Sunday, November 2, 2008

Andy Martin Debunks Fox, Says Fukino Has Waded Into "Stinky Poo"; Criticizes Berg

I am not a big fan of Fox News. Bill O'Reilly would sell the miniscule remaining sliver of his "Spin Zone's" integrity to get another interview with Barack Obama. Likewise, Fox News tailors its "conservatism" to Rupert Murdoch's pro Federal Reserve big government subsidization of, of course, Rupert Murdoch. Last July I have previously blogged about Chiyome L. Fukino, MD's (Hawaii's Public Health Director) lack of professionalism. Now, Martin marvels at her unprofessonial conduct in speaking to the press during a trial. The Hawaii state government appears to be a joke, akin to Illinois's.

Thus, not surprisingly, Martin runs up against lying by Fox News, which is eager to hedge its bets vis-a-vis left-wing OLiar, I mean Obama.

Martin's latest headline:

Fox News leads the disinformation parade over Barack Obama's birth certificate
Hawai'i Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino adds to the confusion over Obama's birth
"Seattle stinky poo" raises questions about Obama's mother's whereabouts

He argues:

Dr. Chiyome Fukino's discussion of Barack Obama's birth certificate a waiver of confidentiality
Why do mainstream media* persist in creating confusion over where Obama was born? Maybe it's because they have been confused by public officials such as Fukino.

"Seattle stinky poo" undermines Fukino's credibility

Andy's court hearing on November 18th may resolve questions (or maybe not)

The only certain fact is that we know Barack Obama lied to the American people. Why?

Martin also asks why the pissant media hasn't done its most basic job. Even America's media ant colony ought to be able to ask basic questions.

Martin asks:

Here's a little test for you: how many mainstream* media have asked to see Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 Certificate of Live Birth ("COLB") in Honolulu? As far as we know, none. Only I have actually followed procedures to get access to the document. I have filed a lawsuit seeking access, and have a court hearing scheduled for November 18th in Honolulu.

Martin goes on to point out the double standard of pissant media like the Chicago Tribune:

(Reminder: in 2004, the Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit to open a stale divorce file of Obama's opponent; this year, the Tribune has been stone cold silent in the face of Obama's intimidation.)

And of course, the liars over at Fox contribute to the confusion. After all, A President Obama might cut back on those subsidies to Wall Street that Uncle Rupert cares so much about:

Fox News has led the latest parade of mainstream* disinformation. Major Garrett of Fox said Saturday that Hawai'i officials had determined Obama was born in Hawai'i. Whoa. Garrett's claim was confusing, misleading and totally unsubstantiated.

Here is someone else who is in general agreement with my analysis:]

A Hawai'i COLB is only one piece of paper in a complicated evidentiary inquiry involving Obama. No one outside two people from the Hawai'i Department of Health has apparently viewed the original 1961 document. Neither of them has any forensic or legal experience. Health Director Chiyome Fukino is a medical doctor.

She probably dug out the original COLB because the Attorney General of Hawai'i asked her to. Does that make sense? Absolutely it does. After all, his office has to appear at a court hearing in two weeks and respond to my lawsuit. That is the way lawsuits progress. Lawyers (AG) consult clients (DofH) and ask for evidence to prepare for court.

A couple of days ago I asked my readers to participate in explaining the peculiar fact that Barack Obama was supposedly born in Hawai'i, and three weeks later his mother was a college student in Seattle, Washington and the baby was visiting Mercer Island outside Seattle. I thought maybe I missed some concrete explanation or definite facts. I was amazed.

I received an avalanche of theories, suggestions, and links. But no one could point to any definitive explanation for how Obama was born in Hawai'i and three weeks later his mother was a student in Seattle. No one. There is simply no authoritative explanation or source of information.

For someone who was supposedly a poor, 18 year-old student, Obama's mother sure did a lot of traveling. What are the chances that his mother had a baby, somewhere, and was gallivanting three weeks later? The person she visited says Ann Dunham could not even change a diaper. That's also very curious.

She hadn't learned to change a diaper in three weeks of motherhood? While traveling? Stinky poo.

Who cared for the child while his mother was in class (we know he was with her)?

I have never expressed any opinion as to where Obama was born. The information is still too incomplete and contradictory to make an informed opinion. I simply lack enough credible evidence to do so.

Republicans are equally in the dark; they have been "Waiting for Godot" in the form of a Mombassa birth certificate that was supposed to surface as an "October Surprise," but has not yet seen the light of day. And probably never will.

Into this morass of conflict and confusion waded Dr. Fukino on Friday saying she had determined Obama was born in Hawai'i. On what basis? The secret COLB?

Fukino's strange behavior illustrates why clients drive lawyers crazy. First, Fukino's public discussion of the COLB may have waived the secrecy of the document. Can a public official publicly discuss a document that is not in evidence and yet withhold the evidence? Can Fukino play hide-and-seek and ask us to trust her? No.

Second, why would she be talking to the media if her lawyer, the Attorney General, had not approved such a discussion? Did the AG approve such a discussion? I will be filing a Freedom of Information request to see just what who said to whom, and disclosing these requests at a news conference in Chicago Sunday afternoon.

The whole situation gets curiouser and curiouser. Was this legerdemain the real reason why Obama visited Hawai'i a couple of weeks ago? Did he want to try to manipulate Hawai'i officials? Michelle said Barack's grandmother was "doing fine" by the time he arrived; contrary to his claims his real granny appears ready to make it to election day. So we are left to speculate as to the real reason for his emergency trip to Hawai'i, which came after I started doing street agent investigations in Honolulu.

So why was Fukino expressing an opinion on a fact possibly outside the certificate, or on which she had not verified or conducted any investigation, and a document which is the subject of a pending lawsuit?

Craziness seems to accompany questions about Obama's COLB. In early August I was contacted by an attorney before he filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia. I advised attorney Phil Berg not to file his case because of gaps in his evidence. He went ahead. The results were predictable. Berg fooled a lot of people and had to keep expanding his exaggerations to keep people involved in his charade.

Federal courts simply do not work the way Berg acted. You line up your evidence before you file a controversial lawsuit making legal claims about a candidate for president, not afterwards. "Due diligence" is the term courts use for pre-filing inquiry. True to form, Berg apparently now has affidavits and interviews from Obama's grandmother. Except that she's not Obama's grandmother. She's his step-grandmother.

I have remained silent about Mr. Berg's lack of evidence although he insists he has "evidence." And he wants to enjoin the 2008 election as well. What's next? Stop the world until Berg's lawsuit can be heard? The plain fact of the matter is that any lawyer experienced in federal litigation would have realized Mr. Berg was grasping at straws. Mr. Berg may have not been complimentary to me recently, but he did contact me before he filed. My e-mails are available to confirm the correspondence. I must have known something or he would not have been in touch.

I have not made any claims about Obama's birth because it is impossible to make such allegations without more investigation.

But that lack of evidence or investigation didn't stop Fukino. She issued a legal and factual opinion based on a document that may or may not be accurate. We simply do not know. I can't say the document is inaccurate, because I have not seen its contents. But Fukino says she knows where Obama was born. Phil Berg, meet Chiyome Fukino.

Some questions for Dr. Fukino: Well, what hospital was he born in? Who was the attending physician? What hour was he born (astrologers would love to know that!). Whose names are listed on the COLB? (Any other questions readers want me to ask?) Dr. Fukino, are you going to tell us the contents of the document, and what it contains that forms the basis for the opinion you issued in your official capacity? Or are you going to continue to play games and gotcha?

You get the point. Fukino waded into a controversy that is-as one great sage once said at SaddlebackChurch-was "way above her pay grade."

Fox News has never carried any reporting or done any investigation about Obama's origins. None of the mainstream* media has (I am not picking on my friends Fox News). So how can they report out of thin air a "finding" made by someone with no expertise, that has not been tested in any forum, based on conflicting and confusing factors that overwhelmingly create reasonable doubt without further evidence and inquiry? Confused? How could you be anything else?

If you read my lawsuit and my comments about Obama's birth certificate, I have been extremely conservative in what I said because the facts are still elusive. Access to the COLB would be a first step, not the last step, in making a determination as to where Obama entered the world.

That determination remains to be made, and today all we have is people on all sides, from Berg to Fukino, making wild or unsubstantiated or unconfirmed or untested claims without anyone having any access to the full range of conflicting evidence.

That's why I filed my "conservative" (in litigation claims) lawsuit and why I will be in court on November 18th seeking access to Fukino's files and records. She does the State of Hawai'i a disservice when she wades into a controversy without any experience or expertise to express an official opinion. Is it any wonder the mainstream media are confused and any wonder the American people are even more confused by Obama's origins? None whatsoever.

If you would like to support our efforts, please feel free to do so. But I want to make it clear that we are only seeking facts, truth and solid evidence, not pie-in-the-sky nonsense. We will be on the job on November 5th, and 18th, irrespective of the election returns on November 4th. The truth must come out and the truth will come out. It has not come out to date.

In closing, I renew my thanks to Dr. Fukino for what she did confirm: Barack Obama blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people.

My claim that there was an original typewritten, 1961 COLB was confirmed by Fukino. The COLB posted by Obama on the Internet was falsely represented to be an "original." (It was an "abstract" of a laser-printed computer record having no physical connection to the typewritten 1961 original.)

If Obama lied, why? Why is he creating needless confusion when he could avoid all of this doubt simply by asking for release of his original 1961 document?

Obviously, Barack Obama has something to hide. He has something to hide that is sufficiently damaging that he has engaged in this endless charade. What is it he is trying so hard to hide?

If Obama has something that significant to hide, how can any informed voter vote to make him president? How?

[Look for our news conference Sunday afternoon in Chicago.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329

*Apparently a typo, Martin refers to the "pissant media" as the "mainstream media".


Ed Darrell said...

Here's a little test for you: how many mainstream* media have asked to see Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 Certificate of Live Birth ("COLB") in Honolulu?

Here's a little quiz for you: Why should they? What evidence is there of any problem? What could a typewritten certificate possibly demonstrate that the official birth records of the State of Hawaii do not? If you won't accept the valid, legal records, and the opinion of 50 state secretaries of state, the U.S. State Department, the FBI, and the National Conference of State Bar Examiners, why should we think that any further pandering to your whims would make you change your tune?

Mitchell Langbert said...

They should because Obama may be lying about circumstances surrounding his birth or early childhood. Arguing that the media should not ask questions is cheaply disingenuous. Obama is a serial liar, and the media has given him a free ride. The secretaries of state have no opinion. They never looked. Nor did anyone else. Our election system is designed to facilitate fraud. I have been in touch with them directly. They know nothing, don't want to know anything, and as far as they are concerned, if we had 200 Congressmen who aren't US citizens they wouldn't care less.