Voeltz v Obama Florida Obama Ballot Access Challenge Dismissed With Prejudice
Voeltz v Obama - Order of Dismissal - Florida Obama Ballot Challenge - DISMISSAL ORDER HERE, HERE, AND BELOW.
UPDATE VIA WND.COM: " The attorney challenging Obama’s eligibility, however, told WND the judge’s ruling is “intellectually dishonest” and so poorly written it makes an appeal “relatively easy.”...
...Judge Lewis rejected Voeltz’s and attorney Larry Klayman’s arguments on three grounds.
First, the judge insisted, Obama’s candidacy cannot be challenged because he has not been nominated yet.
“The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a national convention [that hasn't occurred yet],” Lewis writes. “Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.
Second, the judge insisted, it’s not the Florida secretary of state’s job to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.
Quoting Florida law, Lewis writes, “The secretary of state has no affirmative duty, or even authority, ‘to inquire or pass judgment upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.”
Third, Lewis insisted, Obama should be considered a natural born citizen.
“The United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States,’” Lewis writes. " - MORE HERE.
Previous reports on the Florida ballot challenge here, here, and here. Hat tip Anon.
Voeltz v Obama - Order of Dismissal - Florida Obama Ballot Challenge - 6/29/2012
WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html
SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
200 comments:
After reading the order my response is:
duh.
Obamao is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President of the United States. Let's get him out of office in the 2012 election instead of wasting time and money on these moronic birther cases.
So the boy genius Klayman sued under a statute the doesn't apply to the Presidential candidate selection process. WAY TO GO BIRTHERS.
BTW, send Larry some more money!
Apparently this ignorant and/or cowardly judge doesn't seem to think there is any difference between "born citizen" and "natural born Citizen".
The Founders did not insert meaningless, superfluous words into the Constitution over which they labored for many long months and for which many of the compatriots had given their very lives.
How can this have happened ..... it was not Orly ..... who can we blame ???
What does this mean? I sure hope that Klaymans case is not over. ANyone with knowledge of what this means, please let me know
Anonymous said...Obamao is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President of the United States.
July 2, 2012 8:40 AM
**********************************
[Reply]
You obviously have proof of your statemnet.
We anxiously await the unveiling.
Quote:
"Obamao is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President of the United States. Let's get him out of office in the 2012 election instead of wasting time and money on these moronic birther cases."
No , what is moronic, and obotic, is believing the founders of our nation would have carefully made the qualifications for president and commander-in-chief include natural born citizen, rather than just citizen as for other elected offices, and then to believe that qualification requirement would include anchor babies.
@Anonymous "What does this mean? I sure hope that Klaymans case is not over. ANyone with knowledge of what this means, please let me know"
Dismissed with prejudice is never a good sign. He can't amend his complaint. He can appeal it. Doubtful that he'll win.
Remember when Klayman declared victory on Friday? Those tailspinning Obama lawyers were right.
Well, didn't expected that Lewis would do the right thang. That would be too much for the someone who wears a black robe these days. See Supreme Court justice Roberts decision in ObamaCare as a prime example, which was a total contortion job.
Onto Sheriff Arpaio's presser on the 17th!
And the exposing of the criminal operation of Fast and Furious where the OBots are going to lose their delusional heads for sure. :-)
@Anonymous
"What does this mean? I sure hope that Klaymans case is not over. ANyone with knowledge of what this means, please let me know"
He can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court but those appeals will be denied.
This nation is so screwed, the powers that be have taken just about every peaceful method of redress away from the people. We no longer have representation in either branch of our federal gov't and very little in lower courts and state gov'ts.
Only peaceful thing I think the people have left is for a couple million armed Americans to sit in front of the WH and Congress until every one of these traitors goes home. Either that or a majority of citizens quit paying taxes. I fear we have little time left and these global elitist traitors in DC want violence. We better do something quickly.
what a racist judge, he should declared zerO the winner of the presidential election at the hearing as well as knelt down and commanded all to pray towards the white house. allah akbar
In the Judge Lewis order he quotes SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett (MvH) thus, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” as if this is all that MvH had to say on the matter. Given the next five sentences in MvH specifically define an NBC it would seem lacking in Lewis' order that he should ignore the SCOTUS ruling and include mistaken rulings from lower anon-binding courts. Lewis opens the door to a child of a Russian ambassador having a child born in NYC to be considered a Natural Born Citizen. This is clearly not intended by Jay and the founders nor in Vattel's Law of Nations.
While this is not the level of quality I had hoped from Lewis it may open the door in appeal if presented to the SCOTUS as a Natural Born Citizen definition issue. They may finally be ready to set the record straight. Or not?
Born912
Pray wither Mr. Klayman's assertion of Obama "Tailspin" now?
Give it up people. I told you this would be the result and it is. Judge Lewis is not a crook, afraid or part of any conspiracy. He is a Trial Judge with a long and distinguished record who is respected by both sides in a very political State Capital.
Perhaps you should file suit, after he takes the bench, in Judge Kreep's court in San Diego. Maybe you an get a win there. You are not getting one anywhere else -- and I'll bet you $10,000.00 on that.
This horse is dead. Despite Sheriff Joe and his Posse it is dead.
Cheers!
"RS said...[Reply]
Well, didn't expected that Lewis would do the right thang. That would be too much for the someone who wears a black robe these days. "
Your reading comprehension skills are equal to your legal skills. Can you not read and understand the law as laid out in the Order?
He did exactly the right thing... ruled on the law as it exists. As have all the others.
And just in case you didn't notice, this Order was written, signed and sent to the attorneys on Friday the 29th. Klayman knew the outcome when he posted his WND lies. It was those lies and the inconsistency in those lies which prompted those who understand legal procedure and the law to posit he was full of it on Friday.. and he was.
@Anonymous
barry and his minions want you to think that way. Truth is we cannot wait until November. By then it will be too late. Four months is a long time. Enough time for them to take over completely. And that means cancelling elections. And we all know where that road goes.........
Anonymous 9:42 AM said:
"Remember when Klayman declared victory on Friday? Those tailspinning Obama lawyers were right."
Klayman did not claim victory. He claimed that Lewis would be forced to make a decision as regards the definition of NBC vice simply dismissing the case for lack of standing. That in fact happened and he can now appeal. Chances are the SCOTUS will ignore the appeal when it gets there. But it seems to me there are 4 ticked of Justices on the court right now. Hard to predict!
Born912
Sounded like more kick the can down the road double talk by our legal system. Sheriff Arpaio's July 17th Press Conference is next up. If he does come up with verifiable earth shattering info the ballgame very likely would be over for Obama as far as being reelected if not the issue could begin to fade. I guess we all have to stay tuned for the next episode in this intriguing real life drama.
With Florida’s ruling, which was released today, there have now been five state courts (Indiana, Georgia, Arizona, New Jersey, and now Florida) and one federal court in the Tinsdale ruling that have ruled specifically on Obama that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that all children born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens except for the children of foreign diplomats. In addition, there was one case about McCain, Hollister v. McCain, that ruled the same way.
Here is the Florida ruling:
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=58101756&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=20039029&dktsource=CRTV
@Sancho Panza
Even if Kreep could hear such a case, he could not. His court is traffic and family. If he could hear such a case, he'd have to recuse himself or the case would not survive appeal. You can't have a judge that was once a birther hearing a birther case. It is a conflict of interest.
@Tommy Conlon
Considering the utter failure of other birther quests to shutdown DC, your idea doesn't have a lot of beef. Do you really think you could gather enough patriots to do what you want to do?
@Tommy Conlon
There you go again, assuming that just because you are ALLOWED to apply for redress, your grievances MUST be redressed.
Sorry, but the answer is NO. Have a tantrum if you like, go get some guns and try to kill all the "bought and paid for" judges but nothing will change this fact.
YOU LOSE.
I have made a pastebin page for this ruling that loads a lot faster than scribd for people with older computers and other devices that don't work well with scribd. I always have a hard time with scribd and I have a brand new computer. Anyways, here is the link to the complete ruling:
http://pastebin.com/cZ737FUY
@RS
A presser doesn't do much other than help WND sell books to those who would buy them. If Sheriff Joe isn't willing to turn the information over to a prosecutor, then nothing is ever going to happen other than make birthers pee in their pants.
As far as Fast and Furious. You're thinking that a program that was started under the Bush admin and stopped by the Obama admin is going to go anywhere? Even the contempt charge has no weight. They had to turn the charges over to the Justice Department for prosecution and they're not going to prosecute. Best they can do is file a civil case which probably won't be resolved until well after the election.
A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication. The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata(final judgement) on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.
A court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice if it is vexatious, brought in bad faith, or when there has been a failure to prosecute it within a reasonable time. When a plaintiff who has commenced an action fails to comply with discovery devices, a court, which has issued the order of compliance, may sua sponte(on its own accord) dismiss the case with prejudice.
In short, Voeltz v Obama is over. On to the next ballot challenge. In Florida, that is Collette v Obama.
Overall, there have now been 135 original jurisdiction lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. Obama is eligible has prevailed 135 times; Obama is ineligible has never prevailed.
Right. Four months is time for them to take over completely. They've just been laying the groundwork for the last 3 years and 8 months, see, and ones all the plans are in place and in four months...voila, no more
If you weren't so ridiculous you'd be funny.
@Anonymous
Your reading comprehension skills are equal to your legal skills. Can you not read and understand the law as laid out in the Order?
My reading skill are very good pansy OBot. As for reading the tripe, I didn't bother. The headline says all I need to know after all the BS and nonsense we get from the bench over the last 4 plus years on this issue and others.
In the end OBot, Obama and the Rat Senate are gone after November.
It was those lies and the inconsistency in those lies which prompted those who understand legal procedure and the law to posit he was full of it on Friday.. and he was.
Speaking of lying, OBots live lies everyday of their lives and tell lies to everyone everyday twit.
BANKSTERS GET TO ANOTHER DICKLESS JUDGE!!!!!!
@Anonymous
Mega foreign banks including the Vatican's bank, the private Federal Reserve, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, etc.
Anonymous "You obviously have proof of your statemnet.
We anxiously await the unveiling."
July 2, 2012 9:21 AM
Did you bother to read the order? As to proof...Hawaii verifies Obamao's birth in Honolulu on 8/4/61. He was under jurisdiction of the United States, at the time of his birth. US citizens are either born or naturalized. Obamao was BORN a US citizen. McLame and Hildabeast didn't try to challenge Zero's eligibility. You folks have spent too much time in the birther echo chamber.
At first, challenging Obamao's eligibility was funny. Then it became boring. Now, this close to the election, there's likely to be a backlash against this idiocy which might help re-elect the man.
@Sancho Panza
This horse is dead. Despite Sheriff Joe and his Posse it is dead.
Cheers!
Hey OBot Pancho Villa,
DemocRat and Obama election campaigns will be obliterated in November.
Cheers.
On another note, an inside Arpaio posse source, says that OBots will be pissing on themselves after Arpaio presser.
Cheers again. :-)
I agree with Lewis throwing out Klayman's suit, which appeared poorly thought out and poorly presented, but his distortion of Minor V. Happersett makes him just another phony in black.
Frank Davis Marshall is his Real Father.Obama had a swinger mom.
Anonymous, July 2, 2012 10:48 AM
Obamao was BORN a US citizen.
_________________________________
You forgot the "Obama was BORN a BRITISH citizen" context. What are you...MSNBC/NYT?? And you miss the evidenced part also of ....Obama is presently no kind of U.S. citizen due to the official form (one that made it through the scrubbing attempts) stating that information of Indonesian citizenship....as well as the phonied up SSN, failing gov's own citizen verification system, that only acts as another piece of backup for that conclusion. Got anything beyond that point of his existence that negates that fact? And, btw, that event happened beyond the birth situation. All of that works logically with his refusal to show (with strong threats via his hired gun attys) his entry forms' info to Occidental. Since by his own admittance of doing drugs and lousy grades the only way in was via another benefit outside of U.S. entrance expectations....esp. at "such" a school. Of course, don't allow logic and facts in evidence deter you from your willing toady behavior.
anon @ July 2, 2012 11:11 AM is right, the mom got around with anything brown, a liitle white self hate she passed onto obummer
To everyone who says BO, the POS "alleged" president is natural born need to learn this up,
BO himself has stated he is a "naturalized" citizen and he can't prove that either. FYI
WHY IS THIS RECIDIVIST CRIMINAL BEING PROTECTED? ALL OVER MIAMI RADIO.
Did you expect any less?
If Roberts can be intimidated, all judges will be. They have in camera meetings with federal appellate judges before ruling.
You have to think at least one of his defense lawyers will eventually speak up out of guilt for enriching themselves via enabling a COMMUNIST to steal our country.
Charles Manson or Ted Bundy should have been the DNC CHOICE.
Obama is going to release the BLIND SHEIK AS A GESTURE TO SHARIAH LAW AFTER THE ELECTION.
There are several people in the Justice dept in charge of protecting OBAMA's PAST.
@Sisphyus
As far as Fast and Furious. You're thinking that a program that was started under the Bush admin and stopped by the Obama admin is going to go anywhere?
Oh please OBot, you've been smoking crack and watching delusional and androgynous, butch MadCow and her network MSLSD-NBC.
Here are some FACTS.
Project Gunrunner was implemented in 2005 under the Bush Administration, and under the umbrella Project Gunrunner, Operation Wide Receiver (WR) began in 2006.
WR sought to track and interdict guns being smuggled south using a combination of RFID-tracking devices embedded in the shipments and surveillance aircraft, however the OBot Mexican Cartels got wise to the program and made efforts to defeat WR, which they were successful, but not after hundreds of arrests were made against Mex-OBot Cartels. Operation Wide Receiver ENDED in 2007.
Now OBots don't get WR confused with OBama's "Fast and Furious" (FF) Operation that began in the spring or early summer of 2009.
Notice the year "2009" OBots. So who was pResident then? Not Bush you dingbats.
Moreover, the differences between Fast and Furious v. Wide Receiver:
- Bush WS was in coordination with the Mexican government. The OBot FF operation was kept from the Mexican government.
- Bush WS used sting operations to round up the badguys. OBot FF had no sting operations whatsoever, but only to let the 'guns walk' without tracking then into Mexico.
- Bush WS had success with the arrest of scores of bad guy. OBot FF had NO success - NONE - to sting or arrest the bad guys. Its objective was to cause death and mayhem for the benefit of the criminal Obama administration to push for new gun control laws in the United States.
What was some idiotic OBot above saying about my reading comprehension? LoL. You OBots live in a delusional world headed by your lame liberal media and this Obama Admin. Your comeuppance day is coming. You OBots are not going to get away with all of your lawlessness. Cheers. :-)
Only thing these cases are doing now is confirming ALL the foreign and domestic enemies of the USA. The commie list should include ALL of 111th and most of 112th congress, most MSM, ALL judges, GW and his gang and many others. It took the Viet Nam war and almost 60,000 killed to get the stupid punk 18 year olds to vote and that only took 3 months to pass. The NWO crap started around that time or sooner. Good bye America.
The grounds for appeal is found on page 4 where it is said that it is the Plaintiff's burden to PROVE ineligibility and not the State, SOS, Political Party, etc........
...the Appeal need only ask the questions;
1] "Does the lack of an acknowledged "legal", (enforceable) definition of 'natural born Citizen' by the various State and Federal election laws render the Statutory Constitutional provision of "...no person except ... shall be eligible.." to be without effect ... contrary to Marbury v Madison ...?"
2] "Can the Constitutionally 'legal' definition of 'natural born Citizen' be correctly construed within the words that say so and what the words require within the 1790 & '95 "Act's" ..."to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization throughout the States...?"
Time has run out! Plus Obama will use any issue including this one to divide and conquer and use resources that product no results! Focus should be on the 2012 election to ensure Mitt is the winner which means get every person supporting Mitt to the polls or mailing in their ballot
It is true that Obama was born with dual citizenship, but the key fact is that he was born with US citizenship, and that is all that matters. Woodrow Wilson was also born with dual US/British citizenship at birth due to his mother never having relinquished her British citizen status when she became a US citizen by marriage.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both dual citizens when they were president, having been made citizens of France by the French legislature. Dual citizen status has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.
A loss is a loss....Spin it all you want rs.
The fact remains that this ruling has demoralized you and all the birthers.
@Anonymous @ July 2, 2012 10:09 AM
"Lewis opens the door to a child of a Russian ambassador having a child born in NYC to be considered a Natural Born Citizen. This is clearly not intended by Jay and the founders nor in Vattel's Law of Nations."
Not only that hypothetical, but such an interpretation means the current DAUPHINE of FRANCE, Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy, a member of the HOUSE OF BOURBON is now eligible to be our Commander in Chief.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2842533/posts?page=1#1
It's 100% impossible that that is what the founders and framers intended.
Anonymous 12:00
Woodrow Wilson's mom was a US Citizen when he was born,so was his dad
Obama's father was never a US Citizen
The US does not recognize dual citizenship, even though Britain does
The fact is Obama at best is a statutory citizen naturalized by US laws, not by nature
he's not a natural born citizen
Wilson was
@Anonymous
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both dual citizens when they were president, having been made citizens of France by the French legislature. Dual citizen status has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.
Ummmmmm OBot as that would not matter in their cases. Can you figure out why? As usual, OBots are ignorant.
Cus article 2; clause 5 says... pay attention to the bold words below:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..."
Gee, what does that mean OBots? Well, it is as plain as the zits on your noses. It means any US citizens when the US Constitution became effective in 1787 could become a US president.
Do we know why that clause (the bold words above) was written in the US Constitution? Sure we do because they, the founding fathers, believed they were NOT natural born citizens of these United States; meaning that no one could be an NBC when the US nation was created by man. It is pretty simple to understand except for OBots.
Sigh....
July 2, 2012 12:00 PM
Woodrow Wilson was also born with dual US/British citizenship at birth due to his mother never having relinquished her British citizen status when she became a US citizen by marriage.
__________________________________
It doesn't matter the type of U.S. citizenship the parents (plural) have at the time of subject's birth....just that they are themselves each a U.S. citizen at that time. It wasn't the mother who was running for President now was it!!
Don't know your early American history and the requirements under the Constitution. Must be a product of the last few decades' public education....and had to work or something so you missed that part of American history class IF it was taught correctly!
Try again when you actually have a SCOTUS precedent that is later than the accepted definition of "parents" plural....and specifically speaks to Natural Born Citizen, explicit in its wording and separated from "citizen".
@Sisphyus
As far as Fast and Furious. You're thinking that a program that was started under the Bush admin and stopped by the Obama admin is going to go anywhere?
_________________________________
Other than flexing your whining mechanism this goes nowhere since Bush stopped his program in 2007. Obama's stands as completely new and unique to him from 2009. He owns it but can't handle it. Typical of the little man. Now take your medicine of accountability and be, finally, a big boy or girl.
@John Doe Sr.
No , what is moronic, and obotic, is believing the founders of our nation would have carefully made the qualifications for president and commander-in-chief include natural born citizen, rather than just citizen as for other elected offices, and then to believe that qualification requirement would include anchor babies."
Well said, John Doe.
@Anonymous
Butterdezillion here.
You've got it wrong. Hawaii did NOT verify (vouch for the legal truth of) any of the birth "facts" that were claimed on Obama's long-form. Not the date of birth, not the place of birth, not the mother's name, not the father's name, not the gender. Nothing that was on the official verification request form that Ken Bennett filled out.
He verified that those claims were on the birth record they have. If the birth record they have was legally valid Onaka would have to verify those facts as true in response to the official verification request form that Ken Bennett submitted. He refused. The only legal reason for Onaka to do that is if the record they have, which claims those things, is not legally valid.
IOW, what Alvin Onaka actually verified to Ken Bennett is that the birth record they have for Obama is not legally valid.
Hildebeast had 2 different people who agreed to present a petition challenging Obama's eligibility at the DNC Convention... both die within 2 weeks of the 2008 Democratic Convention - and even at that, top dem operatives told Bettina Viviano that Soros operatives had to threaten to kill Chelsea in order to get Bill to drop the issue. Bettina Viviano personally heard Bill Clinton say that he knew Obama was not eligible.
A Hillary supporter (Phil Berg) brought the claims to court but suddenly - in the same month that Soros threatened media heads if they allowed Obama's eligibility to be reported on and a couple months after Hillary's helpers were killed and Chelsea's life threatened - Judge Surick did a 180-degree turnaround from dealing earnestly with the claims to dismissing them based on supposed lack of standing (democrat donors have no right to a DULY-elected candidate, that Pelosi and Germond could certify without committing perjury).
Your claims are old, tired, and dead wrong. No pun intended, and the fact that there could be a pun about that tells us EXACTLY where we're at as a nation, while folks like you carry water for the murderers. We're not talking piddles here. We are talking about the very rule of law. That's what this has always been about, and the murderers/abusers that YOU ARE ENABLING are getting more blatant about their lawlessness by the day.
@Anonymous
Woodrow Wilson was also born with dual US/British citizenship at birth due to his mother never having relinquished her British citizen status when she became a US citizen by marriage.
I don't know where you DUmmy OBots get your info but it is whacked.
Mommy Wilson became a US Citizen a year before Woody was born. Citizenship for females at that time was always received through their fathers and husbands where mommy became a US citizen through marriage, which usually meant that females relinquished their former citizenship. It's too contemporary laws didn't stay the same as that would avoid the crappy entanglements we get now.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
@RS Couldn't have said it better, RS. MSNBC Obots are so easy to spot. They all parrot the same lies.
ABO 2012!
@Anonymous
You're full of shit.
@Anonymous
You're an idiot. You make this claim:
"He verified that those claims were on the birth record they have. If the birth record they have was legally valid Onaka would have to verify those facts as true in response to the official verification request form that Ken Bennett submitted. He refused."
Show me a refusal.
You can't, because he verified every single piece of information the SOS asked for. "It's all true" says the Dr. Onaka.
Have you seen a single other verification for someone other than Obama? Without one, you cannot state that he didn't verify the information in the correct way.
You somehow think him saying that something is true makes it not is beyond idiotic. Please take your stupidity elsewhere.
Devvy Kidd lets the judge HAVE IT!
"Act surprised.
Another gutless black robe. By the way, he's a Democrat.
Judge issues ruling in Obama-eligibility case
http://devvy.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/alerts/061456318983/
"Quoting Florida law, Lewis writes, "The secretary of state has no affirmative duty, or even authority, ‘to inquire or pass judgment upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running."
So, anyone who isn't legally eligible can be on the ballot.
The rancid political parties can simply submit their candidate, legally qualified or not.
Isn't that just great?
I'll bet Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are getting a thrill up their legs."
And to you obots...CROSS DEVVY AND YOU WILL WISH YOU DIDN'T !
@Andy
Nothing was "verified". Over and over HI has excused themselves from any verification. They've said stuff like it's half written and half typed. Whoa! The only thing Obama submitted for public view, and that only electronically, itself could not be "verified" as exact copy of what HI has. They just would not do it. Obama said it was copy of original at HI....HI would not say the same.
@United Natural Born Citizens
In answer to question 1.
The "natural born Citizen clause still is in effect as it still prohibits naturalized citizens from becoming President or Vice-President.
For question 2.
Nothing in the Naturalization Acts of 1790 or 1795 say anything about the case of children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens. Items not in a statute are generally not considered covered by the statute.
@RS
Does that mean you've thrown in the towel on the legal challenges and accept that he will be President at least until January, 2013?
Obama has yet to be legally vetted to be POTUS because not one court in this nation addresses the issue of "natural born citizen" as found in the US Constitution. It appears black-robed cowards fail mightily with their despicable "hands-off" policy.
Anyone can easily research to determine that having a British father disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen and thus from holding office of POTUS.
This is still a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and the Constitution remains Supreme Law of the Land.
And if ignorant Obots claim Barry Soetoro is a natural born citizen, this still does not make it so...
And although NWO elitists control shirker "judges" through fear and intimidation, that is still no excuse for treasonous cowardice and disloyalty.
Judicial inaction, a grievous affront to We the People [the actual vested power for the United States of America], results in outrage resting squarely upon gutless "authorities".
We hold this truth to be self-evident...
Psalm 37:1-3
1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.
3 Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
I am thinking anyone wanting to pursue an action against the administration needs to get in touch with Rod Class. It was a big mistake in the Georgia case. You have to deal on the basis of procedure not try to convince the court on the merit. When in Georgia the judge stated that he was going to give a default ruling because obo didnt show, I could not understand why they proceeded to enter anything in the record. They only provided ammo for the judge. Who cares that we have to tell the world what we know, just win the case. Quit while your ahead. They need to file a caase that they can win on procedure.
@United Natural Born Citizens
The appeal is based solely on what is contained in the record from the lower court.
This may be the wrong forum for this, but O'TAX not only calls for 21 new taxes being imposed upon the citizens of this country, 7 of those new taxes will fall upon those families who earn less than $250,000. It gives the IRS direct access to your bank account and your business records. The IPAB will decide if you get the recommended procedure/surgery etc. as suggested by your doctor or if you are denied because the cost is prohibitive.
Moreover, reportedly this law gives the Federal Government the right to confiscate 401K's and puts the U.S. military under the jurisdiction of the DHS and EPA for all domestic matters. IOW, basically nullifying posse comitatus. There's a reason the over 2500 pages long. So much of the Left's wet dreams are hidden in it.
Butterdezillion said: "IOW, what Alvin Onaka actually verified to Ken Bennett is that the birth record they have for Obama is not legally valid."
LOL!! And that's why Bennett, who heads Romney's election campaign in AZ, backed down?
Butter lives in opposite world!!
".... Please take your stupidity elsewhere."
HaHa!
You are aware that this is a blog called Birther Report or ORYR, right?
How about You go elsewhere?
Maybe some place where people appreciate Your supreme intelligence, LOL!
Look no one is going to touch this think about all the.dems and repubs that would go down with this I think that everyone in congress would be tried for treason I don't think anyone but the powers that be will ever know for sure what or were he is from the best we are ever going to do is vote his but out I think its just to big I didn't say I agree with this I am just looking at it from realistic prospective is all I have lost faith in judicial system all the way to the supreme court this country is headed for a new revulution
@rikker
No he didn't want to be called a bad name by the obots and embarrass him. Poor baby...just like the rest of the enabler cowards/lemmings.
I am the law here west of the Pecos and the Founding Fathers put NBC as a requirement for president because they knew that one day, Terry Lewis would be a good little demorat and pretend NBC is merely someone born in the USA. Terry knows the truth but judges make deliberate mistakes - don't they?
Wasn't this the Badass Lawyer that was gonna save the day and show Orly how it's done..?
So much for that crapp..!
I suppose now we'll start Bashing Larry like we did Orly..?! Or Hell, let's just pin it all on Orly... Yeah... That's the ticket.
@Anonymous
Does that mean you've thrown in the towel on the legal challenges and accept that he will be President at least until January, 2013?
Of course not Obot. Just don't have much expectations from a judiciary that is evasive, and I never put much expectations that judge Lewis would prove Obama was Constitutionally legal - which he did not. It never really hurts to try anyways. You never win by giving up.
Oh btw, OBots, Obama is now down by 8% in swings states in the latest CNN poll. CNN poll of battleground states: Romney 51, Obama 43. The Commie News Newtwork CNN tried to explain away the results about their own poll since they did not like it. LoL.
And the latest idiotic SCOTUS opinion on ObamaCare has Conservative Anger Against Obamacare Hitting 'Stratospheric Levels' from pollster Rasmussen.
Obama and you Rat Dems are going to get your Commie Donkey asses kicked in November.
Enjoy your moment as it won't last long OBots.
All it takes is one judge/election official to exhibit spine and gonads; obots and Obimbo then are history.
@Anonymous
"because not one court in this nation addresses the issue of "natural born citizen" as found in the US Constitution."
Actually several courts have dealt with it. The most recent was this one.
The courts all cite Wong Kim Ark, Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Anyone born in the US with several exceptions is a natural born citizen.
Everyone refuses to get it... It does not matter who the attorney is who files any suit. The result will forever more be the same. The fix is in and was in long before this man, who ever he is took over the people's house. The next move will clearly be that Romney will indeed choose a running mate that is also not eligible. He and the rest of these insiders clearly know that there is nothing anyone can do to stop this takeover. They know that you will either vote for him regardless that he too has an unqualified VP running or vote for Obama the worse of the two tickets. Either way they have usurped the tickets, White House again. There is only one way out and one way only. Too much time and money is being wasted on dead ends that have already been sealed off. No one can win against this corruption, no one.... People need to face it and wake the hell up...
@Commykiller
The only difference in Klayman, Apuzzo, Donofrio, Berg, Kreep and Orly is that Klayman and Apuzzo and Donofrio and Kreep know they're full of crap and just lie about it, and all of them except Berg know how to write pleadings, and understand basic procedure, though they don't adhere to it always, as was the case with Klayman's Second Amended Complaint filing without leave.
Orly is just too damn stupid to know any better and doesn't give a damn about procedure and doesn't know one damn thing about it or law either.
@Anonymous
Several recent court decisions have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.
In the Arizona ballot challenge, the Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon ruled that "Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."--Allen v Obama, et. al.
And US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. ruled that: "It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens."-- Tisdale v Obama, Virginia Ballot Challenge.
@Anonymous
Several recent court decisions have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.
In the Arizona ballot challenge, the Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon ruled that "Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."--Allen v Obama, et. al.
And US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. ruled that: "It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens."-- Tisdale v Obama, Virginia Ballot Challenge.
"They need to file a caase that they can win on procedure."
It doesn't exist.
Nor does a win exist on the merits, or rather lack thereof.
- Obama has yet to be legally vetted to be POTUS because not one court in this nation addresses the issue of "natural born citizen" as found in the US Constitution. It appears black-robed cowards fail mightily with their despicable "hands-off" policy.
Not true. Not counting Ankeny, 10 courts have addressed the issue and every one has (correctly) stated that based on the Constitution and the SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark Obama is a natural born citizen and have expressly denied the two citizen parent made-up BS.
- Anyone can easily research to determine that having a British father disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen and thus from holding office of POTUS.
Not doing proper research you can't. No such premise exists in history, the Constitution nor the law.
- This is still a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and the Constitution remains Supreme Law of the Land.
Indeed it does. And so far the Constitution has been upheld.
- And if ignorant Obots claim Barry Soetoro is a natural born citizen, this still does not make it so...
No, but the Constitution and legal precedent do, and they say he is.
@Andy
Andy, this is Butterdezillion.
Ken Bennett filled out a form asking Onaka to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama.
If that was what a legally-valid birth record for Obama said, Onaka would be required to say: I verify that the Department of Health has on file a valid birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii for Barack Hussein Obama II. I further verify that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama.
Where in the verification that Bennett received does Onaka say that Obama, a male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama?
If he didn't specifically say that he verified those facts, then he did NOT verify them. And he is required to verify them if those claims are on a legally-valid record. His failure to verify those facts, even though he verifies that those are the facts CLAIMED on what they have, has only one legally-justifiable reason: the birth record they have is not legally valid.
@Anonymous
The courts all cite Wong Kim Ark, Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Anyone born in the US with several exceptions is a natural born citizen.
The courts all cite? BS OBot. And Ankeny is a total and complete joke for numerous reason, and if you read WKA, it doesn't support Obama as a natural born citizen.
In fact it construes the 14th Amendment and did not expand on "citizen" by construing the Natural Born Citizen clause as in the holding in Minor v. Happersett.
Article 2 Section 1 and the 14th Amendment are mutually exclusive sections of the US Constitution.
@Anonymous
Court Judge Richard E. Gordon ruled that "Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, , and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."--Allen v Obama, et. al.
If true just another intellectually dishonest judge.
The "legal" precedents have been built on fear, cowardice and dhimmitude. Chattel to numb & dumb to be able to tell what is right and what is wrong.
Does anyone who can think for themselves really trust the judiciary to make an honest decision? Just look at the recent opinion put out by SCOTUS Judge John Roberts. It would not have mattered what he wrote in his opinion and the other Moonbat Supreme Court liberals would have voted with him. If he had said that the moon is made of green cheese is enough justification for ObamaCare to be Constitutional, we all know damn well that Ruth Bader 'Meinhof Gang' Ginsberg and Kagan and the rest of the Libs would have agreed with Roberts.
You can't trust contemporary judges in this country to be honest or support the United States Constitution that they swore to uphold. It's going to take election after election to change Washington and the rest of them.
You'll notice that these judges cannot explain in any real detail how Obama is a natural born citizen. And when they do attempt as in the Indiana Ankeny case, it doesn't hold up to any honest scrutiny.
You'll also notice that the Constitutionalists can walk the talk by explaining why Obama is not an NBC versus the usual pronouncements or unsupportable and very weak statements made by these so-called judges in their opinions and/or from their dishonest Obot cheerleaders. It's a very start distinction.
i hope your paying attention to all these enemy's of freedom. these unelected judges need to go. the buddy buddy plan aint working out so well. we got people who dont understand the meaning of America anymore. they are failing to side with liberty instead of another ruling that is as corrupt as they come. had enough yet America?
@rikker
Rikker, butterdezillion here.
Bennett backed down because he never meant to do anything except get the Surprise Tea Party off his back. That's why it doesn't bother him a bit that the 4 items critical to eligibility - which he specifically requested verification of - were never verified (date of birth, place of birth, mother, and father).
Reminds me of Buttercup in "The Princess Bride" thinking she was married because "this old man said 'Man and wife'" - even though she never said, "I do". "We sort of skipped that part", she said.
Wesley correctly pointed out, "If you didn't say it you didn't do it."
If Onaka didn't say that he verified those things (date of birth, place of birth, mother, and father), then he never did it. And he was required to do it if they had a legally-valid birth certificate making those claims. They had a record making those claims..... so the only reason left for Onaka to leave those facts unverified is that they were on a NON-VALID record and he therefore COULDN'T verify them.
@Anonymous
So you're questioning whether Obama is a male, and was born on August 8, 1961, on Oahu?
Mr. Bennett has to ask for specific information to be verified. Since he didn't ask for the gender, the date, or the island, he didn't get that information verified directly. (A quick google search shows that those pieces of information were not requested in his email.)
But, they were verified via the Certificate of Live Birth.
In fact, Mr. Onaka verified every piece of information on the Short Form certificate that Mr. Bennett submitted, as well:
"Additionally, I verify that the information on the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files."
So, you're wrong, and still and idiot.
@Anonymous
Couldn't be verified? What does this statement mean, then:
"Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files"
Can you honestly say you don't think that is a direct verification of the Certificate of Live Birth? The answer is "no."
@RS
Every single judge has given detail on why Mr. Obama is a "natural born citizen." They cite Wong Kim Ark, which looks straight to the source of the phrase in the Constitution. What more can you want?
The problem for the "birther" side is they can't point to a single court case the says those born here of non-citizen parents aren't natural born citizens.
@Anonymous
"this is Butterdezillion"
The Mississippi Court verification in fact verifies that all the information on the LFBC PDF is the same as on the original DOH copy. This would include the date of birth and place of birth and everything thing else that would be considered as information.
@Butterdezillion
"If he didn't specifically say that he verified those facts, then he did NOT verify them. And he is required to verify them if those claims are on a legally-valid record. His failure to verify those facts, even though he verifies that those are the facts CLAIMED on what they have, has only one legally-justifiable reason: the birth record they have is not legally valid."
He is not under any obligation to specifically say things that birthers wish for him to say.
However, out of curiosity I am wondering what your opinion is of yet his second verification to the MDEC in which he pointedly puts the exact url adress of the whitehouse.gov document and says that the information matches the information that they have on file.
This information would contain the birth date and name of his parents that you are requesting. The same verification is certified and bears the embossed seal of the state.
You are clutching at straws, butterball.
@RS
"The courts all cite? BS OBot."
Hollander v. McCain,
Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,
Purpura v. Obama,
Tisdale v. Obama,
Farrar v. Obama,
Ankeny v. Daniels,
Voeltz v Obama,
Jackson v. Obama,
Freeman v. Obama
"You'll notice that these judges cannot explain in any real detail how Obama is a natural born citizen."
Judge Masin in Purpura v. Obama said it best, "It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here."
Anonymous said...[Reply]
Anonymous "You obviously have proof of your statemnet.
We anxiously await the unveiling."
July 2, 2012 9:21 AM
Did you bother to read the order? As to proof...Hawaii verifies Obamao's birth in Honolulu on 8/4/61. He was under jurisdiction of the United States, at the time of his birth. US citizens are either born or naturalized. Obamao was BORN a US citizen. McLame and Hildabeast didn't try to challenge Zero's eligibility. You folks have spent too much time in the birther echo chamber.
At first, challenging Obamao's eligibility was funny. Then it became boring. Now, this close to the election, there's likely to be a backlash against this idiocy which might help re-elect the man.
July 2, 2012 10:48 AM
******************************
REPLY...
Perhaps you should read the Constitution.
One of the saddest side bars to the Birther movement has been the slow and steady deterioration of so many minds associated with the issue. For example, Terry Lakin was not a man of undistinguished intellectual achievement, at least at one time. He was an osteopath, a field grade Army officer, and by all signs a devoted and loving husband and father.
But watching his most recent interview with Pastor Manning, his near catatonic inability to provide meaningful answers to the most basic of questions was almost shocking. It was a horrifyingly poignant exposition of a compromised psyche.
So too with Butterdezillion whose started out with so much promise given her preternatural attention to detail and pit-bull like tenacity. But once she began insisting that the direct and straightforward statements of the Hawaii DoH were somehow a secret code that meant the opposite of what they actually said, she opened the mental floodgates to an irrational paranoia that crosses the line from simple neuroses to full blow psychoses.
It is one thing to so completely lose perspective that you fail to notice that every single datum contradicts you in even your most benign speculation (for example her long discredited theories regarding the certificate numbering scheme). It is another entirely to descend into wildly medieval fantasies of systematic slaughter.
Birthism as a hobby is one thing. But Birthism as a consuming obsession is destructive to the consumed obsessive.
@RS
Re: "Mommy Wilson became a US Citizen a year before Woody was born."
Yes she did, but she did not give up her British nationality when she did. That is because she became a US citizen automatically when she married Wilson's father. SHE WAS NOT NATURALIZED--which means to swear an oath and to give up the foreign citizenship.
It is most important that she did not give up her foreign citizenship for dual citizen purposes because, since she didn't, British law ruled that Woodrow Wilson was a British subject at birth.
And, get this, because of old German law that made the grandchildren of its citizens citizens of Germany, EISENHOWER may have been a dual citizen at birth.
Jefferson and Madison certainly were dual citizens because the French assembly voted to make them French citizens. (Which brings up the point that a foreign county can just rule that someone is a citizen of that country, and under the dual-citizen-is-barred idea, that person would not be eligible to be president.)
-Orly is just too damn stupid to know any better and doesn't give a damn about procedure and doesn't know one damn thing about it or law either.
She runs on pure BALLS doesn't she..! Makes you wonder what would happen if WE ALL were more like her. Funny how being so "too damn stupid" she remains the only lawyer in the entire
nation smart enough to know that the Serpent must be pursued CRIMINALY for no corrupt court will convict on eligibility ALONE..!
Orly "CALLED" this one. But as usuall no-one here is listening... 4yrs. later we're still waiting on "MORE COMPETENT" lawyers to come and SAVE US... Good luck with that...
"Does anyone who can think for themselves really trust the judiciary to make an honest decision?"
Then why get your hopes every time someone files one of these lawsuits? You know the courts will just say being born in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
@Andy
Andy, Butterdezillion here.
Have you even looked at the form that Ken Bennett filled out when he requested the verification? There's an application form that has to be filled out, and it has all the stuff that I mentioned. Onaka did not verify ANY of those things from the verification request form. That's because that form is a request that the HDOh verify the true facts of Obama's birth, and when the birth record is non-valid there ARE NO legal facts of birth. The truth of the claims cannot be known, and Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of any of those facts.
So all Onaka would verify is that they have a birth record for Obama and that the birth claims on Obama's posted long-form are also on the record they have.
Which means nothing if the record they have is not legally valid. And that is the only legal reason for Onaka to refuse to verify Obama's gender, date of birth, city of birth, island of birth, mother's name, and father's name - the items that Bennett specifically requested to be verified as legally accurate when he filled out that form.
If you haven't even looked at the form Bennett filled out then you are just too ignorant to even be discussing this, Andy.
@Andy
Andy, suppose Onaka had an affidavit that was written on toilet paper, saying, "I, the Great Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961. (signed)Barry Soetoro, November, 2006".
And then you asked Onaka to verify that the information on the COLB that Obama posted is the same information as what is on the record.
What would Onaka say?
If the claim on an online COLB image is the same as an original document written on toilet paper with doo-doo 45 years after the alleged birth, does that mean the claim is true?
If you can't figure this out, this subject is simply beyond your mental faculties.
@Anonymous
All you anonymouses out there, this is Butterdezillion.
Have any of you looked at the statute about a letter of verification in lieu of a certified copy of a certificate? It's HRS 338-14.3 and can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
It says: " (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, SHALL furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES TO BE VERIFIED relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate."
Onaka is not at liberty to just ignore something that Bennett asked to be verified. The statute says he SHALL FURNISH a verification of the record's existence AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES TO BE VERIFIED.
The statute goes on to say that a verification is certification that the true facts are as stated by the applicant.
IOW, if the facts furnished by the applicant are legally true, the HDOH HAS TO PROVIDE A VERIFICATION SAYING THAT. If the facts provided are not legally true the HDOH cannot verify those facts, even if they verify the existence of the record. And that is exactly what Onaka did. He verified that the record exists but refused to verify (certify as true) any of the birth facts submitted by Bennett. It can't be because he just ignored them, because the statute does not allow that. The only legal justification for failing to verify those birth facts is if they are not legally true.
Regarding the Mississipi Democratic Executive Committee, the very fact that they NEVER EVEN ASKED for any facts to be verified tells me that they know exactly the same thing that I've been saying: that Onaka WILL NOT verify any of the facts as true. He will only verify that certain claims are on the record - which he, the MDEC, and I all know has to be a legally non-valid record since Onaka refused to verify the facts claimed on it.
@Anonymous
"All" is the operative word OBot. So it is BS.
That's only a handful of silly quack lower court and state "opinions" who like to ditto-quack each other.
Judicial quack quack for quacks. Hi quack.
Judge Masin in Purpura v. Obama said it best, "It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here."
LoL. His head is stuck some where in a dark place. Can you say he's a quack. Yes Mason spouted such quackery. The real "wheel" if he honestly looked can be found.
None of them can cite plausible authority or explain who are natural born citizens, and none of them understand the intent and meaning behind the NBC clause. You know, the authors thinking and who wrote the Constitution.
What they do is dishonestly misconstrue and misconstrue again.
I can cite Supreme Court case - you OBots personify quackery.
Scores of Supreme Court cases are in direct contradiction to Mason's quackery and you Idiotic OBots.
For examples.
1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch
1830 Shanks v. Dupont, 28
1830 Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor
1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford, as an example, where it cites deVattel directly:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again:
“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”
Enough snippet to keep this post short. To continue Supreme Court cases that honestly understand natural born citizens:
1872 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.
1875 Minor v. Happersett
1884 Elk v. Wilkins
1939, Elg v. Perkins
1964 Schneider v. Rusk
Like I've said, the judiciary are not to be trusted, especially in political cases that concern Obama where the courts are psychologically flawed.
Short term limits may be something that should be seriously considered for these black robed clowns. They certainly don't uphold the US Constitution.
You may have the ears of the dishonest courts, but we all know you clowns are dead wrong.
Take a look in the mirror, because all your hate is eating you up. Everything you hate about Obama is more likely true of that reflection. The color of the man's skin is all you truly hate. This hate comes from your parents and your parents parents. Handed down the line like an old watch. It's time to throw that nasty old watch away. Welcome to the future!
"It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here."
----------------------------
Wonder why they did it then....reinvent that wheel!! None of them obviously are Constitutionalists. Shame on them! They deny the true precedent since it has to be explained to them each time and they have no knowledge of it even existing. Sticking with their own lack of understanding rather than what has always been understood in all of our prior Presidents shows a personal stubborn pride, not wanting to be called names by the libs via the Alinsky treatment. Cowards! The fact that only one President, Chester Arthur (and he was discovered later) to have been ineligible....and he himself shows that he was aware of the NBC conditions since he necessarily lied about his actual conditions of birth (father was not yet an American citizen)....should show these political judges the truth about themselves actually being the ones "reinventing the wheel". The sad part about these unconsidered decisions is their very glibness towards our history and he who holds the controls over us all and even globally.
"says that the information matches the information that they have on file."
__________________________________
And do you know how they get that "information on file"? You're assuming it's somehow original when stuff was called in by friends, relatives, years after the fact, persons born elsewhere and recorded....all it is is a report of "a live birth" taken, recorded and not verified....even changed beyond the time the information was first recorded. IOW, what can be shown on a form to the public, can be only a portion and taken out of truth's context, without the rest of the story!! Obama's half sister, born in Indonesia, has a HI COLB. The HI "system" is beyond any normal recognition or explanation. But hey, I've got a bridge to sell ya too, interested?
@Anonymous
Have you actually seen Bennett's email to Onaka? He didn't ask for the gender, the birth date, or the Island. So he can't verify those, because he wasn't asked to.
What verification are you looking for? He verified everything that Bennett asked, and went even further to verify everything on the COLB.
That makes it true. What are you looking for? Just because you want specific language doesn't mean you're going to get it. He verified exactly as he was required to by law - the existence of the original document, and that the information presented matched that.
@RS
And yet none of the cases you cite speak of someone born to alien parents, or even one alien parent.
Weird.
"You may have the ears of the dishonest courts, but we all know you clowns are dead wrong."
Very succint and more importantly, quintessential words of this entire page.
"Obama's half sister, born in Indonesia, has a HI COLB."
I keep hearing this from various sources, but to date I have not seen an image or any proof to this allegation. Is there a link or source for this particular claim? Does this COLB actually list Hawaii as the place of birth? Does it list a hospital? Does anyone know the truth behind this? It would seem to be a pretty important piece of evidence, but to date I only find claims that it exists without any evidence.
"Regarding the Mississipi Democratic Executive Committee, the very fact that they NEVER EVEN ASKED for any facts to be verified tells me that they know exactly the same thing that I've been saying: that Onaka WILL NOT verify any of the facts as true. He will only verify that certain claims are on the record - which he, the MDEC, and I all know has to be a legally non-valid record since Onaka refused to verify the facts claimed on it."
Butterdezillion
Wrong. Representation for the MDEC asked for two things to be verified... in other words is it or is it not a fact...
1) That the original certificate of live birth was on file with the department of health
2) That the information on the image at the whitehouse.gov matches the original certificate of live birth that is on file with the department of health
Onaka responded... In otherwords it is or it is not a fact...
1)That there is indeed an orignal COLB for the President on file with Hawaii DoH
2) That the information on the image posted at whitehouse.gov matches the information that is contained in the original COLB that they have on file.
You are twisting yourself into a pretzle to try and suggest otherwise. Two facts remain...
1) The DoH has stated that they have a COLB on file
2) The State Registrar has verified that the information on the image posted on line at whitehouse.gov matches that COLB that they have on file.
You can claim all you want that these facts are not facts, but they are indeed facts.
@CommykillerIf Orly Taitz knows that Obama must be pursued in the criminal courts, why is she continually filing civil suits and losing every single one of them?
You'd think she would turn her evidence over to a prosecutor in order to launch a criminal Grand Jury investigation or at the ver least turn her evidence over to a congressional committee for an investigation in a committee of the House of Representatives.
@Anonymous
Leo Donofrio said some time ago that since the DOH index data does not have a listing for Obama's sister, she could not have a Hawaiian BC.
@Anonymous
It will be up to the US District Court Judge in Mississippi to decide the relevance or lack of relevance of Dr. Onaka's Letter of Verification.
We all now know that Dr. Onaka's first Letter of Verification was accepted by Arizona Secretary of State Kenneth Bennett as meeting his needs.
It should be noted that both Loretta Fuddy, Hawai'i Director of Health and Alvin Onaka, Hawai'i Registrar of Vital Statistics are named as co-defendants in Taitz v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et.al.
Perhaps they will be deposed or have to testify if this lawsuit survives the defense's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings.
@Anonymous
A COLB means you were a live birth...somewhere!! And this is what Zero was trying to push on a clueless public until he was pushed for more and then had to phony up the electronic fraud.
@Anonymous
Back in 2009, the Hawai'i Department of Health said that it was possible to get an out of state or out of nation Hawaii birth certificate which says that you were born outside of Hawai'i or out of the US. Here's the quote:
"It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
So Maya Soetoro-Ng may well have a Hawai'i COLB that says that she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia.
@Andy
What's "wierd" is that OBots have a hardwired-ignore-microchip inserted in their pea-brains.
And yet none of the cases you cite speak of someone born to alien parents, or even one alien parent.
As I have pointed out above, they all are Supreme Court cases, and what Obama has are bunch of half-backed lower and state court opinions.
They don't even come close to measuring up to the highest court, the US Supreme Court, that has 'original jurisdiction' over the United States.
OBots, and spineless lower court judges, who elevate half-backed, and disingenuous OBot court opinions over Supreme Court opinions and misconstrue SCOTUS opinions, do not pass anyone's smell test. It's laughable.
And yet none of the cases you cite speak of someone born to alien parents, or even one alien parent.
And they would not and do not because we are truly speaking about allegiances, or lack of having a foreign allegiance to other governments or sovereigns for natural born citizens.
The Constitutional founder's intent was not to have split allegiances for the commander in chiefs or presidents. Presidents are to only have one allegiance - to the United States.
Before the 20th century and before women received the right to vote, females, mothers, daughters received their citizenship from their fathers or from their husbands. Soon after the 19th Amendment was ratified, laws started to decouple wives citizenship from their husband's citizenship. Up to 1932, American women, if they married a foreigner, they lost their US citizenship. Double allegiance was once frowned upon by governments.
Now thanks to women's suffrage, along with the 14th Amendment, has caused split allegiances and has the potential to create a mess of the Constitution NBC clause.
Back in the day, Obama's mother would have lost her US citizenship upon marriage and would have came under the aegis of her Kenyan husband's citizenship, if she had not taken full Kenyan citizenship upon marriage. Obama and his OBot supporters would only have been left with an argument that the 14th Amendment granted natural born citizenship, which is pure folly.
@Anonymous
Butterdezillion here.
Maybe instead of psychoanalyzing me your time would be better spent reading HRS 338-14.3, which does NOT give the HDOH the option of simply ignoring some of the facts a requestor asks to be verified. If the HDOH does not verify those facts it is because they CANNOT verify them.
Basic reading comprehension, folks.
@Andy
Andy, Butterdezillion here. Seems like you're missing the details of the story. According to http://www.yumasun.com/articles/bennett-79134-state-hawaii.html Bennett downloaded a verification request form off the internet and sent it in with $5. That form can be seen at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf and includes the items I've been talking about - which you know nothing about because Onaka did NOT verify any of those facts; they are mentioned NOWHERE on his verification.
Bennett also included additional requests, which can be seen at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php?ref=fpnewsfeed and started out like this:
"Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify ..."
So not only did Bennett submit the form, but he also personally requested, along with his other special request that Onaka verify some other items as being on the birth record, that the items from the form be verified.
HRS 338-14.3 says that the HDOH SHALL (mandatory) verify the existence of a birth record AND whatever the requestor submits to be verified. Onaka does not have the option of ignoring what Bennett requested to be verified. He did not verify any of the birth facts as being legally true. He did verify that certain claims are on the birth record, as specifically asked by Bennett. But the form request is for verification of the true facts - and Onaka did not verify ANY OF THOSE ITEMS.
He refused to verify any of the birth facts, refused to verify that Obama's posted long-form is a "true and accurate representation of the original record", and verified only that they have a birth record, that some particular items are claimed on the birth record, and that the birth claims on Obama's posted long-form are the same claims as on the record they have.
Simple logic says that the reason Onaka would verify that the claims are on the record but would NOT verify that the claims are legally true.... is because the record they have is not legally valid and so nothing on that record can be verified as legally true.
Too many people are assuming they know the whole story when they don't. The fact that so many people who claim that Onaka verified Obama's birth facts don't even know that Bennett submitted an actual application for a verification of Obama's gender, birth date, city of birth, island of birth, mother's name, and father's name tells us how woefully inaccurate the reporting on this has been, and how little due diligence has been shown by the people who assume that Onaka verified everything Bennett asked of him.
@Anonymous
Anonymous, Butterdezillion here.
Normally the absence of a name on the birth index would mean that a person doesn't have a birth record. But the HDOH has been caught altering their 1960-64 birth index to include legally non-valid records, and they have also been caught changing the name on a record so that it doesn't show up when the database was queried for the original person's name.
Under normal circumstances the birth index should be reliable. But the HDOH has manipulated their birth index and database so that some names that are not valid records show up on the birth index as if they were valid, and so that at least one person with a valid record did NOT show up in the database when queried.
Everything out of the HDOH at this point is suspect because they have been caught acting in bad faith. This is why this issue will never be settled until the original microfilms of the original birth certificates, the original paper birth certificate, and the computer transaction logs for his birth record, social security number, draft registration, and passport are all audited. The HDOH has acted in bad faith and their acts of bad faith could include providing breeder documents that would allow other records (such as a passport) to be created based on a lie. It looks more like the passport office and selective service administration created their own forgeries but that all needs to be investigated because there are obvious, blatant signs of fraud.
So anyway, we have no way of knowing whether Obama's sister has a Hawaii birth certificate. No proof has been offered for that claim so I don't consider it true, but I do recognize that the HDOH could easily have deleted her name from the list - just as easily as they added other names to the birth index list. Without an audit, we have no idea which - if any - of the HDOH's records are genuine. And that is why this is a big stinking deal. The entire nation's security could be p!ssed on by the people in that office, and we'd have no recourse to make them stop.
@Anonymous
Oh Butternutz, you're still crazy!
The form you linked to is for a certified copy, not for a verification. This apparently isn't the form used. It appears from the emails that he only sent an email, not the form you are stating. Since the form you posted is for certified copies, Bennett had no reason or right to use it.
So you're wrong. Onaka did exactly as the law stated: He verified the record existed, and the exact information Bennett submitted. Since Bennett could not have used that form, it is irrelevant.
Please think harder next time, so you aren't confused by a form which specifically is for certified copies, not verification.
@RS
According to every court that's heard a case like this, you're wrong.
You can argue the courts agree with you, but since they keep telling you OVER AND OVER that they don't, I'll listen to them.
You seem to hang your hat on some twisted interpretations of court rulings that no court, including the Supreme Court, agrees with. Good luck with that.
It isn't corruption or stupidity that agrees with me. It's the Supreme Court and Constitution. Until you change those two things, you're very much on the losing side of this argument.
@Anonymous
Butterdezillion here. You folks just don't grasp what I am saying. It doesn't matter if the information matches, if the record it matches is not legally valid. You keep saying that the HDOH verified that the information matches. Duh. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if it matches a legally non-valid record.
And if it was a legally valid record Onaka would HAVE to verify as true the facts submitted in that verification request application. He didn't, and that is a problem because it reveals that the record they have is legally non-valid.
The fact that the MDEC never even ASKED for the true facts, but only whether the information matched what is on the record in Hawaii, shows that they know that record is legally non-valid and that they will never get a verification of the actual facts for that very reason.
Which was not hard to figure out given Onaka's refusal to verify the actual birth facts. And given that Hawaii also wouldn't verify for Bennett that the posted long-form is an accurate representation of the original. That is standard language for verifying that a copy is genuine - and the HDOH would not do that. Why not - if the "information" (which the MDEC indicated means actual birth facts claimed) on the posted long-form matches what is on their record? If the information is the same, then why isn't the copy a true and accurate representation of what they have?
Because what they have has LATE and ALTERED stamped on it, as well as notation of what affidavits were filed to support the late and altered filing, and when.
What Onaka did makes perfect sense if they have a late, altered - and thus legally nonvalid - birth record for Obama. It DOESN'T make sense for them to haggle over these words and refuse to verify the basic birth facts from the application form if what they have is a legally valid record. Nor does it make sense for both the COLB and the long-form to be forgeries (which they documentably are)even though the information claimed on them is the same as what HI would print out for Obama - unless the original record has additional content which Obama wants to hide, such as the LATE and ALTERED stamps and notes of when the affidavits/evidence were added to the file.
What do you claim as the reason that Onaka refused to verify Obama's gender, date of birth, city of birth, island of birth, mother's name, and father's name?
What do you claim as the reason that Onaka would not verify that the posted long-form is a true and accurate representation of the original, as Bennett specifically requested (and as HRS 338-14.3 thus REQUIRES Onaka to either verify or refuse to verify)? Do you acknowledge that by not verifying what Bennett specifically asked, Onaka is REFUSING to verify what Bennett asked, since the law requires him to respond to what was specifically asked to be verified?
Re: "But the HDOH has manipulated their birth index and database so that some names that are not valid records show up on the birth index..."
This requires us to believe that the entire staff of the Hawaii DOH conspired to hide records because dozens if not hundreds of people would know about such a thing happening, and not one of them has said that it happened.
Moreover, it is simply a claim without any evidence whatever. If you think the DOH of Hawaii made changes to the Index Data or scrapped Obama's sisters birth record--then show evidence for it, or at least show that they changed the Index Data or hid the file of someone else.
However, to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii requires even more than this. It requires evidence that Obama was born outside of Hawaii in addition to evidence that the birth certificate is wrong. Well, there is no such evidence---and Hawaii is thousands of miles from any other country, and tens of thousands of miles from Kenya (which is the place that birthers usually claim where he was born). There is no evidence that Obama's mother was in Kenya, and the Kenyan government has denied the "born in Kenya" myth.
Let us remember that there actually were birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers in August 1961 (no they cannot have been forged since they exist in multiple libraries).
Since at the time the birth notices in that section of the newspapers (Health Bureau Statistics) came only from the DOH of Hawaii, the DOH would have had to have lied in 1961---and why should they have????
@Andy
Sigh. Anonymous, your ignorance is hanging out. Why don't any of you people actually check for facts before you post nonsense?
From the HDOH's web page describing how to get vital records, at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html :
"Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies."
@Anonymous
The case of Norman and Nathan Asing's legally non-valid records being listed in the 1960-64 birth index : http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/1960-64-birth-index-includes-legally-invalid-records/
The case of Virginia Sunahara showing up in the index but not in the database: : http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/virginia-sunahara-and-hdoh-fraud/
@Anonymous
Also, regarding the birth announcements. Answer me this:
Why was Virginia Sunahara's birth unannounced in either newspaper, when another infant who died was announced in both papers?
Why were the Nordyke twins' birth only announced in the Advertiser and not the Star-Bulletin?
Why was the birth of Robert Asing's daughter only announced in the Star-Bulletin and not in the Advertiser?
That's not even going into the signs of tampering with the microfilms or the documentably false stories we were told about how the announcement images surfaced. That just speaks to the claim that the birth announcements were from the HDOh. If so, why are there these discrepancies? What's your explanation for that?
@Anonymous
You state that they would have to verify everything on the application, but that is not what the law actually says.
The verification came specifically with a list of things to verify - check the emails. Mr. Onaka verified exactly what was asked.
I'm sorry you're too silly to read that, but that's the truth. Had he requested the date and island of birth, it too, would have been verified. (Actually, it was by verifying the COLB, but you're too dense to get that, aren't you?)
"That's not even going into the signs of tampering with the microfilms or the documentably false stories we were told about how the announcement images surfaced. That just speaks to the claim that the birth announcements were from the HDOh. If so, why are there these discrepancies? What's your explanation for that?"
There is not a single thing you can point to that leads to the idea of tampering.
@Butterdizillion
The problem is that every single claim you make is absolutely and 100% pure speculation on your part. You state as fact that which is just not presented as fact.
For example:
"Because what they have has LATE and ALTERED stamped on it, as well as notation of what affidavits were filed to support the late and altered filing, and when."
This is what I am talking about. You have stated this as a fact when you simply have no proof on your side. You are speculating that it is fact and then stating it as such. Perhaps if you walked it back and stated it as a possibility or a maybe, but when you state it as fact when the burden of proving this statement is on you, and then you do not back this statement up, then you lose the argument.
By the way... if you want to prove a claim you make, you need to use another source other than yourself.
@Andy
Andy, nice attempt at dodging the questions. Why won't you answer those questions? What is your explanation? I won't even ask you for proof, as you folks keep asking me for. I'll be happy just to hear your speculation. Why was Virginia Sunahara's birth not announced in either newspaper? Why were the Nordyke twins' births only announced in the Advertiser? Why was Robert Asing's daughter's birth only announced in the Star-Bulletin? What's your theory?
There are a lot more anomalies I could ask you about too but if you won't even answer these ones it would be way too hard just to get you to even understand what anomalies I'm talking about, much less get an answer from you. Because it's obvious that you have not looked at the newspaper announcements.
I bet you don't even know that the Aug 14 Star-Bulletin had a couple dozen more births announced than the Aug 13 Advertiser. You probably still buy the story that the lists were identical and that it proved that the lists came from the HDOH - when in fact the lists were totally different once you got past the Obama announcement, and (using the logic attempted) that would actually prove the lists did NOT come from the HDOH...
So anyway, I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation for those 3 instances.
@Anonymous
My claims are a combination of observable facts, the laws in question, and logic.
But let's hear your explanation. Onaka confirmed that what is on the posted BC is also on the record they have. But he refused to verify that the online BC is a true and accurate representation of the original.
Why did he do that? Why make the big stink of distinguishing between those 2 things? It is observable fact that he made that distinction. Now you explain to me why he didn't simply verify the genuineness of the online BC as required by law, if the claims on the online BC are the same as the claims on the original record.
I eagerly await your explanation.
And BTW, when I make a claim I cite original sources and logic. You can go back and look at all this thread and see that I am NOT the one claiming that Bennett never submitted an application, or that the application for a certified copy isn't used to request a verification, or that the statute allows the HDOH to just ignore some items that a qualified requestor asks to be verified, etc. I am the one looking up the statutes, requirements, protocols, and actual interviews and documents - and citing them for everybody to see and know the truth. When you are equipped with facts you can use logic to reach conclusions. If you disagree with the conclusions, fine, but show where the logic is faulty or show what has been overlooked - and NOT by just making ignorant claims that are already disproven by the original sources I've already cited.
Some of the claims I make HAVE to be sourced to me because I am the one who made the requests and received the official responses from HI officials. I am the one who spoke to these people on the phone. I am the one who made the requests. I am the one who looked up the laws, rulings, rules, etc and put 2 and 2 together. If somebody else was doing this I would cite them, but they're not so I have to rely on my own eyewitness testimony and the records I received for myself. That's called original research. You should try it sometime. Lots of people should try it sometime.
Other claims are sourced to my blog because that's where the records received by others are posted, with their permission. That's what you have to do when nobody "credible" is interested in research and documentation. If you don't like it, I suggest that you ask ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc why they won't report on any of this stuff. Oh, that's right - Mike Zullo has already confirmed that they were THREATENED if they reported on it...
@Anonymous
"And if it was a legally valid record Onaka would HAVE to verify as true the facts submitted in that verification request application."
Wait, are you saying that Dr. Onaka has to verify that the information on a BC is true?
How could he possible know if the items are true? How could any registrar in any state today verify that a fifty year old BC's information is true?
All they can verify is that the information contained on a certified copy or in this case the whitehouse pdf, is the same as is on the original copy on file at the Department of Health.
@Anonymous
Did Bennett specifically ask for the mother's name or father's name?
He did verify the date the registrar stamped the BC - August 8th, 1961. To be late wouldn't that mean that Obama was born one year before that.
@Anonymous
First, Onaka wouldn't verify it because you didn't mention the $5 fee.
Second, there is not a single shred of evidence that the original birth certificate isn't the one created in 1961. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it is.
My mental facilities are normal, but given the set-up you just asked about, yours aren't.
@Anonymous
Sorry, but since your name is anonymous. I'm not sure which questions you're even talking about.
I'm assuming your questions have to do with different scenarios...so I'll talk about those.
First, Sunahara's birth may not have been announced because she died? Pretty easy one there.
As for the others - I haven't been through the archives for either newspaper, so I can't comment on facts with which I am not familiar. Of course, in 1961, it could be simply as easy as one paper printing on certain days, and another not.
Moreover - I have never claimed the published exactly the same lists. What I will state is that they received the exact same lists. They may have only printed births for those whose addresses were in Honolulu. That's a very real possibility.
Of course, since you have no proof that Obama was born anywhere other than where his 1961 birth certificate says, you have no ground in this argument, and will continue to fail at all "birther" endeavors.
@Anonymous\
"But let's hear your explanation. Onaka confirmed that what is on the posted BC is also on the record they have. But he refused to verify that the online BC is a true and accurate representation of the original.
Why did he do that?"
Because the law doesn't allow him to verify a photocopy of a document, only the information.
More importantly, the information is all that matters. It would be very easy for some crazy person (let's say "butterbread") to take the COLB or Long Form, make a very slight edit, and get Onaka to "verify it." The information could still be correct, but the crazy person would claim they were verifying a fake document. To avoid this, the law only allows him to verify the information, since it is all that matters.
The law states this:
"The department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate."
It doesn't say it will verify copies of the record. And it only verifies additional information that the person supplies to be verified, not what the person writes on the application.
As you can see, the law is clear. There is no inference, only the clear facts. You have not cited a single source that supports your statements.
The application is there. But it doesn't provide the information to be verified. In fact, you have no clue what happens if they only put in a name and date of birth.
So you have nothing. And you will continue to lose, because you're on the wrong side of the law, and of history.
@Anonymous
No, he didn't ask for the verification of the parent's names. He only asked for verification of the document (apparently using the form on the Hawaii DOH website), and additionally asking for the verification of the following facts:
"Department of Health File #151 61 10641
Time of birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of mother: 18
Birthplace of mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8 1961
Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files."
@Andy
According to every court that's heard a case like this, you're wrong.
And I've stated more than once that the courts are not being honest and I've detailed why over and over again. All I get from OBots along with their heroes in the courts is sophistry and BS.
It isn't corruption or stupidity that agrees with me. It's the Supreme Court and Constitution. Until you change those two things, you're very much on the losing side of this argument.
I've showed you plenty of proof that the lower and state courts are wrong and don't follow the Constitution. You are being obtuse like an OBot. I may be on the losing side because they play ignorant for numerous reasons, but history should show when we all are dead and buried should accurately paint Obama and OBots as liars and cheats and a spineless court system. This does not end when Obama gets kicked out of office it goes on. You liberals have crossed the line.
@Anonymous
On the verification request application Bennett asked for the gender, date of birth, city of birth, island of birth, mother's name, and father's name.
Onaka refused to verify any of those birth facts.
Interesting that you mention the date that the local registrar accepted the certificate. Bennett never asked the date that the certificate was accepted by the registrar general (which is the date that the certificate was COMPLETED). If a birth was reported to the local registrar by somebody claiming knowledge of the event (such as Madelyn Dunham), the date that it was reported would be the date that the BC was accepted by the local registrar. Statute at that time said that the local registrar had 30 days in which to collect all the required information to complete the BC. If he/she hadn't gotten all the required information by then, the BC would be marked as "late".
In 2006 Obama could have submitted to the HDOH affidavits that claimed to be by an attending doctor and signed on Aug 8, 1961, along with a statement supposedly signed by Ann Dunham. (The genuineness of the signature on the online BC is highly suspect because it took 2 layers to get that signature on the BC - and one of the layers shows white space for 2 b's on the "Obama", showing that the word "Obama" was repositioned when it was being C&P'ed onto the BC. This is incidentally also good reason to believe that the BC itself is an abstract of information taken from affidavits - which fits what Paul Tsukiyama indirectly confirmed as well as the HDOH's indirect confirmation that the BC was amended in 2006. This could also explain why Onaka refused to verify that the online BC is a true and accurate representation of the birth record on file - since the birth record on file could actually consist of a series of affidavits providing the various information necessary to complete a birth record).
Affidavits showing up 45 years after the birth and claiming to have been signed days after the birth would be suspicious but the HDOH would have to accept it according to the HDOH Administrative Rules - with the stipulation that the BC itself was not completed until 2006 and thus is "late" and not legally probative. This is precisely why late BC's are suspect. And the only way anybody would ever know the difference is if they saw the actual birth certificate that noted the affidavits/evidence and when they were submitted.
@Andy
Andy, if Bennett hadn't sent the $5 they would have refused to verify ANYTHING.
But he did send a $5 money order. At http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/162568 it says the following, which shows that your excuse is just another ignorant stab in the dark that you made rather than doing any checking out of facts for yourself:
After Arpaio’s big expose, Bennett said he got 1,200 e-mails from people, asking him to demand Obama’s birth certificate.
To which my mother would ask: if you got 1,200 e-mails asking you to jump off a cliff would you do it?
Evidently, Mama Bennett would say “heck yeah,” because eight weeks ago Bennett found himself a form on the internet, got a $5 money order and fired off his request that Hawaiian officials verify that they’ve got proof of Obama’s birth.
@Andy
Teresa Prive also died and her birth is announced in both newspapers. So that explanation doesn't hold water. Try again.
It's also not a matter of the newspaper not printing on certain days. There are births that are announced 3 weeks later in one paper than the other. But Sunahara is one of many people whose birth was not announced in EITHER paper, ever.
The birth announcements in the 2 Honolulu papers include births all over Oahu, so that's not the explanation.
See, those who have looked at the actual newspapers and analyzed the announcements in-depth can answer these rebuttals easily and quickly. The only reason these things haven't been brought up with folks like Bill O'Reilly is because O'Reilly and the entire press is too lazy to get their fat rear ends into a library and actually check out the facts.
None of your explanations fit what's in those newspapers. Try again.
@Andy
"True and correct representation of the original" is standard language for verifying the genuineness of a document in Hawaii. I could give you a ton of examples of this - including the very problem that Deputy AG Jill Nagamine had in the Duncan Sunahara case, where the judge questioned why Nagamine had submitted a photocopy of the HDOH Administrative Rules without a statement from the custodian of the record certifying it as a "true and correct representation of the original on file".
To say that something is a true and accurate representation of the original is simply saying that the copy tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It means there is nothing contained in one that is not contained in the other. That is perfectly fine for the HDOH to verify.
In fact, the part of HRS 338-18(g) which actually authorizes Ken Bennett to receive a verification says this:
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is...
3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization..."
Obama presented what he claimed was a certified copy of his birth certificate, in order to show to the entire country including Arizona his eligibility to be President, which he had to swear to in order to apply to be on the AZ ballot - a service he was requesting from AZ SOS Ken Bennett. IOW, Bennett was expressly authorized by HRS 338-18(g) to receive "confirmation of a certified copy" submitted in support of an official application submitted by a person seeking the services of the agency.
We know that Bennett gave at least the date of birth to be verified from the form, because The Cipher (a Freeper) e-mailed Bennett and asked him about the date of birth not being verified and Bennett confirmed that it was requested on the form by saying that perhaps Onaka just forgot to verify it.
As I've already noted, Bennett referred to that form TWICE in his communication to Onaka, and the law does not allow Onaka to just "forget" to verify things.
These are nice tries, Andy, but they just don't hold water.
@Andy
Andy, Andy, Andy, can't you read?
I'll post it again, just in case you missed it the first time. From http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php?ref=fpnewsfeed , this is how Bennett began his letter to Onaka (emphasis mine):
"Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the ITEMS to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth: ..."
He refers to items to be verified in the attached form. There is no place on the form to request just a verification that there is a birth record, so items means at least one item other than the date of birth which we know he requested because he acknowledged that to Freeper "The Cipher".
You're blowing smoke out your rear end, Andy. You've tried every guess in the world and I've shown on every one of them that your guesses don't match the information we have. I'm the one citing the sources from interviews of Bennett, the documents published on the web, the Hawaii statutes, etc, and they refute every excuse you've tried to make. You are grasping at straws and it is evident to everybody following this conversation.
> How could he possible know if the items are true? How could any registrar in any state today verify that a fifty year old BC's information is true?
> All they can verify is that the information contained on a certified copy or in this case the whitehouse pdf, is the same as is on the original copy on file at the Department of Health.
I've always predicted that the next goalpost would be "the BC may be real, but the information on it may be wrong, we need it's correct".
@Anonymous
You said: "I've always predicted that the next goalpost would be "the BC may be real, but the information on it may be wrong, we need it's correct"."
If a birth certificate is legally non-valid it is legally REQUIRED that the claims from it be subjected to evidentiary standards in order to determine whether the claims are credible.
And even if a BC is legally valid, when there are signs of foul play - as, for instance, the HDOH altering their 1960-64 birth index - the US HHS inspector general has said a complete audit of ALL the person's documentation is critical, because most fraudulent identity documents involve records that ARE legally valid, and half of the states have documented cases where health department officials themselves have facilitated document fraud.
That report is at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
Because of the HDOH lawlessness that I have personally observed, I have consistently been saying all along that we will not know what really happened until the transaction logs and complete vital records history is audited. Sheriff Joe has added another layer to that, which makes more and more sense as I see the HDOH manipulating BC#'s as well - and that is the microfilm rolls of the original BC's.
See, once there is criminal activity such as forgery and fraud, the issue ceases to be an average, run-of-the-mill, nothing-to-see-here bureaucratic type of deal. It becomes a criminal issue, with the evidence all required to be analyzed for criminal activity.
My bent on this issue has always been from a law enforcement standpoint. My concern has always primarily been for the rule of law. And crimes have been committed. Many, many crimes have been committed. And that is what needs to be investigated. I don't know where Obama was born, but I cannot believe that all these crimes would have been committed if everything was really as Obama's handlers have claimed all along and his documentation ducks are all lined in a row.
Re: "It's also not a matter of the newspaper not printing on certain days. There are births that are announced 3 weeks later in one paper than the other. But Sunahara is one of many people whose birth was not announced in EITHER paper, ever."
So you could opt out. Big deal. If you didn't opt out, the DOH of Hawaii would send your birth notice to the newspapers, and only the DOH of Hawaii sent those birth notices to the section called "Health Bureau Statistics," and the DOH only sent those notices to the newspapers for children born in Hawaii.
This is merely confirmation of the birth certificate itself, the Index Data, and the confirmation of the facts on Obama's birth certificate by the officials of both parties. And there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii, and for that matter there is no evidence that Obama's mother traveled outside the USA in 1961. There certainly is no evidence of her arriving in Kenya.
Re: "Onaka refused to verify any of those birth facts."
That is not true. When he said that he verified ALL of the facts that were shown on the birth certificate published by the White House, he verified those facts too.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
See the part after the word "Additionally." It says that in addition to doing what Bennett asked for, the official in Hawaii verified ALL the facts on the copy of the birth certificate sent to them, which was the copy from the White House that Bennett sent to Hawaii. All the facts means that they checked that fact along with all the others, and they are all accurate as compared with the document in the files.
The document in the files has existed in the files since 1961 according to the birth notice in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in 1961---which as the name shows was only sent to the papers by the DOH.
@Anonymous
What Mr. Bennett said is irrelevant. The form that he used is to get a verification in lieu of certified copy. The verification is the response he got. It says "yes, we have that record." It exists. There is nothing you can say to make that any less true. It's there. Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
Then, he asked for ADDITIONAL verification of those items.
So, in summary, Mr. Onaka verified everything he asked for:
1. That the record exists
2. That the specific information is correct
You don't understand the law, and that works to your detriment. I don't care what you think. It's irrelevant. I'm right, and you're wrong. Obama is still the President of the United States, and you're still an idiot.
@Anonymous
The law says nothing about "true and correct representation of the original." The verification in lieu of the certified record consists of two parts:
1. That the record exists. (Verified)
2. Any additional information to be verified. (Verified)
The terminology doesn't matter. The law doesn't require any specific language. That you want it, doesn't make a darn bit of difference to Hawaiian law.
The information was verified. He's still President. Get over it.
@Anonymous
How many hours was she alive? How many hours was Sunahara alive?
Good for you for digging through the archives in Hawaii. Now, under what procedure could a person submit a birth announcement to be in the list? Have you found those instructions? Have you found any proof that people could do that?
Please, since you've found these inconsistencies, and won't except any explanations for them, provide us some.
You don't understand that the birth announcements mean nothing. They are just corroborating evidence to the fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. None. Not even a little.
Now deal with it.
@RS
Then you're apparently too stupid to know honesty and truth in a court opinion.
Sorry for you.
@Anonymous
There is not even a shred of evidence that the Index data has been changed.
Nice try, though.
@Andy
I wouldn't be throwing around the stupid tag or calling people dishonest too much OBot. There's no one who has lied more than Obama and his OBot trolls.
As a group, you guys are very sorry lot.
@Anonymous
Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse has said that the birth announcements include names for people born outside the US and for people who were born a full 2 years before the announcements claimed they were born. Tell me how that happened.
You might also explain why, if it was just a matter of opting out of the HDOH reporting a birth to the papers, some births were printed 3 weeks apart, and some only in one newspaper.
BTW, the lists for the newspapers were only authorized in 1976, and it's clear that there weren't any before that because the retention schedule was originally attempted for copies of those lists to be kept for a year but that was quickly changed to a month - apparently because they realized very quickly that it was going to be too bulky to save all that, which they would have known from the outset if they had been creating those lists for the newspapers for years before that.
Before 1976 lists were only authorized to be posted at the HDOH office.
@Anonymous
"Teresa Prive also died and her birth is announced in both newspapers. So that explanation doesn't hold water. Try again."
Sunahara was born at one hospital and died at another. Did her BC go with her in the ambulance or later?
Is that why her name doesn't show up in the announcements?
@Anonymous
"Before 1976 lists were only authorized to be posted at the HDOH office."
So are all the lists in the pre-1976 newpapers forgeries made to cover for Obama?
Re: "Now, under what procedure could a person submit a birth announcement to be in the list? '
There were no submissions of birth announcements in the Health Bureau Statistics section. The notices of birth had to come from the DOH, and only the DOH.
The DOH would issue such a notice only if it had received proof that the child actually was born in Hawaii. In Obama's case, he was born in a hospital (Kapiolani, which by the way did exist at the time), and his birth certificate had the signature of a doctor on it. However, for children born outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.
@Anonymous
"I've always predicted that the next goalpost would be "the BC may be real, but the information on it may be wrong, we need it's correct"."
By that standard, all BCs in America are worthless unless the state registrar was present at the birth.
@Anonymous
Nowhere does Onaka say that he verifies the FACTS from the posted long-form. He says that the information that is on the posted long-form matches the information on the record they have. If they have a legally non-valid record (as is indicated by his refusal to actually verify the specific facts listed by Bennett in the verification request application form), then it means nothing that the claims match. And that would explain why Onaka refused to verify what Bennett originally asked to be verified: that the posted long-form is a true and accurate representation of the record they have on file.
We have no way of knowing what was in the file as of 1961. When the MDEC submitted their "verification" to the court they referred to "information" as only being claims about the birth - not claims about the PROCESSING of the birth record. Depending on what definition for "information" Onaka was using when he said the "information" from the posted long-form matched what was on their record that might or might not include the date that the BC was accepted by the state registrar.
Interestingly enough, the HDOH currently claims that anything in the rules that authorizes information to be disclosed is opposed to HRS 338-18 which forbids disclosures, but the part of HRS 338-18 which authorizes index data to be disclosed has never authorized names and addresses of the parents to be disclosed.
For births it specifically required the CHILD's name, date of birth, gender, and file number to be disclosed in index lists, along with whatever else the HDOH director authorized. That was the law from 1977 until at least 1991 and perhaps as late as 1997. For marriages it required the ages of the registrants as well.
Before 1977 the STATUTE only allowed non-identifying information to be made available to the public, but it allowed disclosures authorized by HDOH regulations (rules), and that was the ONLY thing that allowed any list of events to be made public.
The regulations/rules from 1962 onward said that the Director would decide what identifying information was appropriate. I don't know what the Health Board's rules said before that. The newspaper announcements gave the father's name and address, date of birth, and gender of the child - almost everything that is on a COLB except the child's actual name.
In 1993, the newspaper announcements that were specifically from the HDOH included father's name, mother's maiden name, gender of the child, and date of birth - everything on a COLB except the child's name and city of birth. The child's name and BC# were required to be released as index data until at least 1991.
@Anonymous
"not claims about the PROCESSING of the birth record."
And there is no verification on how the BCs got from the hospital to the DOH, were they driven over, or mailed. And by whom. Did a courier go to all the hospitals and pick up the BCs.
Dr. Onaka refuses to verifiy the mode of transport.
And don't get me started on the lack of verification of the company that printed the original blank BC forms. Have they verified that whitehouse pdf matches the forms they printed back in the 1960's?
So amny unanswered questions.
@RS
What lie have I told? Name a single one.
@Andy
What lie have I told? Name a single one.
Oh really OBot? If I went through your posting, I'm sure I'd find untruths, and you sure do support the big fat liar in office named Obama.
@Andy
Andy, you are ignoring what the law says. It says that the DOH shall provide verification of the existence of the record and anything else that the qualified requestor asks to be verified regarding the vital event. It also says that when the DOH verifies something they are certifying that the event happened and the facts are as stated by the applicant.
On Bennett's application he stated certain facts of birth (male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, HI, island of Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, and Barack Hussein Obama). Onaka is required to verify that the facts stated by the applicant on that form are the way that the vital event really happened. He can't just say "What you said is true" because then somebody could fabricate a document claiming they said something totally different for the specific facts. To verify something, Onaka has to say specifically what birth facts are true.
The standard for determining that is that if the claim is on a legally-valid record it is considered to be legally true.
In order for Onaka to verify the birth facts Bennett submitted in the form, Onaka would have to say that he verifies that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama. He refused to do that.
Instead he offered one actual sentence: A birth certificate is on file with the DOH indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
That is a verification that a birth certificate exists which claims ("indicates", not the legal language of "verifies" or "proves") a birth in Honolulu, Hawaii.
And then there's just a list of items, with no sentence about them at all, no language that says I verify that the time of birth is 7:24pm, etc. You have to look at the actual request before you realize that Bennett asked those items to be verified FROM THE BIRTH RECORD. IOW, Bennett was not asking for those facts to be verified as TRUE; he was asking for those claims to be verified as BEING ON THE BC. That's why Onaka never used a sentence to say what he was verifying about those items. And none of those items are the gender, date, birth city, birth island, mother's name, or father's name. So he verified that a record exists and that the claims Bennett listed in his additional request are claimed on the record they have.
What he REFUSED to verify is that according to legal standards of evidence, Barack Hussein Obama, II, a male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
And he refused to verify that the posted long-form is a correct and accurate representation of the original record on file.
That is damning. The only legal justification for Onaka refusing to verify those things that he was specifically requested to verify is if they are not true according to Hawaii's legal standards.
That's according to the statute which I have cited. If you don't like what I'm saying, take it up with Hawaii because THEY are the ones who made that law.
@Anonymous
You are correct when you say this:
"[The law] says that the DOH shall provide verification of the existence of the record and anything else that the qualified requestor asks to be verified regarding the vital event. It also says that when the DOH verifies something they are certifying that the event happened and the facts are as stated by the applicant."
Then you start being silly again.
The application has the information for the verification. Mr. Onaka took the application, and verified that the record existed. That's what a verification in lieu of certified copy is.
Then, he additionally verified the information that Mr. Bennett asked to be verfied: the long list of items, but not including the date of birth, the island, gender, etc.
The law has two components: the verification of the record, and then the specific verification of items that the requestor lists.
Again, this exactly what we've seen.
You want specific language that the law doesn't require. I'm sorry that you're too silly to understand that. But given the rest of your statements, I'm sure you're too silly to understand why the two-parent citizen theory is wrong, as well.
@RS
So, in other words, you have no proof that I've lied, but called me a liar. What do we call someone who makes statements without any proof?
(I think that makes you either a hypocrite or a liar, but you'll have to tell me which it is.)
@Andy
(I think that makes you either a hypocrite or a liar, but you'll have to tell me which it is.)
Neither. You assume alot little OBot. First of all, I didn't bother looking, and second now that I've looked, and within 3 minutes, I see you lie.
You - Second, there is not a single shred of evidence that the original birth certificate isn't the one created in 1961. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it is.
Not a single shred of evidence? Is that right Obot? LoL. Are you being ignorant or are you lying here OBot? All evidence point to both, a lair and ignorant.
I don't know how many people (numerous) along with computer experts have found evidence that Obama's White House birf certificate is a forgery along with his Selective Service Form.
Have you forgotten that Sheriff Arpaio has found 'probable cause' of crime here? That overwhelming evidence of fraud has been perpetrated in making Obama's birth certificates and his Selective Service Forms. But we know that you do know damn well that this evidence exists that Obama and/or his OBots have committed fraud.
What's that make you, yes a liar. Well that did not take long - hypocrite OBot.
Here is you to Butterdezillion:
You don't understand the law, and that works to your detriment. I don't care what you think. It's irrelevant. I'm right, and you're wrong. Obama is still the President of the United States, and you're still an idiot.
She understands the law alright. And why are you here OBot if you care what we think? And you fail to acknowledge that HI used obfuscation to hide the fact that Onaka did not really verify what Hawaii has on record as "true and accurate" in his letter to Arizona. Onaka did not state that his verification was "true and accurate" in his letter to Bennett even after Bennett specifically asked for "true" and "accurate" information.
According to HI law, anyone could say they witnessed a birth in Hawaii and Hawaii will issue a birth certificate. A law ripe for fraud. Hawaii "verified" what they have in their records, however, when it comes secondary sources outside of hospital births, they may not be "true" or "accurate" OBot.
@RS
And you've lied right there, RS. No single computer expert has ever said that it is a forgery. Name one expert. One. (And Mara doesn't count, considering she couldn't even figure out what software was used.)
And as for "true and accurate..."
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT STATE TRUE AND ACCURATE. Read the damn law. You're too stupid to realize that the verification is absolutely there. You have nothing to show that it isn't, except that it doesn't use the words you want.
Your desire doesn't overrule the validity of our president or of his election. Your petty desires are just that. Petty.
You are the liar:
"According to HI law, anyone could say they witnessed a birth in Hawaii and Hawaii will issue a birth certificate."
Show the law that existed in 1961 that would allow a birth certificate to be printed showing a hospital birth on someone's word alone. Show it. You are a coward and an idiot.
There is a reason your side always loses, and it isn't corruption. It's called truth, and it is against you.
@RS
Again, you want "true and accurate," whereas it is simply verified. The wording doesn't make a lick of difference in the real world, only in your closed little mind.
" And you fail to acknowledge that HI used obfuscation to hide the fact that Onaka did not really verify what Hawaii has on record as "true and accurate" in his letter to Arizona. Onaka did not state that his verification was "true and accurate" in his letter to Bennett even after Bennett specifically asked for "true" and "accurate" information. "
Onaka CAN'T legally verify a photocopy of a birth certificate. The law provides that he will verify the INFORMATION on it. Read the law. He followed it exactly, not giving into the demands of crazy people. Hawaii has verified Obama's birth there in every single case. Hell, even right after his birth they said he was born there.
You're too silly to understand that layers, lack of "true and accurate," and all that crap is just that - crap. It isn't evidence of some grand conspiracy. It's crazy people trying to make something out of nothing.
@Anonymous
If the birth announcements came from the HDOH it wouldn't matter what hospital had the BC for Sunahara. Her birth was not announced in August or September newspapers, and that is long after her BC was processed by the HDOH.
Regarding the proof that Hawaii required in order to give a HI BC, if HI truly required that kind of proof then we can know for absolute sure that sources other than the HDOH gave birth announcements to the paper, because the birth announcements include foreign-born children and children who were 2 years old on the birth date claimed by the announcements. If the HDOH can't tell the difference between a 2-year-old and a newborn, they're worse off than even I knew - and that's saying a lot!
For those who are claiming that nobody but the HDOH could submit birth announcements (and this includes Mike Zullo), I'm still waiting for an explanation for the anomalies we see - births announced in one paper but not the other, not announced in any paper, or announced in one paper weeks after the other paper. I've shown that the "witnesses" have given mutually exclusive, contradictory stories about how things were done at the HDOH and the newspaper offices. Nobody has any proof to offer for any of their claims. So people can say the announcements were only from the HDOH until they are blue in the face, but they've STILL got some explaining to do - and nobody is doing that explaining.
Andy, it's a waste of time to give you sources because you either refuse to comprehend it or it's just beyond your ability to process. I've given you HRS 338-14.3 over and over again and you still can't seem to grasp that Onaka is required to verify as legally true whatever the applicant gives him to verify that actually CAN be verified as true because it's on a legally valid record. If you can't grasp that basic of a fact from simple reading comprehension then I'm even stupider than you for trying to talk algebra with somebody who can't figure out 1+1. lol. I'm not going to waste my time beating my head against a brick wall. You don't get it; you never will. Have a good life.
@Anonymous
Anonymous, I suggest you read the HDOH Administrative Rules so you can see the kinds of amendments that render a BC legally non-valid. That's at
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
I also suggest you read the federal Health and Human Services inspector general's report on birth certificate fraud, which is at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
There are reasons why some BC's are more credible than others. Onaka has rules/laws he has to abide by. Specifically, if a BC is left incomplete for a year, that BC is legally suspect. If major alterations are made to a birth certificate, that birth certificate is suspect. And Neil Abercrombie himself told a Star-Advertiser columnist that what is "actually written down" was not going to convince skeptics and would cause major problems in the 2012 election. Abercrombie is the guy who told his friend Mike Evans that the first time he saw Obama Jr was at about T-ball age - even though Abercrombie has all along been the only "witness" who claimed to see baby Obama with his parents Ann and Barack in Hawaii. If he's OK with that level of his OWN non-credibility but still knows that the record that Hawaii has for Obama is suspect, then the record in HI must REALLY be suspect.
And apparently Obama and his lawyers know it is suspect too because they have ignored a judge's subpoena to appear in court and steadfastly refused to present ANY evidence to a court, knowing that if they submitted it then the evidence they present would be subjected to legal evidentiary standards. That would be death to them, and they know it. But then, why should they submit to standard evidentiary standards as is common American practice, when they can get judges to issue sharia rulings, based on "judge's knowledge" absent any evidence and evidentiary standards?
@Anonymous
"He refused to do that."
DO you have a link that has himsaying he refuses to do it?
@Anonymous
"It also says that when the DOH verifies something they are certifying that the event happened and the facts are as stated by the applicant."
Simple solution, have someone born in Hawaii request a verification in lieu of Certified copy and see what they get.
@Andy
And you've lied right there, RS. No single computer expert has ever said that it is a forgery. Name one expert. One. (And Mara doesn't count, considering she couldn't even figure out what software was used.)
Hello you little POS Andy.
You've been caught lying caught as a liar denying that "There is not a single shred of evidence" that Obama's birf certificate is a forgery after boasting that you don't lie. LoL. I gotta admit, you lay down the bullshit thick. Any 1/8-wit could see the crude cut and paste job done on Obama's White House birf certificate. No need for any expert to see the obvious, and your deranged OBot brain wouldn't recognize an expert even if it was injected with fully working and healthy brain cells.
No one really believes you - not even your silly OBots friends if they could be truthful to themselves or to your lying ass.
Show the law that existed in 1961 that would allow a birth certificate to be printed showing a hospital birth on someone's word alone. Show it. You are a coward and an idiot.
Here it is. Like I said OBot, Hawaii would issue a birth certificate for someone who said he witnessed or brought evidence of the Hawaiian birth outside a Hawaiian hospital. Two ways that Hawaii did issue birth certificates for such claimed births.
"Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961. ...
BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”
[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.] "
And you little twit Obot, continuing on, here is the second way they would issue Hawaiian birth certificates outside of their hospitals or doctors offices.
"BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]). "
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/clearing-the-smoke-june10/
Barack Obama could have said he witnessed his own Hawaiian birf and Hawaii would have given him a birf certificate-LoL! All in accordance with Hawaiian law.
@RS
So you say no expert is needed to say the bc is fake. Good to know that you admit that no expert has said that. Just because you say it is fake doesn't mean there is any evidence that it is. None. Not a shred.
"In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country."
Welcome to earth, silly. There is a doctor's signature on Obama's bc, so it couldn't have been through this law. Nice try, though. Still can't make a valid point, can you?
You're too stupid for this. At least most birther's can at least not talk in stupid little circles.
@Andy
So you say no expert is needed to say the bc is fake. Good to know that you admit that no expert has said that. Just because you say it is fake doesn't mean there is any evidence that it is. None. Not a shred.
Pinhead, so after a 6 month investigation, Sheriff Arpaio and his experts conclude that the evidence points to an obvious forgery, and that is not a shred of evidence? Only in the delusional OBot world of make believe. You can peruse the Internet and many computer experts have concluded the same as the Arpaio investigation that Obama POS he calls a birf certificate is as a crude cut and paste forgery job. The stupid OBOt forger forgot to or didn't think it would matter to flatten the Obama birf certificate cut and paste job.
Welcome to earth, silly. There is a doctor's signature on Obama's bc, so it couldn't have been through this law. Nice try, though. Still can't make a valid point, can you?
You're too stupid for this. At least most birther's can at least not talk in stupid little circles.
Yeah a 'cut and pasted' job of a doctor's signature. You're too much of an idiot OBot to understand I suppose.
So OBot, you forget to read the proceeding paragraphs?
That's the first paragraph (BC3) were you think that you can wiggle away from your bull crap into some gray area. Here's the one below that you chose to ignore which slams you talking out your ass.
First you again OBot -
"Show the law that existed in 1961 that would allow a birth certificate to be printed showing a hospital birth on someone's word alone. Show it. You are a coward and an idiot."
From the post above you ignored -
"BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]). "
Again OBot since you're dense. The pertinent part for easier understanding.
"...then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult])...."
Do you understand the above OBot paragraph? Anyone could say they saw OButt OBama, including Obama, was born in Hawaii and Obama would get his BS Hawaiian birf certificate. Time for you to hit the OBot crack pipe.
@RS
"If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife"
Box 6c on the birth certificate specifies the place of birth. In the case of President Obama, this has been verified (twice) by the DOH as being "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". If it was not in a hospital or other institution the street address has to be listed.
Under what scenario would a delayed BC or a grandparent registered BC be filed that would end up with "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" being listed?
@Anonymous
Box 6c on the birth certificate specifies the place of birth. In the case of President Obama, this has been verified (twice) by the DOH as being "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". If it was not in a hospital or other institution the street address has to be listed.
They verified whatever info they have on record. Not that it is truthful or anything OBOt. Obama could have "amended" the "record" anytime he felt like it and Hawaii would sure swallowed it. Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO).
But we know dang well that the POS birf certificate that Obama put out on the White House website was a crude cut and paste forgery job.
@RS
So, in your idiotic mind, somehow Obama was born, they testified to his birth, and the state miraculously backdated the birth date and acceptance date, then had a doctor sign it after the fact?
You really are stupid, aren't you?
Wow. That's pretty bad, even for you, RS.
And if Sheriff Joe has all this rock solid evidence, where's the criminal case? Where?
It has already been noted by at least one court that the good Sheriff and his associates often use press conferences with absolutely no evidence to muddy people's reputations. (In fact, the process got a buddy or two disbarred.)
I would use the good Sheriff as a model of how things work, since he's anything but a model of how criminal convictions work, with his press conferences, racial profiling, and ignoring sexual abuse claims. Not a good Sheriff in any sane person's books.
@RS
Still waiting for a single computer expert to be named. Just one. Of course, if they were an expert, then they would probably at least be able to reproduce the birth certificate with the same software, wouldn't they? (I guess Mara won't count, then...sad.)
So can you name one?
@Andy
So, in your idiotic mind, somehow Obama was born, they testified to his birth, and the state miraculously backdated the birth date and acceptance date, then had a doctor sign it after the fact?
Ummmmm DUmmie OBot, Hawaii allows for amended vital records. And we all know except for DUmbOBots that Obama's White Hut birf certificate is all quackery.
You really are stupid, aren't you?
Actually dang smart.
And if Sheriff Joe has all this rock solid evidence, where's the criminal case? Where?
He's building a case. I'm in no rush DUmbot. He can take his sweet time.
So you don't forget, the Arpaio presser is scheduled 8 days from now. :-)
I would use the good Sheriff as a model of how things work, since he's anything but a model of how criminal convictions work, with his press conferences, racial profiling, and ignoring sexual abuse claims. Not a good Sheriff in any sane person's books.
You're spouting total bullcrap about Arpaio racial profiling. With a third world country like Mexico on the border, it so happens they make up the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens that come into Arizona DUmbass. I see you want and expect the illegal alien law breakers to be ignored, but I expect that from a scofflaw Rat.
How long did it take for Obama to start a BS investigation on Arpaio? Within a hundred days after Obama usurped office as I recall. You must be a La Raza Reconquista Rat supporter. Now that's being racist.
And about sexual abuse claims?? When it comes to pedophiles and sexual deviants Democrats "win" hands down. LoL.
You're not sane. Sane is NOT supporting the Communist, congenital liar, and head OBot in the White House who is out to destroy the United States.
(In fact, the process got a buddy or two disbarred.)
So where is Obama's law license? Hmmmm... He “voluntarily retired” his Illinois law license?? LoL. That sure sound like he was going to have it taken away for attorney malpractice or just plain old Obama lying.
Speaking of Obama associates and friends, Obama's buddy AG Eric 'The Commie Red' Holder should be thrown in jail for being held in Contempt of Congress, and his jail key should be thrown away while he is in jail for running operation Fast and Furious where his walking guns killed two American lawmen and two hundred plus Mexican nationals.
Not to forget to mention Obama's good buddy Marxist Bill Ayers who should have been hanged for his crimes and treason.
You're quite the OBot loser for cheering on Communists and American haters Andy.
@Andy
Still waiting for a single computer expert to be named. Just one. Of course, if they were an expert, then they would probably at least be able to reproduce the birth certificate with the same software, wouldn't they? (I guess Mara won't count, then...sad.)
So can you name one?
I can name many you pathetic OBot.
We know you wouldn't take anyones word who analyzed and concluded Obama idiotic birf certificate is a forgery. You're not going to find a tech school just for Obama birf certificate forgeries, but you will find plenty people with computer and IT credentials, and many other smart gurus software and computer people who have honestly analyzed Obama's BC and they have found it to be a forgery.
Karl Denniger,
http://www.domasjefferson.com/news/indisputable-truth-that-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-complete-forgery-karl-denninger
Experts Discuss Obama's Birth Certificate and Social Security Number
Tom Harrison,
"A software designer with more than 30 years experience in graphic design. Harrison – a 58 year-old Dartmouth graduate with a background in mathematics, physics and computer science"
Layered colors 'simple proof' of Obama document forgery
Paul Irey,
Obama's 'Typed' Long Form Birth Cert Forged-by Paul Irey-Type Face Expert
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59624694/Presentation-of-Evidence-of-Obama-BC-Forgery-The-American-Typewriter-Obama-s-Typed-Long-Form-Birth-Cert-Forged-by-Paul-Irey-Type-Face-Expert
Doug Vogt,
"An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent."
Criminal complaint charges Obama birth record 'forged'
22-page brief filed with FBI claims 'irrefutable proof' document a fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNEwhfuUcs
Mara Zebest - She certainly is an expert.
Expert Mara Zebest,
Adobe Expert Mara Zebest: Obama's Forged Birth Certificate - 6/29/11
Ron Polarik, PhD,
POLARIK'S FINAL REPORT: OBAMA'S 'BORN' CONSPIRACY - Forged Images, Phony Photos, and Felony FraudM
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that you are wrong and you being stupid when you said this:
"Show the law that existed in 1961 that would allow a birth certificate to be printed showing a hospital birth on someone's word alone. Show it. You are a coward and an idiot."
I showed you above and you're still a DUmbOBot.
@RS
"Ummmmm DUmmie OBot, Hawaii allows for amended vital records. And we all know except for DUmbOBots that Obama's White Hut birf certificate is all quackery. "
So, they amended it to add his signatures, a hospital, and the like, but there is no evidence that they did that?
Wow.
And I never cheered "Communists and American haters." Obama is neither. You're just too bigoted to see that. You have found a great hate for this man, which has nothing to do with his policies or his leadership. So what is it?
Is it race? Is it his funny name? What is the base of your hate for him?
@RS
No, no, no. REAL experts. Those that know what they're talking about.
Not people with fake names (Polarik), people without credentials (Tom Harrison, Paul Irey, Doug Vogt, Mara Zebest, Polarik). REAL EXPERTS.
I'm so glad you're a sad little man with too much time. You could do some real damage in the world if you had any skills. Luckily for us, you don't.
@Andy
No, no, no. REAL experts. Those that know what they're talking about.
Yes yes yes they are experts. I'm sure they do know what they are talking about. However, OBots have their heads up their butts.
Not people with fake names (Polarik), people without credentials (Tom Harrison, Paul Irey, Doug Vogt, Mara Zebest, Polarik). REAL EXPERTS.
Here you go DUmbass - Dr. Ronald Polland as Polarik . To you it's all "fake, fake fake," everyone is a "faker" in the delusional OBot world who find true fault about the lying Obama according to you DUmmies. LoL.
I'm so glad you're a sad little man with too much time. You could do some real damage in the world if you had any skills. Luckily for us, you don't.
I'm doing fine thank you. So what's a little OBot girl like you doing on this website since you don't care what we think? Why are you here OBot spending sooo much time?
So, they amended it to add his signatures, a hospital, and the like, but there is no evidence that they did that?
Wow
There is tons of evidence you delusional OBot.
-snip-
"So through all these official communications the DOH indirectly but officially/legally confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate sometime in the final quarter of 2006 – which was precisely when he was considering a run for the presidency.
HRS 338-17 says that an amended birth certificate is not self-authenticating as evidence:
§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]
And the standard COLB form has in capital letters “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”.
[We see the HI DoH don't vouch for that Obama crap BC as truthful]
In other words, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended it is not legally valid and has no automatic evidentiary value. The State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of the claims on that birth certificate."
-end snip-
Source - "Amendment Confirmation for Dummies; HDOH Confirmation of Obama’s BC Amendment For Dummies"
For DUmmies - mean you OBot.
And I never cheered "Communists and American haters. Obama is neither."
Sure you do as a useful idiot. LoL. Obama, his whole life has been a Communist cheerleader. You are denser than a box of rocks on a neutron star.
You're just too bigoted to see that.
Bigoted? No, I see what's going on...You're a foolish OBot.
You have found a great hate for this man, which has nothing to do with his policies or his leadership. So what is it?
Is it race? Is it his funny name? What is the base of your hate for him?
Race? Hate? Funny name? No idiot.
Hate is a very strong emotion that I don't approach. I dislike him much yes for his life's philosophy of Communism that he wants to impose on the United States, and his incessant lying, and his ignorance and disregard of law to get his way. You on the other hand, must dislike Freedom, Liberty, and the American way of life.
Re: "DOH indirectly but officially/legally confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate sometime in the final quarter of 2006 – which was precisely when he was considering a run for the presidency."
Baloney. The law in Hawaii is that if a birth certificate is amended, it has to say AMENDED on it. Officials of both parties in Hawaii have seen Obama's birth certificate, and not one of them has said that it has AMENDED on it.
@Anonymous
Baloney. The law in Hawaii is that if a birth certificate is amended, it has to say AMENDED on it. Officials of both parties in Hawaii have seen Obama's birth certificate, and not one of them has said that it has AMENDED on it.
You're right Ano-OBot. But what Obama has put out is nothing but a forgery. No need to put the words "AMENDED" on a forgery when the object is to fool the foolish OBots and doing that would go against purpose of the forgery.
Something must be wrong with OBot brains since this website is dedicated to exposing Obama's forgeries. Did forget where you are OBot?
The dichotomy is just stunning. ...scratch that - on second thought, it makes perfect sense.
@RS
Now if only you could get someone, anyone to actually believe that it is fake. The problem is your proof is non-existent, and your experts aren't experts.
Your side is losing for the simple fact that you don't even have a battle to fight.
We do nothing, and we win. You do everything, and you still lose.
@Andy
Now if only you could get someone, anyone to actually believe that it is fake. The problem is your proof is non-existent, and your experts aren't experts.
You're delusional. A conservative count. The count is likely well over 50 million US citizens who think it is a fake, which it is.
What you have are the lying media and scared politicos who love to lie to themselves and everyone else, which gives you the false appearance. Yeah you have the nuts from MSLSD-NBC and the other boob-tube talking heads who take orders and they are not their own man.
Your side is losing for the simple fact that you don't even have a battle to fight.
We do nothing, and we win. You do everything, and you still lose.
You like living a lie. There is no time limit here. The issue of natural born citizenship will go on even when Obama is long gone from office. It likely will be a lot easier to get the country to truthfully recognize who are the true NBC in particular to be eligible for presidential office.
And the uncovering of Commie Obama's hidden past will be doggedly perused for as longs as it takes.
No, no time limit at all.
Re: "You're delusional. A conservative count. The count is likely well over 50 million US citizens who think it is a fake, which it is. "
No it isn't, and where did you get that count from please?
Re: "
You're right Ano-OBot. But what Obama has put out is nothing but a forgery. No need to put the words "AMENDED" on a forgery when the object is to fool the foolish OBots and doing that would go against purpose of the forgery. "
But it isn't a forgery, and the officials in Hawaii in their two latest confirmations in writing to Arizona and Mississippi have stated that the facts on Obama's published birth certificate are exactly the same as on the document in the files, and the word "Amended" is not on the published birth certificate.
To repeat: Where did you get the 50 million figure???
@RS
Have fun making up numbers. Considering that the vast majority of even Republicans think birthers are nuts doesn't speak well for your 50 million.
@Andy
Have fun making up numbers. Considering that the vast majority of even Republicans think birthers are nuts doesn't speak well for your 50 million.
OBots like you are nuts and ignorant and who always have race on the brain.
CNN Poll: Only 42% Of Americans Believe Obama Is A Citizen, Only 23% Of Republicans
So DUmb OBot, how much is 42% of 310 million? LoL.
@Anonymous
Oh. check that OBot Andy. LoL.
You've haven't corrected me yet while I drink some coffee? LoL.
58% DID NOT believe Hussein Obama is a US citizen, and only 42% truly believed that Obama is a citizen.
Extrapolating the CNN poll results, that makes 179.8 million American citizens still do or did not believe Obama is a US citizen. Hehee...
@Andy
Have fun making up numbers. Considering that the vast majority of even Republicans think birthers are nuts doesn't speak well for your 50 million.
Have some more facts (again) for talking out your OBot butt:
Gallup Poll: Only 47% Definitely Believe Obama AKA Soetoro Was Born In The United States...
Public Policy Polling: 65% of South Carolina Republicans Doubt Obama is Eligible to be President of the United States
"Sunday, March 18, 2012
1 in 3 Independents Don't Believe Obama Proved Eligibility, Obama's Political Disaster, ;
Stunning percentage agrees with Sheriff Joe
Poll: Americans unconvinced Obama birth certificate is authentic"
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/1-in-3-independents-dont-believe-obama.html
Re: "CNN Poll: Only 42% Of Americans Believe Obama Is A Citizen, Only 23% Of Republicans "
However, that was in August of 2010, two years ago.
A poll conducted almost a year later found that:
"a May 2011 Gallup poll found that doubts persisted among 13% of Americans and 23% of Republicans.[10]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
So, the 42% had become 13%. Got anything more recent?
Thirteen percent of 300 million would still be nearly 50 million, but it is "doubts"--not actual belief that Obama was born in a foreign country.
Once again, got anything more recent????
Re claims of forgery. They are the claims of birther "experts"--who have not proven that they are experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial. That is why Ann Coulter and the National Review do not believe them.
So, getting back to the claims that Obama's birth certificate was "altered." That cannot have happened unless the birth certificate said AMENDED on it, and it doesn't, and the officials in Hawaii (some of whom were in a Republican administration) would have told us if it were amended, and they didn't. Instead, they said that all the facts on the birth certificate the White House published, which of course include the names of the father and the mother and the place of birth, were all accurate.
This site shows an image of the answer from Hawaii to the Conservative Secretary of State of Arizona, which was accepted by him as proof of birth in Hawaii:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/bennett-satisfied-birthers-cry-foul/
If you read it, you will see that it answers all of Bennett's questions, that there is a birth certificate on file, name of father, name of mother, etc., and that the hospital that Obama was born at was Kapiolani, etc---all the 12 questions asked. Then there is the bottom line, the last line on the document, and it says: "Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the certificate of live birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files."
That means that every word on the birth certificate that Bennett sent (which is the birth certificate from the White House web site) is exactly the same---I repeat, exactly the same---as the word in the files.
If at this point you say "Hawaii could be lying"---the obvious answer is that Michigan could be lying about Mitt Romney's birth certificate, but it isn't---and neither is Hawaii.
There is a slight difference. Detroit Michigan is fairly close to a foreign country, Canada. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and such long distance international travel was very rare late in pregnancy in 1961. And, if Obama's mother had traveled outside the USA (which she didn't) she would have had to have made that trip ALONE. That is because WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
@Anonymous
Once again, got anything more recent???? July 12, 2012 11:22 AM
Look right above your post ignorant OBot.
Million upon millions of citizens doubt or outright don't believe OBama or his idiotic OBots.
@Anonymous
Oh Obots, it is so hard for you to understand the simple.
So, getting back to the claims that Obama's birth certificate was "altered." That cannot have happened unless the birth certificate said AMENDED on it,
Since Hawaii takes anyone's BS word 'by HI law' 'born anywhere in Hawaii...a forgery short form would leave off the word "AMENDED." And what OBama allegedly showed on his WH website last year on April 27th was a long form birth certificate and that particular BC would not be "Amended" because it is suppose to be the original. Speaking of the short form COLB that Obama produced in 2008, that is also a bogus forgery. The word 'AMENDED' would show up on the short form COLB, but the forger would leave that off the document.
That means that every word on the birth certificate that Bennett sent (which is the birth certificate from the White House web site) is exactly the same---I repeat, exactly the same---as the word in the files.
As I have pointed out, according to their Hawaii laws, Hawaii accepts anyone's testimony about individual vital statistics, and that's anything.
Now, did Hawaii state that they believe that their records are 'true and accurate' about Obama's BS BC in light of their law? Answer - that's a big hell no.
If at this point you say "Hawaii could be lying"
Hawaii lies and are lying by omission.
@Anonymous
Here's another poll.
Public Policy Polling: 52% of Republican Voters in Iowa Not Sure Where Obama Was Born
No doubt that this Iowa poll is indicative of the results we've seen all around the country that I've shown. Lying Obots and their lying media are not very convincing except for their Jones kool-aid drinkers.
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.