She met some guy and left her husband and kids. Sad story. This level of absolute criminal acivity and corruption will make you crazy. You have to be careful and keep some perspective.

    Now I know why they say only divine intervention can save us.

    • Posted September 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Unless the Lord builds the house, they who build it labor in vain.

      Just yesterday I started thinking about some terminology that somebody posted over on Free Republic. Sandbagging and gaslighting. I hadn’t known that terminology before, but it’s exactly what the government agencies are doing.

      I was thinking more about “gaslighting” – which I understand to be switching things around so people have nothing they can count on. It makes people crazy. It’s a way to break the will of people under interrogation such as terrorists.

      It’s what Obama is doing to this country. We can’t count on the Constitution any more, can’t count on the courts to even hear our cases, much less decide them correctly. We can’t count on the media because Obama has threatened them. We can’t count on government agencies because when they openly lie and break laws they laugh and say, “Sue us then”. We can’t count on the free market. Businesses have no idea whether the rug is going to be pulled out from underneath them, since nothing is impossible to government when there are no enforced rules or laws. That’s why the economy is dying. Business owners have to have some expectation of what the ground rules are, but Obama is gaslighting the entire country – leaving us all with no reasonable expectation of anything. There is no law and no foundation which this guy seems to be unable to pull out from under us, with the help of a corrupt government, media, and law enforcement.

      If we don’t get the rule of law back it will make us all crazy. That’s what it is supposed to do. This is what the communist propaganda agents call subversion or demoralization, which is to lead to an ultimate crisis which topples freedom and ushers in the rule of communism.

      That’s why Obama is pushing one heinous agenda after another, cramming it all down our throats. He’s not after re-election; he’s after subversion, to prepare us for a crisis. It’s all in the communist game plan. Michael Savage was talking about this one time and it makes perfect sense. Obama is trying to overwhelm us by hitting one piece of infrastructure after another. Gaslighting.

      And then the media is supposed to tell us how crazy the conservatives are. But there is an unintended consequence they weren’t bargaining on: gaslighted liberals become crazy too. Conservatives are still holding onto the Constitution and the rule of law, and many of them also hold on to the constancy of the Lord. So conservatives don’t have to become crazy because of the gaslighting. The liberals don’t necessarily have the protections that conservatives have in that regard. So the liberals are going crazy, going on rampages. The media would like to frame it as conservatives but it’s not. I don’t know if some of that is people pretending to be conservative in order to frame conservatives, like the mosque shooter, or if liberals are genuinely going over the deep end. But that’s what the actions of the Obama Administration seem to be particularly geared to doing.

      God help us! Amen.

  42. tdr
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 1:37 am | Permalink | Reply

    Exactly. People cant imagine that the goverment, as nanny state, that they believed was there to protect them is actually destroying them. It’s so crazy. Even those that understand what is happening will deny it to escape having to act. I would like someone to define this aspect of human behavior.

  43. schmee
    Posted September 26, 2010 at 12:49 am | Permalink | Reply

    you were building a web of credibility (albeit out of very thin strands) until you started with Soros and the islamists conspiring to take down the world economy, and GWB, Hank Paulson, et al apparently playing supporting roles.

    it was there that a boulder fell through that web.

    • Posted September 26, 2010 at 1:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      I know it sounds crazy, but when you consider that it’s what Soros has spent his whole life doing and it’s what both the communists and Islamists have in their playbook… is it really so far-fetched to believe that they intend to play the game they’ve been coaching their whole life?

      Probably I should just keep quiet about what I’m thinking until I have my ducks in a row so I can document what factors into my thoughts. I was sort of hoping that if somebody was going to try to convince me it’s a crazy thought they’d give me some reasons besides the usual “it can’t be true if it’s a conspiracy” kind of thing.

      It’s sort of like saying we’re crazy if we think that the opposing football team actually has plays they intend to use against us, even after we’ve looked at the films from the last 4 games they won using those plays. lol

  44. Posted September 27, 2010 at 5:37 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thank you for all the good work you do here Butterdezillion.

    This full page ad is running in today’s issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition, page 5. It will be in 10s of thousands of mail boxes all over the USA by the end of today or tomorrow.


    The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari for the Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et all lawsuit will be filed by the end of this week. The differences in the DNC cert of nomination docs signed by Pelosi is addressed on pages 19 & 20 and in EndNote 16 on page 78 of my lawsuit file back in Jan 2009.

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi

    • Posted September 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So much of this issue is really about the rule of law, and whether we the people can do anything to make sure the rule of law is followed. We are definitely in serious, serious times. I hope and pray that as the public becomes more aware of the fraud that the entire system has perpretrated on the American public, the judges will realize they need to confront this head-on if America is still America.

      Thank you for everything you’re doing. Just last night my bedtime prayer with my daughter was that the judges who have critical cases before them will have wisdom, courage, and a need to do what’s right. You had so much information for the judges back before Obama was inaugurated; their refusal to deal with it is unconscionable. We’ll keep plugging away at it from all corners; eventually something has to happen.

  45. zazzo888
    Posted January 3, 2011 at 11:18 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am amazed at the amount of time and effort you have put into uncovering the truth about Obama, and that is exceeded only by my amazement of the amount of evidence you have uncovered. We, as you, are very frustrated about the huge amount of evidence showing he is not eligible to be POTUS, yet nobody will listen. It is so hard to accept that we no longer have rule of law in this country – except, that is, for the “common folk” like us.

    I am three months behind on this, but I just discovered this article tonight. I am hoping someone will read it and respond. Something has been bothering me for a long time. While much to-do was made about the typing error on the two 2008 Democratic Certification of Nomination (the error being in the spelling of the word “through” (in the date) which was spelled “though” on both certs) I have read nothing about the exact same error appearing in the 2000 DNC Cert, the 2000 HDP Cert, and the 2004 DNC Cert. If these elections had occurred a year or so apart, it would be logical to think they had pulled the last certification, changed the dates, and used that document again. But these errors cover a span of eight years – from 2000 through 2008. No new computers in all that time? As short as these certifications are, it would have been much faster to retype them than to dig through old CDs or tapes to retrieve the old one. And in all that time nobody noticed a misspelled word? It is hard to believe.

    I have just spent more than an hour reading all the posts responding to this article. I am wondering how you manage to attract such a high caliber of readers compared to other sites dealing with the same issue. Every post was well written and thoroughly thought out, with intelligent comments, questions and answers. And there was none of the typical liberal denial and profane mud slinging that other blogs are flooded with. Kudos to every person who posted on this blog.

    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I also give kudos to the posters here. I am thankful that they are thoughtful and engage with the actual facts and analysis. I think that the people who want to do the mud-slinging don’t have the patience to dig through the evidence, which is what I try to focus on here. It’s easy to automatically throw around mud, because that requires no thought. And there have been some posters here who do that too but mostly they just get ignored. =)

      I would think that the DNC and RNC would have backup files of all their permanent records so that any change in computers would be followed by loading the permanent backup data into the new system. So I suspect that they just changed the specific information from year to year and kept the rest of the document as a template, although the way that the signatures were required to be done was different in the different years also so they had to change the form some.

      The bizarre thing with the actual documents, IMHO, is the way the HDP took out one whole physical line from their certification, leaving out the only thing that Hawaii law requires the HDP to actually certify: that Obama and Biden are the candidates specifically of the Hawaii Democratic Party. For them to cut out that whole line even though doing so took out the one thing legally required to be on that document…. suggests to me that it may have been done with a copy machine on the fly rather than with a computer. They may have printed the certification up at the HDP office in Hawaii before Berg’s case was filed and then, at the convention when they saw the PUMA’s and knew Berg’s case was in the mix, said, “Oh, crap! We better do something about this in case Berg’s case gets somewhere.”

  46. Hotlanta Mike
    Posted February 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    A blogger on Free Republic recently posted several signatures of Nancy Pelosi comparing them to the signature purportedly to be hers on the HI CON. There are some distinct anomalies present that might be best analyzed by a handwriting expert.

    Below are the images I am referring to. Just so you know, the signature on the left is taken from the CON for HI. The signature on the right is from the stimulus bill that passed the US House of Representatives.

    From the image on the left there appears to be multiple attempts to form the “N”, and also it appears there was a “c” written instead of an “s” in Pelosi. Someone suggested that the signature of Alice Germond should also be analyzed as well.

    The implication here may be there was an effort to pass a forged document onto the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii Kevin Cronin to place Obama on the ballot over the objection of the DPH Chair Brian Schatz who would not certify that Obama met the constitutional requirements for the office.

    What about comparing those signatures against the CON’s from

    South Carolina

    Why these sother tates? They also required the party candidate for POTUS to meet the constitutional requirements for the office.

    • Posted February 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting. I wonder just how convoluted the story will end up being, if we ever get to the bottom of it.

      I doubt that Brian Schatz objected to Obama’s name being placed on the ballot, though, because Schatz was Obama’s campaign chairman in Hawaii. He was a Punahou grad and spent a year in Kenya – I believe overlapping the time when Michelle and Barack were in Kenya shortly before their wedding. It would be interesting to find out exactly what he knew and when.

      Somebody pointed out that Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin, was hit with a criminal investigation sometime around the time that all this was going on. After what happened with Abercrombie’s HDOH Director, Palafox, it makes me take a second look at the possibility that the Elections Office WAS aware of problems and Cronin had to be given an offer he couldn’t refuse. That’s just speculation based on very superficial circumtances, but given what we already know it just reinforces the need for a full legal investigation of what really happened.

      I wanted to let you know I got your other post with suggestions for breaking the announcements story and if it’s OK with you I’d like to keep that private because I intend to use your ideas and don’t want to tip anybody off who might try to run interference. Thanks for the great suggestions!

  47. Posted January 4, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for all the images you have about who signed documents approving Obummer’s eligibility.
    I found 3 other articles to be very hopeful in getting Obummer indicted.




    MY Obama list of Obama Close up items!!!!:

    “May we find REAL HOPE in 2012”.
    Obama = OUT
    ALL incumbents = OUT
    ……. TO do this = We must educate America fast.
    Consider “My Goal” at the bottom of this page.


3 Trackbacks

  1. […] September 9, 2010: Certificate of Nomination Summary By […]

  2. […] September 9, 2010: Certificate of Nomination Summary By […]

  3. […] Lakin’s case.  Ltc. Lakin had refused to obey orders to deploy because he felt that since the Hawian Democratic Party had not certified that Obama was constitutionally eligible to be president, when the lawyer who handled Obama’s mother’s divorce from Lolo Soetoro was one of […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: