This BC is in the files of HDOH and they can verify until the cows come home that yes indeedee they really, really, really, pinky swear and cross their hearts that that is the same data they have on file but that doesn't make it true.
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 ...
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.
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”...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sound like that person was giving you a heads up to what they were trying to do.
Congress is doing the same cya. If I told a traffic cop I "thought" I was driving the speed limit, he'd laugh and still give me a ticket. We need to start issuing tickets and holding our representatives accountable.
Allow with what BDZ has found and well reported without waiver. There is a very decernable and documentable pattern of corruption that is not hard to track.
Does anyone have the ‘Peterboy’ COLB. It was a COLB for Peter J Kema Jr., aka, Peterboy. His 1991 COLB used to be publicly available at the Hawaii DOH website. Why? He was deceased and the newspapers sued to gain access to all of his records held by Hawaii. This included his COLB pinted in 1991.
The COLB from 1991 is tell just in its format. It is similar in content to newer ones. But it included much, much more elaborate security and anti-copy features. The copy posted at HDOH had the word VOID all over it from the photocopy process - just as any standard photocopy document should have.
Two elements show long term and shorter term corruption by Hawaii.
First, the later COLB or LFBCs documents are all but void any security features. The 1991 Peterboy document has many more features to resist tampering than a current document.
Second, HDOH removed access to Peterboy’s COLB from their website in 2009 or 2010. Even though it had been there FOR YEARS without issue. It is a public document. But it showed that Hawaii explicitly and deliberately weakened the anti-tampering features of their official documents. So easy access to the document from their own website was removed.
Hawaii is home to severe corruption. It was going on well before 2008. But it has become much more bolder over the last 4 years.
This BC is in the files of HDOH and they can verify until the cows come home that yes indeedee they really, really, really, pinky swear and cross their hearts that that is the same data they have on file but that doesn't make it true.
Thanx for pinging me back, I thought this died out.
Keeping him off of several States’ ballots might have just such an effect...
Another interesting thing about the Peterboy COLB: the Onaka signature on the Ah Nee BC that WND posted (the one whose BC# has to be fabricated, if Verna Lee accurately described how they numbered the BC’s - and which I initially believed was forged because two of the digits appear to overlap) looks very much like it is somebody trying very carefully to imitate the Onaka signature from the Peterboy COLB, which is one of the Onaka signatures nearest to the time claimed as the release date on the Ah Nee BC.
The Kema COLB has been posted somewhere on FR. I’ve got a copy of it saved as well. It does seem ridiculous that the number of security features on HI BC’s would have gone DOWN since 9-11 of 2001, when we became acutely aware of the risk that identity fraud poses.
Another reason they probably wanted to hide that the document had been made available is that they are trying to claim that vital records can NEVER be disclosed - when in reality ALL the rules on disclosure say that the privacy interest has to be balanced against the public interest and holding government accountable.
Amen, sister!
Bullshyte, and you know it yet as a good obamaroid you keep trying to twist the issue to fit what you feel duty bound to spittle.
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.