Cross-posted with permission from Obama’s Garden.com
©2011 Miss Tickly
Most of us learned a few years back that there’s little value anymore to the content put out by the MSM and even the secondary media. And most journalists only care about being liked and popular, so if reporting the truth gets in the way of that…well, it’s dispensable stuff. That’s why we visit Dr. Kate’s blog, and so many others, thirsty for more and deserving of better – particularly if we are hoping for any truth when it comes to the Obama eligibility issue.
So, when Dr. Kate asked if she could cross-post my March 3 blog entry and asked that I write an intro for it, I thought this was a great opportunity to just highlight to people who care, the point that this particular blog entry is a testament to our media’s failure. Worse, it points to how the media conspired against the public and took the side of the politicians, leaving us completely screwed. They pushed their candidate. They pushed their bias. They took sides. They took bullying to a new level. And it’s just one of too many perfect examples of why our media cannot be trusted to report, they can only be trusted to spin and distort and in the process, they somehow managed to take a statement from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) that said one thing, and convinced millions of people that it meant the exact opposite. And they propped up their personal opinions with that spin as if it were fact.
Our incompetent, complicit media took a statement from the former HDOH Director, Dr. Fukino, which effectively meant that while there had been numerous requests for Barrack Obama’s “official” original birth certificate, the Hawaii State Registrar didn’t have one. Instead, the person handling Obama’s application for an “original birth certificate” had it and was processing it in accordance with state policy. The HDOH actually verified that five days before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, Obama’s “original birth certificate” was not in the custody of the Hawaii State Registrar, in accordance to the laws of the State and the regulations of the Hawaii Department of Health, and they could not verify that it, or the birth facts within, were valid.
So, thank you to Dr. Kate for being one of those few with a voice who manages to be popular, well liked, and committed to truth.
What follows is the story of a most amazing revelation. THE revelation.
Proof: It was in Front of our Faces
Let’s Recount What We Know:
• We know the official HDOH seal does not appear on Obama’s alleged ‘Certification of Live Birth.’
• We know that Hawaii confirmed that much through the press.
• We know that Obama has some kind of irregular “vital records” on file with the HDOH.
• We even know the Kapi’olani Letter is bogus and bears a bogus White House seal.
But, what follows tops it all. What follows should be the story of the century, in my opinion. What follows is the proof from the former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D, that Obama did NOT have a valid or official “original birth certificate” just days before the election.
And, it was right in front of our faces all along.
“Date Filed by Registrar” vs. “Date Accepted by State Registrar”
Not to rehash things, but the story really does begin here. These two terms have plagued the Obama birth certificate issue from the beginning and have fueled many questions about Obama’s posted alleged ‘certified copy’ of a ‘Certification of Live Birth.’ For example, what do they mean in terms of the legal veracity behind a copy of a birth certificate? What is the difference between the “Registrar” and the “State Registrar?” When would it be important that a record states whether or not it has been accepted by the State Registrar? Obama’s alleged ‘Certification of Live Birth’ shows only the ‘Date Filed by Registrar’ as opposed to the ‘Date Accepted by State Registrar,’ that’s why many people, including myself, have been curious whether that matters. By now, I am sure most of us are aware that Alvin T. Onaka is the ‘State Registrar’ in Hawaii, but who is the ‘Registrar’ to which Obama’s alleged COLB refers?
Other people have tried to get some of these answers. Janice Okubo, HDOH Communications Director, was asked by other researchers for information on these terms. Specifically, she was sent the following:
In accordance with the UIPA, I am requesting all records that document, or show the Rules, Regulations and Policies regarding the criteria or methods used to determine whether a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) will show either or both of the following, and the difference between the criteria and where the information used to determine the statement (1 or 2) comes from such as where on a long form Birth Certificate that criteria is derived from:
1) Date Accepted by State Registrar
2) Date filed by Registrar
Unfortunately, her answer wasn’t very enlightening nor thorough because she provided only a generic “historical” response that addressed the following, instead:
Aloha Mr. (redacted),
It has been brought to my attention that although the department does not have any records responsive to your UIPA records request, a further explanation may be helpful.
Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of Oahu or on the neighbor islands of Kauai, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, or Lanai), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of Oahu) respectively.
(You can read the entire exchange, here, at Butterdezillion’s Blog.)
But, Obama’s alleged COLB does not contain a field that mentions the “State Registrar’s” acceptance nor filing of the record – it only mentions the “Registrar” who filed it.
In all fairness, I should state that it has become apparent that the meaning and difference between “Date Filed by Registrar” and “Date Accepted by State Registrar” is not particularly relevant to a certified copy of a birth certificate that has been accepted by and is on file with the State Registrar. If the State Registrar has statutory authority to maintain and oversee the record, then the State Registrar will have signed any ‘certified copy’ as the custodian of the record, regardless of whether or not the ‘Date Accepted by State Registrar’ appears. Therefore, any person presented with that certified copy will have evidence of the State Registrar’s acceptance through the certification statement, signature, issue date and raised seal.
And, while some online ‘advertised’ Hawaii “Certificates of Live Birth” and “Certifications of Live Birth” show the “Date Accepted by State Registrar” Obama’s alleged COLB only shows the “Date Filed by Registrar.” It would make sense that there should be some consistency, no? Furthermore, a fresh look at some important evidence reveals that the difference in these terms is crucial and my familiarity with this controversy-within-a-controversy led me to make my recent revelation.
A Late Birth Certificate is Born
To continue, what follows is a brief primer on how a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ is generated in Hawaii using the Office of Health Status Monitoring’s (OHSM) ‘Late Birth Certificate’ form as a visual guide. This document was collected through the diligence of ‘Butterdezillion‘ and serves as a great example of the difference between a ‘Registrar’ and a ‘State Registrar’ and the importance of whether or not both have accepted and filed a birth certificate.
Below is the ‘Late Birth Certificate’ used by the Hawaii Department of Health:
As you can see the ‘Registrar’ initially handles the form and collects the information and supplementary evidence needed. The Registrar itemizes that evidence as a list on the form. The ‘Registrar’ also acquires the appropriate affidavit and notary certification or administers an oath if they are so authorized:
They then file the record pending review and acceptance for filing by the ‘State Registrar:’
As the form states on ‘Line 18,’ it is not a “valid” record until it has been accepted and filed by the ‘State Registrar.’ Furthermore, the ‘State Registrar’s’ certification attests to the evidentiary value of ‘Date of Birth,’ ‘Parentage’ and ‘Place of Birth.’ So, until the ‘State Registrar’ accepts and takes custody of the record, it is only a non-valid ‘application’ for a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ in procedural limbo, so to speak, and in the custody of the ‘Registrar.’
But, But…FactCheck.org said…
So, why is this relevant to Obama’s gorgeous COLB? I mean, on October 31, 2008 – five days before the 2008 Presidential election – Dr. Fukino put out a press release and according to Factcheck.org, she was quoted as stating that both she and “Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.” We all know that Onaka is the ‘State Registrar,’ so that settles it – Hawaii’s ‘State Registrar’ must have custody of the record, right?
Besides, many gorgeous news organizations apparently reported the same thing. So, they all must be correct, right? And, we’ve all seen Dr. Fukino’s statement, by now, and that’s what she said, right? Dr. Fukino said that the State Registrar had verified with her that the HDOH had Obama’s original birth certificate on record and that he, as State Registrar, had the statutory authority to maintain and oversee the record – so he is the custodian of that record and the record is valid and official, right?
Believe it or not, on October 31, 2008, Dr. Fukino actually stated that THIS individual had “statutory authority” to maintain and oversee Obama’s “original birth certificate,” and that this individual was THE legal custodian of Obama’s “original birth certificate” just FIVE days before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election:
Yep. SHE SAID THIS PERSON:
She sure did. And as Dr. Fukino stated, this person had it on record “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Not in accordance with regulations. Not in accordance with law:
…in accordance with policies and procedures, like the policy and procedure of filing a ‘Late Birth Certificate.’
So, let’s look again at her statement. On October 31, 2008, Dr. Fukino issued the following:
That’s right. Incredibly, just five days before the election, Obama’s “original birth certificate” was NOT “valid” or in the custody of the ‘State Registrar,’ Dr. Fukino, herself, said it was in the custody of the “Registrar.”
And if the “Registrar” had custody of the record, Alvin T. Onaka would not and could not certify a copy of it with his signature.
So, now we have our answer. We know whether or not “Date Filed by Registrar” matters. It matters. A lot. Because Dr. Fukino said that the “original birth certificate” was in the “Registrar’s” custody. It was still in the procedural stage. And because someone other than the Hawaii State Registrar was custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate on October 31, 2008, we know that Obama did not have a valid original birth certificate and he possibly had an application for a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ on file that was pending acceptance by the State Registrar….or perhaps he had a record that had been rejected by the State Registrar entirely.
And if it was not in the State Registrar’s custody and under his authority, then his “original birth certificate” was not evidence to “date and place of birth and parentage.”
Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar
I have asked Dr. Onaka if his signature appears on what is reported to be the back of Obama’s alleged COLB. He has not answered me and honestly, I don’t expect him to. However, I have found two signatures that I believe are authentic copies and neither are such a great match to the signature on the back of the alleged Obama COLB. The first comes from a “Certification of Live Birth” downloadable straight from a hawaii.gov website (on page six of this pdf) and the second was printed in The Hawaiian Steel Guitar and its Great Hawaiian Musicians, by Lorene Ruymar:
Although I am not a handwriting analyst, both apparently show a differently formed ‘O’ and ‘n’ in Onaka’s last name than the signature seen on the back of the alleged Obama COLB as photographed by Factcheck.org.
So, given the fact that Dr. Fukino said the ‘Registrar’ was the custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate, on October 31, 2008, not the ‘State Registrar, I don’t believe that Dr. Onaka’s signature appears anywhere on Obama’s alleged COLB. Personally, I believe that what we see is a bogus signature and it was applied to essentially a blank sheet of paper (the backside) and for a reason. All of the “certified copies” of birth certificates that I have seen are certified on the side with the information.
…Not to mention the fact that they have many security features that Obama’s alleged COLB lacks. But, I’ll save that one for another post.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D, National Hero
Since I made the realization about the October 2008 statement yesterday, many things have begun to click for me and questions I once had have answers now. Abercrombie’s claim that no birth certificate exists within Hawaii’s vital records makes sense now. And although Dr. Fukino’s subsequent statement, in July 2009, about multiple “vital records” being on file at the HDOH appears to back up her first statement, and also the idea that there is likely supplementary material on file in support of Obama’s “original birth certificate” (late or amended), I am closing this blog entry here.
Because to put it bluntly, the fact that the Hawaii State Registrar did not have the legal authority to maintain and oversee Obama’s original birth certificate just five days before the presidential election is the single most earth-shattering fact that I have uncovered thus far. It means Barrack Obama did not have the valid original birth certificate that he and ‘his people’ have claimed he had and Dr. Fukino said so.
It means that Dr. Fukino said Barrack Obama, his people, our Congress and the media are all LIARS.
So, thank you, Dr. Fukino, for speaking up – twice. Thank you for not letting this go unsaid and thank you for putting it on the public record so that we can prove our Congress failed us so completely…if only in hindsight.
The nation owes you much gratitude for giving us a chance to open our eyes before the election even if most of us missed it.