Evidence proves Internet Hawaiian Birth Certificate a fraud.
We were wrong to accept the image plastered on innumerable web sites on face value. Independent research into historical records done by Obama Conspiracy Theories provides conclusive proof. It’s a fake and fraud.
The Fraudulent Document
Fake Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth for Sun Yat-Sen the first president of China is offered as evidence that Hawaiian Birth Certificates are are issued for any foreigner that wants one under a statute called the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program. It has already been demonstrated that Barack Obama could not have been registered under this particular program, because the law only applies to persons who are registered more than one year after their birth and Barack Obama’s certificate shows he was registered 4 days after he was born. Note that the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth certificate here is not one issued under the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program in effect from 1911 until 1972 (as this certificate was issued in 1904).
Nevertheless the document on the left remains as an indictment of the reliability of Hawaiian birth certificates.
So what is Sun Yat-Sen doing with a Hawaiian Birth Certificate!?!
It looks like he faked his birth and got two witnesses to lie for him. According to the article: No Such Sun Yat-sen: An Archival Success Story By Neil L. Thomsen, Sun Yat-Sen claimed to be a native Hawaiian so that he would not be identified as a man with a price on his head:
Witnesses to Sun Yat-Sen's Birth in Hawaii
Sun Yat Sen is widely known as the “founding father” of the Republic of China, which brought to an end thousands of years of dynastic rule in the largest country on earth. However, few know that Sun Yat Sen was also someone who claimed to be a “native born Hawaiian.” His case file includes the handwritten, sworn and signed testimony of both a Hawaiian farmer and that of Sun Yat Sen himself, regarding his birth and early childhood on the island of Oahu. Later, immigration officials find out that his true identity is that of a famous Chinese revolutionary in search of refuge and support for his cause in America.
Sun Yat-Sen
What I don’t understand is why Orly and The Betrayal are just discovering this. The document’s been on the Internet for 10 years, and was posted as an Obama criticism on other forums at least as far back as November 2008.
Update: This article is quoted by Jerome Corsi in his anti-Obama book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?
I think being 1904 is a big difference between 1961. Now, find a Hawaiian Birth Certificate issued to a foreigner from 1950 to 1972 and you might just have a case.
Here is something else you might also find interesting Dr. C.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”
The problem is not so much the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program (which by the way must have existed in some form BEFORE 1911), but the general notion that someone not born in a hospital could, with the help of others, swear falsely to establish a Hawaiian birth. While this is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, it remains a theoretical possibility. It’s a possibility that perhaps should be looked into if there were some evidence to suggest that Barrack Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii–but there is none. [Hearsay, rumors and lies are not evidence.]
Who started this anyway? Martin and Berg followed?
The Sun Yat Sen document has been on the Internet for 10 years. The earliest I know of for a mention of it in conjunction with Obama’s eligibility was on Free Republic, November 28, 2008. Whatever you might say about the Freepers, they work hard.
What I did was to uncover documentation that two witnesses plus Sun Yat-Sen’s declaration were given to get this false document issued. It is not, as The Betrayal says, one self-declaration.
Dr. C.,
No, I meant who started the whole Obama born in Kenya, not a NBC thing? Martin? Then Berg? Berg of course is saying that Donofrio/Wrotnowski hurt his lawsuit and of course many are saying that Dr. Orly has hurt them all. LOL Wonder if Dr. Orly will “demand” a retraction from Jeff S. too?
My lawyer told me that only an idiot with deep pockets would sue anyone for defamation of character/libel/slander. Especially if you have projected yourself into a “public figure.” Will be interesting to see what happens. Although, this guy Michael is a conservative also so I suspect this is a hoax cooked up between them to put Dr. Orly on his show????? I must admit, this thought has crossed my mind. As I recall, Doc Orly gave that Michael guy two choices–1. let her come on his talk show and present her side or 2. print/broadcast retraction of statement. Did anybody actually hear his remarks regarding Doc Orly? I can’t find written remarks regarding this on his website.
Now Doc Orly is saying that President Obama paid his employees with debit cards that are now empty and is wanting someone to get herseveral. What would be the purpose of this?
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/important.html
There may be older material, but I would put Berg as early birther, and Leo Donofrio the genesis of NBC.
There are instances where I think the Obama’s could win a libel suit, but it doesn’t make sense for them to do it. For example the Michelle Obama disbarment comments are libelous and I think would pass the standards for the case of a public figure.
Dr. C.,
I think that Larry Sinclair’s statements (book) would be at the top of the list for a defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuit.
Bogus, You can hear the Medved clips at this site. Look to the left bar for the “Music” player. 4 clips. I haven’t listened to ’em yet.
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/JeanKuligTucker
I seem to remember that the TV show Inside Edition provided some of Berg’s information (e.g. Indonesian school record). It’s not like Berg ever did any real investigation.
I just want to add that anyone who thinks that Michelle Obama was disbarred should take a long look at themselves in the mirror and ask seriously whether they are losing their grasp on reality. I believe the word is “delusion.”
Bogus, I do not know (despite hours of trying) where the Born in Africa story started.
Now that we have seen the tactics of the Democrat self proclaimed liberals, in using irrelevant name calling instead of answering the issues, it is clear that it is time to release the original birth certificate. Not because Obama was not born in Hawaii–who really knows or cares. This is needed to guarantee the integrity of the Constitution and the principle that the law applies to all.
It’s so easy to put this argument to bed by releasing the original.
Those who simply want to get rid of Obama as president don’t need to do it this way. If they are so int ent, they can rely on the 14th amendment.Everything is clear there I won’t tell you how, because I am not interested in starting another of these things.
Just release the original and tell the doubters to shut up and go away.
The integrity of the constitution is fulfilled. If you really care about the constitution, then you will only support constitutional means of getting rid of the President. There are only 4 means to get rid of the President.
1. Impeachment – This takes half of the house, and 2/3rds of the Senate.
2. Permenant Resignation by Barack Obama
3. Defeat in an election – This will get rid of him on January 20, 2013.
4. Term Limited Out – This will get rid of him on January 20, 2017.
Other than those 4 ways, there is no other way to get rid of him. If you believe that he’s not constitutionally qualified, you should tell your congressman to bring Articles of Impeachment in the House, and have him tried in the Senate.
And just releasing the birth certificate will not put this argument to rest, just as releasing the reports of Vince Foster’s suicide didn’t put that out of the minds of people against Bill Clinton, or releasing anything would put to bed the claims of the 9/11 truthers.
These are conspiracy theories held mainly by crackpots.
Ken, Ken, Ken.
Will Orly Taitz go away? She said she would be satisfied of Obama would show his original birth certificate THAT SHOWED THAT HE WAS BORN TO TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. Will Charles Kerchner and his Attorney Apuzzo go away? Will Ken Dunbar go away?. Will Alan Keyes go away? Leo Donofrio? Exactly among all of the anti-Obama agitators will go away? Maybe you and a couple of buddies.
Get real. Anyone with a grain of sense was satisfied when the original birth certificate was releases in June of 2008, or of not then, when the Director of Hawaii’s Health Department looked at the records and said Obama was born in Hawaii.
I didn’t want to engage in a battle with you or anyone else. But you insisted by hurling epithets at us “crackpots”
Release the original birth certificate ( an easy thing to do) which I believe exists and prove that not even the president is above the “Supreme law of the land” Art 6 ss 2.
Read the 14th amendment section 3 and explain to me how the president’s release of the “torture documents” did not give “aid or comfort to the enemy(Al Queda) and learn that there is a 5th way to remove a president. Until you do, I suggest that yu keep your mouth shut and whe you do open it, keep a civil toung in your head.
Will they go away? Who knows and who cares.
1. Talk is cheap.
2. You clearly did not understand my post, I actually believe that it does exist, but also feel that the ease of releasing it is so simple that not doing so demonstrates contempt for the Consitiution.
3. If, after its release,those you name and any others persist, then you might be justified in determining their motives are not honest.
4. Clearly, you didn’t read section 3 of the 14th amendment, or don’t see how releasing the “torture” documents gave aid or comfort to the enemy (Al Queda). that is quite different than “adhering to its there enemies, giving them aid AND comfort”, which is constitutionally defined as treason. However it does disqualify the perpitrator from holding any office of the United States, including president.
In this country, we do not assert Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. That was a different contry at a different time. Freedom to criticise the president of the United States is an American right. Doing so does not make the individual a “nut, “loon” or any other epithetthose hurl in the tradition of Josef Goebbel play book.
I think 64 million people voted for Obama knowing that the birthers had made this argument about his birth certificate. Therefore, I think not showing any more documentation shows contempt only for the tiny minority of American voters who were not satisfied by the COLB and the two statements by the state of Hawaii.
Because both “aid” and “comfort” are specific legal terms with specific legal definitions. Both terms require an intent to aid or comfort the enemy. And not just a general intent to do the act (“I intend to release these torture documents,”) but a specific intent that the act should aid or comfort the enemy (“I intend to release these torture documents so that al Qaeda will be aided or comforted!”).
Do you really think it could possibly operate differently? That Roosevelt could have been prosecuted for treason if he decided to focus his forces on Italy, rather than Germany because that gave comfort to Germany? That any President could be prosecuted for ending a war, because that gives aid and comfort to the enemy?
Ken says: “Freedom to criticise [Doc notes the British spelling] the president of the United States is an American right.”
And freedom to say that those who raise crackpot legal theories and make up stories are nuts is another American right. Nobots have this secondary delusion that the principle of freedom of speech is supposed to make speech immune from criticism.
Larry balked when the time came to go into a courtroom and actually testify under oath to what he’s said. ( OK, we all knew there wouldn’t be any testifying, but Orly thought there would be.)
Sigh. Just because you exercise your freedom to criticize the President and hurl your accusations at him doesn’t mean he is required to answer you. Can you imagine if Presidents answered every criticism against them? Better for Barack to ignore you, like he ignored the teabag rally on Saturday. If the Administration commented or responded to every group of 30,000 who gathered in DC, they would never get anything else done. You folks need to get over thinking you’re special and you deserve special consideration and notice by the President. You’re just another group of mal-contents. Your solution is in the voting booth.