Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Political committee keeps Obama birth certificate theory alive
LA Times ^ | 8/4/2012 | Joseph Tanfani

Posted on 08/04/2012 9:27:59 AM PDT by GregNH

Latest News | Battleground States | Fundraising | Super PAC Spending | Political Cartoons | Opinion Political committee keeps Obama birth certificate theory alive

print Comments 0

By Joseph Tanfani

August 4, 2012, 6:00 a.m. WASHINGTON -- Still convinced President Obama wasn’t born in the United States?

A brand-new political committee will be happy to accept your donations to keep the theory alive.

The Conservative Majority Fund, set up a month ago by a political consultant, is sponsoring television ads that recycle some discredited conspiracy theories regarding Obama’s identity -- including suggestions that he’s using a phony Social Security number and a fake birth certificate.

“We know less about this man than any president in American history,” the ad says. “No one, I mean no one, has seen an actual physical copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” It calls for a petition drive -- “we need 10,000 signatures from every congressional district” -- to boot Obama from the ballot.

The group’s website, which “demands Congress investigate Barack Obama’s forged birth certificate,” suggests donations from $25 to $2,500. This week, the group reported spending more than $500,000 to oppose “Barak [sic] Hussein Obama,” according to the organization’s Federal Election Commission filings, with most of the money going to a nationwide phone-call campaign.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; cmf; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last
joseph.tanfani@latimes.com This guy needs to be Chick-Fil-A'd
1 posted on 08/04/2012 9:28:09 AM PDT by GregNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Until he produces a real birth certificate it will never die...


2 posted on 08/04/2012 9:34:17 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

*Yawn*

Another Hussein Head “journalist”.


3 posted on 08/04/2012 9:36:19 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Political committee keeps Obama birth certificate theory alive

“Theory”? Thanks for the laugh, Joey! This ignorant tripe from the same corrupt media that “demands” Romney prove he paid his taxes. Pathetic.


4 posted on 08/04/2012 9:43:19 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; melancholy

joseph.tanfani@latimes.com This guy needs to be Chick-Fil-A’d


5 posted on 08/04/2012 9:49:18 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I’ll send a donation and suggestion for more effective commercials


6 posted on 08/04/2012 9:51:50 AM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I have seen these ads locally and just love them.

I guess I am a bit jaded tho. It is the first time I have seen any TV advertising really go after Obama.

There is just no way the L.A. Slimes can honestly say these charges are unproven. Most of the ads talk about everything in his past which Obama has sealed.

They are either sealed or they are not. If the jackasses in L.A. have any evidence they are not sealed they should just say what it is.


7 posted on 08/04/2012 9:56:19 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

He doesn’t want to do that because it would show that the record is legally non-valid.

As I just posted over at LA Times:

“Discredited”? A law enforcement body has found probable cause for those things (forgery and SSN fraud) and is conducting a criminal investigation to find out exactly who committed those crimes.

I wouldn’t call that “discredited”. I’d call it “confirmed”.

And the HI State Registrar refused to verify for AZ SOS Ken Bennett Obama’s birth date, gender, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name. The only reason allowable by law for him to refuse to verify those facts is if the facts submitted for verification aren’t legally true.

IOW, Hawaii itself has legally verified that there are big, big problems with Obama’s record in Hawaii.


8 posted on 08/04/2012 9:56:45 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Here are 48 things that Barack Obama has done which should make his supporters feel ashamed and embarrassed
9 posted on 08/04/2012 9:57:27 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I don’t think this is a very good strategy - as far as running ads. This is not going to turn the election and can only generate a lot of negative publicity and a bunch of questions for our candidates “Do you distance yourself from these ads?”, etc. An unneeded distraction. I would rather they run ads highlighting individual devastating aspects of Obamacare - such as an ad about the medical device tax - how that has already caused lost jobs, will cause their to be less equipment available to treat people with and more expensive, etc. Pocketbook issues - $$$ - get people’s attention and they can understand it more easily. Something like this is too complicated for ads. I’ve never bought into the birther issue...although with overseas newspapers congratulating “Kenyan Born” Obama those who had reason to question it aren’t crazy, and remember this started with the Dem side of the isle, not the GOP side - facts the MSM leaves out to make it look like people on the right just made this up because they don’t like Obama. I think something is being covered up - but not where he was born...not sure what it could be. In any event, regardless...too complicated of an issue for ads and not a good issue that could turn the election and the press will try to make it the main news story to distract from the economy, debt, etc. This type of thing is just what the Obama campaign and the DNC ordered...let’s please not fall into a trap.


10 posted on 08/04/2012 10:22:24 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The jerks removed my comment. I’ve got photos of the screen with my comment there, and now you can look and see that it isn’t.

Here’s C&P from the page while it still had my comment (you can see the time and context, which shows it was deleted by somebody at LA Times:

Change your avatar
Butterdezillion at 09:52 AM August 04, 2012

“Discredited”? A law enforcement body has found probable cause for those things (forgery and SSN fraud) and is conducting a criminal investigation to find out exactly who committed those crimes.

I wouldn’t call that “discredited”. I’d call it “confirmed”.

And HI State Registrar refused to verify for AZ SOS Ken Bennett Obama’s birth date, gender, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name. The only reason allowable by law for him to refuse to verify those facts is if the facts submitted for verification aren’t legally true.

IOW, Hawaii itself has legally verified that there are big, big problems with Obama’s record in Hawaii.

Reply
Report Abuse
0
0

Avatarplaceholder
actordude at 9:03 AM August 4, 2012

How about releasing the videotape of the toast me made at the Islamic dinner years ago that The L.A. Times bought the rights to and has hiddeen from the American public for four years now. Let’s also see why Obama’s social security nuber is registered to The State of Conniticut. His College records, his birth certificate


11 posted on 08/04/2012 10:24:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


12 posted on 08/04/2012 10:25:31 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

OK, the FAQ says they moderate the comments so they might not show up for a while. I didn’t see that anywhere on the page where you post. Hopefully it’ll show up soon.


13 posted on 08/04/2012 10:27:57 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

‘I don’t think this is a very good strategy’

What is so complicated about proving the document provided by the administration is a forgery?


14 posted on 08/04/2012 10:39:13 AM PDT by doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

DNCp


15 posted on 08/04/2012 10:39:31 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Obama he's unqualified on so many subjects, citizenship, history, economics, racism, allies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Well... as it stands right now, Hawaii has indirectly confirmed through a legal document (verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett) that the discloseable HI birth record for Obama is legally non-valid (see my earlier post in this thread), which according to HI law would be because it is late and/or altered.

That creates a legal problem, because that BC has no legal/probative value and never will unless and until it is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. According to Hawaii law, which is binding according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

IOW, there are no legally-determined birth facts for Obama. Not one person can LEGALLY say that Obama is even old enough to be President, much less a natural born citizen.

Anybody who swears on an Official Certification of Nomination that Obama is the “duly chosen candidate of the DNC” will commit both perjury and election fraud, and any SOS who accepts it will be committing misprision of those felonies. Provided they have all been informed of these facts - which they will.

I don’t know if advertisements are the right way to address this issue. Depends on whether we have anybody in law enforcement who would prosecute the crimes that are soon to be committed in full sight of everyone. If the DNC and state SOS’s know there is no accountability they may just ignore this. Unless there is public awareness and pressure on them to obey the laws, which is what ads could help provide.


16 posted on 08/04/2012 10:40:03 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Those who want Baraq will vote for Baraq and those who don’t, won’t.

I don’t think there is anything that Baraq could do, or info that could be proven about him, that would significantly affect his vote total in this election.


17 posted on 08/04/2012 10:44:37 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc

Proving it isn’t complicated at all - since HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka indirectly confirmed it himself, by refusing to verify that the BC Obama posted is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.

And he actually did even worse than that. He also indirectly confirmed that the record they DO have for Obama is legally non-valid (see my earlier post in this thread).

What’s challenging is getting it to matter in a legal sense, in a situation where the entire system has been taken over by Soros’ thugs and all the legally-accountable people are too afraid of the LA Times (and the rest of the lying media) to actually obey the laws.


18 posted on 08/04/2012 10:44:51 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
I disagree. We hear everyday from people who voted for him in '08 and are not going to vote for him in '12. It is people like that who we need to reach to change their minds.
19 posted on 08/04/2012 10:54:55 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation; butterdezillion
Those who want Baraq will vote for Baraq and those who don’t, won’t.

Well, they might, IF, he's on their ballot.

20 posted on 08/04/2012 10:55:56 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I didn’t mean all his 08 supporters would continue to vote Obama.

What I mean that anybody who still supports Baraq after 4 disastrous years will be locked in.

From what I read, the number of undecideds in this election is extremely low which makes sense.


21 posted on 08/04/2012 11:00:21 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Yeah Obama might not be on the ballot in some states.

And Salma Hayek might dump her billionaire husband and call me for a date.


22 posted on 08/04/2012 11:02:00 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

And at this point, barring a judicial or administrative procedure in which Obama’s Hawaii birth record (and at this point the microfilms and computer transaction logs as well, since Hawaii has altered official records on this matter already) is presented as evidence, Obama’s placement on any ballot in the country will involve known felonies (perjury and fraud) by the DNC and its lawyer, as well as misprision of those felonies by each state SOS and the HDOH.

Already the Mississipi Democratic Executive Committee requested a “verification” specifically designed to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s true birth facts can be verified. To me, that strongly suggests that MDEC knew that Onaka CAN’T verify any actual birth facts - since they requested a verification without ever submitting the actual APPLICATION for a verification, in order to expressly avoid asking for specific birth facts to be verified as legally true. And they’ve submitted the irrelevant “verification” they received to a judge.

So ALREADY they are trying to lay a foundation showing that they THOUGHT Obama was eligible, even though the way they handled their request strongly suggests they knew darn good and well not to do a request like Ken Bennett did, because Onaka would refuse to verify any true birth facts to them, just like he did to Bennett. And they know the only legal reason for Onaka to refuse to verify the birth facts is if the submitted facts are not legally true.

IOW, they are going to do everything in their power to cover their legal behinds by saying they THOUGHT Obama’s HI BC is legally valid, even though their own actions show they heard Onaka loud and clear when he indirectly confirmed to Ken Bennett that Obama’s HI birth record is legally non-valid. We need to get the truth into their faces, on the record, with proof for all to see.... that they were informed and knew otherwise.


23 posted on 08/04/2012 11:10:08 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

The TEApeople could have a little to do with that, by demanding their SOS verify his eligibility, especially considering the fact that his BCs are forgeries.

They could also wreak havoc on facebook/twitter etc, providing a little leverage, just in case their SOS brushes them off.


24 posted on 08/04/2012 11:10:36 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
A Hawaii state employee told us that Obama was not born in Hawaii and dozens of investigators told us the birth certificate is a fraud.

Gee, Senator Reid, MSM, and all, what more proof do you need?

25 posted on 08/04/2012 11:14:31 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
they are going to do everything in their power to cover their legal behinds by saying they THOUGHT Obama’s HI BC is legally valid

Just WOW!...I hadn't heard that yet.

That line of defense is so....skinny.

Thanks Miss Butter.

26 posted on 08/04/2012 11:14:37 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
Senator Reid, MSM, and all, what more proof do you need?

Actually, they have nothing to do with it. If the press covered it, they would probably only make it worse (better)

27 posted on 08/04/2012 11:24:09 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Support FreeRepublic

28 posted on 08/04/2012 11:59:10 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93destr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I head Susan Daniels the other day, might have been on the Peter Boyles show? Anyway, she said the government had five days to respond to her lawsuit.


29 posted on 08/04/2012 5:15:20 PM PDT by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; All
While only those with a “direct and tangible interest” may inspect or obtain copies of birth records,certain qualified applicants may obtain from the Hawaii Department of Health verification of:

(a) “the existence of a certificate” and

(b) any other information that the applicant seeks to have verified “relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-14.3 (a).

Such verification “shall be considered for all purposes certification that [a] the vital event did occur and [b] that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”

Pursuant to Sections 338-14.3 and 338-18 (g)(4), MDEC Counsel recently submitted a writtenrequest to the Hawaii Department of Health, seeking verification of the following:

“1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with theHawaii State Department of Health.

2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live [B]irth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz


30 posted on 08/05/2012 12:51:18 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Until he produces a real birth certificate it will never die...

At this point, the birthers won't accept any document that comes out of Hawaii.

31 posted on 08/05/2012 12:54:37 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

If I give you a $10 bill whose information matches the information on Monopoly money, what have you got?


32 posted on 08/05/2012 3:15:52 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Au contraire, we have asked for the microfilm rolls from multiple years including the one that Obama’s is supposed to be in, the paper records for Obama, and the computer transaction logs which will show any tampering with the electronic record.

That’s for the birth certificate. The same things would be required for the other records that have shown signs of tampering (draft registration, SSN, and passport records).

Which is precisely the kind of audit the inspector general for the Dept of Health and Human Services reported to Congress as necessary when even something like a vague seal on a birth certificate shows up - not to mention actual tampering with the records by agency staff, as we’ve seen with EVERY document mentioned above.

See http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf That report was released in September of 2000 - even before 9-11 caused us to look with new eyes at just how vulnerable identity fraud makes this country’s national security.

IOW, this is very, very basic stuff that’s been the accepted standard for a very long time. Kind of like the Rules of Evidence have been in place for a very long time - the rules that Judge Malihi walked all over in order to issue a sharia ruling instead (judge’s knowledge without need for any steenkin’ evidence)...

We’ve been over this all before. I’m not going to spell it all out to you yet again, so this is all I’m going to say here. Anything more is a waste of my time.


33 posted on 08/05/2012 3:30:35 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The information on a $10 bill doesn’t match the information on monopoly money.

On the other hand, the Hawaii DOH has verified that the information in the birth certificate posted by the Whitehouse does match the information contained in the original birth certificate in Hawaii.


34 posted on 08/05/2012 3:35:55 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

But Hawaii has not said that the certificate is valid or authentic. In fact they went out of their way to avoid having to verify the validity of the document, as would be called for in a standard request for verification using their own form.

There could be a big stamp on the original record on file that says “invalid for legal purposes.” We don’t know and HI is going out of their way to keep that option open.


35 posted on 08/05/2012 3:52:31 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Which means nothing if the HI record is legally non-valid.

Which is the only legally permissible reason for Onaka to refuse to verify Obama’s birth date, gender, city and island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name to AZ SOS Ken Bennett.

A legally non-valid record is has as much value as Monopoly money, and so does anything that copycats what’s on it.

End of story.


36 posted on 08/05/2012 4:48:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Au contraire, we have asked for the microfilm rolls from multiple years including the one that Obama’s is supposed to be in, the paper records for Obama, and the computer transaction logs which will show any tampering with the electronic record.

Of course the birthers have been asking for evidence. What I said was that they'll reject any evidence they're given if it doesn't support the conspiracy theory.

37 posted on 08/05/2012 7:48:55 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Of course the birthers have been asking for evidence. What I said was that they'll reject any evidence they're given if it doesn't support the conspiracy theory.

What is your explanation of the fact that Obama's birth certificate (pdf file) is a forgery? So far no Obot could provide instructions on how to scan a document and end up with a file that has a layer that contains only a date and another layer that contains only a signature. Please give it a try.

38 posted on 08/05/2012 10:38:04 PM PDT by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Onaka verified all of that information in the MDEC document.


39 posted on 08/06/2012 12:07:25 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Obama is a pathological liar.... a mental dysfunction’’’’
The boy is a sick puppy...


40 posted on 08/06/2012 12:40:38 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Yes they have.

First they said that:

“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

Now they’ve said that:

“information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate.. matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.”

They’ve confirmed the image and the information in it.


41 posted on 08/06/2012 2:49:11 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Show me where Onaka said that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, WAS born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.

If he didn’t say it, he didn’t do it. If those key words coupled with the words “WAS BORN” are not in the verification (male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Barack Hussein Obama) then he never verified that the birth really happened in that way.

All he verified as true was that they have a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama II which makes the claim (”indicates”, which legally means nothing) that Obama was born in Honolulu, and that all the claims that were on the posted long-form are also on their (legally-nonvalid, since he can’t verify how Obama WAS BORN) record. NOWHERE did he verify that any event happened in any particular way, even though specifically and formally requested to verify that the birth happened in the above way.

If you aren’t able or willing to “get it” that’s your problem. I’m not going to waste any more time on “Yes, he did” “No, he didn’t.” “Yes he did”...


42 posted on 08/06/2012 5:14:37 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Show me where Onaka said that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, WAS born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.

Sure, no problem. You read the bit where Onaka certified that the information in the BC posted by the Whitehouse matches the information in the BC in their files? What that means is that the data points (such as name, sex, date, hospital, father and mother, etc., etc.) on one are the same on the other.

If he didn’t say it, he didn’t do it. If those key words coupled with the words “WAS BORN” are not in the verification (male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Barack Hussein Obama) then he never verified that the birth really happened in that way.

He did say it and he said it about a BIRTH certificate.

All he verified as true was that they have a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama II which makes the claim (”indicates”, which legally means nothing) that Obama was born in Honolulu, and that all the claims that were on the posted long-form are also on their (legally-nonvalid, since he can’t verify how Obama WAS BORN) record.

Where does he use the word "indicate"? I've posted the whole Verification of Birth document and can't see that word anywhere. Perhaps you could show me where it appears? All I can see are words like "Verify" and "Verification" which I'm sure you realize legally do mean something and he verified that Obama was born in Hawaii in Aug 1961

NOWHERE did he verify that any event happened in any particular way, even though specifically and formally requested to verify that the birth happened in the above way.

What on earth are you on about? He was asked to verify the data points. He did so. That's what State Registrars do throughout the whole of the USA. Suddenly that's no longer good enough for you. now you want him to verify the way the birth happened. I know you like to keep raising the bar for the poor guy but I reckon you're pushing credibility to it's limits with that one.

If you aren’t able or willing to “get it” that’s your problem. I’m not going to waste any more time on “Yes, he did” “No, he didn’t.” “Yes he did”...

No problem but, really, I do get it. I appreciate that arguing against hard data that directly contradicts a deeply held conspiracy theory will be stressful for you. However, I'll keep posting this stuff as other Freepers deserve to have the full facts made available to them and not just the fantastical interpretations from the fringe.

43 posted on 08/06/2012 7:10:08 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

I show you a Monopoly $10 bill and ask you if the monetary amount on that bill matches the monetary amount on the bill you have in your pocket. You say yes.

According to your logic, both pieces of paper have just been certified to be worth $10 just because they match - even though both could be Monopoly money.

Now suppose that somebody else had already asked you to verify that you had a legal $10 bill in your pocket. You were legally required to verify that fact if it was true, and you would not verify it.

But you would verify that the monetary amount on a Monopoly $10 bill matches the monetary amount of the bill in your pocket.

It’s clear that what’s in your pocket is not a legal $10 bill, so it doesn’t matter what matches it.


44 posted on 08/06/2012 12:08:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

If that’s a long winded way of saying Onaka/Hawaii DOH are lying when they confirmed that Obama posted a certified copy of his Birth Certificate on the Whitehouse website and then, subsequently, verified (in a legal deposition) that the data it contained was the same as the data they hold in their archives, then you’ve got a problem because every court on the land will consider it prima facie evidence that his birth records are genuine and you’ve got nothing that will stand up in court as evidence against it.


45 posted on 08/07/2012 2:04:47 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Natufian; Hotlanta Mike; TheCipher; little jeremiah; bitt; STARWISE; onyx; edge919; ...

The HDOH has never confirmed that what Obama posted is what they sent him. In fact, they have refused to verify that what Obama posted is even a “true and accurate representation” of what they sent him.

The lawful way for Onaka to expose a false (not known to be legally true) birth claim is by refusing to verify those claims when asked point-blank by somebody qualified to be told the truth. That’s exactly what Onaka did when Bennett asked him to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama. The only legal reason for him to do that is because he CAN’T verify those things as true. He obeyed the law which required him to expose birth claims that the State of Hawaii does not vouch for as being accurate.

And as we found from the Terry Lakin trial, there is a legal presumption that the disclosures of a government agency are accurate and in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to refute that presumption. So anybody who says that Onaka made a mistake when he refused to verify the above 6 birth facts (and refused to verify that what Obama posted is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file) - a consistency of response that defies any excuse that he was confused or accidentally overlooked the actual verification application - has to show evidence that he erred. IOW, show evidence that the actual record in their office is legally valid.

There is no such evidence. And the very law-enforcement-established fact of the long-form forgery corroborates that there was something on the real record that Obama’s handlers had to hide from public view.

The fact that the 1960-64 birth index contains names from legally non-valid birth certificates makes the index worthless at best and at worst reveals the HDOH deliberately deceiving the public by including non-valid records in a list which they present to the public as if it means anything legal.

So not only do we have the legal presumption that Onaka’s disclosure accurately exposes legally non-true birth claims for Obama, but we’ve got forensic evidence which refutes the only 3 documents the public has been allowed to see besides this verification: the forged COLB and longform from the Obama camp itself, and the 1960-64 birth index from the HDOH (which is known to contain non-valid records).

The legal presumption at this point is that Onaka was correct when he legally confirmed that there is no legally-valid record in Hawaii claiming that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.

And furthermore, the reason for a complete (accepted/numbered by the HDOH) discloseable (non-adoption) record to be legally non-valid is if it is late or altered, and in both those instances the record has no probative value unless it is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. IOW, Obama HAS to submit the real record in a legal setting in order for him to even HAVE a legally-determined age based on that HI birth certificate.

Every SOS in the country now has to legally presume that there is no legally-valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii. Onaka has officially and legally put us all on notice that if Obama has a legally-established age that qualifies him to be President, it is legally established by a birth record from somewhere besides Hawaii.


46 posted on 08/07/2012 3:55:01 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Natufian; Hotlanta Mike; TheCipher; little jeremiah; bitt; STARWISE; onyx; edge919; ...

The HDOH has never confirmed that what Obama posted is what they sent him. In fact, they have refused to verify that what Obama posted is even a “true and accurate representation” of what they sent him.

The lawful way for Onaka to expose a false (not known to be legally true) birth claim is by refusing to verify those claims when asked point-blank by somebody qualified to be told the truth. That’s exactly what Onaka did when Bennett asked him to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama. The only legal reason for him to do that is because he CAN’T verify those things as true. He obeyed the law which required him to expose birth claims that the State of Hawaii does not vouch for as being accurate.

And as we found from the Terry Lakin trial, there is a legal presumption that the disclosures of a government agency are accurate and in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to refute that presumption. So anybody who says that Onaka made a mistake when he refused to verify the above 6 birth facts (and refused to verify that what Obama posted is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file) - a consistency of response that defies any excuse that he was confused or accidentally overlooked the actual verification application - has to show evidence that he erred. IOW, show evidence that the actual record in their office is legally valid.

There is no such evidence. And the very law-enforcement-established fact of the long-form forgery corroborates that there was something on the real record that Obama’s handlers had to hide from public view.

The fact that the 1960-64 birth index contains names from legally non-valid birth certificates makes the index worthless at best and at worst reveals the HDOH deliberately deceiving the public by including non-valid records in a list which they present to the public as if it means anything legal.

So not only do we have the legal presumption that Onaka’s disclosure accurately exposes legally non-true birth claims for Obama, but we’ve got forensic evidence which refutes the only 3 documents the public has been allowed to see besides this verification: the forged COLB and longform from the Obama camp itself, and the 1960-64 birth index from the HDOH (which is known to contain non-valid records).

The legal presumption at this point is that Onaka was correct when he legally confirmed that there is no legally-valid record in Hawaii claiming that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.

And furthermore, the reason for a complete (accepted/numbered by the HDOH) discloseable (non-adoption) record to be legally non-valid is if it is late or altered, and in both those instances the record has no probative value unless it is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. IOW, Obama HAS to submit the real record in a legal setting in order for him to even HAVE a legally-determined age based on that HI birth certificate.

Every SOS in the country now has to legally presume that there is no legally-valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii. Onaka has officially and legally put us all on notice that if Obama has a legally-established age that qualifies him to be President, it is legally established by a birth record from somewhere besides Hawaii.


47 posted on 08/07/2012 3:58:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; TheCipher; little jeremiah; bitt; STARWISE; onyx; edge919; Fantasywriter; ...

Sorry for the double-post, everybody.

I would just add this to what I said: It was no accident that the date range heading was left off the “birth index” that the HDOH hands out to the public when they ask for the 1960-64 birth index. All the other indices have a date range heading. The protocol for printing those reports had to be specifically altered in order to get that result. There was a reason for that: to give them the option of saying they never claimed that was the 1960-64 birth index.

When I posted a comment here about that birth index before any images of that index had been posted anywhere, a poster antagonistic to the “birther” issue immediately said they presumed the birth index page I was talking about had a date range listed on it so that I could prove that the document was claiming to be the 1960-64 birth index...

A very revealing comment. It wasn’t lost on me. It revealed the fudge room that the HDOH built into that document. Which says to me that this was deliberate deception on their part. They knew they would be in a heap of legal trouble if it could be proven they claimed that was the real 1960-64 birth index.

It also suggested to me that I was speaking with somebody who was NOT just a casual observer but was aware that the HDOH omitted the date range heading and that the HDOH would use that for legal CYA.


48 posted on 08/07/2012 4:18:06 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; TheCipher; little jeremiah; bitt; STARWISE; onyx; edge919; Fantasywriter; ...

Sorry for the double-post, everybody.

I would just add this to what I said: It was no accident that the date range heading was left off the “birth index” that the HDOH hands out to the public when they ask for the 1960-64 birth index. All the other indices have a date range heading. The protocol for printing those reports had to be specifically altered in order to get that result. There was a reason for that: to give them the option of saying they never claimed that was the 1960-64 birth index.

When I posted a comment here about that birth index before any images of that index had been posted anywhere, a poster antagonistic to the “birther” issue immediately said they presumed the birth index page I was talking about had a date range listed on it so that I could prove that the document was claiming to be the 1960-64 birth index...

A very revealing comment. It wasn’t lost on me. It revealed the fudge room that the HDOH built into that document. Which says to me that this was deliberate deception on their part. They knew they would be in a heap of legal trouble if it could be proven they claimed that was the real 1960-64 birth index.

It also suggested to me that I was speaking with somebody who was NOT just a casual observer but was aware that the HDOH omitted the date range heading and that the HDOH would use that for legal CYA.


49 posted on 08/07/2012 4:19:14 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Sound like that person was giving you a heads up to what they were trying to do.


50 posted on 08/07/2012 4:46:30 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson