Tweet
How Hawaiian Officials Helped Cover Up The Obama Forgery: Operation Sideshow Part Eight
The Western Center for Journalism
Alan P. Halbert
4/26/2012
Excerpt:
"We are now at a point to discuss Neil Abercrombie’s remarks of January 18, 2011 in detail and to refresh our memory about not being able to release Obama’s records as shown in this quote from the Daily Mail a United Kingdom newspaper dated January 20, 2011:
In Part Six, we were introduced to the kernel or fingerprint of the evidence we have been looking for on the type of birth certificate Obama actually has. Neil Abercrombie appears to be an honest man, at least in January. What he has actually described is an affidavit for birth registration that was not attended by any medical personnel. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act of 1955 was fully in force in 1961, and a birth certificate by affidavit would have all the information he describes.
He drops the quest to release Obama’s information and retreats from his earlier remarks. However, Governor Abercrombie has solved the riddle on what actually is in Obama’s records in Hawaii’s vital statistics vault in a bound volume of birth records. His statements allude to only an “unspecified listing or notation”; however, this is just politispeak for a birth registration by AFFIDAVIT, which can now be taken as an implied FACT with the Governors statement:
This is the very definition of a birth certificate by affidavit available in 1961 in accordance with the Heath Statistics Act of 1955 for the Territory of Hawaii.
In regards to the publishing of Obama’s birth announcement in the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star occurred on Sunday, August 13, 1961, we also know that both newspapers shared office space and used this department for birth announcements. The fact that the publication is triggered by a registration application being received by the Hawaii Department of Heath in 1961 means that they will complete a birth certificate for the registration, in this case for baby Obama.
The “certificates of live birth” copies given by Ms. Fuddy, Director for Hawaii’s Health Department on April 25, 2011 to Obama (a short four months later) contradicts the Governor’s entire statement regarding a “birth certificate” if we assume the “certificates” are the forged document residing on whitehouse.gov. The certificates that were given to Obama are in all likelihood “certificates of live birth” by affidavit, if we believe Abercrombie’s description of the records. The forgery was switched for the genuine article. We have no reason to doubt his description, as he was forthcoming on his investigation of Obama‘s records in January and the substitution is blatant and obvious given his statements.
In another bizarre twist to this story, Governor Abercrombie, on the same day that Obama issues his now famous “sideshows and carnival barkers” statement, issues a press release reiterating Ms. Fuddy’s letter of the 25th. Only this time, he mentions that Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies; this detail was missing in Ms. Fuddy’s letter since she stated she witnessed the copying of Obama’s record.
There is also a statement from the Attorney General, David Louie, about how Obama’s records were released according the “letter of the law”, in an attempt to lend credibility to this about face by Obama. We have already established that government requests for documents already have “special status” under Hawaiian statute §338-18 (2), (3), (4) and (5) for these issues. Ms. Fuddy also dispels this myth, as it was only a discretionary rule she invoked as allowed under the statute as “departmental policy” and not “law” as the Attorney General states. However, I am still puzzled by the fact of the Governor’s remarks to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of January 18, 2011.
Given the hyperbole in the press release, we are still left with the decisive factor for a birth certificate by affidavit when all of the evidence and statements are considered with the pivotal statement he made that Tuesday:
Neither Governor Abercrombie nor any of his staff have attempted to explain the above statements he made in January; all of the obfuscation in this press release is cover for incompetent remarks by the governor made back then, or they are camouflage and fabrications for a cover-up now.
Then we have this Alice in Wonderland story from Fox News about Governor Abercrombie and his friend Mike Evans, who retracts his remarks from the previous day after making an appearance on a syndicated radio show (the quote is from the Fox story):
Later on in this article, it corroborates the Governor’s statements made to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on the 18th with this excerpt from the article:
(Note: When I first looked for the Star-Advertiser article, it was missing from their archives, leaving me to use a foreign source as the story appears to have been scrubbed from their archives.)
The question at issue is: how does a record in a bound volume go from an “unspecified listing or notation” to a full-fledged “certified certificate of live birth” that was hospital-generated in four short months signed by the deceased Dr. David A. Sinclair who passed away in 2003? Four people have attested to the fact that his record resides in a bound volume, three of them Hawaiian officials, and in all likelihood, this record has been moldering there since sometime in early August 1961 as evidenced by the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspapers.
We can now accept that the idle speculation that Jerome Corsi reports on February 25, 2011 was the start of an actual cabal to place false documents on whitehouse.gov and intimate through a negative and false assumption for them to be considered genuine by the media and public at large. We can only surmise that it was. Not the president or any of the presidents agents, or any officials of the State of Hawaii, have made any definitive statements regarding what it was that was placed on the White House website on April 27, 2011."
...............................
View the complete article at:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/how...ow-part-eight/
The Western Center for Journalism
Alan P. Halbert
4/26/2012
Excerpt:
"We are now at a point to discuss Neil Abercrombie’s remarks of January 18, 2011 in detail and to refresh our memory about not being able to release Obama’s records as shown in this quote from the Daily Mail a United Kingdom newspaper dated January 20, 2011:
Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser: ‘It actually exists’ was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
In Part Six, we were introduced to the kernel or fingerprint of the evidence we have been looking for on the type of birth certificate Obama actually has. Neil Abercrombie appears to be an honest man, at least in January. What he has actually described is an affidavit for birth registration that was not attended by any medical personnel. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act of 1955 was fully in force in 1961, and a birth certificate by affidavit would have all the information he describes.
He drops the quest to release Obama’s information and retreats from his earlier remarks. However, Governor Abercrombie has solved the riddle on what actually is in Obama’s records in Hawaii’s vital statistics vault in a bound volume of birth records. His statements allude to only an “unspecified listing or notation”; however, this is just politispeak for a birth registration by AFFIDAVIT, which can now be taken as an implied FACT with the Governors statement:
Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
This is the very definition of a birth certificate by affidavit available in 1961 in accordance with the Heath Statistics Act of 1955 for the Territory of Hawaii.
In regards to the publishing of Obama’s birth announcement in the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star occurred on Sunday, August 13, 1961, we also know that both newspapers shared office space and used this department for birth announcements. The fact that the publication is triggered by a registration application being received by the Hawaii Department of Heath in 1961 means that they will complete a birth certificate for the registration, in this case for baby Obama.
The “certificates of live birth” copies given by Ms. Fuddy, Director for Hawaii’s Health Department on April 25, 2011 to Obama (a short four months later) contradicts the Governor’s entire statement regarding a “birth certificate” if we assume the “certificates” are the forged document residing on whitehouse.gov. The certificates that were given to Obama are in all likelihood “certificates of live birth” by affidavit, if we believe Abercrombie’s description of the records. The forgery was switched for the genuine article. We have no reason to doubt his description, as he was forthcoming on his investigation of Obama‘s records in January and the substitution is blatant and obvious given his statements.
In another bizarre twist to this story, Governor Abercrombie, on the same day that Obama issues his now famous “sideshows and carnival barkers” statement, issues a press release reiterating Ms. Fuddy’s letter of the 25th. Only this time, he mentions that Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies; this detail was missing in Ms. Fuddy’s letter since she stated she witnessed the copying of Obama’s record.
There is also a statement from the Attorney General, David Louie, about how Obama’s records were released according the “letter of the law”, in an attempt to lend credibility to this about face by Obama. We have already established that government requests for documents already have “special status” under Hawaiian statute §338-18 (2), (3), (4) and (5) for these issues. Ms. Fuddy also dispels this myth, as it was only a discretionary rule she invoked as allowed under the statute as “departmental policy” and not “law” as the Attorney General states. However, I am still puzzled by the fact of the Governor’s remarks to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of January 18, 2011.
Given the hyperbole in the press release, we are still left with the decisive factor for a birth certificate by affidavit when all of the evidence and statements are considered with the pivotal statement he made that Tuesday:
Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Neither Governor Abercrombie nor any of his staff have attempted to explain the above statements he made in January; all of the obfuscation in this press release is cover for incompetent remarks by the governor made back then, or they are camouflage and fabrications for a cover-up now.
Then we have this Alice in Wonderland story from Fox News about Governor Abercrombie and his friend Mike Evans, who retracts his remarks from the previous day after making an appearance on a syndicated radio show (the quote is from the Fox story):
Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week and said he’d been told by the governor himself that Obama’s birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:
“Yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ….. there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.”
“Yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ….. there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.”
Later on in this article, it corroborates the Governor’s statements made to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on the 18th with this excerpt from the article:
“Halfway down the story it said the long form certificate was not on file at the two hospitals,” Evans said. “It says the hospitals say there’s no birth certificate and says Neil says he couldn’t find it.”
](Note: When I first looked for the Star-Advertiser article, it was missing from their archives, leaving me to use a foreign source as the story appears to have been scrubbed from their archives.)
The question at issue is: how does a record in a bound volume go from an “unspecified listing or notation” to a full-fledged “certified certificate of live birth” that was hospital-generated in four short months signed by the deceased Dr. David A. Sinclair who passed away in 2003? Four people have attested to the fact that his record resides in a bound volume, three of them Hawaiian officials, and in all likelihood, this record has been moldering there since sometime in early August 1961 as evidenced by the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspapers.
We can now accept that the idle speculation that Jerome Corsi reports on February 25, 2011 was the start of an actual cabal to place false documents on whitehouse.gov and intimate through a negative and false assumption for them to be considered genuine by the media and public at large. We can only surmise that it was. Not the president or any of the presidents agents, or any officials of the State of Hawaii, have made any definitive statements regarding what it was that was placed on the White House website on April 27, 2011."
...............................
View the complete article at:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/how...ow-part-eight/