A new article titled: “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report” has been posted on the Western Center for Journalism web site (while an impressive name, the site is just another front for Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily).
…In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.
What are the telltale marks of a “fake”?
Let’s cut through the BS right up front. There is no CIA officer; there is no “intelligence investigator”. That’s just set decoration to lend an air of mystery and secret knowledge. Somebody (my guess is that it’s Ron Polarik) ordered a copy of the Hawaiian laws from 1955, and reedited them to make it appear that the writer was some sort of expert, and that the resulting “report” was serious. But how about the content, which purports to be an analysis of Hawaiian vital statistics law?
The bias of the report is immediately evident in this damning accusation:
The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 [unattended birth] or possibly a BC3 [delayed certificate].
Here is another little trick in the report, which suggests that the Hawaiian Health Department is lying!
The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she [Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo] made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of Live Birth.”
An investigator could have produced the results of his investigation rather than playing the child’s game of “gotcha!” It may be possible that the Hawaii Home Lands web page still had the old information on June 6 at the time of Okubo’s statement, but it was certainly updated by June 8, and we know Okubo’s statement has been true for years. A web page that is out of date doesn’t make a statement it contracts “false”.
So now that we know we are dealing with a propagandist rather than a researcher, let’s see what the raw argument is:
Our investigator seems to think Obama’s original Birth Certificate (and we know from official statements that there is one, and that it says Obama was born in Hawaii) is one of 4 types, conveniently labeled with letters and numbers. Here’s the list (using my descriptions).
- BC1 – Born in a hospital or attended by doctor or midwife.
- BC2 – Unattended birth, no hospital, doctor or nurse midwife.
- BC3 – Delayed Certificate less than one year.
- BC4 – Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
Just about every baby born in Honolulu in 1961 was a “BC1”.
How many Hawaiian babies were born outside a hospital?
It’s extremely rare. According to Vital Statistics of the US – 1961, the number for the city of Honolulu in 1961 was exactly 14 (out of a total of 8,268). Yet, our “investigator” concludes that this .00169 event is “probably” the kind of birth Obama had. Of that 14, statistics don’t tell us how many were attended by a doctor or a registered midwife outside of a hospital. That really stretches the concept of probable!
Hawaiian law requires the parent to submit a registration if no one is in attendance. The investigator then starts to blow smoke by speculating (with no information to back it up) that verification requirements were very lax in 1961. It is true that there is a tiny possibility of fraud in an unattended birth registration. It doesn’t matter whether it takes one, or two, or more witnesses. The possibility of fraud is there. [The only reported case of vital statistics fraud in Hawaii happened over 100 years ago and had two witnesses swear to it.]
How about BC3? Here is where our faux investigator falls down. Barack Obama’s birth, we know from the COLB, was registered August 8, 1961 a scant 4 days after his birth.
The law in effect from 1955 says:
§ 57-19. Procedure concerning delayed and altered certificates.
(a) Certificates accepted subsequent to do days after the time prescribed filing, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of the delayed filing and the date of the alteration, and be marked distinctly “delayed” or “altered.”
Therefore, Obama’s registration which was within 4 days of his birth is not “delayed” according to the definitions of this law. BC3 is blown.
BC4 is ruled out too. Obama’s certificate is a “Certification of Live Birth”, not a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”. The latter says “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” on it, duh.
Only two of the four COLB candidates the anonymous “investigator” offered are really possible. Further we know that at the very most, there were only 14 non-hospital births in Honolulu in 1961, and possibly no unattended births. Note that if the mother gave birth, say in a taxi, on the way to a hospital, it would be registered by the hospital.
Next the investigation drops any pretense of credibility with this whopper:
In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”… So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182.
Please explain to me how a birth registration that occurred August 8, 1961, could be made under a law not passed until 1982.
And then, launching into rank speculation:
Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate.
I couldn’t find any mention of Barack Obama in any of those. The rest of the article descends into a rant, basically asserting that Obama is guilty because he doesn’t hop toe to every demand of the lunatic fringe. Anyone who follows this business knows that anyone that would be satisfied by ANY evidence was long ago satisfied. The article’s final revelation is where the investigator really got his inspiration: from another faux investigator, Ron Polarik.
So what can we say about the anonymous “investigation”.
- AI1 – The investigator seems to have had access to the text of former Hawaiian Laws but did not think his readers worthy of seeing them in their complete form, but rather only in cherry-picked snippets.
- AI2 – The investigator possesses an extreme bias evidenced by the insertion of gratuitous unsupported opinion. His 4 categories collapsed to 2 under scrutiny. The writer is an advocate, not an investigator.
- AI3 – There were only a tiny number of unattended births in Honolulu in 1961.
- AI4 – In any birth registration there is always a small possibility of fraud, although there is no reason to suspect fraud in the case of Barack Obama, who was born to two people who were living in Hawaii, and registered by the state a scant 4 days after his birth.
Following is the relevant sections of law from the Territory of Hawaii in 1955 for your reference:
§ 57-8. Compulsory registration of births.
Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other. Legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. [R.L. 1945, s. 3100.09; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 9.]
§ 57-9. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considr3ed as “delayed” or “altered.” [R.L. 1945, s 3100.10; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 10.]
§ 57-15. Evidentiary character of certificates.
Certificates filed within thirty after the time prescribed therefore shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child are prima facie evidence if the alleged father is the husband of the mother; if not, the data pertaining to the father of a child are not evidence in any proceeding adverse to interests of the alleged father, or of his heirs, next of kin, or other successors in interest, if the paternity controverted. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.16; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 16.]
§57-16. Same as to certified copies.
(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 57-19, 57-20 and 57-21, the registrar general shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the bureau of public health statistics or any part thereof, certified by the registrar general shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 57-19, 57-20 and 57-21. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.17; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 17.]
§57-18. Delayed or altered certificates. A person born in the Territory may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting such proof as shall be required by the board, except that no certificate of birth may be filed later than one year after birth. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.19; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 19.]
§57-19. Procedure concerning delayed and altered certificates.
(a) Certificates accepted subsequent to thirty days after the time prescribed for filing, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of the delayed filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “delayed” or “altered”.
(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.20; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 20.]
§57-20. Delayed or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “delayed” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.21; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 21.]
§ 57-40. Issuance; procedure. The secretary of the Territory may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Territory, cause to be issued to such a person a certificate showing such fact; provided that such person has attained the age of one year. The secretary, with the approval of the governor, may make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, place and manner of hearing, as to him may appear necessary, and such regulations, when so approved and made in accordance with sections 7-28 to 7/41, shall have the force of law. The secretary shall furnish the form of such applications and certificates. All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth the facts upon which the application rests.
The secretary of the Territory, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate and appoint from his office, may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application, and for that purpose he may administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts, and generally, exercise the same authority with regard to his special jurisdiction as is, by law, conferred on district magistrates. [L. 1911, c. 96, s. 1; am. L. 1923, c. 246, s. 1; R.L. 1925, s. 196; am L. 1927, c. 202, s. 1; R. L. 1935, s. 7610; R. L. 1945, S. 12910; am. L. 1951, c. 132, s. 1.]