CRAP! CRAP! CRAP!

butterdezillion

[4Zoltan]

“A newspaper article may be based on multiple sources”

Such as?

The newspaper articles were written when he was elected to the Harvard Law Review. And as far as I know are the first time he was interviewed by anyone and published nationally. What other sources would they have gotten info from?

You are a reporter going to interview a 29 year old college student about being elected to law review, you’re not going to do a whole lot of research into his background. And if if you were what public records would you check?

---

At Post 265, you said, “A proper seal would not be “faint.” Second, the seal includes specific elements that are required by law and described at the HI DOH website. These things do NOT exist on the PDF or the document photographed by newsbabe Savannah Guthrie.”

Look at the different examples of Hawaiian birth certificates on the internet. How many have definite seals that you can identify the marks in?

This page has a number of BCs with and without obvious seals,

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obama-fool-us-once-fool-us-twice-dont-think-so/

And of course here are more examples,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2713796/posts

[freds6girlies]

bookmark

[edge919]

The most sensible reason why it does show up which is that the WH PDF originated from a scan of a doc sent from Hawaii.

Right, just not a scan of an original certificate live of birth. It may be a scan of a scan of a scan. The number of layers makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what it really is, but it's not a simple scan a real legal document.

But there is a seal in the PDF file. The argument that there is no seal is simply false.

I'm not argument that there is NO seal. I'm arguing that it's not a LEGAL seal from the HI DOH. That's I said to go look at the MDEC letter.m not argument that there is NO seal. I

[TXnMA]

Suggest you discuss this with butterdezillion. I’m just helping to edit her conclusions for presentation...

[palmer]

but it's not a simple scan a real legal document.

I agree completely. The WH had the opportunity to hand out the real legal doc to people who had some knowledge of legal docs in this case and/or scan the doc and let the public view the scan. They did neither. Instead they had some idiot reporter look at a doc that might have been the real one and what they posted online was a manipulated version of a scan.

[butterdezillion]

Why do you keep saying that you’ve seen something if it’s supposed to be private? Why tell us but not tell law enforcement? And if you can’t tell law enforcement then how the heck is it lawful for you to tell US?

And I didn’t say you’ve said that the Certificate of Naturalization was supposed to be public. I said it’s been said that the REGISTRY of certificates of naturalization is public. Is there or is there not a public registry/listing of Certificates of Naturalization which shows Obama’s name? And why should that ever be private, when naturalization requires a public act in order to be completed?

I’ve never said that Congress could determine Obama’s eligibility, and in fact I’ve been saying that Congress needs to object to the electoral votes because they have been acquired through fraud - because the DNC fraudulently certified his eligibility when only a judicial or administrative official or body can even legally determine his birth facts, according to Hawaii statute.

Obama isn’t going to disclose anything unless he is forced to. Given that Hawaii has ALREADY disclosed that Obama has no legally-established birth facts, the burden of proof falls on him to “qualify”. The issue is who can refuse him the Presidency (or the ability to “act as President”) if he refuses and thus fails to qualify. If nobody can, then our Constitution means nothing and the coup is complete already.

Obama and his handlers are crooks. We will always have crooks. If the system we set up can’t catch and stop crooks then if it’s not Obama it will be somebody else. And we’ve got a LOAD of people who are supposed to keep the system accountable so it catches and stops crooks. Those are the people I blame the most, if I take the time to try to play the blame game.

Why didn’t one person in your office immediately report Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization to law enforcement? That’s not the same thing as making something public. That is reporting and documenting the crime of perjury and treason. To fail to report that if you knew about it is misprision of perjury and treason.

[SvenMagnussen]

Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. Why do you assume I haven’t reported it to Law Enforcement, my Congressman and anyone else I think could do anything about it?

Here’s the link you requested. Good luck in getting anyone in a position to do anything about to care or actually do anything.

U.S. Naturalization Records Indexes, 1794-1995

http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1192

[butterdezillion]

Just for you - I scanned my daughter’s death certificate so you could see how faint we would expect a scanned seal to be. See http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/scan-of-a-real-seal.pdf

I had previously photographed my daughter’s death certificate and compared the image of the seal (on a straight frontal view like Guthrie’s was, so the lighting would be comparable). You can see that at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck.pdf

Whether a scan or a photo, Obama’s BC (which Onaka has confirmed as a forgery, content-wise) doesn’t appear like a real seal would.

[butterdezillion]

Did you report it to law enforcement or others?

Is there a public registry that shows Obama as the recipient of a Certificate of Naturalization? If so, how can the public see it? Ancestry.com is not showing anything for him; claims they need more information than the name and birthdate. Did you see Obama’s name listed through that search? And if so, what information did you have to enter?

[SvenMagnussen]

Law enforcement? Sheriff Arpaio has determined Obama's BC is a forgery and he chooses not to follow up.

Who forges a BC? An immigrant!

Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio has jurisdiction over Maricopa County resident DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. DHS is custodian of immigration records. Why isn't law enforcement knocking of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's door?

It's useless to try to find post-scrub Presidential Candidate ineligibility documents. You'll have to look for Obama's immigrations records filed before he announced his candidacy.

For example, the Obama's were in DC in 1993 when Michelle accepted an award presented to her by First Lady Hillary Clinton in the Rose Garden. Here's a photo of the Obama's attending a post-ceremony dinner in DC.

In order to attend a face to face meeting with the First Lady, the Secret Service would have conducted a background investigation on the Obamas.

After Obama's Certificate of Loss of Nationality was issued to him in 1993, a copy is forwarded to the Secret Service by the U.S. State Department.

I'm putting together all the details on my new blog http://www.svenmagnussen.blogspot.com . Hopefully, I'll be able to get it together before Jan 20, 2013.

[SvenMagnussen]

Correction to previous post:

Obama was issued Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968 and not 1993.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Bennett and the HDOH and AG’s office were going back and forth for months over whether he could get a verification at all. The AG’s office was involved so there was scrutiny over every legal jot and tiddle. You can’t expect me or anybody else to believe that Onaka just casually screwed up the legalities because the request was so “routine”.

And yet Bennett accepted the outcome. If he wanted Onaka to explicitly verify, item by item, the information on the request form, perhaps he should have listed it along with the other specific items he asked for. You keep overlooking the fact that the request form says "Request for certified copy of birth record." Ordinarily, therefore, the HDOH would not be doing any checking of the information on the form beyond using it to find the record.

Under that, in the price section, Bennett, no doubt at HDOH's direction, crossed out "certified copy" and wrote in "verification in lieu of cc." You claim that that change was enough to require Onaka to verify the info on the request form. Maybe you're right.

But Onaka does verify that the information in the COLB matches the original record in the HDOH files, and that that record was used to verify the "facts of the vital event." And all the facts on the request form are on the COLB. So it's hard to see what bullet he thought he was dodging by not explicitly verifying the info on the request form. If he used the "vital record on file" to verify the facts Bennett listed separately, and the information in the COLB matches the record on file, and the info on the request form is all on the COLB, hasn't he in effect verified the info on the request form as much as he has the separately listed info? Bennett certainly seemed to think so.

Like I've said, maybe Onaka should have explicitly verified the info on the request form--a letter-of-the-law reading of the Hawaii statute certainly opens that possibility. But you insist that rather than it being a procedural error, it's an intentional effort by Onaka to avoid verifying a record he knows is invalid, and I really just think that's a bridge too far. I'm not going to participate further in this discussion, as I don't expect I have or will change your mind. I know you've done a lot of work on this, and I respect that. I just think you're wrong here.

[butterdezillion]

There has been no evidence presented that Onaka did not obey both the letter and the spirit of the law on this request. The presumption of regularity says that without evidence otherwise, it is legally presumed that this certification complies with the law. That law requires all submitted claims to be verified if they can be certified as the way the event happened.

The certification statement (that the original record was used to verify the facts of birth) is the standard certification. It was used on the MDEC verification when no birth facts were verified at all. Thus it clearly does not mean that any birth facts were verified, only that IF ANY WERE VERIFIED, they were verified by looking at the original record. In every one of the 3 verifications regarding Obama’s record, no birth facts were actually verified as being true.

Bennett accepted the outcome because his only purpose in any of this was to get the Arizona Tea Party people off his back. Even before he received anything from Onaka, he stated publicly that he would accept as fine ANYTHING that Hawaii would send him.

A Freeper emailed Bennett to ask about the missing birth date, and Bennett said that he assumed that it was overlooked - that the verification was inaccurate in its failure to verify that. If it was inaccurate, it would be legally worthless, and Bennett would be back at square one as if he had received nothing from HI.

But without evidence to the contrary, it has to be legally presumed that it was accurate. And that’s where we’re at right now.

[WildHighlander57]

So then (using some of the “who, what, where, when, and why” from old school journalism:

WHERE did you see the CLN document for 0?

WHEN did you see the CLN document for 0 ?

WHY were you allowed to see the CLN document for 0?

Answers to these will help immensely.

[LucyT]

.

http://www.svenmagnussen.blogspot.com

.

[Red Steel]

Yup, I noticed that earlier today. Brennan’s company employee(s) “cauterized” the Obama passport records at the State Department. Obama always pays off his inside supporters.

[palmer]

Thanks for that post for me.

Just for you - I scanned my daughter’s death certificate so you could see how faint we would expect a scanned seal to be.

Right, but different scanner and weaker seal will make a difference. All scanners are not the same. I'll freepmail you my pdf link since I have not place to post it anonymously (the website name is used by me elsewhere with my real name).

The bottom line in my PDF is there is a seal. The best explanation is that it was on the piece of paper that was scanned. Another explanation is that those pixels came from another piece of paper that was scanned then that portion was pasted into the WH artifact (electronic doc eventually exported as the WH PDF). The WH could have also created those seal-like pixels by some handiwork in some program (i.e. with no scanned paper seal as the source).

However it originated, from a real HI seal on a real piece of paper that was a real copy of Obama's 1961 doc, or otherwise, it exists. To argue that because they are weak, the pixels do not exist ignores the reality that they exist or that they are pure coincidence (too many to be coincidence). What we lack is an explanation of their origin.

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[butterdezillion]

We have no way of knowing where that outline of a circle came from. It is too indistinct, even when edge detection techniques are applied.

This is EXACTLY the kind of vague seal that the HHS inspector general was talking about when he said that all the identification, vital records, and citizenship documents need to be audited before taking anything on that document as accurate.

[redpoll]

>>>>

http://www.svenmagnussen.blogspot.com

<<<<

Well, now that’s a curiosity. If nothing else, Sven’s brief little blog helps confirm my thought that the reason why Obama doesn’t want any information about his early years public is that he defrauded a bunch of colleges telling them he was foreign national in order to get accepted easily. It’s always been curious that a pot-smoked slacker could suddenly get accepted at Columbia and Harvard, but it makes sense if he was playing the race card along with foreign status.

Hey, there’s some stuff out there in my college years of which I’m less than proud, too.

Thanks for keeping us appraised of this interesting stuff, Lucy.