WND Birth Certificate Forgery

World Net Daily published a long-form Hawaii birth certificate at http://www.wnd.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937 . After someone at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2011/09/i-catch-worldnetdaily-scrubbing-information-that-directly-contradicts-one-of-dr-jerome-corsis-most-important-fraud-theories/
  noted that the blacked-out BC# bled through and was far out of sequence from the Nordyke BC#’s, WND edited the article. The issue was brought to my attention here so I dug into it today. This PDF shows my findings.

The summary:

1. This BC is problematic because, like other long-forms posted online, it is not legally certified in accordance with the DOH Administrative Rules which require it to have either the OFFICIAL (2 1/4-inch diameter, with stars) DOH seal or the State of Hawaii seal displayed. This BC has neither.

2. The BC# was not stamped by the same stamp as the Nordyke BC’s were stamped with because the font is different.

3. And 2 of the numbers in this BC# actually overlap, which could not happen with a mechanically-adjusted stamp like the DOH used. That BC# was created outside the DOH.

IOW, it is my humble opinion that this BC was created with a fraudulent BC# in an attempt to make it seem like the DOH issues BC#’s randomly. For good measure, they threw in a “date accepted” showing that Kapiolani Hospital submitted their BC’s to the DOH on Thursday rather than Friday. This one (fabricated) document covers all the bases the DOH wanted covered – supposedly explaining why Obama’s BC was received on a Tuesday when we know the Nordykes’ Kapiolani BC’s were delivered to the HDOH on Friday AND explaining why Obama’s number is out of sequence (since the HDOH bounces around their numbers – by the hundreds – that they stamp with a stamp that’s designed to number things sequentially…)..

Unfortunately, WND was tricked by the official-looking certification even though it doesn’t meet the legal requirements for certification – probably because it was just like the other  long-form BC’s posted from 1980 and afterwards , none of which meet the requirements to be legally certified according to my understanding of the DOH Administrative Rules and Title 11-1.

It is totally unacceptable for the HDOH to so violate their rules and the law, that we have no way of knowing whether a flawed certification is a forgery, or whether it’s just the HDOH breaking the law again. The public, including news organizations such as WND, have a right to know whether the long-form BC’s that have been posted or presented to them with deficient certification are the result of deliberate forgery, or whether they are the result of either an incompetent or criminal HDOH. Enough is enough. If nobody knows what constitutes legal certification, we may as well not even HAVE legal certification – or birth certificates, for that matter. We just remembered 9-11. This devil-may-care lawlessness has GOT to stop.

WND BC Forgery


  1. Carol Fryer
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 4:34 am | Permalink | Reply

    My problem with the BC is the fact that those who are entrusted to take care of the problem wont, because they obviously caused it. They vetted the man, or say they did. So they have no intention of doing a thing about it other then continue to cover his ugly butt. We have a congress of criminals who have forsaken the constitution and the nation long ago.

    • Posted September 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sadly, I have to agree with your assessment. I wish I could believe that any of the Congress-critters even care that we think this way about them because of their enabling behavior on this issue.

  2. YO
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    i agree

    no stamp and the other things make it look like a plant to discredit the number problem issue

    • Posted September 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Kind of strange to have one BC that’s anomalous in 2 big ways that the HDOH really needs an “out” for.

      The overlapping numbers is a dead giveaway.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 15, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        Hi Butter,

        “Kind of strange to have one BC that’s anomalous in 2 big ways that the HDOH really needs an “out” for.”

        The BC was sent to Paul Irey so he could analysis the typeface. So if you were going to send a forgery specifically to him for that expressed purpose, why wouldn’t you make it so that it validate the President’s LFBC? Or is Irey’s analysis of this LFBC wrong?

        In other words, if you are going to the trouble to forge this document inorder to discredit the cert #, the day of week sent to DOH, why wouldn’t you also try to discredit the typeface argument? They could have easily used letters from the President’s LFBC to create variabliity in the typeface.

        If it is a forgery, I think you have the wrong source.

      • Posted September 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        If it validated Obama’s BC it would have been recognized as fishy immediately. In order to be a trojan horse there had to be something on there that Irey would have wanted. A trade-off. The strategy was to sacrifice a pawn (the typographical analysis – which Irey had already done so it wasn’t that big a concession) in return for the queen (a chance to debunk the really damaging evidence that there is a problem with Obama’s record EVEN IF the HDOH eventually comes up with a long-form that doesn’t have these glaring errors – because eventually the HDOH is going to have to present what they really have, and you can bet it’s a better forgery than what Obama produced.)

        And that just answered a question I had. Why do this now? Maybe because in November there’s supposed to be a hearing over whether HOH Director Loretta Fuddy has to allow Orly Taitz to view the original BC. If Fuddy claims in court that a privacy exemption to disclosure still exists it will be an admission that Obama hasn’t already disclosed a copy of the original that the HDOH has on file. IOW, it will be an admission that Obama did not disclose what the HDOH sent to him – which the HDOH can’t afford to claim in court because it would immediately raise the question of why the HDOH website linked to what they knew to be a forgery, and why the HDOH did not report Obama to law enforcement.

        Rather than go down that route the HDOH could be preparing to release the forgery that’s really in their office- which by now would have to make it seem like the anomalies Irey noted were flukes of the scan rather than a problem with the original. That’s the only way they can deal with what Irey has noted. The original will not have pixels that all match. It won’t have a stamp from Onaka so it won’t have the TXE problem. The HDOH has basically allowed Irey to find all their mistakes so they can make sure their final forgery that has to go before a judge will be clean.

        A risky procedure but preferred to addressing the real problem: Obama’s BC# was stolen from somebody else because he was not born in Hawaii and so no BC# that fit the particular place and time he’s claiming for his birth was reserved for him at the time. The BC# anomaly and their attempts to hide Virginia Sunahara’s records reveal it all – not only that they altered the records but that they knew they had altered them and are trying to cover it up by lying in their responses to UIPA requests. What they hadn’t counted on was having to explain why a supposedly-normal birth (Obama’s) has a numbering/dating anomaly that was probably caused by the hospital sending the wrong name on a death certificate so that there was a death certificate for a Tomiyo Sunahara when only a Virginia Sunahara had been reported as being born.

        The HDOH probably got “Tomiyo’s” death certificate from Kapiolani Hospital within 2 days (?) as required by law. She diead early in the morning on Saturday so two days would be Monday or Tuesday. The HDOH probably received Virginia’s birth certificate with the Wahiawa Hospital BC’s on Tuesday and was immediately stamped with the Tuesday “date received by local registrar” (which, according to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, means that it was received in their office, not that it was accepted. The “date received by local registrar” on the BC itself was probably a stamp that was applied immediately to show that the BC had been received in the HDOH office. Most offices automatically stamp the date received on anything that comes into their office.) In filing the death certificate for an infant they probably had to verify that the birth and death records matched, and they found that they didn’t. So they had to find out from both Wahiawa Hospital and Kapiolani Hospital which name was correct and get the death and birth certificate to match. They probably set aside the birth and death certificates so they could be dealt with later and then numbered the Wahiawa Hospital BC’s that didn’t have any discrepancies. Then Friday after numbering the last of the Kapiolani BC’s they numbered the BC which had finally been clarified. The Nordyke twins were probably almost the first BC’s onto the pile at Kapiolani – probably 2 babies were born between Friday when the BC’s were taken to the HDOH and when the Nordyke babies were born – and thus nearly the last off the pile at the HDOH.

        I had wrongly stated that Okubo said that the “date filed” was ALWAYS the same as the “date received” for Oahu births. I was mistaken on that. She actually said that it was ALMOST always the same. IOW, she did acknowledge that there was a difference between “date received” and “date accepted”. In very rare cases a BC was received on one day but wasn’t cleared for numbering until later. The flow chart at the beginning of the 1963 CDC Natality Report says that after receiving the BC’s the state registrar’s office had to check the BC’s for completeness and to make sure there were no discrepancies, and then gave it a state file number. That process of checking with the hospitals to clarify any problems was also mentioned in that 1959? article that WND referred to which described the process at the HDOH. That is probably what happened with Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate. It makes sense, given the name discrepancy. It would NOT make sense for a supposedly normal, routine Kapiolani birth like Obama is claimed to have had, and like the Nordykes had.

        The HDOH claiming they had no birth record for Virginia Sunahara even after their computerized printout had her listed indicates that something happened to Virginia’s record so that her name was no longer in the computer system when a low-level clerk checked to verify the existence of the record.. Either that, or Okubo flat-out lied when she claimed they had no birth record for Virginia. Either way, it smells and the public deserves to know what happened to her record and why. The fact that there are known discrepancies involving Sunahara’s record is very, very revealing – especially given that Obama’s alleged “date filed” and BC# is an anomaly that we would expect only in very, very rare situations, such as a birth and death record not matching up.

        The HDOH needs the public to know that sometimes a BC can be “filed” on one date and “received”/numbered on another, but they really want to hide that it only happened in very rare cases when something with the BC didn’t match up and it took more than a day to clear up the discrepancy.

        Most discrepancies would be caught by the hospital official or by the deputy local registrar at that hospital before it would be submitted to the HDOH, so it would be a very rare situation where the HDOH would be able to see a discrepancy that a local registrar wouldn’t. Virginia’s birth certificate would have gone to the local registrar for the Wahiaha Hospital (UKK Lee) and “Tomiyo’s” death certrificate would have gone to the registrar for Kapiolani Hospital (the registrar who signed the Nordyke BC’s). Neither local registrar would have seen anything wrong with the cerrtificates; the discrepancy would only be known when they were both received by the HDOH who had to match up the death with the birth. Finding out which name was accurate would involve checking with both hospitals and possibly also with the parents, and correcting the error on the death certificate would have taken some time as well.

        We now have at least one situation where a BC# was altered on a forged BC to try to prove that BC#’s were assigned randomly. We have the Waidelich BC where the number is WAY out of sequence – revealed in a CNN stunt that required the full cooperation of the HDOH (long-forms were supposedly only to be issued after a week and only when special permission is requested) at the height of Trump’s pressure and right around the same time that Fukino claimed that Obama’s BC is “properly numbered”, showing that the numbering discrepancy was heavy on their minds. It sure seems to me that Obama defenders at the HDOH and elsewhere are desperate to make this “date filed”/BC# discrepancy go away. Why else would they alter the BC# on a BC in order to supposedly prove that the sequential state file numbers were actually assigned randomly?

      • gorefan
        Posted September 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        As to the Date Filed/Accepted doesn’t Danae’s short form say Date Filed? And doesn’t Alan Booth’s COLB say Date Filed.

        What would it mean in their case. Both of their LFBC’s are also available on the net.

      • Posted September 16, 2011 at 12:21 am | Permalink

        I have no problem with them using “date filed” on the computer printouts. According to Okubo, they rolled the “date filed” and “date accepted” into one field – “date filed” for the computer printouts because they were almost always the same anyway, for Oahu births. That’s fine. There’s nothign wrong with Danae’s or Booth’s BC’s in that regard.

        When the date filed and date accepted are not the same, I have no idea which date is put in that field on the printout. If we saw a BC from somebody born on one of the other islands we’d be able to find that out.

        But when the dates are different for Oahu births it would be because some rare situation arose where the local registrar wasn’t able to detect a problem before submitting the BC to the state registrar and the state registrar’s office was not able to clear up the discrepancy within that day. That would be a rare event. For a routine birth like Obama’s was claimed to be, that wouldn’t arise. That’s why the BC# being out of sequence is problematic. It means that the date it was filed is NOT the date it was accepted/numbered. Which leads to the question of why.

        The FACT that the HDOH denied the existence of Virginia Sunahara’s birth record when they have it on their own printout shows there is something going on with that record, something the HDOH doesn’t want us to know about. The FACT that this new BC has appeared with numbers that overlap shows that somebody wants to make us believe that BC#’s were issued randomly. Seems pretty clear to me that Obama’s date filed/BC# discrepancy is because he stole Virginia Sunahara’s BC# and date filed, thinking nobody would ever figure out that her record was that rare one that had to be held over for several days before being numbered because the death certificate initially had a different name on it, as evidenced by the death announcements in the newspapers which called her “Tomiyo Sunahara”. It’s easy to steal the identity of a dead baby, as Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers admitted was the MO for the kind of people Obama hung around with – but sometimes that dead baby’s records come back to bite you in the butt.

        This one’s for you, dear little Virginia. Your short, precious life on this earth was not in vain. May you rest in peace.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 16, 2011 at 2:48 am | Permalink

        The only instance where I’ve seen the Date Filed not matching the Date Accepted on a BC was for a birth at Tripler Army Hospital. I always assumed the Army Base had its own local registrar.

        The President’s LFBC has the same date for both.

      • Posted September 16, 2011 at 3:58 am | Permalink

        And that same date for both “received” and “accepted” shows that the BC# is not his, since that acceptance/numbering date would not have yielded that BC#. It’s almost certainly Virginia Sunahara’s.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted October 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

        I know this is way late… but I was just wandering by….

        “Kind of strange to have one BC that’s anomalous in 2 big ways that the HDOH really needs an ‘out’ for.”

        Wouldn’t the simplest explanation for that be that they’re not anomalous at all? Even with the original small sample you used to establish your theoretical “standards’ you had “anomalies.” But you attempted to explain them away rather than accept that “anomalies” are data.

        You already had an example of different birth certificate that was not filed on a Friday, but you provided the ad hoc excuse that a holiday weekend responsible. And the only two registration numbers you ever had that actually fell into your hypothetical sequence were the Nordyke twins. Not a single other certificate we’ve seen agreed with it.

        Occams razor would tell most people that when your data disagrees with your hypotheses as consistently and comprehensively as it has here, then your hypotheses are more likely to be wrong than the data.

      • Posted October 5, 2011 at 3:35 am | Permalink

        If they’re not anomalous then why did somebody forge this BC that was on WND? The typed numbers overlap each other.

        The Janna BC was received by the local and state registrars over 2 weeks after the birth. It was finally submitted on a Thursday right before the 2nd state-holiday Friday in a row. The theory that’s been offered for the other non-Friday Kapiolani BC’s (Obama’s, Waidelich’s, and now this forged one) is that the BC’s were submitted multiple times during the week. But that makes no sense with Janna’s, which stayed at the hospital for 2 weeks before being submitted to the registrars.

        Of those 3 BC’s that you claim refute my analysis (Obama’s, Waidelich’s, and now the WND one), we know that Obama’s is a forgery – if for no other reason than the HDOH’s admission that Obama has not waived his privacy rights by publishing a genuine BC – and we know the WND one is a forgery because the numbers overlap. Why were those 2 forgeries necessary, if the info on all 3 of those BC’s show random BC#’s and non-Friday Kapiolani submissions?

        The only problematic BC that hasn’t already been proven as a forgery is the Waidelich one. But that was put out by the HDOH in coordination with CNN, and the HDOH has already been caught messing with Virginia Sunahara’s birth record – either falsely claiming they have no record for her when their index list has her listed, or by altering her record so her name doesn’t show for that record when the system is searched. They’ve also been caught deceiving the public about what their index actually even shows – implying that it only includes legally valid records when I have proven that it contains multiple records that are not legally valid. The HDOH has also been caught breaking multiple laws, illegally hiding Administrative Rules from the public, etc. And they have implied to the public that what Obama posted is what they sent him, when in reality their admission that Obama has not waived his privacy rights shows that they know darn good and well that he posted a forgery – which means they are guilty of misprision of forgery for failing to report the crime to law enforcement.

        So…. given that 2 forgeries already tried to pass off a non-Friday Kapiolani “date filed” and a BC# out of sequence, and the HDOH is known to break laws, lie, alter records, and commit felonies on Obama’s behalf…… my guess is that somebody at the HDOH altered the Waidelich record just long enough to print a fraudulent document and then they switched it back. The embedded transaction logs would show us whether that is true or not. Embedded logs are supposed to be public information since they don’t reveal anything from the actual BC itself but only the actions taken on the birth record. But the HDOH refuses to release those. Hopefully Sheriff Joe Arpaio will get to the bottom of it…

        The issue you need to deal with is the fact of this forgery. Why was it forged? Why has the HDOH manipulated their records? Why have they admitted that Obama hasn’t waived his privacy rights by publishing a genuine BC?

        Another thing your side needs to deal with is how badly it damages credibility when records are manipulated, forged, etc. Only a fool would trade their credibility for the chance to say they “punked” somebody in a document that got submitted to a court of law because the “punk-er” refused to come clean before a lawyer submitted the forgery to a judge, believing it was genuine. I’m not sure about the details but that almost sounds like it could be felony forgery. Not cool at all. Why would a person risk that? And why would they think that anybody would believe a word they say after they pulled a stunt like that? None of these forgeries would be necessary if genuine records were simply disclosed and they genuinely said what had been claimed about them. The HDOH has effectively admitted that both the COLB and the long-form that Obama presented are forgeries – and we STILL haven’t seen the stinking document, which Governor Abercrombie admitted doesn’t exist.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted October 5, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

        Think about that for a second. If this was forged, WHY would they have forged numbers that overlap? What possible sense would it make for any forger to do such a thing? No, BDZ, the “overlap” you see is simply a result of the same filters you used to make the numbers visible in the first place. You created the “overlap” when you altered the image to make the numbers readable at all.

        Now who has ever offered the theory that the BC’s were submitted multiple times during the week? I certainly have never heard it before and suspect it is a straw man of your own invention. The only one who has offered any theory on what days of the week certificates were delivered to the DoH is you, and you only offered it in the attempt to label the Obama COLB as “anomalous.” But even with your original data set, it was never anomalous. There is simply no discernable pattern or rule whatsoever to what day the certificates were “filed” or “accepted” at the DoH. The evidence is that it happened whenever they got around to it.

        Now I have to deny your assertion that ANY of these certificates has been shown to be a forgery. You assert that they must be forgeries because they contradict your personal hypotheses. But as we know, even your ORIGINAL data set contradicted your personal hypotheses. So these new revelations actually tell us nothing new. They merely reinforce the fact that your hypotheses had no support from the get go.

        As to the President’s privacy rights, the laws that the DoH must follow do not suddenly disappear when somebody else does something else. Under the law, Obama can release anything of his that he wants. But Hawaii can only release what the law allows. What the President does with a certificate they give him is, under the law, completely unrelated to what the DoH can give to anybody else.

        Again, Occam’s razor is not your enemy here… at least not if you have a genuine interest in the truth. YOUR ORIGINAL DATA showed that there was no obvious pattern to what days the certificates were received at the DoH. YOUR ORIGINAL DATA showed that there was no obvious pattern to the numbering sequence of the certificates. These new revelations do not tell us anything we did not already know FROM YOUR ORIGINAL DATA.

        They only corroborate the demonstration of your error. You need to accept that.

      • Posted October 6, 2011 at 1:15 am | Permalink

        Why the overlap? Same reason as other blatant errors – such as the “seal” on the COLB that didn’t “bend” when the page it was supposedly on was folded: sloppiness. It wasn’t the “filters” (contrast and brightness) because it didn’t make any other letters overlap here or anywhere else I have ever seen. And the area of overlap is too wide to just be from blurring anyway.

        Gorefan suggested, right here, that Kapiolani Hospital sent in BC’s multiple times in a week to ensure that they met the legal requirement of reporting births within 7 days. And if you believe that in one week’s time Kapiolani sent in Obama and Waidelich’s BC’s on Tuesday but Nordykes’ on Friday, that is what you would HAVE to argue.

        The Janna BC went over 2 weeks before it was reported to the HDOH, which shows that they didn’t use their normal procedures for that one since the normal procedures would comply wth the 7-day reporting requirement. If they just sent in BC’s randomly throughout the week – 2 or more times in a week – then they would not have gone a full 2 weeks without ever sending in the collected BC’s. The logical explanation for the 2-week delay is that their normal submittal time was on Friday, which happened to be Dec 24th. The secretary probably spent that whole week thinking she would just submit all the BC’s on the next Friday, but on Thursday she realized she couldn’t do that because the HDOH would be closed on Friday AGAIN because of New Year’s Eve. Rather than wait another whole week, she submitted them on Thursday when she realized the problem. None of the other explanations make sense for Janna’s BC, so Occam’s Razor supports my explanation.

        Do us all a favor and actually read the OIP Opinion Letters. The HDOh is denying access on the grounds that releasing a copy of the BC would violate Obama’s privacy rights. When a person publishes their own record or information from their record, that person no longer has privacy rights for that record/information. Already publicly-revealed information no longer has a privacy exemption to disclosure. And as I’ve already said many times, when Fukino announced that Obama’s birth record claims a Hawaii birth, she made all the records she relied upon for that announcement a REQUIRED public disclosure according to UIPA. I don’t know what about that you don’t understand, but I’m running out of ways to say the same thing over and over again – all of which is readily available in the sources I’ve cited (the OIP Opinion Letters and UIPA itself).

        I noticed that you ignored the questions of why anybody would present a forged Kenyan BC to a lawyer and not reveal that it was just an attempt to “punk” somebody until AFTER the lawyer had submitted it in court – when doing this stunt would not only destroy the credibility of the punk-er, but could potentially land them in jail for felony forgery and/or perjury. If Taitz was told the BC was a forgery and still submitted it in court, the perjury would be hers, but if she was not told it was a forgery, the perjury would be by the person who presented it to her as if it was genuine, if I understand correctly. And it seems like Dr Conspiracy maybe understands it the same way because when somebody suggested “punking the birthers” with a forged naturalization document, Dr Con advised against it because it could be a felony, IIRC.

        Why would anybody suggest that pro-Obama folks would even hesitate to forge documents and submit them to “birthers”, when that is precisely what some of the Fogbow folks have boasted about doing with the Kenyan BC? The overlap in this document suggests it is just one more of the same kind of forgery crap the pro-Obama folks have been doing all along. Don’t even bother denying that this is the modus operandus for your comrades, because they claim to be BOASTING of “punking” people with forgeries.

        Interestingly enough, of all the documents out there, the Kenyan BC is the one that DOESN’T have the careless telltale signs of forgery, and the supposed “template” for the “forgery” was not published on the web until AFTER the Kenyan BC was posted on the web so it could not have been a “template”. IOW, the story of the Kenyan BC “punking” makes no sense, because of the evidence AGAINST the punking claim made AND because bragging about a felony – risking jail time – just for kicks makes no sense. The only person who would commit a felony in order to visibly “punk” somebody else, seemingly just for kicks, is somebody who is totally nuts, or somebody who knew they had somebody to make sure that law enforcement would never charge them with the crime (somebody such as AG Holder and his Department of Injustice).

        Someday these things will all be revealed. In that day I will stand tall because I have NOT engaged in deception and forgeries; I have no reason to engage in those things. Why would I want to waste anybody’s time with false garbage – especially my OWN time? Life is too short for me to do that, and I really, really wonder what WOULD motivate somebody to waste their time on what THEY KNOW is lies and forgeries. Then again, somebody apparently photoshopped an image trying to make the Occupy Wall Street protests seem larger – because they considered the end worth ANY MEANS. Sad. Very, very sad.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted October 6, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        You continue to demonstrate a real inability to understand how things like image filters work. They are not intelligent. They are automatic algorithms that have no idea what it is they are altering. The enhancement you performed could not tell the difference between the stamped number, the security pattern, or even simple noise. Again… you created the “overlap” when you modified the image. Just as Paul Irey created much of the distortion in his analysis when he modified the AP scan with filters.

        As to the days of the week that certificates were sent into the DoH, the evidence is incontrovertible. They were sent whenever the Hospital got around to it. There was no specific day; there was no specific period of time between submissions. Your original data showed that and the newer data reinforces that. It is simply true that you never had any good reason to assert that they were sent in once a week on Friday. Evidence for that claim has never existed.

        As to the Janna BC, you seem to be ignoring an important feature. It might have been sent in two weeks after the birth, but it was only one day after the doctor signed it. We can speculate all we want on the Doctor’s delay, it does not matter. The certificate cannot have been sent in without that signature. So your “logical explanation for the two week delay” is shown to be again just another ad hoc excuse to shoe-horn a piece of inconvenient data into a theory that you never had a good reason for proposing in the first place.

        Now, your claim that “Already publicly-revealed information no longer has a privacy exemption to disclosure” is purely and entirely erroneous. Obama is not the Hawaiian DoH, and the Hawaiian DoH is not Obama. The action of one does not magically absolve the other of their legal responsibilities. Obama can release any and all of his personal records he so chooses. Nobody else has that same latitude. This is a very basic legal concept, and it is inexplicable why Birthers have such difficulty grasping it.

        You also do not need to come up with new ways of asserting your personal interpretation of the UIPA. You simply need to accept that it is only your personal interpretation.

        Covering some of the questions you accuse me of ignoring, you seem to be misinformed over the circumstances of the Bomford Hoax.

        First and foremost, it was not sent to Orly Taitz. It was sent to her “investigator” Neil Sankey, and he bears responsibility for passing it onto “a lawyer.” Now certainly, the punkers underestimated Orly’s impulsiveness. Who honestly could have anticipated that she would turn around and submit it to court without making any effort whatsoever to determine if it was real? It would have been a rather pathetic punk had it been revealed before she chose to make the certificate public and stated an opinion regarding its authenticity.

        But who would have imagined that her very first use of the hoax would be to submit it as evidence in a court of law?

        The issue here is not one of perjury or fraud. It is if the hopeless carelessness and cluelessness of a particular Birther lawyer. And in that demonstration, the Bomford Hoax proved a brilliant success.

        You asked, “hy would anybody suggest that pro-Obama folks would even hesitate to forge documents and submit them to ‘birthers?’” Nobody would suggest that… but a qualifier is in order. When pro-Obama folks create forgeries, they admit it. When anti-Obama folks create forgeries (i.e. Lucas Smith) they do not.

        Now, another detail in which you appear misinformed regards the “template” for the Bomford hoax. It existed on the web for years before the hoax was perpetrated, and that can be readily seen by checking the Internet wayback machine. And as to “careless telltale signs of forgery” you seem to have missed the misspelling that was neatly covered up by a piece of cigar tobacco in the image sent to Sankey, but was clearly visible on the exposure photographs.

        It is fascinating that you still seem to consider the Bomford hoax as authentic in spite of the photographic proof that it was a hoax, and the explicit admission by people who were involved. It is among the most spectacular examples of irrational confirmation bias I can imagine.

        But after that massive red herring, we return to your theories. And it is still true that YOUR ORIGINAL DATA contradicted your theories regarding how Hawaiian birth certificates were submitted to the DoH and how they were numbered. As we get more and more data, your theories are shown more and more to have been in error.

        Calling all that evidence fake is a sword that cuts both ways. I could just as easily and just as legitimately call the Janna certificate a fake. Just these last few months, certain Birthers (you remember “Polarik?”) have started to insist that the Nordyke certificates are fake. All of this is just hand waving.

        The only authority on the planet that can legally declare Obama’s birth certificate authentic is the Hawaii DoH, and they have declared it authentic. Yes… you can insist that they are lying too.

        But there’s an old saying that is relevant at times like this: When a person has been divorced four or five times, perhaps it’s time to consider if the problem is them.

        When everything and everybody around you is “fake,” perhaps the problem is you?

      • Posted October 6, 2011 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

        Sigh. My computer is like frozen molasses and I need to get ready for work so I’ll just give a preliminary response right now.

        Are you claiming that the horizontal line in the 4 is really just a cross-hatch? Where else did the “objective”, unintelligent filter at that setting change a cross-hatch to be that dark?

        Please list the OIP opinion letters related to “waived privacy rights” that you have actually read.

        True or False: The HDOH and HI AG’s offices have implied that the names in their birth index represent the names on legally-valid birth certificates – particularly when Jill Nagamine said that Fukino’s “born in Hawaii” statement relied upon Obama’s name being in their birth index and not from her looking at his actual birth certificate – thus making only the birth index a required public disclosure under UIPA.
        True or False: The birth index includes names from BC’s that are not legally valid.
        True or False: The HDOH deceived the public into believing that all names on the birth index represent legally-valid birth certificates.

        The HDOH is refusing to let anybody see originals of BC’s or the embedded transaction logs, which are the only ways we would ever be able to find out which of us is right and which is wrong. It was suggested here that even if somebody like Sheriff Joe Arpaio subpoenaed those records for a criminal investigation, those records could never be audited by law enforcement. Exactly how in that scenario are we supposed to find out whether the same HDOH that lied about Virginia Sunahara’s birth records, illegally hid the DOH Administrative Rules, and claims they are exempt from misprision laws is actually being honest for the first time in their lives? They have lied, manipulated and misrepresented records, broken laws, and put themselves above the law. And that’s just what I can document, after all their obfuscation. How do you propose that these people ever become trustworthy to those of us who know the ethics and legal breaches they have already been documented as committing?

        I started my research thinking that the HDOH would just give me an answer to my questions and I could move on shaking my head at my own paranoia. I wanted closure. I became butterdezillion in response to the criminality I saw instead of answers I could believe. Starting with their refusal to post their Administrative Rules online, as required by law, or allow anybody to even know the name of the rules currently in effect. The more I saw, the more I realized that they know Obama was not born in the USA.

        HI Gov Neil Abercrombie is on the record saying to a Honolulu Advertiser columnist that Obama’s eligibility would be a big political issue because what they have for him – actually written down – was not likely to convince skeptics that Obama was born in Hawaii. That sounds very similar to what Mike Evans said Abercrombie told him: that there is no Hawaii birth cerrtificate for Obama. So which is the liar – HDOH (as already documented by their lies about Virginia Sunahara’s record and their lies about Neal Palafox resigning “for personal reasons” when he himself said he didn’t know why he had to resign, etc), or Obama’s good friend Neil Abercrombie – the only person going on record as having seen Obama in Hawaii as a baby (and flatly contradicting the educational records we have for SAD)? Or both? In which case, how would we get answers that are actually true and not just the babbling of known liars?

        See, that is all the “birthers” want: answers that are actually true and not just the babbling of known liars. Why are Obama, the HDOH, and the entire judicial and law enforcement systems refusing to give us those answers?

  3. gorefan
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butter,

    I wanted to mention something not completely related to the WND BC.

    The idea of the President having released his privacy rights to the original LFBC. As I’m sure you are aware the LFBC given to the President and the Nordykes twins are only abstracts. They contain only a portion of the information that is on the original BC still in bound volume in the DOH.

    In the “Vital Statistic of the United States 1961 Volume 1 Natality”, there is a copy of a standard Certificate of Live Birth. It shows at the bottom three medical data fields (Length of Pregnancy, birth weight, and legitimacy) and the state of Hawaii could have added additional medical fields (such as baby’s or mother’s vital signs). None of these fields are on the Nordyke BCs. But this information is still on the form sitting in the vault at the DOH. And this information is still private. So lawsuit or no lawsuit, no one is ever going to be allowed to go into the DOH and examine the original Certificate of Live Birth.

    • Posted September 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Are you aware that the Hawaii State Legislature considered a bill that would have allowed anybody to go look at the original for $50 a pop?

      All privacy concerns are waived when they are outweighed by “a scintilla of public interest”. That’s the standard within Hawaii’s laws. When there are serious questions of whether the HDOH itself is a criminal enterprise, keeping the dirty little secret of mother’s last menstrual period dwarfs. And in any case, Stanley Ann is dead; she has no privacy interests.

      Would Hawaii be legally able to refuse to allow Sheriff Joe Arpaio to subpoena the records in a criminal investigation?

  4. gorefan
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Hawaii legislatures’ bill would have allowed you to get a copy of the LFBC or maybe it was the COLB (IIRC) neither of which is the same as the original BC which contains medical information.

    Public interest refers to public well being or general welfare. This is a definition that will prevent judges from releasing information. The President’s birth weight or other vital signs are not relevance to the public’s welfare.

    Yes , Hawaii would be able to prevent Sheriff Joe from viewing the Hawaii records. And I don’t believe Sheriff Joe will ever try to obtain them

    While you are convinced that there is a great criminal conspiracy going on, prosecutors and law enforcement want to see evidence. Not speculation or interpretation

    • Posted September 16, 2011 at 12:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      No, it was to let people pay to have a peek but no copies, although I think maybe they were talking about making up a totally different “birth certificate” just for Obama and charging people to be able to see it. Like a one-night stand. I suppose it’s fitting that Hawaii would try to get money off of making a fake record for Obama and then charging people for a peek.

      Nobody wants to see birth weight or other vital signs. They want to see the age of the paper, the different kinds of ink, etc. This is not about Obama. This is about whether the HDOH and Obama have committed criminal misprision and record falsification. Deep doo-doo. And unless you want to claim that it’s peachy for the HDOH and the occupant of the White House to commit these crimes, no questions asked, you have to admit that the public has a vested interest in knowing whether the system and the POTUS are all crooks. Are you claiming the public has no right to know whether their government is a criminal enterprise? We are their employers. Every state in the union as well as the federal government has “open records” laws ensuring that even far, far less publicly-significant information about government operations are a person’s RIGHT to see.

      And are you claiming that government records are forbidden even from legitimate criminal investigations? If so, on what grounds? The government has to protect criminals? Sounds like you could work for Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice…

      • gorefan
        Posted September 16, 2011 at 2:42 am | Permalink

        The subpoena in one state is invalid in another state. There is a Uniform Act to allow one state to pursue a witness in another state but it only applies to criminal cases and you have to go throught the courts of the state where the witness resides. So Sheriff Joe would need to go to the state courts in Hawaii to try and get the DOH to produce evidence. And it may not even apply in an investigation situation. i wouldn’t hold my breath.

      • Posted September 16, 2011 at 3:55 am | Permalink

        In other words if there is a pocket where corruption resides they can commit crimes against the whole rest of the country with impunity.

        No wonder we’re becoming Mexico.

        I didn’t think it was possible for me to despise lawyers any more than I already do.

        The local sheriff was able to catch an identity-laundering crook here in my hometown a few years ago, with a multi-state effort on the part of law enforcement. I doubt that they had to go through state courts in order to conduct their investigations. I should ask them about that. And I don’t understand how what you’re saying about subpoenas in one state being invalid in another state fits in with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

        I guess if I want to commit a crime I need to first become a prominent democrat and then commit the crime in blue states. Then I’ll be “home free” because those pockets of political and mafia corruption will do CYA for me.

        I had a very interesting discussion today with some of the kids that I work with, about how CYA works in “the establishment”. They had such good input and their reactions were so genuine and innocent, it gave me hope for a brief moment.

  5. obsolete
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 9:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The only people wondering whether ” there are serious questions of whether the HDOH itself is a criminal enterprise” are insane, deluded, obsessed people such as yourself who have built up a monstrous conspiracy out of nothing, and you have slandered and libeled many Hawaiian public servants without a whiff of evidence.

    You keep adding conspiracy on top of conspiracy to explain away the facts you don’t like. One day you will be embarrassed that you put your crackpot delusions out there for the world to laugh at.

    And Sheriff Joe Arpaio is your hope? Get real. He will not not pursue your phantoms, and he will be lucky to remain out of jail himself for corruption over the next few years.

    You. Have. Nothing.

  6. Tommy Thompson
    Posted September 16, 2011 at 5:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    Obsolete, I’m afraid you’re on the losing side of this debate…the HDOH is obviously involved in this illegal cover up….the facts are overwhelming…it’s not a conspiracy theory. We can’t wait till the day people like you who deny the obvious wake up to see on the news how Obama has been convicted of indentity fraud. Then there will be those who knowingly were complicit, including the HDOH, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc.

  7. gorefan
    Posted September 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butter,

    Here is a fairly detailed analysis of Paul Irey’s work.


    Have a good weekend.

    • Posted September 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      A lot of unnecessary, gratuitous detail is included to obscure the facts, to show off the author’s knowledge of related trivia, and to denigrate (malign, besmirch, slander, traduce, disparage, vilify, decry, belittle, criticize derogatorily) Paul Irey, for no good reason except to shoot the messenger bringing bad news (for Obamapologists).

      Exclude Aafterwit’s extraneous elaborations, and one is left with… not much to bury Mr. Irey’s analysis, and certainly not enough to debunk it. Aafterwit must have learned well the old computer sales technique, “If you can’t win with the facts, then baffle them with techie gibberish.”

      For example, Aafterwit can’t explain away the obviously differing fonts in pairs of “E”s, “S”s, “R”s, “a”s, “e”s, “g”s, “i”s, “l”s, “r”s, “t”s, “u”s, “2”s, and most glaringly, “n”s. So he attacks Mr. Irey’s credentials as a typographer using printing presses by noting that these characters were printed with a typewriter… as if that would somehow make the differing fonts a non-issue.

      Then Aafterwit attacks the white copy Mr. Irey used as being a degradation of the green copy of the original… even though the white copy is the only one the WH provided reporters, and the white copy is NOT a copy of the green copy anyway.

      Then Aafterwit goes on to explain the loss of crispness and detail when using typewriter ribbons multiple times and scanning at a (low) 150 dpi … even though the resulting uncrisp and undetailed copies are more than adequate to make the font irregularities plain.

      And Aafterwit doesn’t stop there with his nonsense, foolishness, deceit, and lies. But I will.

      Aafterwit never does address the specific font irregularities between pairs of letters. In spite of his irrelevant rant to the contrary, one can only conclude that words cut-and-pasted from multiple documents are the source of the irregularities between letters that should be (almost) identical.

      What Aafterwit takes a few hundred lines to obfuscate can be clarified in two sentences. The counterfeit long form BC was not typed on one typewriter. It is a conglomerate of images and words typed on a number of typewriters, cut-and-pasted onto a blank or erased BC form… that is, A FORGERY.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 20, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

        I suspect you missed AAfterwit’s point the reason he didn’t go through each letter is because he expalined that the coping and scanning process alone cause distortions in the letters. This is something Mr. Irey does not correct for in his analysis. And AAfterwit’s point is that unless you know the percentage of distortion introduced by coping and scanning you do not have a baseline to even begin analysis.

        Here is another article by AAfterwit, read the comments section to see what he means.


        Also you are mistaken, the Hi Res image was made from the original certified copy of the BC. So it was made from the green security paper copy. As AAfeterwit points out.

  8. Ann
    Posted September 19, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Well I see the Obots are in panic mode as they very well should be. “The King” and his minions are about to have a big problem on their hands. LOL I personally can’t wait to see him & the HDOH get what’s been coming to them for the past 3 years. And trust me Obots, it’s C O M I N G.

    • Posted September 21, 2011 at 3:29 am | Permalink | Reply

      It’s best not to get your hopes up. If the HDOH gets in trouble, I only foresee a few people paying the consequences. Besides, all it would take is a few people to perform all these crimes…

      • Posted September 26, 2011 at 3:03 am | Permalink

        But the coverup has to involve a lot of people, and that is where the biggest trouble is, IMHO. Who knew what, and when? Those are the critical questions because as long as people can ignore crimes of this magnitude with impunity, we can expect nothing but this kind of crap constantly.

      • Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:38 am | Permalink

        The “cover up” by “a lot of people” will be incredibly hard to prove. There will be fall guys. In my opinion, the subjectivity of much of this controversy concerning the “cover up” actually hinders much of the “birther” movement.

        If I had to pick specific “fall men,” it would be:
        Pfeiffer, Gibbs, Fuddy, Okubo, and Onaka.

        I’m not sure it’s necessarily wise to go beyond these five individuals. For that matter, if I wanted to be incredibly conservative, it may be wise just to focus on Fuddy.

        The less people you mention, the more credibility you gain. While it’s very true many Hawaii officials are corrupt and seemingly go against their own laws and statutes, public perception is important to analyze.

        This is what I consider one of the major failings of the “birther” movement. Instead of focusing on a “conspiracy” by “a lot of people,” focus should instead be placed on FEW people to make it SOUND more believable to the public. It’s a matter of juggling idealism with realism.

        Why do hear so many journalists bashing the “birthers?” Why do you think they only focus on the “crazy” born in Kenya theory? Why are journalists silent when it comes to people like Newcomer? Haven’t many “experts” come forward and claimed the birth certificate is fake?

        All this is just my opinion. I have no idea how many people are actually in on…whatever it is they’re in on. A conspiracy? I don’t really think there is a “conspiracy” per se. I think there may be a cover up, however, and Obama may be hiding behind the law (specifically, privacy laws). I really wish Obama was transparent with his records. But, then again, he himself has admitted he has “something to hide.” 😉

        Oh dear, it appears I have rambled. I must go now.


        I really like your blog butterdezillion.
        Keep up the good work!

      • Posted October 5, 2011 at 3:07 am | Permalink

        That’s not rambling and even if it was I am the last person qualified to throw stones at somebody who rambles. lol. I’m amazed that anybody plows through what I’ve written most of the time.

        I think the scandals that are surfacing right now vindicate what us “crazy birthers” have been saying. We find out now that Eric Holder perjured himself, the White House has kept the particularly incriminating e-mails regarding Fast and Furious hidden, and the FBI has obstructed justice in a murder case in order to hide the wrongdoing between the ATF the US attorney’s office, and the DOJ. Anybody who thought you’d have to be crazy to think that multiple government agencies would cover up crimes needs to comprehend what happened in Fast & Furious – which is only the tip of the iceberg. They need to realize that our government has armed ruthless drug cartels (known for beheadings, etc) with guns that our government never even made it possible to track, knowing those guns would end up killing AT LEAST innocent Mexicans if not innocent Americans as well.

        At this point, with all the evidence coming in on multiple “scandals” with this administration, a person would have to be crazy to think there ISN’T a conspiracy to cover up Obama’s eligibility problem.

        Especially when we have proof that somebody at the Selective Service Administration forged a draft registration for Obama and tried to pass it off as originating in 1980 when the automatic date stamp on it actually says ’08. And when we know that Obama’s passport file was breached 3 times, enabled by supervisors at the State Department who were alerted to the breach and turned a blind eye. And when we see a “cable” submitted to a judge by the head of the Passport Office that makes claims that are contrary to all the records we have regarding what records have been retained versus destroyed. And when we see one judge claim that $20,000 doesn’t meet the $500 minimum, another judge claim that it is “reasonable” to search post-1977 records for pre-1967 records, another judge try to slap somebody with “frivolous lawsuit” penalties because they wanted the courts, rather than Twitter, to rule on a legal issue, another judge hire a clerk from the law office defending the defendant in an active case at the same time as doing a complete reversal in favor of the defendant, etc. And at the same time as we see the Hawaii DOH breaking their laws which require that anybody be able to get a copy of any record (except law enforcement records) on file with their name on it. And all this after HI Governor Abercrombie – Obama’s friend – told his friend Mike Evans that there is no BC for Obama in Hawaii. And after the HDOH has indirectly admitted that Obama’s long-form and COLB are both forgeries, by admitting he still hasn’t waived his privacy rights by publishing a genuine BC. We also have proof that the Star-Bulletin birth announcement images we were told had come from 2 people independently checking the microfilms at the Hawaii State Library were actually not independently-acquired and could not have come from the microfilms at the HSL. The Advertiser image as well as the Star-Bulletin image actually came from somebody at the Advertiser office and the Advertiser image actually changed over time – losing C&P lines as it went. The actual microfilms in every library we checked have anomalies with the film itself or are known to have been changed out at least once because later copies from the microfilm reader lack prominent scratches that were there in copies taken a month or more earlier.

        And we’ve got the signed statement by a talk show host saying that he was threatened with loss of career, life, and/or family if he or any of his guests dealt honestly with Obama’s eligibility issue. There’s corroborating evidence for that as well – evidence that Obama’s lawyer threatened at least 3 cable news networks as well as radio franchises if they allowed the eligibility issue to be aired. This happened at least once before the election and once after the election, and a similar thing happened before our very eyes shortly after Sean Hannity supported Trump’s questions about Obama’s eligibility (and days later Media Matters revealed that they were going to do “guerilla warfare” on Fox’s reporters and on the parent company – followed soon after by the troubles with Rupert Murdoch in Britain…)

        I’m sure there are people who find this hard to believe, but the evidence is right there in front of our faces. People didn’t want to believe that Al Qaeda would do anything serious to the US either, in spite of the terror hits we had. Just wanted to poo-pooh it all – until 9-11 came and it could no longer be denied. Unfortunately, the “see no evil” mindset cost us 3,000 innocent American lives. I realize this is very uncomfortable evidence, but the boa is winding around us even as we speak and the longer we refuse to see the complete picture, the more certain our demise becomes.

        Winston Churchill was thought to be a nut – until the free world was forced to see what he had been able to see about Hitler all along, and desperately needed somebody to know the enemy in order to fight the enemy. We are so there right now. I believe the days are coming soon when America will no longer have the luxury of calling people like myself “nuts”, because the enemy will clearly reveal himself, and this nation and world will desperately need people who are willing to confront what has been winding its way around our necks in front of us all along.

        I know this is uncomfortable, but when you look at each of the dots I’ve mentioned, and back away from it so you absorb it all at once…. the picture is increasingly clear.

  9. Posted September 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    G’morning Butter. I agree with your take in
    https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/wnd-bc-forgery.pdf . I would suggest a closer look at the last digit in the WND certificate number on page 2. When you use the 400% setting in Acrobat, it becomes clear that the last number is a “5”, with three ink spots on the right side. Kindly disregard that at 400%, the first “9” no longer looks like a “9”. :^)

    Not that that matters, except for the sake of accuracy and correctness.

    • Posted September 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I hadn’t thought of enlarging it in the PDF. You’re right; it does look like a 5, with the ink spots to the right having a higher intensity of color. Seems weird to me that there would be ink spots there too. I don’t know if it’s just because of the magnification or what, but the parts that make the numbers identifiable largely seem to consist of blotches, with the other half of each number’s body being a lighter shade. I wonder how that compares with other “bleed-through” type instances.

  10. KJ
    Posted September 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink | Reply


    Glad to see that you are back and still looking. Looks like the obots are still monitoring your site too.

    On the numbering of BC’s: Before the data stored on computers/disk media were immediately available to everyone, only sequentially numbered BCs (or meticulous daily record keeping) could assure that duplicate BC numbers were not issued. Sequential numbering could have served as a double check on proper filing of BCs, i.e., it would have been the safest procedure. Random assignment of numbers would have required greater effort by the clerk(s) than sequential numbers.

    On DOH’s refusal to cough up the records that they are legally bound to cough up: Transparency could clear up the BC questions instantly. Either there is a serious problem with the Obama records or there is some unrelated mistake that DOH wishes to hide, a mistake that would undermine credibility. I think that they are sick of “birthers” and hope this will all just go away. I hope for transparency.

    On a Democratic primary challenge: Individual voters could request that their state verify Obama’s records before his name is placed on a primary ballot, and would have standing to sue the SOS if the request was refused. It is doubtful that such a records request would be honored for the general election ballot, because the individual voter would not have standing to sue. A challenge of a sitting president is like a vote of no confidence and, one way or another, a primary challenge would probably end Obama’s chance for a second term. The best course for the Democrats would be for Obama to follow LBJ’s lead and bow out of the race. Of course we know how likely that is to happen. Unlike Obama, LBJ was an astute and experienced politician.

    • Posted September 20, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Random numbering makes absolutely no sense to me, from a practical perspective if nothing else. Same with alphabetizing just a month’s worth of BC’s. Both things defy common sense for a smooth-running process.

      I think it’s revealing that Fuddy refuses to allow original photocopies of long-forms. According to UIPA she HAS to allow anybody to see their own records, not just an abstract. The key with that is to make a UIPA request for a copy of the original, rather than requesting a certified copy. What’s sad is that the whole State of Hawaii government is doing CYA for the HDOH. The whole system is breaking the laws and/or refusing to enforce the laws. They all know there is a cover-up in process, and they are all circling the wagons.

      Right now the HDOH should be required to explain exactly what their “index” includes, because if each line in that index represents a unique record, then they’ve got a LOT of double records – records under a slightly different name even though it’s obviously for the same physical person; the kind of name-hopping that Obama’s mother did, where she used combinations of names and initials for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soteoro Sutero. You could come up with over a dozen unique names just by messing with initials, full names, and hyphens. You could do that to hide your record, because it would be hard to know what combination to search for. And if each variation in the name was a unique record it would give you over a dozen legal identities to give away to others who wanted to have a Hawaii record. IOW, HI may have a LOT more records than they have physical bodies. Which means they’ve got a lot of records that are available for identity fraud.

      If each line in the index does NOT represent a distinct legally-valid record with its own unique certificate number, then any of those lines could represent a record that is not legally valid. Any line could be a name that doesn’t even have a number assigned to it because it is incomplete, or it could be a record that was late or amended. In short, it could be anything. It could be a clerk somewhere just typing in names with absolutely no paper documentation anywhere, since the number of records in the index wouldn’t even vaguely match the number of actual paper certificates they have, that hospitals filled out for a real, unique, physical baby whose birth they witnessed. If clerks can type in names at will, with no supporting documentation, then the index and everything about their record-keeping is a total farce.

      It’s been suggested that the HDOH is covering everything up because they have engaged in practices to pad their numbers in order to get more welfare money from the rest of the country. When I look at patterns in the birth indices that I’ve seen, I see that as a definite possibility. The way those records would be audited would be to see how many physical birth certificates they have compared to how many BC#’s they have. The only record of what the hospitals actually filled out and signed is the originals. Computerized abstracts could be fabricated out of thin air, and if that is what Hawaii has done, then it would be critical for them to make the original paper BC’s inaccessible, to hide the number of actual physical persons they can account for.

      Which is precisely what they have done, without citing any valid reason to do so. Just like they never cited any valid reason to ask Neal Palafox to resign as HDOH Director. I suspect it may have been because he wasn’t willing to allow a forged Obama BC into their records and wouldn’t agree to make the totally-unwarranted moves that Fuddy has made to do CYA for the criminal activity of the HDOh over the years. I suspect that Palafox was a straight-shooter, and that was why they had to get rid of him. Just like the Obama Administration has illegally fired inspectors general all over the place, simply because they were doing their jobs. The Obama people had to get rid of the watchdogs and install their own puppets so they could rob the bank easily and with impunity.

      And that’s what they’ve been doing, easily and with impunity.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted October 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        Actually, the idea of alphabetizing the certificates is not just reasonable, it was explicitly the practice all over the world prior to full computerization of vital records. The primary method of searching for a birth record has always been by name, not by date of birth and definitely not by “certificate number.”

        Records are alphabetized for the purpose of creating the annual index that usually serves as the first few pages of any bound volume of birth records. That is where you go first to find the page number of the actual record. This is pretty basic stuff for genealogists.

        Alphabetizing “as you go” also serves to keep records searchable during the period between the certificate’s creation and its eventual numbering. If (as the evidence suggests) the Hawaii DoH numbered as many as a full month’s of records at a time, any need to find a record in the interim (for example, if an infant died) would be easier if the records were kept in rough alphabetical order.

      • Posted October 6, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        HD, you’re ignoring what Janice Okubo said: there was no delay between the time the HDOH received birth certificates and the time they numbered them, for the vast majority of BC’s. The day the HDOH received the BC’s was, except in very rare situations, the same day that the HDOH gave them a number. THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN THE HDOH ALPHABETIZING THEM BEFORE NUMBERING THEM. Janice Okubo’s statement makes that abundantly clear.

        And the HDOH has also told me that they used index cards to alphabetize the records and list the locations so the records could be located. What they alphabetized was the index cards, so they could always have an up-to-date alphabetical index for ALL the BC’s – not have to look through multiple partial piles of alphabetized BC’s.

        Your arguments simply do not fit the evidence we have. You’re ignoring whole pieces of the puzzle.

  11. Just curious
    Posted September 24, 2011 at 11:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just wanted to say I like following your research and I believe Obama is hiding something. He is not eligible to hold office. I’ve seen on sites that some believe he was born around the US/Washington State and Canada border. Has anyone tried to get birth indexes from hospitals in that area for the date of his birth? Just a thought. Keep up the good work!

    • Posted September 26, 2011 at 3:00 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks. I don’t know about the hospitals, but a check of the DOH records yielded nothing for him under the name of Obama. Should check and see if there’s anything under Dunham maybe…

      • Posted October 4, 2011 at 1:26 am | Permalink

        The same investigators found no Honolulu hospital with a record of Stanley Ann Dunham (or Obama) being a patient on or around Aug. 4, 1961.

  12. Gary Miller
    Posted October 4, 2011 at 9:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butter —

    Can you direct me to a website where I can see the birth certificates of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Herman Cain? You’ve always said “this isn’t about Obama.”



    • Posted October 5, 2011 at 2:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      I know of no website that has those birth certificates posted at present, but I could direct you to the website where all those BC’s would be posted when any of them applied to be on the Nebraska ballot, if the bill I testified in support of had been passed with the amendments we wanted: the Nebraska SOS’s website.

      And as I testified at that hearing, one of my concerns is with people who are rising in the Republican party. Among the examples you gave, one of them specifically is Romney. I’ve heard that Romney was born in Mexico, to evade the anti-polygamy laws in the US. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but the bill I supported would have ensured that anybody who had questions – myself included – would be able to get legal answers to the legal questions and would be able to see the documentation for any factual issues. If you check me out at Free Republic you’ll find that I have expressed concerns about Rubio being chosen as a VP candidate, because I don’t know if he qualifies as NBC because his dad wasn’t yet a US citizen when he was born.

      This isn’t really much about Obama at all, although I obviously have a problem with his forgery, perjury, and extortion in order to cover up his ineligibility. More than anything it is about the failure of the system to uphold the rule of law and the courts’ insistence that it is nobody’s business if our White House is occupied by a criminal foreign usurper. If that is none of our business they may as well tell We the People to go to Hell because nothing is our business.

  13. gorefan
    Posted October 8, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butter,

    Hope you have been well. There is some new information that you might find interesting.

    Lucas Smith (he of the Kenya birth certificate) recently posted to scripd.com, a document that contain all of the Honolulu Advertiser birth announcements for August, 1961

    On page 37 of 39 there is an announcement for Mr. and Mrs. James Ah’Nee, 623-A Kunawai Lane, daughter, August 23rd. (second column, second announcement).

    This information matches the information that can be seen on the WND birth certificate. (father’s first name, street address, DOB, sex of child).

    So, if this is correct then you have:

    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
    Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th

    Doesn’t it look as though the birth certificates were processed on a monthly basis, alphabetically).

    • Posted October 9, 2011 at 2:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      As I told Historian Dude, Janice Okubo herself debunked that claim when she said that except in rare situations, the Oahu BC’s were accepted (which the Administrative Rules say means numbered) on the same day they were received. The statute at the time said that had to be within 7 days of the birth.

      So we can speculate all we want about why these numbers don’t match up, but it’s pointless for 2 reasons:

      1) in that list of 5 BC’s we already know that 2 of them are forgeries, which raises the question of who they were forged by and why.

      2) The official sources (Okubo, HDOH Administrative Rules, and the Hawaii statutes in effect in 1963) already make it clear that there was no month-long delay between the “date filed/received” and when the BC was numbered – in fact, Okubo has said it was all done the same day except in very rare situations.

      So unless you want to say Okubo is lying in this instance (in which case the obvious question is why she would be lying, and why we should trust anything she has said if she lies at will…) you just need to accept that the official sources mean that a routine hospital birth would not result in the “date filed”/BC# discrepancy we see in the forged Obama birth certificates. About the only instance where you would see that kind of discrepancy is a situation where a child had died and the name on the BC was different than the name on the death certificate, causing the HDOH to know there was a discrepancy and causing a delay in resolving that discrepancy before the BC that was filed/received would be numbered.

      Which just so happens to be the situation with Virginia Sunahara – the little girl whose computerized record at the HDOH no longer bears her name (unless the HDOH lied about not having her record even though her name is in their birth index, which, again, raises the question of why they are lying about not having her records).

      • gorefan
        Posted October 9, 2011 at 2:38 am | Permalink

        If the numbers are assigned once a month, the date filed/accepted was assigned earlier. As to Okubo, she might not understand the procedures from fifty years ago.

        As to Virginia, I would suggest that instead of trying to get original newspaper announcements, the birther summit people should pay the $10,000 to the Sunahara’s for a copy of her COLB/birth certificate.

        Also WND should unredact the bc they have posted.

      • Posted October 9, 2011 at 5:40 am | Permalink

        The numbers were not assigned once a month. They were assigned when they were “accepted”, which Janice Okubo says is for Oahu births almost always the same day as the BC was received by a local registrar – which the law said had to be done within a week of the birth. There’s just not wiggle room in there for BC’s to be collected for a month and then numbered. It wouldn’t make any sense to do it that way either, since the HDOH has also told me that they used alphabetized index cards to show where the BC’s were located.

        The Sunaharas have already been offered a large amount of money. They refuse to ask for the birth certificate. And the HDOH has very conveniently broken their laws to say that a person CAN’T get a copy of their original long-form BC if the HDOH doesn’t want to give it to them. It’s illegal as heck because UIPA says that except for law enforcement records, it is a REQUIRED disclosure for agencies to disclose the records they have containing the name of the requestor. And there’s absolutely no reason for them to break the UIPA law either, unless they have something they want to hide that’s on those original records.

        And besides, when they checked their computer records for Virginia’s birth record they didn’t find anything under her name. Why don’t they have any birth record for her, when her name is in their birth index?

        What the HDOH is teling us through their refusal to obey the laws is that the only way we will ever know what the genuine records had on them is by auditing the whole cahuna – original long-form BC’s in the HDOH office AND the embedded computer transaction logs that reveal exactly what has been done to every record, when, and by whom. This whole time I’ve been saying that is what needs to be audited. The fact that the HDOH is illegally hiding original records immediately tells me that they have something to hide from those original records – just like their illegal hiding of the HDOH Administrative Rules until a year after the election says they had something they wanted to hide from those rules.

        The most damaging thing being that the combination of the rules (which authorize the disclosure) and UIPA (which REQUIRES authorized disclosures to be made) mean that ANYBODY WHO ASKS TO SEE IT is legally required to be given a non-certified copy of Obama’s COLB, or anybody else’s, including Waidelich, Sunahara, and anybody else’s that we ask to see. We should be able to look in the birth index to find out the names of the children whose Aug 3-6 births were announced in the newspaper announcements, ask for a non-certified copy of the COLB for each one, and know right now how they numbered those BC’s. They won’t do it though, Gorefan. It’s required by law – as even the Ombudsman’s office indirectly admitted to me – but they won’t do it. And nobody will MAKE them obey the law. Does that bug you at all?

        I agree that WND should unredact the BC they posted. They should also give it to Sheriff Joe, along with a deposition regarding how they received it in the first place.

  14. Posted October 25, 2011 at 12:49 am | Permalink | Reply

    The summary:

    1. This BC is problematic because, like other long-forms posted online, it is not legally certified in accordance with the DOH Administrative Rules which require it to have either the OFFICIAL (2 1/4-inch diameter, with stars) DOH seal or the State of Hawaii seal displayed. This BC has neither.

    Shouldn’t this read: “… either the OFFICIAL (2 1/4-inch diameter, with stars) DOH seal or the State of Hawaii… (stamp)… instead of “seal”… displayed?

    ex animo

    • Posted October 30, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back on this one. The actual HDOH Administrative Rules (Chapter 8b, found at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf ) say:

      “Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.”

      So the seal of the issuing office is the only one that is required by PHR Chapter 8b to be RAISED.

      Chapter 8b does say that “Only the Director of Health shall issue certified copies of a vital record.” Interpreted strictly, that would mean that the Director’s office is always the issuing office – and the standard (long-form) birth certificates in the past have always had the HDOH Director’s signature and the raised official seal of the Department of Health (which is described in Title 11 as being 2 1/4 inches in diameter and having stars on it, among other requirements). If Chapter 8b is interpreted loosely it could be said that the Director issues certified copies through the state registrar’s office, so that is the “issuing office” and what is on the BC’s is to be the STATE REGISTRAR’S SEAL. That hasn’t been defined so it could be just about anything, including the smaller “seal” with circles rather than stars between the words on it.

      But the rules also say that the paper must display either the OFFICIAL seal of the DOH or the state seal. The computer-generated COLB’s met that requirement by having the non-raised state seal displayed on the top of the paper. They have to have that because the raised seal is not the official DOH seal but is only the STATE REGISTRAR’s seal.

      But the long-forms that we’ve seen online have the same raised seal as the COLB’s – that is, the STATE REGISTRAR’s SEAL. The seal of the issuing office. Again, Chapter 8b requires that the BC somewhere display either the OFFICIAL DOH SEAL (which is 2 1/4 inches in diameter and has stars between the words on it) or the state seal.

      The long-forms of the past displayed the official DOH seal – which Title 11 requires to be impressed on certificates near the signature of the Health Director’s signature to verify that it was issued from his/her office. The old long-forms met all those requirements of Title 11, which were reaffirmed in 2005(?), and the requirements of “Public Health Regulations” Chapter 8b.

      But the long-forms we’ve seen online – including this WND one and Obama’s – don’t meet that requirement. They have neither the state seal nor the official (2 1/4″ diameter and with stars) DOH seal. Even with just the vestiges of a seal showing on Obama’s we know it’s not the official DOH seal because it’s the wrong size. And the seals we’ve seen that are the same size as the vestiges on Obama’s supposed long-form are just the STATE REGISTRAR’S SEAL – having circles rather than stars between the words as Title 11 requires for the official DOH seal.

      So either the HDOH is defrauding everybody – including Obama – by issuing (and charging for) “certified copies” that are not LAWFULLY certified, or else the long-forms we’ve seen are not really from the HDOH. Since we have no way of knowing which is the case, these BC’s are totally worthless for LEGALLY verifying anything. We have no way of knowing whether these are really from the HDOH or not. According to the actual Hawaii laws.

      And given the crimes of the HDOH we wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether what’s on a BC is what is truly in the HDOH office, even if we DID know it was sent out by them. When an office takes liberties to alter records, lie, break laws, etc, we can’t trust anything they do. IOW, for all sakes and purposes we have no legal verification of anything from Hawaii. They might as well not even HAVE birth certificates of a vital records office because what they have is totally worthless, totally meaningless because of the criminality within the HDOH.

      I know this can be confusing. Does this make sense, or do I need to find a better way to explain it? And again, sorry for the delay in answering.

  15. RoyceLatham
    Posted November 12, 2011 at 1:05 am | Permalink | Reply


    You are right to focus in on the birth certificate number. Obama did in fact use Virginia’s number. Too bad they didn’t copy it directly from Virginia’s birth certificate, so it would at least look authentic.
    Obama is fading fast. He will not be on the ballot in 2012. His ship of state is full of holes and even though the bilge pump is working overtime, it is not keeping up with the incoming water. Stay strong and you will see your work rewarded.

    • Posted November 12, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I hope so. There are so many stories in the news (and not in the news…) that show us how whole systems overlooked and/or covered up blatant crimes. The Penn State thing shows a whole system that covered up crimes and rewarded perpetrators rather than prosecute them.

      Fast and Furious was never about tracking the guns before they were used in crimes, because the guns had no tracking devices installed. It was about arming the drug cartels so they would create a Darfur-type situation that would give a compelling argument for allowing our border to be open to fleeing families and using the serial number tracking AFTER murders occurred in order to push for gun control. And to cover their behinds, the BATFE leadership, FBI, and US attorney’s office in AZ all obstructed justice.

      Light Squared involved a communications company (belonging to big democrat donors) wanting the US military to claim that the project would not disable military technology, so that federal funds would be given to the company whether or not the company ever actually ended up able to do the project. The White House tried to get a military officer to lie to Congress about it. Fortunately, that officer had the integrity to instead report the White House’s corruption to Congress.

      Solyndra is another case where the White House was advised by all their advisors AGAINST giving money to the company (which also belonged to big democrat donors). They ignored all that and gave the taxpayer money, which was manipulated so that when the company went bankrupt the dem contributors ended up with the money anyway. A laundering system to funnel millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of democrat donors. And now that Congress has subpoenaed records regarding that situation, the Obama White House has glibly said they don’t have to answer subpoenas. What fools any of us were who thought that laws make any difference. The only laws that make any difference are laws which are actually enforced. And that’s not many laws at this point.

      At the same time, the Department of Injustice is trying to change the rules for FOIA requests so that instead of using a Glomar response – where the requestor is told that the existence or non-existence of a record cannot be revealed – the agency will just deny that records exist, even when they do exist. IOW, they are trying to legalize Department of Injustice lying. Blatant lying, so that people will think records don’t exist when in fact they do. That’s exactly what the HDOH and OIP have been doing to me for a couple years now – trying to keep me from knowing whether their responses are Glomar responses, or whether they are flat-out denials of access to records which exist.

      I understand that Sheriff Joe’s posse is requesting the microfilmed volume of birth certificates in which Obama’s BC should be. I don’t expect the HDOH to allow access to those microfilms immediately; instead, they will stall with legal gymnastics until they can get the microlfilms altered. Somebody among Obama’s handlers has already practiced with that by replacing multiple libraries’ microfilms of newspapers. They did it badly, which is how we know they did it. But by now they may have the kinks out of the process, and by getting black-market aged film they could pull it off, if given enough time. They may have already had enough time. The same thing could be happening with the transaction logs for the computerized records, although I’m told that there are so many double-checks that it would be very difficult to get rid of all the evidence of manipulation. But checking all the transaction logs would be necessary because the HDOH has already apparently been willing to manipulate the BC# of Stig Waidelich. They issued a BC for him that may well be outside the range of the microfilmed volume that Sheriff Joe has requested – which would make room in that microfilm roll for Virginia to be given Waidelich’s BC#. To document what they did, you’d have to show that Obama was given Sunahara’s BC#, Sunahara was given Waidelich’s BC#, and Waidelich was given somebody else’s BC# (which is in a different volume of BC’s). The computerized transaction logs would show all those BC# alterations.

      What Sheriff Joe needs to do is get an immediate search warrant for those computerized transaction logs as well as the microfilm roll having not only Obama’s BC, but also the BC for Stig Waidelich. The trouble is that Hawaii itself is so corrupt that the fox is guarding the hen house and no Hawaii judge is likely to issue a search warrant. Lawlessness. The people with responsibility for justice and protection choosing instead to cover for the perpetrator. Just like Penn State. Just like Fast and Furious. Just like Solyndra. Just like Light Squared. Just like the DOJ wanting legal permission to lie… It’s an overwhelming pattern for every level of government, media, and law enforcement.

      If our country was a quilt I would say the fabric is ALL so frayed that it’s impossible to get any stitches to hold this thing together. And until we restore some semblance of integrity in those systems – government, media, and law enforcement – this quilt is so hopelessly trashed that it cannot be repaired. The 2012 election is absolutely critical, but we all need to know that the chief job of whoever gets in will be to clean up these systems so we can begin the process of repairing this badly-torn and divided quilt.

      If Sheriff Joe was running for president, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. What we need is somebody with the heart – and balls – of Sheriff Joe. And who recognizes that cleaning up these systems is the critical job we the people are hiring him/her to do – which must be done before any repair of the other infrastructure (such as the economy) can be done. “Financial reform” will always be corrupt when it’s done by crooks, and politicians will always be crooks when law enforcement lets them get away with it. The basic foundation of society is the rule of law, and until we have that, everything else in government will be criminal.

      I think the people in our country – at least the ones who are awake, rather than lulled by the MSM – are realizing what a terrible lawless mess we’re in, and REALLY want to get back to some semblance of sanity.

  16. gorefan
    Posted November 14, 2011 at 4:26 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butterdezillion, Hope you have been well.

    Here is something new from Dr. Taitz’s site,

    “Research pointed to the fact, that one, Virginia Sunahara was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 and passed away the next day. Recently her surviving brother Dunken Sunahara demanded to see her long form birth certificate, but the department of Health denied the request, even though it came from a close relative. Department of Health provided Mr. Sunahara only with a computer generated short form birth certificate with a serial number, which was suspiciously out of sequence from all the other numbers issued to infants born August 4, 1961.”


    Unfortunately, she does not give the cert number for Virgina Sunhara. But it would appear Virginia’s COLB does not have the same cert # as President Obama. And it is way out of sequence for August 4, 1961. So they could not have given her Stig Waidelich’s number.

    Here is my guess:

    Her cert number, when revealed, will be between 10641 and 10920. Closer to 10920, may be in the 10800 to 10850 range.

    • Posted November 14, 2011 at 5:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      Short-forms mean nothing. But it gives one more piece of the computer transaction logs that needs to be analyzed, to see whether they manipulated the data for her.

      Did the HDOH happen to say how they were able to get a short-form BC for Sunahara after telling me that they didn’t have any birth records for her?

      Did they say why they are allowed to disobey the UIPA law which requires disclosure of copies of original records that don’t qualify for an exemption to disclosure? The privacy exemption certainly doesn’t apply for a deceased person’s records requested by next-of-kin. How did the HDOH justify their violation of the law in this particular case?

      They’re going to have some serious butchering to do on those microfilms before Sheriff Joe gets a search warrant for the microfilmed original BC’s for all these people…

      • gorefan
        Posted November 14, 2011 at 5:20 am | Permalink

        I don’t know the answer to your questions, maybe Dr. Taitz does. As to Sheriff Joe, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that search warrant.

      • Posted November 14, 2011 at 5:32 am | Permalink

        There are enough duplicate records (not listed as “duplicate”, like the “Obado, Duplicate Mae” record, but 2 records for obviously the same person) in the birth indices since HI became a state, that they could switch around BC#’s like crazy, so that there is no rhyme or reason to what they list as BC#’s for anybody. Plenty of BC’s for children that weren’t even given a first name so it’s pretty sure there aren’t genuine BC copies out there to expose HDOH manipulation of BC#’s now.

        There’s a lot of crap with those birth indices. I haven’t laid it all out yet but it sure looks like the HDOH people have lots of “stray” records that can be used for identity fraud. Actually looks like anybody in that office could add records to the birth indices whether or not there was actually any birth certificate submitted from a hospital, registrar, or anybody else. IOW, it’s looking very much like the birth index lists are a slush collection for “records” that could be used for identity fraud. With the marriage records there are obvious typos, but with the birth indices it’s different

        Lawless thugs.

        I’m not holding my breath on the search warrant either because – as both you and I know – there is no Hawaii judge with the integrity to allow a real investigation to be done. The state of Hawaii is committing treason against the other 56 (HA!) states.

        The Lord is not mocked. There will be a Day when all these people answer for all of this, and on that Day they will wish they were me.

    • RoyceLatham
      Posted November 14, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The true record shows Virginia’s number is the same as Obama’s. Don’t expect them to release that fact, because that is the one fact that can conclusively show that not only is Obama a fraud, but that many people are involved in the coverup. If there was a parallel database that the DOH did not have control over, we could see:
      #1 Obama’s birth certificate is not in it.
      #2 Virginia’s number is the same as Obama’s.

      • RoyceLatham
        Posted November 14, 2011 at 10:10 pm | Permalink


        Hawaii should adopt a dewey decimal system. Then they could insert records wherever they are needed. The whole point of assigning numbers in order is to protect against the very kind of fraud we are witnessing today.
        The microfilm is not so easy to duplicate. An investigation into the newspaper ads would show fraud there as well. Hopefully Arpaio has thought of that as well. I’m sure team coverup has, so those micro fiche are sealed like every other aspect of his crooked life.

      • Posted November 15, 2011 at 1:09 am | Permalink

        I haven’t gone to the trouble of documenting this publicly, but Hawaii basically DOES have a dewey decimal system, if the entries in the birth indices represent unique records. They’ve got duplicates all over the place. There’s no way the hospitals sent in 2 different birth certificates for an individual child as often as those duplicates occur in the post-statehood indices. If the names on the indices represent unique records, then somebody at the HDOH has typed in 2 different records for the same person, in many cases. I don’t know when or why they did it, but the net result is that there are records (such as the original record for Mae Obado, the original lindex ocation of which is precisely where Barack Hussein Obama II’s name appears in the birth index now) which can have the name altered and be used for identity fraud. I have a copy of one page where over 10% of the names on the list were blatant duplicates for another name on the list.

        It’s been suggested elsewhere that the HDOH doesn’t want its records examined because it would show that they’ve been defrauding the federal government by inflating their birth numbers and providing opportunities for stolen “US citizen” identities. At least one person from Hawaii has posted on Free Republic that this was being done. Unless there’s some strange explanation for these duplicates being in the birth indices, I’d say the indices show that there is no control within the system to make sure that every computer record is accompanied by a unique paper original birth certificate. Which means that they can add, delete, or change records at will without the system itself calling foul. IOW, their electronic verification system could be full of records that HDOH personnel typed in randomly – specifically to be used for identity fraud purposes.

        There is no integrity in this system at all. Period.

        Regarding microfilms, there is no way that the newspaper microfilms currently i(as of last year anyway) n the Hawaii State Library and the University of HI -Manoa library are the original microfilms from 1961. With “scratches” supposedly disappearing over multiple later dates, there is evidence that those and other libraries’ microfilms have been changed out at least once, and in one case at least twice. So Obama’s handlers already have a demonstrated history of manipulating microfilms. And claiming that computer images came from library microfilm that they could not have come from. I put nothing past these people. Those who believe everything is peachy and Obama’s documentation is all in order need to explain why these microfilms have been provably manipulated and lied about, if the original microfilms contained what these new forgeries contain.

        Hawaii has been systematically gutting their disclosure laws – just as the Department of Injustice is trying to gut the FOIA “rules” to allow them to blatantly lie in their FOIA responses. The system has absolutely NO integrity whatsoever. Anybody who cares about government integrity should be screaming just as loudly as the Penn State system should have been screaming when Sandusky was observed raping 12-year-old boys.

      • Posted November 15, 2011 at 12:29 am | Permalink

        The HDOH refuses to obey disclosure laws and vital records laws. They instituted their “policy” of not issuing copies of originals right about the time when the truth about Sunahara’s birth situation was becoming public. That wasn’t to keep them from revealing Obama’s (forged) supposed “original”, but to keep anybody from being able to get the originals of the BC’s whose numbers they have switched around, including Sunahara’s.

        There are supposed to be database records which would reveal what changes have been made to the database, when, and by whom. I suspect that those records would show that Sunahara’s name has been changed to Barack Obama and back at least twice, Waidelich’s BC# has been changed to the number on his most recent COLB and then back to what it was before, Sunahara’s BC# has been changed to what was on the short-form they gave Duncan, etc. They could play musical chairs with BC#’s until the cows come home, and as long as the BC#’s involved belong to people who are either dead or complicit in the coverup, nobody will ever know.

        Unless those computer records are audited, which is what needs to happen – along with a search warrant for the original microfilms of the BC’s from August of 1961.

  17. HistorianDude
    Posted December 30, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Orly Taitz now claims that she has a copy of Virginia Sunahara’s short form Birth Certificate recently issued to her family. Ignoring that this contradicts your claim some months ago that the DoH denied that such a record existed, Taitz has (to this point) refused to release the certificate number, though she has commented that it does not agree with your theory of certificate numbering.

    We already (even without the Sunahara certificate) have access to five certificate numbers from around the time of Obama’s birth. None of them have ever agreed with your theory. All of them agree with a system in which the numbers were assigned alphabetically (by surname) in a batch. They are:

    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
    Obama – 10641 – August 4th
    Waidelich – 10920 – August 5th

    I predict here and now that the Sunahara certificate number when finally released will fall between 10641 and 10920, verifying again that Obama’s certificate number is legitimate.

    • RoyceLatham
      Posted January 1, 2012 at 4:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      Recently issued, means that the number could be anything that fits the coverup. I will make a new years’ prediction:

      Also Holder will step down from AG before the election for his involvement in PATCON.

      • Posted January 1, 2012 at 5:06 am | Permalink

        That’s why it’s significant that Sheriff Joe’s posse wanted to see the original microfilm rolls.

        I would suggest that they also get a SEARCH WARRANT (not a subpoena because that gives time for manipulation) for a specific random microfilm roll that is NOT associated with Obama so the HDOH would not know to manipulate it – and use that to establish the protocols for handling BC’s (especially how they numbered them). The HDOH’s manipulation of their birth index should show just cause for a search warrant rather than a subpoena – although I don’t know much about law enforcement or lawyering so who knows.

      • RoyceLatham
        Posted January 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

        The problem that Hawaii is having, is the number presented in Obama’s forgeries was originally given to Virginia Sunahara. Everything so far has been a Chinese fire drill,

        Obama will not be in office on election day. The collapse of the dollar and the European currency will allow the truth to come out. The problems of Holder will drag the fraudulent closet dweller down.

    • Posted January 1, 2012 at 4:21 am | Permalink | Reply

      Did Okubo lie, then, when after months of evading the question she finally came out and said that “date filed” was the same as the “date accepted” for Oahu birth cerrtificates? Keep in mind that the Administrative Rules use the numbering of the BC and “acceptance” of the BC interchangeably, so if the “date filed” is “date accepted” it is also the date that the BC was numbered.

      So was Okubo lying about that? If so, why? And if so, then why should we believe anything she tells us?

      What would it tell you if the number the HDOH currently has on Sunahara’s BC doesn’t fit your theory – like Okubo’s statements don’t fit your theory? What will you do if a BC# is made public that shows they didn’t alphabetize BC’s by last name for a month before numbering any of them?

      If that happened, would you agree that – especially given the HDOH’s alteration of the 1960-64 birth index to include names from legally non-valid BC’s – it would be reasonable for the HDOH to submit to law enforcement scrutiny the microfilm rolls for both 1961 BC’s and randomly-chosen rolls from other years to establish how the HDOH numbered BC’s?

      And BTW, I have shown the proof that the HDOH claimed they didn’t have a birth record for Sunahara. That’s not up for debate; it is a fact. Now they have come up with a birth record for her. Why did they tell me that the record I requested doesn’t exist? Did they search for her name in the index or not? If they didn’t search for it, why did they tell me they did? If they did search for it, why didn’t it show up when they searched the database, when it DID show up in the birth index available to the public? Does it bother you at all that what they show the public may be different than what they are able to find when they search? Considering that they added the legally-nonvalid Asing names to the 1960-64 birth index, what would stop them from changing the name from Sunahara to Obama in their database after the index had been printed out – which would explain why the index had Sunahara’s name but the database didn’t when they looked for it?

      You seem to be trying to make it sound like *I* goofed on saying the HDOH claimed no record for Sunahara. I documented my claim. I was not the one who goofed; the HDOH goofed. Or lied. Or altered records AGAIN.

      Right now the only evidence we have for a HI birth certificate for Obama at all is the July 2009 statement of Fukino – which the HI AG’s office backed off on and tried to claim was based not on an actual BC but on the birth index alone, saying that Fukino claimed the BC claims a HI birth because his name is in the birth index. But we know that the HDOH has manipulated the birth index to include names from legally-nonvalid BC’s. So if Fukino’s claim was based on the birth index then it was definitely NOT a claim that Obama has a LEGALLY VALID birth certificate. Which actually would make sense because the HDOH had already revealed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006 so it is not legally valid.

      We also have Fuddy’s claim that they gave certified copies of Obama’s long-form to Obama’s lawyer. But we know that what Obama posted was not legally certified. The barely-detectable remnant of a seal on that image was too small to be the official 2 1/4-inch HDOH seal, and either that official seal or the seal of the State of Hawaii has to be displayed on any legally-certified copy. (according to the HDOH Administrative Rules specifically governing vital records). Neither were on that copy. So what Obama disclosed was NOT what Fuddy gave his lawyer. Why would Obama disclose a fake if the certified copy Fuddy gave him had on it exactly what was on the fake? And if the difference was that what Fuddy certified noted the 2006 amendment, then Fuddy knows that Obama has no legally-valid BC…. and she has been deceiving the public and committing misprision of the felony of forgery if she failed to report the forgery to law enforcement. Right?

      • HistorianDude
        Posted January 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

        What I said was quite clear. I said this “contradicts your claim,” and it absolutely does. My point in passing was not to capture a “gotcha” moment that stands out in isolation, but to point out an established pattern; i.e. your habit of jumping to conclusions with inadequate evidence, and insistence on holding onto them even when long proven wrong.

        The Certificate Number issue is the most objectively clear example of that habit of yours. You confabulated an unwavering theory regarding how Hawaii numbered their birth certificates at a time when none of the actual evidence you had in hand supported it. Even when all you had in hand were the certificate numbers of President Obama and the Nordyke twins, the data indicated that your theory was wrong.

        With every subsequent discovery of another relevant certificate number, your theory was further refuted. It only took the Stig Waidelich certificate to show that there was a better alternate theory… one that actually fit the facts. But rather than adjust your theory to the data, you insisted that it was fake.

        Later still, WND comes up with a fifth certificate and even tries to hide the certificate number… but intrepid investigators were able to reveal the number and (after some hard work) identify the name. The number again perfectly fit the theory you have rejected and again refuted your own. But again rather than adjust your theory to the data, you insisted not only that it too was fake but that WND (the only significant “news source” to support the Birther movement) was complicit in the fakery.

        The most powerful tools we have for testing any theory is whether or not it makes testable predictions. And in this case we have exactly such a testable prediction. It is simply fascinating that Orly has to this point refused to release the Virginia Sunahara certificate number, but that is actually our good fortune since it gives us this opportunity to test again the competing theories. There is little doubt that you will continue to scream “fake,” but with each release that cry becomes more absurd and unsustainable. The lesson learned here has never been that you are quick to accuse all dissonant data of being fake, but that you really do not ultimately care what the data is at all.

        Your theory never had a single data point that supported it. Never once, and not a single one. This is true of almost every theory you have confabulated in your crusade against this President, but this is the example where it is not dependent on your and Miss Tickley’s forced equivocation or creative reinterpretation of verbal ambiguity, but instead can be shown objectively and without question; just the facts ma’am.

        My prediction stands… we’ll see before long if it proves correct. I do promise you this though. If my prediction is wrong I will defer to the data, abandon the theory and move on.

        That’s the way real researchers proceed.

      • Posted January 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

        My interest is in pointing out discrepancies. Your theory is contradicted by a combination of Janice Okubo’s official responses to multiple people, the HDOH Administrative Rules, the HDOH Rules of Practice and Procedure, and HRS 338. I don’t remember anybody giving answer as to whether Okubo lied about that, then, or whether she is just too incompetent to have trustworthy answers – either of which means that anything she says is questionable and my calls for an investigation are justified. I don’t know what’s the truth on any of this – BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY DISCREPANCIES. And that is precisely what I am objecting to.

        Of the BC#’s you mentioned, I have shown with concrete evidence that Ah Nee’s number is faked (because 2 digits overlap which wouldn’t happen with a mechanical adjustable stamp) and that Obama’s COLB and supposed long-form are fake (because the COLB’s “seal” doesn’t distort with the fold of the paper it was supposedly on, and because the long-form was not legally certified, lacking either the official 2 1/4-inch HDOH seal or the State of HI seal as required by PHR Chapter 8b). That leaves the 2 Nordyke BC’s and Waidelich. The Nordyke BC’s are not alphabetized, and Waidelich’s BC# not only contradicts all the evidence from the paragraph above but it came out right at the time that Fukino indicated that she was aware of the numbering problem and was followed by the Ah Nee BC#, which was altered for no apparent reason other than to support your theory.

        But maybe the HDOH should come out directly and answer questions through OFFICIAL responses where they are legally accountable for their responses. I dare you to send a UIPA request for records showing that they numbered their BC’s once a month. I’d do it but they won’t answer my requests these days AND they’ve documentably shown that they will either LIE to me (by telling me that Sunahara’s birth record doesn’t even exist) or respond to me from an ALTERED/MANIPULATED database (one where Sunahara’s name doesn’t show up any more).

        The Ah Nee BC# is instructive, though, because it shows a modus operandus for Obama’s apologists. I do not believe that WND was complicit in the forgery. I believe they were tricked by somebody who knew they would be looking at the typefonts and not the BC#, and I said right here on this blog that it suggested to me that the MO would be to get the trust of somebody skeptical of Obama and through them to get disinformation to the rest of us. Gain the trust of “birther” researchers and through them feed disinformation and forgeries into the general public. It is not lost on me that a Fogbow poster submitted a comment right here, saying what Waidelich’s BC# was and saying it contradicted my concerns, at 6AM the morning after CNN passingly showed that blurry BC#. Long before the FR folks were even figuring out how to see the number clearly, an Obama apologist was right here trying to get me – a credible “birther” – to drop my concerns based on the CNN WAidelich stunt that “proved” a point that nobody was even contesting (that the HDOH routinely gives out COLB’s unless a long-form is requested).

        I’ve seen the same thing via reports from “birther” sources that would not substantiate their claims with specifics. A while back somebody had said they spoke to registrars from HI who indicated that the order of the newspaper birth announcements indicates which registrar received the BC. I know that the order of the birth announcements in the 2 papers is flaky. Some names appear 3 weeks apart in the 2 papers, in a different order. So I contacted the author of that report asking for clarificationand substantiation regarding who he spoke with and what sources they gave; no response. People asked me publicly what I thought and I said that while there were some valid, interesting questions raised, that assertion was not supported by what’s actually in the newspapers.

        A similar thing happened with Will Hoover and Lori Starfelt. Will Hoover says he spoke to a guy who had gone to the HDOH office every day of the week in 1961 to get the birth announcement list for the day. Starfelt said the HDOH had told her that they published that list on Friday. I don’t know which is the truth, if either. If the claim is inaccurate I don’t know who’s in error – Hoover/Starfelt, or their source that they trusted. All I know is that there is a discrepancy and we are not getting any written, legally-accountable answers from Hawaii. Which may be just as well because I’ve proven that even their written, supposedly legally-accountable answers are either lies or based on manipulated data.

        The best I can do, then, is to require documentation from others and to provide documentation for any claim I make. I need to edit a draft of an article I’ve got ready to post about what is required for legal certification of vital records, because new information has come out since I wrote it. That would document why I say that Obama’s long-form is not legally certified; I’ve given the reasoning but still need to publicly document how I know that the remnants of the “seal” are not 2 1/4″ in diameter. Aside from that, the claims I’ve made have been documented so that anybody and everybody can see why I’m saying what I am and can point out any errors publicly.

        I had somebody point out a factual error in the post I made about the newspaper announcements. I had missed the year that was on one of my sources so I thought that the Starfelt image I had was the day after she had initially posted it. I had been unable to access the original Starfelt posting in the Waybackmachine so that was what I had been able to find; the month and day stood out as the day after Starfelt’s posting and I didn’t notice that the year was a year later. Because I documented my sources somebody here pointed that out to me. Right now I have a note on my front page saying that the Advertiser portion of that post needs to be updated. I was finally able to access the WayBackMachine so now I know more completely what happened, and the basic story is only slightly altered: the image Starfelt gave was too blurry and isolated to be of value (which is not how the HSL librarians really do things so it was probably manipulated to make it that blurry) and the later full-page image with C&P lines still showing was introduced by – of all people – Wikileaks, and somebody at the Advertiser office, which also now has a history on the web of first blurring and then altering that image to get rid of the C&P lines.

        So, contrary to what you’re saying about me, when somebody posts a genuine correction to my facts I DO deal with it by researching further and then I adjust my findings to reflect the new information (although I realize I am way behind on correcting/updating the announcements story, mostly because the fake Obama long-form has taken over the Obama eligibility issue.)

      • Posted January 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        We’ve already proven that he’s not natural born, due to foreign father, that pesky Constitution and settled law.

        We’ve (I mean people in the Movement) proven that they haven’t proven he was born in Hawaii as Barack H Obama on Aug 4, 1961, by exposing a forged birth certificate, a criminal fraud, probably enabled by multiple people. Even selling coffee cups falsely claiming he was “made in the USA” might turn out to be a crime.

        We have proven he forged a Selective Service application, using a Stolen Social Security number never issued to him and used this number to falsify his tax return and in other transactions researched by Neil Sankey, Susan Daniels, Al Hendershot and others. We’ve uncovered other numbers and aliases.

        The lack of any other documentation proves he is hiding it and makes it impossible to prove he was born anywhere. The burden of proof is on him to prove he is eligible. He has failed miserably, but is still supported and enabled by party(s) and media.

        The battle you guys are having about the BC numbers and Virginia will only put more nails in his coffin. I have already seen evidence- not absolute proof, which requires original documents or REAL certified copies, that Obama may have another big defeat on this.

        He has already been thoroughly exposed as a usurper. Now more of his enablers will be exposed as liars. All that is left is to educate more of the public, drag our officials, kicking and screaming, to act upon it, throw him out and punish him–VERY severely, to set an example for others for eternity.

      • RoyceLatham
        Posted January 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

        George you are right in all you have said. The part that will put the whole issue to rest is when we discover whose birth number Obama is using. If I had to bet, I would bet on Virginia Sunahara.
        I would also bet that many people from the state of Hawaii will be incarcerated for misprision of felony along with arch-criminal Pelosi for knowingly vouching for Obama’s eligibility to Hawaii only as chair of the DNC.

      • RoyceLatham
        Posted January 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

        Do you work for Jim Johnson is the disinformation office? You are very good. You use of language is superb. You should start defending Eric Holder. He needs your talent more than Obama does now.

  18. RoyceLatham
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 3:56 am | Permalink | Reply

    Lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara,Virginia Sunahara’s brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit will be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.


  19. RoyceLatham
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink | Reply

    this link will work: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html

    “Unfortunately for Obama, Sunahara was not born at the same HOSPITAL as Obama wants people to think he was born. She was born at Wahiawa Hospital. And Obama’s long-form has the signature of the same local registrar who signed Edith Coats’
    BC after her birth at Wahiawa Hospital. Based on excellent analysis in print at
    or on video at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=player_embedded&v=haiRCLItdEQ ,
    the two fields that don’t have the proper distortion on the curved left-hand side are the gender and the hospital name.So apparently the gender had to be changed to “male” and the hospital to “Kapiolani” – which means that one of the genuine documents that was used for the forgery actually belonged to a female not born at Kapiolani – and the local registrar was the one we know registered at least one birth from Wahiawa Hospital. Judging by the gray-scale letters that indicate they were from the original source document,the girl whose record was used had an R for the third letter of her first name. Virginia fits all these requirements: female, born at Wahiawa Hospital, and having an R as the 3rd letter of her first name.”

    • Posted January 5, 2012 at 4:37 am | Permalink | Reply

      Combine all that evidence with the lies they told me (that they didn’t have a birth record for Virginia and that nobody had requested her birth record), the fact that the Sunahara COLB they gave Orly had a BC# way out of sequence, and their refusal to provide copies of the ACTUAL DOCUMENT upon request, as required by HRS 338-16… and the evidence is overwhelming.

      Fuddy is claiming that because HRS 338-16 allows her the discretion of deciding the means of making copies, she can provide a copy of the CONTENTS of the birth certificate (via computer printout) rather than a copy of the ACTUAL DOCUMENT, which would have to be done via photocopying, scanning, or copies from microfilm.

      I’ve been slow approving comments because my computer is giving me troubles again. I wanted to get this message to DEan Haskins via the Birther Report but when I tried to comment it kept saying it couldn’t verify that I’m butterdezillion. So if somebody could get the following to Dean that would be great! Thanks!

      A note for Dean Haskins. I posted this at Free Republic and it was suggested that I get this to Dean. Thanks for passing this along!

      If the suit was filed in the name of Clara – Virginia’s mother – UIPA would require that the HDOH release a photocopy, because Clara’s name is listed on the document in question, and UIPA REQUIRES agencies to disclose records having the requestor’s name on it. I wonder if they can add Clara’s name to the lawsuit. That would change everything from a legal standpoint because it would make the disclosure mandated by UIPA, rather than allowing the wiggle-room of HRS 338-16 (where it gives the HDOH Director discretion to decide what form of reproduction will be used for the “copy”, although actually the requestor has the option of requesting a copy of the document or a copy of the CONTENTS of the document. A computer printout is a copy of the CONTENTS but NOT a copy of the document. If a copy of the document is requested that is what the HDOH is required to give, according to HRS 338-16. But, as somebody mentioned and as we all nauseatingly know already, Hawaii doesn’t need to follow no stinking laws or rules.)

  20. Posted January 5, 2012 at 5:38 am | Permalink | Reply

    I just sent it to Dean

    • Posted January 5, 2012 at 5:57 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you so much. I’m sure he’ll take it into consideration and do what he thinks is best. =)

  21. Ernie
    Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butterdezillion,

    I went to the WND link from your article. I flipped the backside of the image horizontally and then adjusted the contrast. While I can kinda see the frontside bleeding through it is hard to make out. And where the certification number is located (upper right corner?) there are no recognisible numbers. Did I do something wrong or do I need special software to see it? Someone posting here said something about filters, do I need something special? Thank you

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If you right-click on the image and select “Copy” you can then paste the image into a word processor. I used Word. In Word, when you click on the pasted image it gives you the option (on the very top of the screen) of “Picture Tools”. If you click on “Picture Tools” it gives you a taskbar with options for handling the image. At the far left are the options of “Brightness” and “Contrast”. By adjusting those you can make the bleedthrough stand out more clearly. Particularly if you increase the contrast and then adjust the brightness to make it as clear as possible.

      Let me know if this still doesn’t help you. I’m the world’s most incompetent computer person but there are others who might be able to explain it better.

      • Ernie
        Posted January 8, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink


        I tried what you suggested but it doesn’t work. I do not see any certification numbers bleeding through. No numbers at all only the pattern of the security paper, Could it have been photoshopped out for privacy? I agree with Royce Latham, WND should just reveal the number. This is too important to starting hiding things and photoshopping information.

    • RoyceLatham
      Posted January 7, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I went to the site you mentioned.
      I pulled down the image, flipped the image (because it would be a mirror image) aligned the bleed through the seal and known type.
      Then I located the area where the number would be.
      I enhanced the image and found nothing.
      Noting that they accused WND of inserting a new image, I used the image they used to find the number 61 09945. I enlarged the original downloaded front to 400% and aligned the two images.
      The dark line at the bottom and the type DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH above did not show through at all.
      The conclusion is that their exercise is a total fraud. It is a convincing fraud, but it does not stand up to forensic scrutiny.

      They throw enough crap against the wall, that their sycophants can believe enough of it to sustain the belief that we are the ones who are crazy! When you see the lengths they go to to support their Ameritopia, you can get an idea of what we are up against. Despite all the money they spend, a rag tag group of less than 100 people is poking holes in every aspect of the Obama fraud.

      WND should show the bc number, at least the 61 and the first 3 digits. The truth is the truth. Too bad I can’t show the image I came up with on this blog.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: