Posted on 03/25/2010 12:45:04 PM PDT by conservativesister
I didn’t read this one either.
LOL ... you would do good as a stand-up comic... for sure... :-)
Star Traveler, read http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ and then get back to me.
The Hawaii DOH has already indirectly confirmed that the best they have on Obama is not even good enough to be prima facie evidence.
Those are the facts. Let’s stick with the facts.
How many years after Obama has built his Presidential Library will y'all still be discussing the "fact" that Obama is not (was not) the President of the United States?
BO lived in both Massachusetts and Illinois. Why aren't they scrambling over each other to claim the site of the presidential library?
(BTW, Reagan's library is in California, but he was born in Illinois.)
ESAD.
I hope you can read that.
How about a state Attorney General investigating him for election fraud and throwing him in jail for forgery, perjury, extortion of the media companies, campaign finance violations, social security fraud, and charity fraud?
Would that do the job?
Wanna know what they’re claiming now? They’re claiming that because Hawaii has index data on Obama’s birth it means he’s natural born.
That’s how Constitutionally sound the “experts” in Hawaii are...
Sorry, you are wrong. Taking over a private business by the government is unlawful in this country.
You said:
“So, when I see that someone doubts the (1) very state who is in charge of the birth records, and (2) doubts the very agency who prints out the birth records and (3) doubts the very person who is in charge of that same agency — then — I know this person has gone off on the deep end and is residing in an alternate universe... :-)
“
And I say to you - like the prophet Nathan said to David after he condemned the man who stole his neighbor’s pet lamb - YOU ARE THE ONE. Your own words condemn you. Why? Because the very people you consider so credible have indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and the best they have in Hawaii is mere legal hearsay.
Do you believe them? Or are you residing in an alternate universe? =)
His birth certificate does exist but it probably has a certificate number from 2006 - when he completed it by adding the missing information. Trouble is, because the BC is amended it doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and so Obama would have the burden of proving that the claims on the BC were true rather than alternative claims (such as the Kenyan birth certificates), and the information that was missing most likely proves that he was NOT, in fact, born in Hawaii.
After considering all the evidence I have (not all of which is yet posted on my blog) I am convinced that Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii - if it were shown - would not only show that his Hawaiian birth claim is supported only by flimsy evidence but that it would actually validate the claim that he was born in Kenya.
He amended his BC by January of 2007. The COLB he forged from was printed in June of 2007. Why didn’t he just use his real COLB - which now contains all the information he wants it to have? Because the amendment he was forced to make in order to even HAVE a valid BC on file in Hawaii actually proves that he was NOT born in Hawaii.
“And that’s about it...”
You conveniently left out a political action that could produce results in less than 12 months.
A Republican-controlled Congress could move to correct the violation of statute that occurred during the Jan 9, 2009 session of the Joint Committee called solely for the purpose of considering and accepting, or denying, the Electoral College’s certifications.
The violation occurred when the chair failed to call for Objections to any certifications, (“the...SHALL CALL for objections”)(emphasis added).
It is irrelevant that the chair was a Republican; further, nothing occurred at that session that could, or did, waive that violation.
The correction could occur via a Congressional Subcommittee charged with correcting the violation by receiving Objections to the Electoral College’s certifications.
In anticipation of objections based on the lack of constitutional eligibility, the Subcommittee would be empowered to 1) subpoena birth documents and 2) apply to the USSC for an opinion as to whether the term NBC requires two US citizen parentage.
The same state that illegally hid their DOH administrative rules until the other states’ secretaries of state could no longer ask for the certified copy that the administrative rules allow them to have upon request?
The same state that tried to label as “vexatious requestors” those who asked for records required to be accessible to them?
The same state whose officials ALL denied any responsibility to report known forgery - and whose DOH communications director actually said that the law FORBIDS her from revealing a forgery?
Is that the state you’re putting so much trust in?
If so, then do you trust them when they say that Obama’s BC is amended (a fact which must be noted on any legitimate BC they print out for Obama), or that the “Date filed” is the day that the certificate number is given by the state registrar (which makes it impossible for Obama’s BC to be filed 3 days before the Nordyke twins and receive a later number than theirs)?
Do you trust them when they give those 2 statements revealing that the Factcheck COLB is indeed a forgery?
Why do you suppose they won’t send me a non-certified copy of Obama’s abbreviated birth certificate (COLB) as is authorized by their rules and thus required by their open records law? Why do you suppose they are breaking their law in order to not show me what is legally mine to receive? If it says what Obama claims anyway why should they refuse that to me - thus breaking their laws?
But if a candidate posts a forged vital record that’s a problem. Right?
Star Traveler, read http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ and then get back to me.
I read through it and that would take a court quite a while to go through all that evidence to verify and prove those various things. But, that's what courts are for, if there are violations of the law.
I just let the courts take care of it. I'm sure that there are enterprising attorneys who would love to "make the case" on all this -- to a court of law -- and I say, "Go for it" if that attorney can do so.
Let me know when that court decision comes down on those items and issues brought up. I'll be interested in seeing that.
The Hawaii DOH has already indirectly confirmed that the best they have on Obama is not even good enough to be prima facie evidence.
What I do know is that what went out to the American public as an official statement from the State of Hawaii is what most voters will pay attention to.
All you have to do is consider this... if you take two sheets of paper (or several sheets each) -- one for the statement from the State of Hawaii and several others for the listed items that you gave at that link -- I can tell you where most of the voting public, the average man on the street would go... it would be to this statement...
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
That's because it's an official statement from the State of Hawaii, it comes from the Department that prints out the certified copy -- and I think that most people realize that if the very department that prints out that copy also says this statement above -- you can be sure that the copy they print is going to say the same thing... :-)
They're going to look at those other items as something that they won't be able to determine one way or another as to whether they are true or not -- and faced with an outright statement from the State of Hawaii, that's going to carry the day. And that makes sense.
But going further... as to whether what the State of Hawaii has is good enough for evidence or not... that would be something for a court to determine. That's not something that the general public would determine.
For the general public, the official statement is all they are going to consider. For all the ins and outs of legal evidence, and whether it's good enough (or not) and whether there are any crimes committed by the various officials or not... that's all something that a court would determine.
And by now, most everyone is familiar with the innocent until proven guilty -- so in the meantime, even if some official is guilty of some crime, no one is going to assert that this is true, unless a court of law makes that kind of final determination (at least, that's the way our system works...).
The legalities will be determined by a court, while the general public will be reading the official public statement by the State of Hawaii.
Those are the facts. Let’s stick with the facts.
Well, I and others in the public won't actually know what the facts are, in regards to that article, until a court of law hears those issues and makes a legal determination of guilt or innocence on those issues.
At least that's the way I operate when it comes down to someone being charged with a crime and assessing their guilt (or not). I usually wait for a court or a jury to make that determination.
What's given in the media (any media, whether the Internet or blogs or the paper or the news... etc.) is simply someone writing it up.
But, when the State of Hawaii puts something out, officially, stating that Obama was born in Hawaii -- that's not someone writing up a news article or a blog or an evening news story. That's their official pronouncement to the public.
However, as I said, when you see that someone gets that case going that you're referring to (those issues listed in that article) please let me know as I'll be interested in following it and seeing what is decided, as guilty or not guilty...
“So, if I want to know who is a “Natural Born Citizen,” I ask Dr. Chiyomo Fukino? Cool. “
SNORT!
They can only “play” us with the “stupid paint” as long as conservatives are willing to say that the laws Obama and the folks in Hawaii have broken don’t matter.
I would hope after the lawlessness we’ve seen on the part of Congress, every conservative in the nation would know better than to laugh - tee-hee - at anybody who merely stands for the rule of law to be followed. The Hawaii DOH has confirmed that Obama posted a forgery and that the best they have for him doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence.
I believe if we were able to see the amendment he made to his BC it would prove that he was not born in Hawaii. If he had been born in Hawaii he could easily have completed his BC with a simple visit to the doctor, like almost every other unattended birth in Hawaii. But he couldn’t visit the doctor in Hawaii and have the BC completed because he WASN’T IN HAWAII. The amendment he made would reveal that his grandma lied when she signed that BC saying he was born in Hawaii.
The newspaper birth announcements weren’t generated by the DOH until the administrative rules were changed to authorize those lists to be produced for the newspapers - in 1976.
But if a candidate posts a forged vital record that’s a problem. Right?
I'm not exactly sure on that... and I'll tell you why.
The first thing I would consider is if there is a problem with anyone posting a forged document on the Internet. In other words, if I were to make up some document and post it on the Internet, would I be in trouble for doing that?
To tell you the truth, I don't know if it's illegal to post something on a website that is fake and totally made up -- and showing it "to the world"...
Now, if I were to take this document carry it down to the DMV and get a driver's license with it, then yeah, I would be in big trouble. But, if I posted that same document on the Internet -- I don't think I would be in big trouble (or even a little bit of trouble).
Going further with this and also presuming a few things, because I have to presume a few things to proceed, because I don't have all the data at hand.
I'm presuming that there is a birth certificate that shows that Obama is born in Hawaii and that any time a court of law requires it or orders it, that the State of Hawaii will produce that certified copy to the court and that will be evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii.
NOW..., having said that, and going back to a document that is forged, and that document being posted on the Internet -- again, I don't know if that's going to be a crime, given that there is a birth certificate that any court can require to be shown to them and it shows Obama is born in Hawaii.
I say that, because essentially, that's what that document on the Internet says -- that he was born in Hawaii. If the "forged document" shows that he was born in Hawaii and a real certified copy (shown to a court of law) says that he was born in Hawaii, then what would be the crime? That would be the question I would have. And especially so, since that "Internet document" is not used for any legal purposes (in other words, a court was not presented with that "Internet document" purporting to be the "real thing", or it was not used to get a driver's license, or it was not used to get a passport, etc...).
I have to say I don't know if it's a legal problem if a candidate posts a forged birth certificate, but that document (which is forged) contains all the same information.
I would imagine that it would be a definite "political problem" -- but I'm not sure if it's a legal problem.
First we have to start WINNING elections. Maybe that it is something George W. Bush never quite figured out.
What I’ve got on my site are official responses from the DOH. They are legally bound to those. Fukino very carefully worded her statements only to say that there is a document in their office which claims that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The rest of the post basically amounts to “The people are too stupid to sort out what Fukino said.”
More’s the pity. That doesn’t mean that you have to do the same.
The document in Hawaii cannot vouch for a Hawaii birth. And in fact, I believe that the amendment Obama made would prove he was NOT born in Hawaii.
But Hawaii law says that if a person ENDORSES a document they know is not genuine it counts as forgery. And if a person invites the public to rely on a document they know is fraudulent it counts as perjury.
I think Obama qualifies as having committed both those crimes by claiming that what he has on Fight the Smears and Factcheck are genuine. And having his lawyers make note to a judge regarding those online forgeries probably qualifies as some kind of crime as well - maybe obstruction of justice?
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.