There has been no verification of the truth of any contradictory rumours and yet they still abound. To me this seems absolutely disgraceful.
A disgrace … mundanely, a transiting planet’s fall from grace (in detriment)?! Makes for rather a good novel really ...
If the document’s forged, then it’s been done with conspiring officials at:
- The Hawaii Department of Health; on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.
• The Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics
• The Illinois Secretary of State’s office;
• The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois & many other gvt agencies
Evidence proving Obama’s Hawaii Birth:
1. Public release of short form Birth Certificate
2. Formal verification by Hawaii Department of Health
3. Honolulu newspaper birth Announcement (The Sunday Advertiser, Aug. 11 1961)
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/In 1961 birth announcements in such papers came directly from the Vital Statistics Office
Potential reasons for not wanting to release full form:
1. It’s private. By law it’s private. A need to draw firm lines of demarcation between what’s private & what’s public, determining what's frivolous & when enough’s enough.
2. Obama considers he’s provided sufficient evidence to prove his legitimacy, which includes both the required birth certificate & statement from relevant Hawaii Authorities providing testimony to its authenticity, without further succumbing to the demands of the media (gossip columns & conspiracy theorists).
3. Recognizes that even if releases long form birth certificate it’s authenticity will also probably be questioned (just as shortform was). It would not end such theories - no amount of proof suffices as it does not serve opposing/averse personal agendas.
4. Recognises that in some instances instead of attempting to appease the ever consuming fires of curiosity that constantly invade someone’s private life by demanding
‘give me more, more, more’ – the rational approach is to starve it. No fuel, no fire.
5. When is enough proof enough? Probably considers he’s provided sufficient proof & verification. And legally, he has.
6. The lawsuits were lodged not in the interest of the public or the nation
(that appeared to be a masquerade) but were in service to personal agendas – ie. political, power &/or monetary (such as the one lodged by author Andy Martin in Hawaii)
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/obamas-citizenship-questioned-lawsuit-in-hawaii-filed-requesting-birth-certificate Some considerations from an astrologer’s pov:
1. Do we work with the evidence we have or with the evidence we don’t have?
2. How often is it that we get fully verified complete birth data of high profile public people? Is it perhaps partly because such occurrances are so rare that the data's distrusted?
3. If consider the Hawaii birth certificate invalid, then the time & date are equally invalid.
Equally questionable. Therefore, if toss out Hawaii birth certificate as invalid (half invalid brings into question the other half) then working with essentially nothing but idle speculation about what his mother may have/may not have done.
4. That Obama’s mother had simply changed the birth place, not time & date (which is contrary to evidence that has been provided) is wild supposition which can also erode the credible objectivity of astrology lending credence to it.
5. For objective & credible astrology, any speculation requires some basis in supportable fact/evidence rather than just a rumour.
6. Has Berg’s claim as to having a telephone tape recording of Obama's grandmother's supposed claims been proven? Has the tape been released? Or is this simply internal party politics, rivalries, power plays & grandstanding for attention?
Obama’s provided proof.
Where’s Berg’s proof?
These rumours in the media lead back to one source - Berg.
So far, it appears in fact to be
“Berg claims that Obama’s grandmother claims his birth took place in Kenya”. Burden of proof resides with Berg.
It's been an exercise in obfuscation & media mileage (sensation’s good for show ratings).
Wikipedia:
Phillip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, USA, is an attorney, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and activist who brought a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.
Berg's legal career has been marked by incompetent lawyering, negligence, and sanctions for ethical violations.
He was successfully sued for legal malpractice by former clients on whose behalf Berg had neglected to file a response to a complaint in an ERISA lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the former clients….The court fined Berg $10,000 and ordered him to attend six hours of ethics training. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_J._BergOuch. What a write up. Does Berg qualify as a credible source?
Instead of Obama’s chart, how about a look at the accusing party, Phillip J. Berg?
Anyone have Berg's data?