U.S. Congressman Challenges Obama Presidential Eligibility

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.

Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.

This forever changes the public discourse…

This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to U.S. Congressman Challenges Obama Presidential Eligibility

  1. Earlier today, I left the following comment at Michelle Malkin’s blog:

    On January 6th, 2010 at 3:49 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Michelle Malkin,

    If you read this comment, please respond and explain your thought process about this…

    I believe that you:
    (1) Know Obama lies blatantly and repeatedly.
    (2) Support the Rule of Law
    (3) Believe the President is not above the law.
    (4) Are against Amnesty.
    (5) Expect the law, especially the law established during the 1986 Amnesty, to be fully enforced and not ignored.

    So please help me understand why then you don’t seem to care about enforcing the Immigration Reform and Control Act (signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986)?

    Why don’t you seem to care about requiring Barack Obama to meet the requirements of that law?

    Why don’t you expect Obama to produce the legally required documentation for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?

    You will note that neither a newspaper birth announcement nor public statements by Dr. Fukino qualify as acceptable proof of identity and employment authorization.

    You know Obama lies. So why do you trust the COLB that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters? That COLB was never shown to any government official and was never authenticated by the State of Hawaii.

    Dr. Fukino’s statements were carefully parsed, and reviewed by the Hawaiian AG. Since the conclusions of the AG’s opinion were used to make a public statement, Hawaiian law requires that the AG’s opinion also be made public. Yet that opinion is kept secret. Doesn’t that seem a bit “fishy” to you?

    Why do you trust Obama on this issue? Why don’t you expect due diligence and respect for the rule of law? Obama must produce the documents required for an I-9 form. He hasn’t. He is breaking the law… specifically the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

    This isn’t a “tinfoil hat” issue. It’s a legal issue.

    And beyond that, even if Obama were to release an original birth certificate from the Hawaiian Department of Health, there is still the Constitutional question of whether someone born a subject of another country (Obama was, due to the fact that his father was a British subject) can be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America. That issue will likely have to be addressed by the judicial branch via a Quo Warranto case in the D.C. Circuit.

    Again, there are two separate issues:

    1) Enforcement of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

    2) Clarification and enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born Citizen”.

    Please help me understand, Michelle, why you don’t seem interested in either of these two issues.

    I ask this sincerely, and with all due respect to you.

  2. Both issues are both issues of law.

    No conspiracy theory buy-in necessary, but rather just due diligence.

    One is an issue of law enforcement, the other is an issue of law clarification.

    Is the President is above the law?
    Of course not.
    Then why give Obama a “pass” on the fact that he has not obeyed the law? Obama has not obeyed the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

    Why should Obama be allowed to break the law? He shouldn’t.

    I, for one, expect Obama to release the documentation required by an I-9 form. If he won’t he is no more legal than an “undocumented” illegal alien.

  3. Huh? says:

    lmao….the Post & Email? Nice source lol

  4. ladysforest says:

    Hi Redpill,
    I need your assistance please. Forgive me for being off topic!

    Do you, or any of your readers, recall any mention that the Nordyke twins birth announcements had been found? It was felt that they (their announcements) should have appeared in the same news edition as obama’s as they were born hours after obama. I recall seeing several accounts that “investigators” had looked for them, but never found them. I cannot find those accounts on the internet now.

    The reason that I ask is that I know it’s been a controversy and they have now been found. It’s not widely know, and we have not put them up in public yet- will likely do that today -but we are looking for any input any readers may have. Does anyone reading this recall any info about the past investigation into the “missing Nordyke twins birth announcements?”
    I’ve looked for days, reference seems to have been scrubbed.
    Sorry to hijack!

    Thank you.

  5. Ryan says:

    ladysforrest what on earth are you talking about? Someone found babies born at the same hospital as Obama and the numbers were 3 digits different. If that does not prove that Obama was issued a Hawaiian birth certificate, I don’t know what does. Now they’re trying to say he must have been born at a different hospital. Why would anyone lie about the hospital he was born in? If he was born at a different hospital, the numbers would have been way off.

    It’s called Occam’s razor – look it up.

    I can’t believe I waste time arguing with you people. You need to get lives. This Leo Donofrio guy is just playing with you all.

  6. ladysforest says:

    What on earth are YOU talking about?

    I am referring to the NEWSPAPER birth announcements. Read my post again and quit trying to deflect.

    BTW, I’ve noticed that “Occam’s razor” has come into vogue very recently, but that stuff bores me. Please, if you have no information to offer, refrain from just posting any old thing.

    I am asking if anyone recalls if there was ever any mention that the Nordyde twins NEWSPAPER birth announcement was “found” or posted anywhere online.

  7. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5:

    Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

    You don’t want to talk about this “unprecedented” action.
    You don’t like the message, so you try to shoot the messenger.
    You want to pretend that your ridicule can somehow make people ignore the truth.
    You can’t handle the truth.

  8. ladysforest,
    The topic is Presidential eligibility, so you’re not being off topic.

    I think you are looking for this:

    …this birth announcement, after questions about the authenticity of Obama’s COLB had been raised, and one which has a false address, coupled with the fact that no birth announcement for the Nordyke twins appears anywhere in either paper, is enough to warrant its own investigation.

  9. Ryan,

    I don’t doubt that Obama’s birth was reported in Hawaii, but that alone does not prove that the COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters is authentic. And that COLB only said “filed by Registrar”, not “accepted by Registrar”, which are two different things. Someone could have reported he was born in Hawaii, but provided no proof to back up that claim. If the story Obama has told is true, their should be an original birth certificate with the delivering doctor’s signature.

    Now that we’ve all seen the video documenting Obama’s numerous claims (lies) that the Healthcare discussions would be carried on C-SPAN (and even people at CNN are fed up with his lies), more and more people aren’t willing to just trust Obama. The COLB produced in Chicago was never authenticated by the Hawaii Department of Health. No member of Congress ever examined a genuine document, sent to them under seal from the State of Hawaii.

    We were promised the most transparent administration in history. We will not accept obfuscation.

  10. ladysforest says:

    Redpill, check out my blog. Ryan, comments are moderated on my blog :).


    The Nordyke newspaper birth announcement is there. It was given to me to post.

  11. ladysforest says:

    Sorry-the image of the notice got “disappeared” somehow. I had some tech help and got it back in.

  12. Ryan says:

    Ladysforest, I don’t get what you are trying to say. Why are you now casting doubt on whether a couple of twins were born in Hawaii? Are they part of the conspiracy, that, according to you, was planned before Obama’s birth?

    The fact that you tell me specifically that comments are moderated on your blog is all I need to know about it.

    I just wonder how long you guys will take this. Surely you must know that the rest of the world has moved on. You’re just continuing to make yourselves look silly.

    If you have a theory, present it, and show the evidence. All you have is wild conspiracy accusations about the legitimacy of evidence – no actual evidence of your own.

  13. Aaron says:

    Here’s another issue to raise. Without presentation of proof of citizenship documents, no one can apply for and receive a US Secret or Top Secret security clearance.

    I’d be curious to learn whether Obama, as it stands now having not released his birth certificate, would be eligible to receive a Secret or Top Secret security clearance as a civilian applying for it. (as opposed to being made president by ACORN’s election rigging/ballot stuffing/voter fraud…you know, the typical left-wing tactics for getting elected)

  14. ladysforest says:

    Dude, I fail to understand how it is that you, who profess to be in possession of all available information regarding obamas eligibility, could fail to understand the significance of that newspaper announcement.
    Primary it is just a little bit of a thing, but an important link just the same.
    Actually, I will give you credit for having the intellect to appreciate what it is, and understand why you want to deflect from it.

    I moderate comments because I don’t want ignorant hate cluttering up my blog. I am respectful of the issues I post about (except for Al Gore) (but who can blame me?) and respectful of those with opposing opinions. A thoughtful and respectful opposing opinion would be published, but not random rudeness and insults.

    So now, as this is Redpills blog, and not my own, I won’t debate you on this in this space any further. But I do thank you for your input.

  15. Ryan,
    You said:

    If you have a theory, present it, and show the evidence.


    The theory is that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961.

    Please present the evidence to support that theory. There has been nothing released from the State of Hawaii to confirm Obama’s claim that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.

  16. Ryan says:

    Mr Pill, Hawaii has stated publicly and officially that he was born within their jurisdiction, on the date that he claims. They are in possession of the records, and have the highest authority to make that claim. That fact supports his claim to be born in the United States. The time of his birth, and the hospital where it happened are not relevant, since being born at any hospital and at any time of the day would not change anything.

    Ladysforest, why is a birth announcement all of a sudden critical evidence, when before, it was not sufficient to prove anything? Spend some time on something worthwhile.

  17. Jonah says:

    Okay, I’m definitely not getting dragged back into this discussion again. But, ladysforest:

    BTW, I’ve noticed that “Occam’s razor” has come into vogue very recently, but that stuff bores me. Please, if you have no information to offer, refrain from just posting any old thing.

    One of the unpleasant things about trying to convince people of things on the internet is that you’ll often find that you have to repeat yourself. You might be bored with an argument, but if it’s in a topic that you really care about, you do yourself a disservice when you refuse to address it.

    Yes, Occam’s razor is more of an investigative heuristic than it is a logical argument, but it’s still something you’ll have to get past if you want to convince people of the seriousness of your claims. You and Red would do well to sit back and catalogue all the things that you think must have happened—all the conspirators, all the doctored information, all the things done with remarkable foresight—in order for your beliefs about Obama’s birth to be correct.

    I assure you, as someone watching from the outside: this list is staggering. At some point, if you want to convince people in power that your theory-about-a-conspiracy has merit, you’ll have to get past the disbelief that such a complicated explanation could possibly be correct. How are you going to do that?

  18. ladysforest says:

    I make no claim. I presented a fact, as a fact and nothing more.

    It is persons like yourself who assume things. This is not my style.

    I wish to see the facts laid out, as these are damming enough even for those who would wish them away.

  19. Ryan says:

    I make no claim

    That just dishonest. You don’t want to see the facts laid out – as you are dissatisfied with the ones that have already been laid out for you. You want to cast doubts on the facts for no other reason than your pure hatred for the president.

  20. Aaron says:

    Actually, Obama is the one claiming to have been born at the above stated date and place. The burden is upon him (or his representative) to present to the public, proof supporting that claim. So no, Ryan, Ladysforest was NOT being dishonest. Nice try, though.

    And really, holding unreliable pieces of “evidence” (newspaper announcements, closed-door exclusive showings) as undeniable proof? I might have expected better but for your lack of showing anything better thus far. Also, claiming someone has pure hatred for another person…(sigh)…another straw-man.

    Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

  21. Ryan says:

    Obama is claiming to have been born at that date and place, yes. It also happens that the highest authority on the records for that birth also have made that claim. Given that little fact, why does HE need to prove anything, and what could he show that is more vlid than the state verification that is already public?

    Has Obama used the birth announcements as proof? No, the proof they have used is a certificate from Hawaii, which the state has said in the most clear way I can think of, is valid. For anyone that believes the state of Hawaii is involved in a massive coverup that would amount to numerous serious crimes, there is a birth announcement held by multiple independent sources, that corroborates the story beyond any reasonable doubt.

    What more do you want? Who can you appeal to if the very body responsible for the record has already ruled on the matter?

    You’re all being dishonest. There’s no way any reasonable person could subscribe to such a massive conspiracy. This is nothing more than a smear campaign, and you’re garnering more sympathy for Obama for having to deal with nut-cases than support for your cause.

    2012 is not far away. Organize your thoughts a little better, and help your favourite candidate win in the next election. That’s how we play fair in a civilized society.

  22. Aaron says:

    Wrong again, Ryan.

    The highest authority is not the statement of some government bureaucrat / politician. The highest authority is the original birth certificate, itself, which has been deliberately held from release. You’re ignoring the fact that it is a very far left state which is aiding in the deliberate withholding from public release.

    If the certificate is, indeed valid, then why is the government of Hawaii–which is ideologically aligned very closely with Obama–refusing to release the document. If it’s valid, then what are they hiding? Further, where is that hypocrite’s transparency that he promised? You can’t answer that because there is no valid answer for it.

    Also, no left-winger has room to talk about “fair play in a civilized society”. Or need I remind you of the election-rigging, voter-fraud, ballot-box stuffing, and voter intimidation which has been the core of the left’s play-book since 2000?

    And look, he accused everyone of being dishonest. That reminds me of an old saying, “He who accuses everyone, convicts only one.”

  23. Ryan says:

    So you do believe in a massive conspiracy involving the state of Hawaii, and obviously the newspapers or whoever hold the copies of the newspapers.

    Listen to this carefully: The state of Hawaii has jurisdiction to declare a certificate valid. The copy in the public is a valid birth certificate. If Hawaii was hiding something as a part of a massive conspiracy, don’t you think they would have released his original paper copy of his birth certificate? They could make one that said whatever they like.

    You’ve got to remove the blinders and start thinking.

  24. Aaron says:

    Yet another, “So you…” statement. (sigh) I would have expected these strawmen to go away by now.

    They say that the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Here we have a far left shill trying the same, easily recognizable strawman tactic–which he has been called out for innumerable times in the past–again. Will the result be different this time?

    …(I think I hear crickets)…

    When did I say anything about subscribing to some “conspiracy”, Ryan? Please, point to the post where I sent in my subscription, I want to see the receipt. No matter how hard you and the rest of the lefties try, you can’t shout “conspiracy” every time someone you don’t like demands proof from someone you do like. Maybe that works in Canada, but not here. Legal stone-walling and bureaucratic red-taping don’t constitute a conspiracy, but that doesn’t change the fact that the obstruction is politically motivated.

    Just as Hawaii has jurisdiction to declare the certificate, valid; so a club bouncer has jurisdiction to accept IDs at the door. And just like so many bouncers readily accept fake IDs; so a sympathetic government will readily accept anything so long as it furthers their cause. I could’ve written, “Obama wuz boorn hear on hiz burth-dae.” (misspelling intentional)on a toilet paper square and they would have accepted it as his COLB.

    It’s cute that you think Hawaii can just forge a COLB and release it as official, but there’s this funny thing about public scrutiny and how it tends to expose forged documents rather quickly. The left is already known for forging documents to suit their political causes; see the 2004 election and the forged documents that led to the Bush National Guard story.

    Oh, and the end comment, “You’ve got to remove the blinders and start thinking.” Let me translate that for everyone right now: “You have to start drinking the Kool-Aid and march in lock-step with me!”

  25. Ryan,

    So you do believe in a massive conspiracy involving the state of Hawaii, and obviously the newspapers or whoever hold the copies of the newspapers.

    If a conspiracy is involved, it wouldn’t have to be “massive” and it wouldn’t have to include the newspapers. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Obama was actually born in Kenya, but one of his grandparents reported a Hawaiian birth because they wanted him to have the benefits of U.S. Citizenship. The Hawaiian Registrar would have filed a document with a “Date Filed by Registrar”. (Note that had the birth been in a hospital, an original hospital birth certificate would have been filed with “Date Accepted by Registrar”.) The “Filed by” certificate would have led to the newspaper announcement. No conspiracy necessary.

    But now fast forward to 2008-2010. A COLB was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters. It was not released directly from the State of Hawaii. No member of Congress ever inspected a hardcopy birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. They all accepted the judgment of Annenberg Political Fact Check, a non-governmental agency. The handful of people from Fact Check that examined the COLB are not document experts, and there is no reason why the inspection of Obama’s COLB should have been “outsourced” to them. No Hawaiian official ever said that the COLB is authentic.

    Sure, Dr. Fukino said “Obama was born in Hawaii”. But she didn’t say that in 2008. She only said that AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives said so first!

    Who would have to be involved in what you call “a massive conspiracy”? Three people in the Hawaiian government (Fukino, Onaka, and the AG) plus Obama and whoever actually made the COLB. That’s it.

    Listen to this carefully: The state of Hawaii has jurisdiction to declare a certificate valid.

    Correct. And they never declared the COLB valid.

    The copy in the public is a valid birth certificate.

    You make this declaration, yet you admit that you do not have the jurisdiction to make this declaration. And the very people you admit have the jurisdiction to make this declaration, have not!

    If Hawaii was hiding something as a part of a massive conspiracy, don’t you think they would have released his original paper copy of his birth certificate? They could make one that said whatever they like.

    It is true that they could make one. But I sense that they aren’t willing to do so. Dr. Fukino has been very careful with what she has said and not said. I don’t think she would be willing to be involved in the creation of a forgery. But as long as the Attorney General counsels her on what she can say that won’t break the law, she’ll go along with that.

    And take note that since the AG’s opinion was used to make a public statement, then the AG’s opinion must also be made public. They are breaking the law by keeping it secret.

    You’ve got to remove the blinders and start thinking.

    I recommend that you take your own advice.

  26. Ryan says:

    You guys sure this site isn’t a parody?

    I can’t reconcile your theories with anything that could have possibly taken place. The fact that you think the president of the United Stated could have forged a birth certificate and erased all records of his real birth with the cooperation of four individuals is pretty hilarious. I suppose he also would have needed to erase any records of the person who really held that birth certificate too, since it was a sequential number.

    Do you know of any circumstance where a vault copy of a birth certificate is released? Only copies are ever released, and these days, those vault copies are purely electronic, so all “released” birth certificates are printed versions of electronic documents held on file. The only way to verify that a copy is valid is to ask for a statement of validity from the registrar, in this case Hawaii.

  27. Frin says:


    In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

  28. Aaron says:

    Right, and Fukino has proven to be an completely unbiased source of objective proof; there’s no conflict of interest there.

    Original oertificates were not kept electronically in 1961, and those kept prior to the switch to electronic storage are not added to the electronic file system due to differing formats, so whether they are or not “these days” is irrelevant.

  29. Frin,

    FACT: Dr. Fukino’s October 2008 statement did not say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    FACT: Dr. Fukino was not the first government official to officially say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    FACT: Dr. Fukino did not say, “Obama was born in Hawaii” until AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives said so first.

    FACT: Dr. Fukino relied upon an opinion from the Hawaiian Attorney General before saying, “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    FACT: Since the conclusions of an Attorney General opinion were used to make a public statement, Hawaiian law requires that the Attorney General opinion also be made public.

    FACT: Dr. Fukino and the Hawaiian Attorney General are breaking the law by refusing to release that Attorney General opinion.

    QUESTION: What are they hiding?

  30. Ryan says:

    She relied on the AG when deciding whether or not to make a statement. It’s actually illegal to release personal information in a press release, and they made an exception here.

    Is there anyone who you would trust here, or do you need to see the vault copy yourself?

    This is getting really boring. The fact is, you would not be asking these questions about president Hilary Clinton, and you would not require her to show a vault copy of her birth certificate, and although you have voiced concerns about McCain’s eligibility, you would not be beating a dead horse a year later if he had been elected. You know that, and so do we.

    This is not about citizenship – it is about Obama, and your desire to bring him down no matter what the cost.

  31. Math says:

    His name is “Steve Dunham”!

    Did you even watch the video the guy is basing his whole theory on? Do you even know what a joke is? He’s laughing at you in your face and like clockwork, you see it as more evidence for your theories.

  32. Frin says:

    “Right, and Fukino has proven to be an completely unbiased source of objective proof; there’s no conflict of interest there. ”

    In birther world, if they don’t say what birthers want them to say then it means they are biased.

    Now, lets look at the credible sources of information that the birthers have:

    TechDude – nope – turned out to be a liar.
    Polarik – nope – turned out to be a liar.
    Orly Taitz – nope – turned out to be completely incompetent, sanctioned by the court in Rhodes vs MacDonald, employed a disbarred attorney in Charles Lincoln and tried to submit a jpeg (oh the irony) of a clearly faked Kenyan BC as evidence which she obtained from convicted felon Lucas Smith.
    Phil Berg – submitted a Canadian (??) BC signed by Dudley Dooright as evidence in his court case. Filed the same sort of lawsuit against Bush after 9/11 – Bush responded the same way as Obama – i.e doing nothing.

    I could go on and on, because the main players in the cast of the birther soap opera are lying, cheating, incompetent, dishonest fools.

    I think its hilarious how many birthers, especially RedPill, can’t even decide which argument they want to make. First its the Kenyan birth/fake COLB thing, then when all the arguments are repudiated its on to the dual citizen thing. Then when the Courts clearly reject that argument its back to the BC thing. And all this whilst willfully ignoring that no other President in history has been required to show the sort of evidence that birthers expect from Obama. In fact, noone has even asked to see Biden’s BC. Why is that? Hmmm…. I wonder…..

  33. Jonah says:

    It would be more damning if we had evidence that his name was Stu Dunham, because that would obviously have been a pseudonym.

    Do I have anything to contribute to this conversation besides puns? No. I hope you guys are okay with that.

  34. It’s about the rule of law, and our desire to see our Republic (a land ruled by the rule of law) and our Constitution supported and defended.

  35. In fact, noone has even asked to see Biden’s BC. Why is that? Hmmm…. I wonder…..

    I did.

    Those 539 individuals, 538 from the Legislative branch and 1 from the Executive branch, did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support and defend the Constitutional requirement that Barack Hussein Obama II and Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr. be natural born Citizens of the United States.

    From: Malpractice of the Legislative and Executive Branches Requires Judicial Branch Review
    January 8, 2009

    Care to eat your words, Frin?

  36. Aaron says:

    Frin will just try another weasel move, instead of addressing the issue. It will probably be another subject shift attempt, just like the avoidance of addressing Fukino’s gross bias by throwing up a red herring.

  37. Frin says:

    Aaron – whats the point of addressing something that you have provided no evidence of? Fukino made a very clear statement. You think she’s biased. I don’t. No credible lawyer in the entire USA has taken up this case, so I guess they don’t think she is biased either.

    Mr Pill – well I take it back, you did ask for Biden’s BC. Once. Did he show it to you? If not, why aren’t you shouting from the rooftops that Biden is ineligible, or that he has something to hide?

    And did you ever ask to see Bush’s? Or Clinton’s? Or even Reagan’s (oh wait – he wouldn’t have gotten one at birth as Illinios didn’t require it)? What about Huckabee? Has he shown you his certificate?

    Why is Obama the first President that has ever been required to show his BC?

    Something you might find interesting. Spiro Agnew’s parents were aliens at the time of his birth. Guess he must have been ineligible according to you. Where was the ruckus?


  38. Ryan says:

    Oh silly Frin… None of those other people are commie Muslim terrorist sympathizers! We don’t need to see their birth certificates!

  39. There are regulations concerning the seal that should be on any COLB that was actually issued by the State of Hawaii:

    The Seal of the Hawaii Department of Health has been in effect since 1988 when it was made a part of the HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health. a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII .” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII .”

    At long last, a copy of the Hawaii Department of Health seal has been disclosed by the department directly. And this seal is consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    But guess what? The “seal” on the “COLB” that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago does NOT match the seal that was released directly from Hawaii, and the “Obama COLB seal” is NOT consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    The pResident is a fraud and usurper.

    Unveiling the HDOH Seal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s