Latest Entries »

Back in October 26, 2008, Jerome Corsi wrote an article about Gov. Linda Lingle placing Obama’s birth certificate under seal:

It is important to note, however, the article does not explicitly indicate whether it was the short form or the long form that was said to have been put under seal. Let’s take a close look at the second half of the lead in the article:

“…WND has learned that Hawaii’s Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.”

Interesting. The office of Governor Lingle soon made a form letter after the article was published stating:

“A recent article in (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate is false.”

Now, let’s take a close look at a paragraph from an article in the Sonoran News published in October 29, 2008:

“Following Obama’s one-day trip to Hawaii last Thursday to visit his “deathly ill” grandmother, Lingle placed Obama’s birth records under seal and instructed the Hawaii Department of Health, under no condition may it provide access to the original document unless Obama authorizes it to be released.*” (emphasis mine)

Corsi didn’t say “birth certificates” were placed under seal, he said a birth certificate was put under seal.

So, wait, what did Lingle really say? What really happened back in 2008?

This is where things get EXTREMELY interesting.

Sonoran News received an e-mail from Russell Pang, Chief of Media Relations of the Governor’s office, soon after their article was published. He requested certain lines of their news article be retracted (Sonoran News refused to comply). In the letter, Pang said ‘The subhead, and the statement in the article, “Lingle placed Obama’s birth records under seal and instructed the Hawaii Department of Health, under no condition may it provide access to the original document unless Obama authorizes it to be released,’ are not true.”

Wow! It looks like the governor’s office did not appreciate those particular statements being written about Lingle. Just for reference, this is the official Hawaii statutes concerning who can have access to original long form birth certificates:

So, why does any of this matter? I’m not absolutely positive, but, I guess I could propose a few theories of mine.

When the long form birth certificate was first released to the public, the AP put up their own copy of the birth certificate online that they received from the White House. Abovetopsecret users soon discovered that there was another document visible behind the long form:

Using computer programs such as Photoshop and Windows Paint, they discovered the short form could be seen behind the long form birth certificate. Now, this may not be that interesting if the AP reporter scanned the long form with the short form behind it, but, what if the White House gave the Press the long form like that originally? Well, I personally went online and checked out different HQ copies of the long form, and saw the same short form manifestation that was on the one scanned by the AP. Interesting. In all fairness though, I do not see the manifestation in the original copy Guthrie photographed:

Then again, I have not taken enough time to put the copy in photoshop. Also, this is supposedly a photo of a copy instead of a direct scan. Some “birthers” go even further and claim the photos by Guthrie are fake. I wouldn’t have put much credence in this theory except for the fact that Guthrie had/has refused to discuss anything to do with the long form she photographed.

So, maybe that new short form was put in the same seal as the original long form. Keep in mind, the short form is “brand new” when you compare it to the original long form. Also, it was revealed recently by G. Gordon Liddy that there may have been tampering with official Obama birth records as far back as 1978.

What’s up with the concern by the Governor’s office? Why would Lingle need to “seal” any of Obama’s records when they’re protected by Hawaii law anyhow? What’s up with Obama’s records being “tampered” with as far back as 1978?

Hey, maybe I’m on the right track, maybe not. We may never get down to the truth until after the 2012 election if certain “birthers” and Republican politicians have their way (these people will remain nameless).


Adoption and/or Name Change?

HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5 states a person who has “previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law” can obtain an amended birth certificate. Therefore, it is possible Obama was not adopted but received a name change which would also explain the court order that was asked for by Perkins Coie. It is also possible Obama was both adopted and had a name change.


#1:What does it matter if Obama was adopted?

If Obama was adopted, this means Barack Obama has kept this fact hidden from the public. Why would he want to hide this fact? It is possible Obama has an amended birth certificate and may have committed fraud to obtain student aid.

#2:Why is Obama’s birth parents listed on his birth certificate?

This one’s easy. Perkins Coie specifically requested the ORIGINAL long form. The original long form does indeed have the “birth parents” listed. If Obama was adopted, he should have an amended birth certificate with updated information reflecting the adoption.

#3:Obama is a natural born citizen. Isn’t any point you’re trying to make already moot?

First of all, Obama may not be a natural born citizen. Second, it is not moot because Obama may have a history of hiding behind aliases and committing fraud. Also, if Obama had Indonesian citizenship, can a duel citizen be considered a natural born citizen? For that matter, do we know for a fact if Obama is actually an American?

#4: You’re lying; Hawaii does not release long form birth certificates upon request. Factcheck has confirmed this. Aren’t your points moot?

At one point in time, you WERE able to obtain your long form if you had a direct interest. This was confirmed by Governor Lingle of Hawaii. Also, long forms have made there way onto the net. All people had to do was pay a fee of around $10 to receive their long form.
What Hawaii regulations actually state is that it’s up to Hawaii to decide if someone requesting a long form should have access to it. There was NO NEED for a court order unless Hawaii specifically denied a request for whatever reason.

#5: Who cares?

I care.


Exhibit A:

Barack Obama II’s Indonesian School records-

Barry Soetoro

Exhibit B:

Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records (lists Obama as Soebarkah, literal translation, “who is this but the son of Lolo Soetoro?”)


Exhibit C:

Divorce records (Barry Soetoro is stated as being Lolo Soetoro’s son)-

Divorce Records

Exhibit D (Brand New Exhibit):

From the Post and E-mail website today:

“Before we talked to Horiuchi, Jesse Koike, the point person for anyone who questions these things, came over and I questioned why I couldn’t get the long form, said, “That is the long form,” and I said, “Well, if that’s the long form, what do you call this?” and I showed him Obama’s, the forgery.  And I said, “If you’re president of the United States, you can have a copy of the long form, but the rest of us have to pound sand.”

So then he said, “There was a court order so that would be released.”

This new piece of evidence is important because it proves Obama had a court order! The only reason he would need a court order as President of the United States is if his original birth certificate was sealed. Only a court order can undo the seal.  Birth certificates are sealed when a child is adopted. The child is given an amended birth certificate after the adoption is confirmed.


From WND:
“Talk-radio host and former Nixon White House operative G. Gordon Liddy told WND that one of his trusted informants in Hawaii reported to him that while the document was forged recently, there may have been tampering with official Obama birth records as far back as 1978.”

Why would Barry Soetoro’s records be tampered with in 1978?

This is a question many Americans are now asking. It is a topic I would like to make one of the main focuses of my blog. So too often we have people completely dismissing “birther” claims without doing any imperative research for themselves. If one were to look at this issue with an open mind, perhaps he/she would be able to see the legitimate arguments this group of people brings to the table.

I hope to provide an unbiased analysis of both “birther” and anti-birther research that I  have discovered over the years. I have yet to come across a site that presents both “birther” and anti-birther evidence objectively. Each group’s preconceived bias usually hampers debate and promotes partisanship. I hope to partially remedy this situation by providing a place where true skeptics and open minded peoples can come and inform themselves. If there is one wish I have for all my visitors, it is that they will deny ignorance.