Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
Onaka a liar? Why no, old chap. Just saying his statements require rather "clintonian" parsing. Everyone should really sit through Sherriff Joe's presser. It's not too boring. e.g., See what they have to say about Onaka.
Please. Look at Sheriff Joe's evidence. We are all circling Robin Hood's Barn (Old ME expression) and winding up where we were three years ago.
The Fog Machine is working overtime, the strobes are flashing off the mirrors.Stay with the program. See and hear what Sheriff Joe has to say. Nothing mysterious about this, unless we let Team Obama call the shots.
Yeah, I looked at that. That convinces me all the more strongly that they are covering something up. They are not direct and forthcoming, they are evasive and equivocative. Let me show you what I mean.
Beside the number "1" it says:
"The Original certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health. "
This statement stands alone, and is self evident. It is telling us nothing new or interesting, and it make no claim as to whether or not his original certificate was an ordinary certificate like the vast majority which are on file with that office. This statement would still be true if the "original certificate" is an affidavit of at home birth.
Statement number "2" says:
The information contained in the "Certificate of Live Birth" published at (Whitehouse.gov) and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the Original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
Note he does not say it is an exact copy of the original, which would be far easier. He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii. It also begs the question as to the meaning of the term "original".
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it) but my document says:
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and cause the official seal to be affixed...To a careless reading it would appear, based on looking at the statement at the bottom of the document, that you are looking at a certified copy of the original. Nope. It says you are looking at a copy of my birth certificate, AND they have the original on file. They don't mention that what you are looking at is NOT the original. They intend that you think it is.
They have to play these sorts of games with the birth certificates of adopted children because they are legally required to not lie, but they also can't divulge that a child has been adopted, which would happen accidentally if they mentioned that the document was different from the original.
So they say in number "1" above, that they have a birth certificate on file. Fine, we knew that. They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
Like I said, their wording convinces me even more strongly that they are not telling us the whole truth.
-PJ
THE RELEVANT BOX FOR THE QUESTION OF THE HOME BIRTH IS 6C, NOT 6A.
So says you. "Place of birth" is 6a. It has a "6" beside it. What does this "6" mean?
Under Institution it has Kapiolani Hospital. It says if other, list address. Obviously there is no other address listed. No doubt you will argue that that was either left blank or had a different address, and has been subsequently changed to Kapiolani. I'm willing to listen to this notion provided you stop acting like an @sshole.
Do try to keep up.
You mean go along with what you say, even if it isn't correct? Um No, sorry, I prefer to think for myself.
Huh? You didn't read the thread correctly, then you post to me in insulting terms, and then when I call you a jerk in response you claim I'M the one at fault and I'M being an asshole?
You remind me of the old joke about Democrats:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "But how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You've made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now, it's MY fault!
However, that is another reason (just provided by you!) that I would prefer to go with the Sheriff Joe approach, which is simply demonstrating/proving forgery. False paperwork not racial.
As Team Obama is increasingly cornered on this issue, I would fully expect the racist brickbats to fly faster and more furiously. But P.J., with 120 days to go before the election showdown, all I think I can reasonably expect is for this issue to be put back on the table ... not wholly resolved.
In every case that has approached the bench so far, Team Obama has played the Defendant role. I would like to turn the tables on them and make them the PLAINTIFFS for a change. That's why I have been pushing for AZ SoS Bennett, since he has adequate doubt, the constitutional authority, and the power to do so, to just remove Obama from the AZ ballot ... forcing Obama to either sue, or ask for a stay, but nonetheless getting the questions on the table.
What's the definition of "exact copy"? If you were to scan the original paper at 1200 dpi, the result would look perfectly fine — you'd be able to see detail not visible to the naked eye — but it would still not be an exact copy.
He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
That's all he needs to say. He's saying the material facts asserted by the document Obama put out match those asserted by the document in Hawaii's possession. That's what a court would be looking for, if the question came before it.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii.
If that were the case, then the released document would mismatch the on-file document on a material fact. Dr. Onaka would be a liar. And a court would take a dim view.
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it)
This is not an adoption. If it were, he'd be named Soetoro, wouldn't he?
They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
But the information on the certificate is what it would have been amended from, if it had been amended, not what it would have been amended to.
If there is something wrong with the document, either the fraud must have taken place way back in 1961 or some Hawaiian officials have partaken in a monumental conspiracy. To uncover it, you'd have to start at the source. Pixels, color depths, and layers won't get anywhere. You'd need some compelling new external evidence to motivate a court to look into it.
Nope, sorry, You didn't state your point correctly. I merely pointed out that beside the classification "Place of birth" it had a "6". (A point to which you have still not responded.)
You stated your premise unclearly, and I asked for a clarification. You then demonstrated your learning disability by claiming I said the meaning of the numbers wasn't relevant, which I did not say. I said it wasn't relevant to my question, which you still have not, and seemingly CAN NOT answer.
then you post to me in insulting terms, and then when I call you a jerk in response you claim I'M the one at fault and I'M being an asshole?
And obviously you are memory impaired as well. Fine, I'll not be the one who is thought to be mean for picking on the mentally disabled, so i'll just let you believe whatever fantasy story suits that little world you want to live in.
You may now have the last word on this subject.
In the legal system there is a concept called the "reasonable man" standard. Within the constraints of that commonly invoked legal standard, the meaning of the words "exact copy" need no further hair splitting such as you are suggesting.
That's all he needs to say. He's saying the material facts asserted by the document Obama put out match those asserted by the document in Hawaii's possession. That's what a court would be looking for, if the question came before it.
No it is not. Saying that the information on one certificate matches the information on the other certificate allows lying by omission. There may be some OTHER piece of information on the original. (Such as the writting "Born at Home at 2994 Kalihili" or some such.) The only way to get at the whole truth is to see a certified exact copy (within the reasonable man standard) of the ORIGINAL document. It is not in the best interest of the nation to tolerate ANY attempts to deceive or coverup the truth.
If that were the case, then the released document would mismatch the on-file document on a material fact. Dr. Onaka would be a liar. And a court would take a dim view.
I am not sure I have made this sufficiently clear. It is the LEGAL DUTY of Dr. Onaka to be a liar. Anyone in charge of birth documents is REQUIRED to lie, mislead, and create false documents regarding the birth information of an adopted child. It is axiomatic that the staff of every Department of Health in the United States, are required to lie as part of their job. There are 100,000 adoptions per year in this nation. That means there are 100,000 lies told on birth documents every year.
Now do you understand?
This is not an adoption. If it were, he'd be named Soetoro, wouldn't he?
One never knows when adoption law is involved. The Administrators of such documents are required by law to lie and mislead.
But the information on the certificate is what it would have been amended from, if it had been amended, not what it would have been amended to.
You would think that was the case only because you are relying on a layman's understanding of how the legal system works in this area. For an adopted child, the legal system may have a very different meaning for the term "Original document." They may very well regard any birth certificate which was subsequently created as an "original document". You simply cannot trust that the meanings of things are not flexible. My "original document" has been sealed by the court. It can not be accessed except by the order of another court. Without such an order, they will always steer you right back to my current document, and they will claim that is all there is, and that is all anyone is entitled to see.
If there is something wrong with the document, either the fraud must have taken place way back in 1961 or some Hawaiian officials have partaken in a monumental conspiracy.
Now see, this is another one of those things that you can't quite nail down because they depend on what the definition of "is" is. (To paraphrase Bill Clinton.) Depending on how you look at it, it could be regarded as a fraud, or as not a fraud, a "conspiracy" or as NOT a conspiracy.
Much has been written about Hawaii having been used as a backdoor to American citizenship for people of foreign birth because Hawaii's laws on allowing the issuance of a Hawaiian birth certificate are very lax. If the state legislature of Hawaii had been allowing very loose standards for granting someone a Hawaiian birth certificate, ought we call it a "conspiracy" if people get such a certificate without any real proof of having been born there? Are the officials in charge of administrating these very lax laws guilty of fraud or conspiracy? Again, it depends on what you mean.
I personally think that if there was any fraud or conspiracy it was on the part of Madelyn Dunham who may have filed for an "at home birth" birth certificate. I do not suspect any fraud or conspiracy on the part of Hawaiian officials in 1961, I simply regard them as having been tasked with administering services under very lax laws. Madelyn Dunham, on the other hand, had a very important reason for insuring that her grandson obtained American Citizenship, even if he was born in Canada, which at this point is my strongest suspicion. (Her Husband's sister was living in Canada in 1959.I think Stanley Ann got sent off to stay with her.)
To uncover it, you'd have to start at the source. Pixels, color depths, and layers won't get anywhere. You'd need some compelling new external evidence to motivate a court to look into it.
The courts have been the problem all along. Somehow we've allowed ourselves to be placed in the position of allowing a state privacy law to trump the Constitutional requirement that the President be a "natural citizen." Every court in the land should have said "You don't have a right to privacy regarding your birth documents if you are going to be elected as President."
You are so dishonest!
This was your first post to me:
“Where do you get a “4”? It looks to me like a “6”.”
The “4” you asked me “where I got” was the number next to box 6C, where the name of the hospital was typed! This was clear from the first post in this thread (had you read it correctly). It was not the number next to box 6A, as you had mistakenly misread.
Look, you simply made an ordinary reading mistake. It happens to everybody. It certainly should have been no big deal, but what became embarrassing to you is that you decided to compound your mistake by being arrogant and insulting before you realized that you had made the mistake.
You are like a four-year-old with his face smeared with chocolate lying to his mother, “no, I didn’t have any cake!”
Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human. You will feel better if you just admit you made a mistake instead of pretending otherwise and being nasty and condescending.
Louisiana. But I looked for that again in the La. web pages explaining how to get birth cert., and I don’t see that limitation this time. I KNOW I saw a statement that said La. will only provide a short form for births before a certain date (that date was in the 1950s). I was born in the 50s before that date. But I don’t see it this time. Strange. Maybe it was only if you ordered it through a certain site or in a certain way.
If you read http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/name-change-for-obama-found-in-british-columbia/, it says: Pidgeon found at the Consulate in British Columbia, [in Skookumchuck] just over the US-Canada border, a record of a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in 1982. Barack Hussein Obama would obviously not be the name on his birth certificate.
If you read www.theobamafile.com/_family/Anna.htm”, it says:
Was Obama Born In White Rock, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada?
The most compelling case for a Canadian birth is the age of the infant when Stanley Ann appeared at the home of her high school friend, Susan Blake. The logic for the expediency of “disappearing,” and that she was then registering for or attending college in Seattle. If this was the case, Barry was never even in Hawaii until Stanley Ann moved back there after Senior left for Harvard; that grandma got him a COLB right after his birth, and that the COLB’s registration is what triggered notification to the newspapers of his birth.
Just when you think you know the truth now, read: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061237/posts
A “Barrack Hussein Mohamed Obama” was born on 23 August 1961 in Canada ??? [WOIA, San Antonio]
If you read http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/name-change-for-obama-found-in-british-columbia/, it says: Pidgeon found at the Consulate in British Columbia, [in Skookumchuck] just over the US-Canada border, a record of a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in 1982. Barack Hussein Obama would obviously not be the name on his birth certificate.
If you read www.theobamafile.com/_family/Anna.htm”, it says:
Was Obama Born In White Rock, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada?
The most compelling case for a Canadian birth is the age of the infant when Stanley Ann appeared at the home of her high school friend, Susan Blake. The logic for the expediency of “disappearing,” and that she was then registering for or attending college in Seattle. If this was the case, Barry was never even in Hawaii until Stanley Ann moved back there after Senior left for Harvard; that grandma got him a COLB right after his birth, and that the COLB’s registration is what triggered notification to the newspapers of his birth.
Just when you think you know the truth now, read: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061237/posts
A “Barrack Hussein Mohamed Obama” was born on 23 August 1961 in Canada ??? [WOIA, San Antonio]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.