Maybe it was Gabe Kaplan?..............
Posted on 05/25/2012 12:09:02 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Here's the official 'Verification of Birth' document submitted by Hawaii's Department of Health to the State of Arizona in response to SoS Ken Bennett's request for verification of Obama's birth, allegedly in Hawaii.
Note that Obama's alleged DAY OF BIRTH IS OMITTED from the listed items. Shouldn't the DAY of Obama's birth be present in this document?
Now, if Obama can be proven to not have been born in Hawaii, it would seem Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. would have some 'splaining to do.. Unlike the 'official' birth certificate released by the White House, at least there's no 'smiley face' drawn into the "A" in Alvin's name.
It makes me cringe when I hear Rush use the term immaculated of Obama. It seems such an ignorant thing to say. First, to use immaculate as a verb. Never before has anyone ever been said to be “immaculated.”
It is part of Catholic theology, however, that Mary, not Jesus, was conceived immaculately—hence her’s is said to be the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s, not the Messiah’s.
Rush gets it wrong on several levels.
It makes me cringe when I hear Rush use the term immaculated of Obama. It seems such an ignorant thing to say. First, to use immaculate as a verb. Never before has anyone ever been said to be “immaculated.”
It is part of Catholic theology, however, that Mary, not Jesus, was conceived immaculately—hence her’s is said to be the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s, not the Messiah’s.
Rush gets it wrong on several levels. Makes him sound stoopid.
LOL!.....Moooooooooooo............
So the verification was 'certified' by a clerk, not the State Registrar. Would think that is acceptable practice for such an important document?
Regards,
GtG
Maybe it was Gabe Kaplan?..............
Yes, I know the word, “immaculate” is being mis-used but Rush is using it for humor’s sake.
The Catholics say that Jesus was conceived immaculately, not Mary. Maybe you are trying to say that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary in an immaculate manner.
Immaculate - (esp. of a person or their clothes) Perfectly clean, neat, or tidy; Free from flaws or mistakes; perfect.
Immaculate only applies to messiahs and the Left thinks that Barryboy is the messiah or the second coming. Rush taking that worship of Barry by the Left and using it to make fun of him and his followers. This absolutely drives the Leftists nuts because he is exposing just how stupid, ignorant, and idiotic they make themselves look by worshiping Barry.
Remember all the fainting. Take a look at this website and see how far it went.
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
They are indirectly showing the public what to scrutinize.
SEE, THERE IT IS DADDY, 6 6 6
(lucianne)
However, you are quite right in noting that when the Catholic Church is referring to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception they are referring to Mary's conception. She was not divine and so the question of whether she had the stain of original sin needed to be clarified.
“The Catholics say that Jesus was conceived immaculately, not Mary. Maybe you are trying to say that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary in an immaculate manner.”
You are absolutely wrong about that. The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, NOT Jesus. Look it up.
That’s why Rush’s use of it sounds so ignorant.
However, Mary's status was not clear, because she was not God. Thus the immaculate Conception was a dogma defined in order to let everyone who was uncertain know, that although Mary was not divine, because of her mission to be the mother of God, she was conceived without the stain of the Original Sin by special intervention of God. Thus when Catholics speak about the Immaculate Conception they are usually referring to the doctrine about Mary's immaculate conception.
In other words, Jesus was conceived immaculately, but Jesus' immaculate status was never questioned because He was God, and God could never have any stain of sin. Mary, however, was a human and could have been conceivably tainted by the Original Sin (no pun intended.) That is why the doctrine was defined to clarify that her conception was untainted by any stain of the Original Sin.
LOL!
For some reason I thought Jesus was conceived into a human being, not Mary, but I guess I have it wrong.
You have it right. Jesus was conceived into a human being, but He still retained his divine nature. Thus making Him God and Man. Immaculate doesn't mean someone is conceived into a human being--The word Incarnation means that--The word immaculate means "sinless". Jesus and Mary both fall into that category. The difference being that Mary is the most perfect human creation of God whereas Jesus was not created, but always was God. Mary was cleansed from Original Sin and made a pure and unstained soul that could bear the Son of God without any impurity of sin.
In any case, the Dogma of Immaculate Conception refers to Mary as can be seen in the solemn definition of the dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX which reads:
Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception, 8 December 1854.
...Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Thanks for the clarification!
You are mistaken. The Immaculate Conception refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Exactly. What Hawaii actually did was confirm the BC Obama posted on the White House website is Forgery!
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio made a Probable Cause Finding that the birth document posted on the White House Website, by Barack Obama on April 27th, 2011, is a forgery. It’s simply a matter now of finding out who did it and who knew about it.
In response to this finding Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett asked Hawaii to verify the information listed on that birth document. After months of stonewalling Hawaii sent Bennett a ‘Verification of Birth’ on May 22, 2012.
Guess What? Hawaii can not confirm Obama’s birth day or his birth year. The time of birth is verified but the day and year of birth are strangely missing. This means they are NOT verified.
The birth document Obama posted on the White House Website, the one he is using to prove he is qualified to be a presidential candidate, lists the birth day as August 4 and birth year as 1961. Can you imagine being asked to verify if someone was born on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m. and all you can confirm is, “Yes he was born at 7:24 p.m.”.
The “verification” also says it “verifies” that, “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Indicating? Who says “indicating” when they are verifying?
Verify: 1. To confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2. To establish the truth, accuracy or reality of the claim
Does “indicating” sound like verify to you? Parsed words speak volumes.
Bennett also asked Hawaii to, “verify 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.” Here, Bennett is asking Hawaii to confirm that the attached document looks identical to the original Hawaii claims they have.
Remember, on April 27, 2011 Obama said that his lawyer, Judith Corley, flew to Hawaii and brought back two photocopies of his original birth certificate and he posted one of them on the White House Website. Bennett had attached a print out of that photocopy. A photocopy would be identical to the original.
Yet Hawaii could not confirm that it matched. They responded, “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.”
Parsed words speak volumes. The information matches but the document does not.
And if the “information matches” then why did Hawaii confirm the time of Obama’s purported birth but refuse to confirm the day and year of Obama’s birth when Bennett specifically asked them to?
This lack of confirmation verifies that the BC Obama posted on the White House Website is a forgery. A copy of an original BC can not be a “little bit verified”. It is an exact match or it isn’t and Hawaii is telling us it is not a match. Hello! The document posted on the White House Website does not match the birth certificate Hawaii “claims” they have in their file for Barack Hussein Obama II.
Forgery Confirmed.
Is that why the Hawaii Registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, didn’t sign the Verification of Birth? There is a small “gk” next to the registrar’s signature stamp. I don’t think you can legally verify a document by proxy but maybe it would allow you to claim “plausible deniability” when the cow pie hits the fan.
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.