Exclusive: Court Subpoena for Obama’s Original Birth Certificate Served to Hawaii Health Department

The Post & Email ^ | July 05, 2011 | Sharon Rondeau

[RobinMasters]

(Jul. 5, 2011) — A process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her “to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:”

original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III [sic] issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08081961 until now.

The subpoena allows Fuddy until August 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to produce the document.

The designated place of production is noted as:

Health Department State of HI 1250 Punchbowl str. room 325 Honolulu, HI 96813

[curiosity]

That would be amusing if it really mattered WHERE he was born! You all hang on to that tired line about WHERE he was born - completely ignoring the FACT that even if Obama were born in the Lincoln Bedroom he would STILL BE INELIGIBLE... A man born the subject of the British Crown in the 20th C. is ineligible for the Office of President - PERIOD.

Interesting theory. Too bad there's nothing in the Constitution to support it.

[curiosity]

The only value the birth certificate holds is to eliminate the possibility of a "mystery father" that actually was a citizen of the United States at the time Obama was born. In asking for a birth certificate, we birthers are simply giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

That's bunk and you know it.

[Fantasywriter]

So you have never heard Obama utter even a single lie? How is he dishonest, if he doesn’t lie? Subtlety is semantics/game playing; either he’s honest and doesn’t lie or he’s dishonest and lies: which is it?

So you never even read the two links I sent? The information was there: he self-proclaimed as a radical, revolutionary Marxist. It does you no good to make false and condescending accusations about what gives me satisfaction, when it’s Obama’s own words you’re up against.

[so_real]

That's bunk and you know it.

No ... not at all. Some birthers may have been hung up on "jus soli" and needed to know that Obama was born in Hawaii. Certainly there was considerable doubt that he was -- and that doubt remains even today. But you can go as far back in my post history as you care to and find that birthers like me posting on those same threads remained steadfastly focused on both "jus soli" and "jus sanguinis", knowing that Obama's non-citizen lineage made him ineligible for the office he holds. Read the post history. The evidence is there. Having blinders on won't prove your point.

I stand by my statement

If Obama had been smart enough to fake a birth certificate, reasonably well, listing American citizens as parents, then yes the birther movement would fade away. But Obama is not that smart. And his presumed father was not, and never intended to be, a U.S. citizen. Ergo, Obama held dual-citizenship at birth which precludes a "natural born citizen" status at birth. Those who argue one can have "divided allegiance" at birth, and still be "natural born citizen" are only arguing to hear their own voices.

but add that his reasonably well faked birth certificate would still have to list Hawaii as the place of birth.

[curiosity]

So you have never heard Obama utter even a single lie?

I have heard him state half-truths, make misleading statements, and lie by omission. He has also broken many promises to voters. However, I do not recall an instance in which he uttered an outright misstatement of fact.

How is he dishonest, if he doesn’t lie

There are other ways of being dishonest, namely the ones listed above, besides making delberate misstatements of fact.

Subtlety is semantics/game playing; either he’s honest and doesn’t lie or he’s dishonest and lies: which is it?

If you believe that outright lying is the only way of being dishonest, then you are either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

[Fantasywriter]

Nice with the insults. You stay classy, now; wouldn’t want you to resort to making it personal. (What you claim I said about honesty isn’t what I actually said. I am focusing on your weird fixation with defending Obama from the charge of lying. You are the only poster on all FR who disputes the fact that Obama lies like a rug. I have a theory on why that is, but I’d rather hear your explanation, if you can give it w’out resorting to childish insults.)

The reason you can’t tell if Obama is lying is because when he does, you excuse it away. For instance, he’s told the whopper that his father lived with him and his mother for two years countless times—even after the lie was repeatedly exposed, in a variety of public venues, as an outright and indisputable falsehood. When anybody mentions that to you, you say it doesn’t count.

By the way, when are you going to tell Jim Robinson he’s mistaken about Obama being a Marxist? Since you are so sure of your knowledge, why not take it to the top?

[curiosity]

I'm open to the possibility that Obama has outright lied, and by outright lie, I mean a deliberate and obvious misstatement of fact. To give an example, Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" would qualify as an outright lie.

If you can provide an example of Obama doing something equivalent, please do so and I will stand corrected. However, I know of no example.

That's not to say that Obama is honest. He's not. In fact, he's one of the most dishonest presidents we have had in a long time. He routinely lies by omission, and he frequently twists the truth and misleads. But deliberately misstate fact? I can't think of an example.

And no, I don't think his writing in his book about his father living with his mother for two years counts as an outright lie. It is a misstatement of fact, but to qualify as an outright lie, it would have to be deliberate, and I don't think it was deliberate because there is no plausible motive for it. What could he possibly gain by misstating an unimportant detail about his parents' separation? Nothing that I can see.

Therefore more likely explanation is that his mother lied to him about his father leaving when he was 2, and he repeated it not knowing it was untrue.

[Fantasywriter]

Obama has verbally repeated that LIE dozens of times ***after*** being very publicly corrected. [You can look it up on your favorite search engine, if you doubt me.] To you that won’t count. You’ll say Obama is too stupid or out-of-touch to be aware that the truth about his deadbeat father has been exposed hundreds of times over, and it includes abandoning Obama as an infant—NOT a two-yr-old. No matter how many times Obama is corrected, and no matter how many times he repeats the lie anyway, you’ll deny it. Why are you so committed to defending Obama’s honor? He knows his myth about his father is a LIE and he keeps on telling the whopper anyway. Why do you defend that type of bold-faced LYING???

Why not answer my second question, re: JR and Marxism? Why tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about—despite my links that say otherwise—while depriving JR of your superior knowledge?

[charlene4]

I must apologize. I misunderstood what happenned. I spoke without true knowledge. I must try harder not to panic and post!

[DiogenesLamp]

“Subtitle - U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU SUBPOENAS LORETTA J. FUDDY, HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR “

Thanks for sending me that.

[curiosity]

No one cares when his father left him, be it two years old or 3 weeks old. Either way, his father was a deadbeat scumbag, and no one denies that. If that's the best you can come up with as an example of catching Obama in an outright lie, then you really haven't got much of a case.

And no, I'm not defending his honor. I am on record multiple times arguing that Obama has no honor.

All I am doing is calling it how I see it. If you see it differently, then that's fine with me. I have no interest in continuing this pointless argument.

[Delta 21]

It all depends on how liberal you are.

[Fantasywriter]

You do the same thing over and over. You say, ‘Show me one lie, just one’.

Somebody shows you a clear, obvious lie, and you say, ‘That one doesn’t count’.

Someone whom you perceive to be bullyable says, ‘Obama is a Marxist, and here’s the proof in his own words’.

You ignore the links, and mock the poster.

You’re told to say the same things to JR, and you slink away like a coward.

You’re as dishonest as Obama. Shame on you.

[LibertyRocks]

ROFLMAO — There sure as heck IS! I suggest you read a copy of it again...

[curiosity]

ROFLMAO — There sure as heck IS! I suggest you read a copy of it again...

I did. There isn't.

[LibertyRocks]

Why don’t you just admit that you do not believe “Natural Born Citizen” means born to two citizen parents? I don’t have time to play games with you, and it seems that’s all you want to do... Have a good night.

[curiosity]

Why don’t you just admit that you do not believe “Natural Born Citizen” means born to two citizen parents?

Why would I have to "admit" something so obvious?

[Fantasywriter]

You don’t get it, do you? The Founders specifically ***wanted*** to safeguard the rights of enemies of the USA to spawn our presidents. You see, they were afraid we might become nativist, and discriminate against anti-American foreigners who wanted to impregnate our young girls. They feared that if these half-American kids were raised on foreign soil and taught to hate America, we might not want them to occupy the highest office of the land. For all we know, the Framers actually looked forward to a time when a Marxist Kenyan would father a child, who would then be raised on foreign soil and taught to hate America, and the Founders were afraid some racists among us might pour cold water on this kid’s dream [Dreams from his Marxist Father, specifically] of ‘fundamentally transforming America’. So to be sure this kid had a shot, they wrote the NBC clause specifically for him. Had you ever thought of it like that?

Bottom line, half-foreign kids raised on foreign soil by anti-Capitalist anti-American hatemongers, the Founders wanted YOU to be POTUS. They said so—just read the NBC clause—it’s all right there in black and white.

Case closed.

/s

[TheCipher]

However, I do not recall an instance in which he uttered an outright misstatement of fact.

Really ? How about this one ?

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we’re battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we’re not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedy’s decided we’re going to do an air lift. We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

The first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. He was 4 years old at the time

[jh4freedom]

Does anyone posting here know if there is any current member of Congress (House or Senate) who has gone on the record as supporting the “two citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen argument?”