Anderson Cooper Dishonestly Afoul in Lakin Interview

by Dan Crosby

On May 7, Lt. Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin and his attorney, Paul Jensen appeared in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. Dr. Lakin has recently been formally charged by the military with failure to follow orders to deploy because, as Dr. Lakin has stated, he is unable to follow orders from a chain of command in which the Constitutional eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief is in question. Prior to the charges against him, Lakin exhausted the standard, legal options of inquiry into the matter of Obama's ambiguous eligibility, through appropriate military channels, and now, abandoned by his superiors, has resigned himself to a formal court martial in order to present his case thereby forcing discovery of evidence in his favor.

Staff of the The Daily Pen reviewed the eight minute interview and found vast misrepresentations on the part of CNN’s Cooper. Throughout the interview, Cooper, refusing to discuss any evidence supporting the questionable legitimacy of Obama, instead, harangued and insulted Lakin and Jensen with irrelevencies while disregarding the clear and present facts of Lakin's case and Barack Obama's failure to demonstrate his eligibility to be President of the United States.

Many of the facts misrepresented by Cooper are as follows:

A. HAWAIIAN CERTIFICATION VS. FEDERAL CERTIFICATE. Barack Obama has failed to present standard documentation in the form of a federal, National Vital Statistics & Records Division, "Certificate of Live Birth" which is the only valid form available in the United States qualified to convey "natural born" status for births of civilians in the United States, as stated in the 1961 United States Report on Vital Statistics - Volume 1: Natality, Section 5, Technical Appendix. The standard "Certificate of Live Birth" remained virtually unaltered by the PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE ON VITAL RECORDS & STATISTICS with minor revisions introduced in 1955 to include more detailed information about the location of birth and residence of the parents. The report states:

"The Standard Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the
National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many
years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the
content of the documents used to collect information on this
event..."

The report states that various municipalities have altered the document to conform to local laws. In doing so, however, the title of the document and quantity of content remains unchanged. However, the report emphasizes that the document comforms closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate in its intended purpose to provide the most detail possible about live births in the United States, not conceal information as the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" does.

An example of the the federal version of this document appears on page 5-4 of the report and shows 55+ entry spaces for information conveying demographics, statistics, natal metrics, signatures and identities of witnesses and attendants about the natal event and is required by law to be attested by a licensed medical professional qualified to witness and medically confirm a "live birth". If the "Certificate of Live Birth" does not contain the signature of a licensed medical professional, it is invalid.

Anderson Cooper attempted to equate the validity of a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" with a federal "Certificate of Live Birth" by intentionally referring to Obama's Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" as a "Certificate of Live Birth." He did this six times during the interview.

B. LACK OF NATURAL BORN DOCUMENTATION. Barack Obama has promoted his administration as one which declares "transparency as a touchstone". However, a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", which is an independently published, surrogate document designed and published in secret by the municipality of the Hawaiian Health Department, is intended to clone, but innaccurately represent, the federal version of a standard U.S. birth record without actually providing detailed information about the full identity or natural born status of the bearer. The Hawaiian version, often called a short-form, contains less than 20 entries of information and provides no collaborative information or data to support "natural born" status. The only information provided on the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" indicating the alleged location of a birth is the city and state of the parent's residence as it is registered with the state of Hawaii.

Anderson Cooper incorrectly asserts that Obama's birth records contain his actual location of birth. Under Hawaiian law, the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" only conveys the city and state of the parent's residence as the place of birth, not the actual place of birth, when the original document is issued under and administrative process governed by Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 and Administrative Rule 91. In fact, the 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S. states:

"Place of residence in birth statistics refers to the
geographic area which constituted the mother's usual residence
at the time of the birth...

all (birth) events occurring within
the United States, that is, the 50 States and the District of
Columbia, are allocated to a place of residence within the
United States. For nonresident aliens, the place of residence
is considered to be the same as the place of occurrence..."

page 5-5, 1961 Vitals Statistics Report of the U.S. - Volume 1, Natality.

In Obama's case, the actual location of birth was ommitted and replaced with the location of his mother's claimed residence when the birth is registered which is a synthetically legalized method of birth registration found only in the state of Hawaii under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 (See Below). This policy was enacted as early as 1902 under the "Certification of Hawaiian Birth Program" which enabled expatriated foreigners to receive native sanctuary from political persecution during China's communist revolution as well as other international conflicts. This policy was readily accommodating for immigrants because the U.S. did not account birth data from 1900 to 1914.

C. HAWAIIAN LAW PERMITS FOREIGN BORN NATALITY. Hawaiian law (HRS 338-17.8) allows the state's Health Department, under the authority of the current director of the Health Department, Chiyome Fukino M.D., to issue official native birth records to children born out of state, and allows the registration of out-of-state births as occuring in the state of Hawaii if the parents claimed Hawaii as their place of residence within one year of the birth. HRS 338-17.8 states:

State of Hawaii Revised Statute [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) 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 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.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

When Obama's parents declared Hawaii as their place of residence within one year of his birth, the Hawaiian Department of Health then assigned, by default, the place of residence as the location of the birth based on rules of birth data reporting set forth by the National Vital Statisics Division. Therefore, it is possible in the state of Hawaii to register the birth of a child as "natural born", even though the birth occurs outside the United States and is actually NOT a "natural born" event.

D. MISSING MEDICAL VERIFICATION OF OBAMA'S "LIVE" BIRTH. The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" does not contain the identity or signature of any medical professional qualified to witness a "live birth". The Vital Statistics Report states:

"The term "attended by physician," as used in this publication, includes births attended by physicians out of hospitals and all births in hospitals or institutions. Births are classified as occurring "in hospital or institution" on the basis of entries on the birth certificate..."

E. HAWAIIAN MUNICIPALITY IS COMPLICIT BY PROTECTING OBAMA. Ironically, the state of Hawaii is the only state in the nation which exclusively and autonomously issues this independently published form of birth record without providing accompanying copies of the original MEDICAL VERIFICATION birth records issued through the hospital. This policy was conveniently enacted within the State of Hawaii's Health Department around the time that Obama's natal controversy began in order to provide administrative shelter of Obama's records.

F. BARACK OBAMA'S FATHER A FOREIGNER. Historical definitions of Natural Born Citizenship declare it as the highest form of citizenship where one is born in a location under the jurisdiction of the United States to TWO parents who are, at least, U.S. Citizens. Barack Obama's father, B.H. Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States.

G. BARACK OBAMA'S MOTHER A PRE-CITIZEN. Naturalization & Immigration law in effect at the alleged time of Obama's birth mandated that natural born citizenship may only be passed by birth if at least one of the parents of such child had resided in the United States for at least FIVE years after the age of 14. This means that since we know Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to be 19 years old at the time of Obama's birth in order for her to be qualified to pass natural born status to her child. She was only 18 years old which disqualified her from passing natural born status to Obama.

H. OBAMA REMAINS AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN. It is common knowledge that Barack Obama lived in Jakarta, Indonesia from approximately fall of 1967 until some time in 1971-1972. During that time, his mother was married to a native Indonesian, Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Barack Obama, assigning the child to Indonesian citizenship and the Muslim religion. Upon returning to the United States, Barack Obama was not re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen and therefore remains, at least, a dual naturalized citizen of both Indonesia and the United States. This plural nativity, in itself, disqualifies Obama from serving as the President of the United States. Without proof of re-naturalization, the worst possibility today is that Barack Obama is actually living in the United States as an illegal alien with citizenship loyalty to only Indonesia, which not only disqualifies him from any position in the American government, also makes him a criminal subject to deportation.

I. MEDICAL FACILITY NEVER CONFIRMS OBAMA BIRTH. There are seven different documented sources presenting conflicting accounts of the location of Obama's birth. They are:

1. His paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, living in Kenya, says she was present at Obama's Kenyan birth. Mrs. Obama submitted a sworn affidavit supporting her testimony and is recorded on tape as confirming her presence at Obama's Kenyan birth.
2. His sister, Maya Soetoro, accounts that Obama was born in Kapi'lani Medical Center, in Honolulu, during a campaign support rally in summer, 2008.
3. In a July 27, 2009 Press Release from the Hawaiian Department of Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, she not only violates state law against disclosing the contents of vital records to the general public, she also exceeds her authority as a municipal state-level employee by declaring that Obama meets federal election requirements by saying that he is "indeed a natural born citizen of the United States" and that "his records show he was born in Hawaii." Fukino, however, never actually submits the original record for public analysis and has no expertise in federal election laws, candidate vetting or the Powers clause of the U.S. Constitution.
4. A Rev. Kweli Shuhubia also testified in a sworn affidavit that he traveled to Mombasa, Kenya, where he interviewed personnel at Coast Provincial Hospital where, he “...then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar,” he swore, “and learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III, in Mombasa, Kenya, on Aug. 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official who was the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Barack H. Obama Jr. and his mother were present, however the file on Barack H. Obama Jr.’s birth in Kenya is top secret,” he stated.
5. During a radio interview with the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., Dr. Peter Ogego on November 6, 2008, the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a “well-known” attraction. Just days after the election, radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark and Marc Fellhauer on Detroit’s WRIF called the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego regarding the election of Obama. During the nearly 20-minute conversation, the specific exchange of interest was as follows:

Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”

Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a
national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”

6. In a UPI story dated November 4, 2008, it states that Obama, himself, "..described his birth at Queen's Medical Center..." further contradicting previous accounts of his Kenyan and Hawaiian birth. The story was later mysteriously altered and reposted with more "consistent" propaganda.
7. Writing for "The Rainbow Edition - Volume 2, Issue 3" in a November, 2004 article titled, "A New Face In Politics", Bennett Guira identifies Obama's birthplace as Queen's Medical Center.
8. Most recently, in a 2009 speech, Obama's own wife, Michelle Obama recalls their visit to "Obama's home country of Kenya."

J. HAWAII LEGISLATURE GOING ROGUE. Hawaii recently changed the title of the "Certification of Live Birth" to a "Certificate of Live Birth", after it was determined by legislators that the alteration would further obscure the identity of their inadequate document while it would make the public think their municipal document was the same as the federal document. The lack of detailed natal information and ambiguous source content of the document has not been changed however. It remains deviant of the federal NVSD version and is inadequate for determining the natural born status of the bearer.


TESTIMONY AGAINST CNN'S ACCOUNT

The following letter was provided to us by a former employee at the state of Hawaii in response to the Lakin interview segment on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”:

“Dear Anderson Cooper,

I had the privilege of watching your interview with Lt. Col. Lakin and attorney, Paul Jensen, on Friday, and must correct your mistakes with regard to your false account of the vital records documentation process at the Hawaii Department of Health. I worked in the Office of Vital Records in the state of Hawaii from 1977 to 1989.

In your interview, you stated, “If you call the state of Hawaii and request a birth certificate, you are sent a “Certificate of Live Birth”, that is the official document...”

This was not true at the time Obama allegedly requested a copy of his Hawaiian birth record.

As Mr. Jensen attempted to reply, despite your interruption of him, your claim is incorrect as it applies to anyone requesting a copy of Hawaiian-held birth documentation before September of 2009, which was the period of time during which Obama was allegedly issued a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”, not a federal version called a “Certificate of Live Birth”. The recent passage of the newest, and conveniently timed, revision to the Hawaiian birth document title in 2009, outlined in the Hawaiian Revised Statues, was conducted under the direction of the Hawaiian Department of Health’s Director, Chyiome Fukino, by the authority of HRS 338, Administrative Rule 91. Therefore, the document you are attempting to misidentify contained the header title “Certification of Live Birth”, which is the document widely upheld as the version issued to Barack Obama and which is the version you displayed during your show. The header title on Obama’s version clearly reads “Certification of Live Birth”, not “Certificate of Live Birth”. The word “Certification” is not the same as the word “Certificate”, obviously, and it is difficult to believe that with your years of work in journalism that you do not have the ability to see the difference.

You then state, “The President has released that ‘Certificate of Live Birth’…”

This is also not true. Even as the document image you presented clearly shows itself as titled “Certification of Live Birth” you falsely identified it as a “Certificate of Live Birth”.

Barack Obama has never released any record called a “Certificate of Live Birth.” The record you are referring to is called a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is not a federally recognized, national version of a valid NVSD standard birth document which contains 55 entry boxes available for the input of natal information and data and which is attested to by the attending medical professional qualified as a direct witness to determine a live birth event. In fact, Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands has refused to accept the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as a primary form of identification precisely because of the fact that it is a surrogate document which can be issued to non-natural born individuals living in Hawaii.

Your next contortion was to imply that the republican governor of Hawaii verified that the “birth certificate”, as you called it, was an official, federal "Certificate of Live Birth". In fact, the governor has never said that Obama’s original birth records are a “Certificate of Live Birth”, ever. Nor, has anyone else working within the municipal office of the state of Hawaii. It is difficult to imagine that you are as ignorant as this interview presents you, Mr. Cooper. Unfortunately, it is equally appalling to then conclude that you are simply dishonest and willfully void of journalistic integrity. Your repeated attempt to condescend Colonel Lakin with references to his service and qualifications was also shameful and worthy of violent repulsion. If you had genuine respect for his honorable sacrifice, you would have shut your mouth and allowed him and his attorney to logically and rationally address your questions. You looked afraid to hear the answers.

You also quote the state of Hawaii as saying that the “Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form acceptable by federal agencies…”

Unfortunately, the document in question with regard to Obama is not a “Certificate of Live Birth”, as you attempt to contort it, it is a “Certification of Live Birth”, which is not the standard form acceptable by federal agencies! It’s not even accepted by all state agencies in the state of Hawaii. The Hawaiian Native Lands only recently reorganized under
"The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009" allowing it to recognize the "Certification of Live Birth" as a primary from of identification. Feel free to review the statute available on the State of Hawaii's government website.

Do you understand the difference between a federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth and the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", Mr. Cooper?

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-11 states:

§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics….

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” violates this law. In August, 2009, the state of Hawaii, under the direction of Fukino, changed the header title of the “Certification of Live Birth” to match the federal “Certificate of Live Birth”. Why? Has the state of Hawaii become unable to continue to justify their covert behavior given the massive mistakes Fukino and her staff have made in their collaboration with the Obama administration in attempting to conceal the truth about Obama’s information? Have they come to the point where the only option available to is to venture deeper into the abyss of dishonesty and change themselves to fit the lie rather than present the truth and accept the consequences of the possibility that Obama is, indeed, not eligible to be president under the mandates of the U.S. Constitution?

The recent revision to the document header title was undertaken after a direct request by the Hawaiian Department of Health’s director, Chiyome Fukino, in order to more closely clone the federal version of the “Certificate of Live Birth” with a Hawaiian version. This was done after it was determined by Fukino and the State of Hawaii’s legislature that issuing a document with a different header title than the federal version was justifiably inviting scrutiny from the public against the authority of the state of Hawaii’s “Certification of Live Birth” in its relationship to the federal NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” version in Obama’s case. Interestingly, this Obama-friendly change was requested at the behest of those who supported the political campaign of Barack Obama.

This is an interesting development in the saga of Obama’s eligibility controversy. If you read the multiple quotes from officials of the state of Hawaii, including Janice Okubu, you are forced to admit that they have never positively identified Barack Obama’s original birth document, which they have said exists on file within the Hawaiian Department of Health, as a “Certificate of Live Birth”.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-15 and 16 state:

§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth.

§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.

The Hawaiian Department of Health endows itself with a tremendous amount of autonomy in its authority over the content and form of vital records and, thus, declarations of U.S. citizenship, regardless of Constitutional mandates. This fact only fuels a greater level of criticism against Obama while it makes the state of Hawaii look as though they are covertly protecting the natal identity of Barack Obama for some reason. Frantically passing laws and back-tracking with new rules allowing the state of Hawaii to mimic and imitate historical, federal documentation with long-standing authority in vital records processing, in order to synthetically endow their municipal birth documentation with legitimacy, only makes them, and now you by your ignorant support, look guilty and foolish.

Throughout your interview with Mr. Lakin, it was obvious you were very aggressive in your desire to endow the state of Hawaii’s “Certification of Live Birth” as a document with federal authority and national recognition. In fact, you subconsciously misidentified the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as a “Certificate of Live Birth” four times and even stated that Obama possessed the latter, which you cannot prove. The intriguing question which must be posed to you, CNN and any other media network is, how are you even able to correctly convey the facts of this story when you cannot even correctly interpret the terms to accurately account the present evidence?

Since the controversy over Barack Obama’s began in late 2007, Obama’s handlers, the media and the personnel working for the Hawaiian Department of Health have taken vast and intensive measures to “prove” that Obama’s natal documentation affirmatively demonstrates his eligibility to be president. The irony in this effort is that it has been utterly unnecessary if he is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. The contriving by CNN to “make” Obama eligible after the fact is nonsensical because, as you and Obama have claimed, the document which proves Obama’s Constitutional eligibility has already been issued and exists in the form of a “Certificate of Live Birth” which would have been created and recorded in 1961 through the Kapi’olani Medical Center, where Obama claims to have been born, and the document will have been affixed with the signatures of the attending physician, the current registrar at the time and the attending informant.

No birth document is valid unless it contains the signature of a witness and the signature and license number of an attending physician qualified to determine a live birth event. State of Hawaii revised statute 338 states this, plainly. Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” does not contain these signatures.

Therefore, the undeniable fact of the matter at hand, Mr. Cooper, is that Mr. Obama has failed to provide any, and the only, document available which proves he is a natural born citizen. Why? The federal standard, “Certificate of Live Birth” is the ONLY document available which demonstrates Natural Born status because it is the only document which contains the roster of information declaring natal information which is attributable to officials qualified to attest to such a vital event under the jurisdiction of the United States. It is also the only document issued to non-military, non-governmental natural-born citizens who are actually born in the United States.

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is now, conveniently, called a “Certificate of Live Birth”, just like the federal version. However, this was not the case at the time images and photographs of copies of Barack Obama’s alleged Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” suddenly appeared on ambiguous websites. Unfortunately, for those attempting to promote the “Certification of Live Birth” as a federal version of a National Vital Statistics Division document by changing its header title, the U.S. Report on Vital Statistics-Volume 1, clearly states that the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health created the federal “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as “…the standard document used to record births in the U.S and was developed over 110 years in cooperation with the National Conference of Vital Records and Statistics…” The report includes that states have implemented modifications to the document to suit their individual Health agencies but that validation of the document is supported in conformity to its purpose which is to document the most complete roster of information available of each birth in the U.S. and that it is witnessed and attested to by an individual qualified to determine the characteristics of a “Live Birth” of a human child at the moment of that birth.

Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", if it even exists, has never been revealed. Ever. So, as a contrived substitute, the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”, now synthetically and conveniently labeled by the state of Hawaii as a “Certificate of Live Birth”, was created and autonomously published by Chiyome Fukino and the sympathizers of the Obama administration working for her at the Hawaiian Department of Health. Never in the history of vital records documentation has a municipal document and the process by which it was created, been so malevolently contrived, so dishonestly rendered, so inescapably falsified, so grossly disqualified, so invalid as the state of Hawaii’s natal birth record for Barack Obama.

The problem causing you to fail in your journalistic duty is that you have omitted the fact that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an independently published surrogate document created only by the state of Hawaii, and that it is not derived from the original NVSD template created and issued to hospitals via local state agencies originating from the U.S. Department of Health since 1915. In doing so, you are only discrediting Obama and the State of Hawaii.

As to your claim that the birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers prove that Obama was born there and that the Certificate of Live Birth would indicate a foreign place of birth in such cases, this is a widely accepted falsehood by those lacking information and facts about the specific process of birth documentation in the state of Hawaii.

By way of declaring their residence in Hawaii within one year of Obama’s birth, under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, the Hawaiian Department of Health was obligated to issue an original birth record to Obama which endowed him with a Hawaiian birth place based on the parents claim to residency there, not the actual location of the birth.

I was born in Oslo, Norway and I possess a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” which states that I was born in Kalai’ani, Hawaii in 1971. My “Certification of Live Birth” issued in January, 2009 states my birth place as Hawaii because my father claimed residency there from 1968 to 1970, during the Vietnam war. When I requested a birth record from the Vital Records Office in Hawaii I presented two pieces of evidence of my father’s residency, a military registration document and a DMV record from 1968. This was all that was required by the registrar. Therefore, under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, Hawaii is able to provide native birth documentation to foreign-born children, stating Hawaii as the place of birth, when the parents claim Hawaii as their place of residence within a year of the birth.

Therefore, upon creation of an "official" native-birth record by the Hawaiian Department of Health, this information is then passed along to the newspapers in the form of a “birth list” which provides basic information about the parent’s residency and the date and sex of the birth. The actual location of the birth is not investigated by the newspapers, nor is it published from secondary information used to support the Department of Health’s “birth list”.

The Hawaiian Department of Health is also able to provide this information as an official source under HRS 338-17.8 which does not require the newspapers to investigate the actual location of births beyond the claims of residency provided by the parents to the department of health upon registration. Simply put, a child may be born in Africa to parents who claimed residency in Hawaii, and who possess a Hawaiian address where they resided within one year of the birth, and that individual is allowed to request and receive an original birth record anytime thereafter, even 47 years later, which FALSELY states the place of birth as being in Hawaii.

§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department 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 considered as “delayed” or “altered.”

Therein is the problem for Mr. Obama. Hawaiian law cannot circumvent the constitution as Mr. Jensen and Dr. Lakin repeatedly attempted to convey to you. Dr. Lakin even stated, “This is a constitutional matter.”

It is not a state matter. The Presidency is a federal office subject to the requirements of the federal legal structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. But, you would have none of those pesky facts, would you, Mr. Cooper? Your denial of these plain and simple and verifiable truths are only making you look like a fool.

You then pose the question, “If soldiers who present a Certificate of Live Birth be suspect?”

There are two answers to this question which work together to end your nonsense once and for all, Mr. Cooper. First, soldiers in the American military are not required to be “natural born citizens” like the President is. Their citizenship is merely subject to verification through common documentation and processes. The verification of Natural Born citizenry requires the submission of an NVSD Federal "Certificate of Live Birth, not a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth"

Second, if a soldier presents a “Certificate of Live Birth”, they are thusly proven to be a natural born citizen, UNLIKE Obama who has failed to present this document.

Dr. Lakin answered your question correctly. He said, “This is not a matter for soldiers in our military, this is about the specific requirements of eligibility for the President of the United States.”

You then attempt to claim that in order to serve in our military…”citizenship documents must be presented”.

Again, the Constitution not only requires a President to be a U.S. Citizen, like Arnold Schwarzenegger who became a citizen of the U.S. after being born in Austria, it also requires him to be a Natural Born Citizen which means that he must be born on U.S. soil to parents who are U.S. citizens. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand, Mr. Cooper?

The eligibility requirements for a presidential candidate are more stringent than they are for any other forms of service in America…from military, to congress to state governor to dog catcher.

You obviously are unwilling to uphold the legal prescriptions of the United States Constitution when you fail in your journalistic duty to hold these truths against Obama’s lack of demonstrable eligibility. This was certainly evident in your interview the Dr. Lakin.Your blatant attempts to discredit the facts of this matter only injure your credibility as a journalist while exposing you as a blind Obama apologist working in contradiction of the blood ransomed freedom you now enjoy. The forgers of this nation gave their lives for your undeserved right to be an American, Mr. Cooper, and it is such a disgraceful display of treasonous dishonor that you are allowed to oppose such an honorable serviceman like Dr. Lakin. Shame on you. Your disqualification from the membership of the advanced citizenry of America cannot come too soon.

Sincerely,

J.Y.
Honolulu, HI


We want to thank J....... Y......... for providing insight and knowledge about this subject. It has become apparent that liberal media networks, including CNN, NBC and Fox have failed to present the facts about Obama's lack of evidence for his claims to Constitutional eligibility. Anderson Cooper and CNN are only the latest examples of this failure by the American media to fulfill their journalistic duty with a full and complete investigation of this matter. Rather than fulfill his responsibilities as a professional journalist, Mr. Cooper has become an Obama apologist with vigor only for haranguing, insulting and harrassing the honorable members of our military, like Dr. Lakin, for their courage to confront what may some day be exposed as the greatest political deception in human history. Apologists like Cooper are merely enablers and propogandists consumed by their blind liberal lust to see Obama exalted at any cost.

Therefore, Anderson Cooper is a disgrace to his profession and, possibly, a detriment to the security of this nation because he is willing to defend circumstances which have created vulnerability in the structures of United States Constitutional sovereignty.