Not So Fast, Mr. Obama: Trust But Verify

by Carol Taber
4/28/11

Read how what is presented on the Birth Certificate (still) points to forgery

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/track/trackurl.asp?q=bmsanrefurmf

Yesterday, President Obama released a long form birth certificate. In doing so, he lectured Americans about what was truly important in America. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness," he intoned. "We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve, and I'm confident we can solve them, but we're going to have to focus on them, not on this." He then promptly boarded Air Force One to solve one of those vital problems -- by flying to Chicago for another appearance on Oprah's show.

Let's focus now on one very simple question: why did he fight not to release the long form birth certificate?

Why did it take the moving of mountains (or at least poll numbers) to get Obama to release a long form birth certificate after literally years of stonewalling? Although there is incriminating evidence on the long form birth certificate -- in that the numbers are still out of sequence with the Nordyke twins' numbers -- we already knew that from Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB). In fact, were it not for the certificate numbers and the date accepted by the Registrar General on the Nordyke twins' birth certificates, and the certificate number and the date filed by the registrar on Obama's COLB, this indication of forgery would never have been detected.

So why did he fight not to release it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Obama wasn't hiding anything that is on the present long form birth certificate. The evidence indicates that what he is hiding is that his long form birth certificate may not be genuine.

Two years ago, the mainstream media published online a Certification of Live Birth for Mr. Obama and told us it was a birth certificate, which the White House at the time did not correct. More recently, in an article written by Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, Joshua Wisch, was interviewed. The article stated:

"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he [Wisch] said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
Despite Hawaii's own statute stating otherwise, this was the reporting. Some investigative work!
Mr. Obama sent Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a decorated combat-experienced Army flight surgeon, to jail because Obama refused to release his birth certificate. That document couldn't have been produced 6 months ago to prevent Lt. Col. Lakin's being manacled and shipped to Fort Leavenworth prison to rot in a cell? What possible explanation and what sort of character does Obama have, especially as Commander-in-Chief, for sending a soldier to jail, ruining his career, over the very same document the soldier had to produce for his military deployment orders?

And then there is the case of Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke. A few weeks back, American Thinker published my article, Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge. In it, I explained that the certificate number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" is out of sequence to the certificate numbers on the long form birth certificates of the Nordyke twins, also born in Hawaii. We know by both the Nordyke and Obama long forms that an incremental stamp was used for the certificate numbers, yet Obama's certificate number is higher than the twins' when it should have been lower.

Mrs. Nordyke, copying an attorney, wrote to say that the reason why Obama's certificate number was higher than her twins' was because Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, entered the hospital after Mrs. Nordyke and the time of a pregnant woman's entrance to the hospital is what determined the birth registration number.

In what can only be described as a "lawyered-up" email, Nordyke went on to say "The 'sequence' refers to time of birth certificate registration -- not to the actual time of delivery," cleverly confusing the two ideas of a birth certificate registration and the mother's registration at the hospital. It is clever because of this fact: the birth certificate numbers were not assigned at the hospital; rather, they were assigned at the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) at the Main office in Honolulu when the birth certificates were accepted and filed there. That is the only place it was done, so Nordyke's statement is entirely misleading since no birth certificate numbers were given when the mother entered the hospital. Nor were they assigned when the baby was born.

I wrote back to her and said among other things:

Your letter has engendered a few questions. Previous statements of yours indicate that you did not see Ann Dunham in Kapiolani Hospital during the time when you were there to deliver your twins in August 1961.... Also, since the hospital records are closed to the public and Mr. Obama is not talking about or unsealing his records, how do you now know or believe that Ann Dunham arrived shortly after you did, or if she ever did, and how do you know when she delivered her child? [...]
Without proof (someone to attest by name to Ann Dunham entering the hospital or an admissions record or a record of birth time), information which neither the hospital, the state, nor Mr. Obama will provide, and because of your conflicting statements, I'd need to know more about how or why this information in your email is now valid or meaningful.
Why would Mrs. Nordyke say this? In my opinion, the Obama supporters are very concerned about the central message in my article -- that whatever he releases as a birth certificate simply must be forensically tested. An honest man does not fear a forensics evaluation of his birth certificate.

President Reagan was right when he said, "Trust, but verify."

President Obama's long form birth certificate must be tested forensically.

At the very least, a forensics expert should examine the hospital admission records for Stanley Ann Dunham, as well as the paper and ink formulation on the original long form birth certificate.
Do these requests seem unreasonable? Not at all as one considers that, when enemies of George W. Bush began to question his Texas Air National Guard service, they demanded copies of his service records. He then released them, and they continued to question him, demanding hard copies.

Oh! -- and now that President Obama has released a long form birth certificate, will he ask the Democrats to drop their opposition to state laws requiring forensic testing of such documents? I would hope that Mr. Obama now would wholeheartedly endorse efforts of state legislators introducing eligibility bills, to include provisions for forensics testing of any documents where authenticity might be in question.

An honest man has nothing to fear from a forensics test: like DNA evidence, it helps to convict the guilty and protect the innocent.

Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org.