Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com ...
And in other news, OJ killed his ex-wife...
I wish something would come of this, but it won’t happen :(
ditto ping
Not holding my breath.
I can’t tell if it is a satire site or what, thought I would put it up and let the experts here have at it.
Here is another site claiming it also:
I wonder who 0bama visited with and what was discussed during his Hawaii vacation.. And he cut it short to offer nothing or accomplish nothing on the fiscal cliff.. Hmmm..
i’m still naive. i don’t see how sumthin’ can’t come out this.....there it is, right in front of them, bigger’n sh*t. the rinos are lookin’ @ an illegal alien takin’ us over a financial cliff......does someone have a set to make an issue of this? one good man?
It’s a rumor of a rumor.
It’s a rumor of a rumor.
It’s a rumor of a rumor.
It’s a rumor of a rumor.
It’s a rumor of a rumor.
EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th.
Here’s a link from the Washington Times...
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free
Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.
The man is a fraud, evil, mentally ill, dangerous, and destructive. I don’t care if it was me against the rest of the country. I’ll go to my death believing this.
Obama could go on TV and announce that he was never a US citizen, and that his goal is to destroy the USA... and the GOP still couldn’t muster the guts to do anything about it.
whoa...it popped the page for a split second then returned page not found”....
This is an unconfirmed rumor, Sly.
Yup! GOP = Republicants
What? Anyone that could do anything works for the President, short of Articles of Impeachment. That is not going to happen after the lesson of Clinton. Even if the House brought charges, the Senate is controlled by Democrats and would not convict.
This seems like a foolish pipe-dream that fifth columnists dust off periodically to provide the dumb masses with useless falderal with which to stay busy.
The story wasn’t sourced. It is taken from my blog, from a letter that I faxed to every R member of Congress.
To understand this, you need to read the letter that Attorney Larry Klayman sent to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, which can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf. That letter includes the documentation you need to see in order to understand this.
The short version is this: Bennett sent 2 pages in his request for a letter of verification. Everybody looks at the 2nd page and thinks Onaka verified everything. But what was on the first page was a request that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama. By law Onaka is required to verify every submitted fact that is claimed on a legally-valid BC.
Look at his letter of verification and you will not see male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama. He did not verify those facts. He did verify that those things are CLAIMED on the record they have, and the only lawful reason left for him to not verify those facts is if the record itself is non-valid.
Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of claims on non-valid records (late and/or altered records). By law (HRS 338-17) the probative/evidentiary value of those BC’s can only be determined when the BC is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. IOW, if the birth record is routine and there are no red flags with it, it is legally valid and it is presumed that the facts are true. If there are red flags (such as a late filing or major amendments that call into question how anybody could be confused on such big issues) HI takes down the information but marks the record as LATE or ALTERED, and by law that record has no legal evidentiary value until the whole sorry mess is sorted out by entities operating under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
And basically right now, the only way Obama can even have any legally-established birth facts is if that happens. The whole sorry mess has to be presented to a judicial or administrative person or body and sorted out according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. That’s what this letter is conveying to the R members of Congress.
It’s not just a rumor. If you want to help, do so.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972710/posts?q=1&;page=51
Since when is the Rule of Law suddenly “crap”?
It this is your usual attitude, and the attitude of so many others, so surprise the nation is in trouble.
It’s only a rumor because it wasn’t sourced in the article. This was taken from my blog. Attorney Larry Klayman, among other attorneys, has confirmed that this is what Onaka did in Onaka’s verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett. The documentation is in a letter Klayman sent to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, which can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
Onaka’s verification to KS SOS Kris Kobach is consistent with the AZ verification because Onaka refused to verify to Kobach that the information contained in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the original record.
Was this the guy who worked in the office for a short time? Didn’t this surface a couple of years ago? Or is this a new whistle blower?
It’s not a new document. It’s just that the actual request that Bennett made has been made public (it was published on my blog, in the letter that Larry Klayman sent to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, and can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf ) - and includes an application form requesting Onaka to verify information that Onaka did not end up verifying: male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. The only lawful reason for Onaka to fail to verify those facts is if he CAN’T because they are not claimed on a legally-valid record.
And we can tell that Onaka wasn’t actually verifying Honolulu as the birth place when he mentioned Honolulu in his verification, because if he verified Honolulu as the birth city he would also have to verify Oahu as the birth island, since Honolulu has always been on Oahu. So even though Honolulu is mentioned on the verification, it is not verifying that as a birth fact.
IOW, NONE OF THE BIRTH FACTS from the actual application were verified by Onaka - and the only lawful reason for that is if the record claiming those things is non-valid.
This isn’t a new story; Klayman’s letter was written back in August. It’s just that neither Klayman nor I have been able to scream loud enough to be heard above the smokescreens.
History is going to have fun with this. Too bad elected officials aren't giving this the importance it should be given.
Got a link for that?
The posted story doesn't qualify. It links to a post by a moron named Hendershot, whose lead paragraph contains six links, none of which are remotely pertinent:
Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.
Dr. Onaka has indeed been heard on the question of the Won's BC. However, unfortunately, his conclusion is the opposite of what idiot child Hendershot claims:
In the above, Onaka officially confirms the fact of Obama's Hawaiian birth, so far as the State of Hawaii knows. Which means he's natural born and eligible to be President, subject to the choice of the Sheeple (plural of Low Information Voter), yadda yaddda yadda! This battle is lost!
You need to look at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
Bennett’s actual application requested Onaka to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama. Show me where on that verification Onaka verified any of those facts. Show me where he said that he verifies those particular facts.
If you want to say that he verified Honolulu as the birth place because he says he verifies that they have a birth certificate “indicating a Honolulu, HI birth”, then please explain why he didn’t also verify Oahu as the birth island.
The MDEC verification that you posted never asks for any birth fact to be verified. It works equally well for a non-valid BC as for a valid one. It means nothing. Even the use of the word “matches” means nothing, because when KS SOS Kris Kobach asked Onaka to verify that the information contained in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the original record, Onaka would not verify that. He’ll verify “matches” but not “is identical to”. So “matches” means something other than “is identical to”.
Birthers have taken the clear concise English language statements released by Alvin Onaka, ran them through a birther legalese waterboarding parser, tortured them until they supported birtherism and blogged it to the minions.
Klayman needs a Paypal fix.
If that turns out to be the case, and all indications are that it will be, it is because TPTB who engineered his installation realize that nothing, and I mean nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of America's Historic First Black PresidentTM.
Thanks for the Ping, Nully.
The presumption of regularity is that a routine request is handled according to protocols and the law. You don’t assume that absent information is simply a mistake. The legal presumption is that if the information isn’t verified it’s because it can’t be verified. And we’re talking all of the major birth facts - gender, date, place, parents. None of those things were verified. This isn’t just a “typo” or oversight.
It is what it is. If the American people are too dull-witted to see what’s right in front of their faces then we deserve exactly what we’ve gotten.
Please post a copy of any of Onaka’s verifications, with his use of the words “male”, “Aug 4, 1961”, “Oahu”, “Stanley Ann Dunham”, and “Barack Hussein Obama” (not Obama II) highlighted for us all to see where Onaka verified those major birth facts.
Should be pretty easy to do in Onaka’s “clear concise English language statements”.
People can go to www.scribd.com and read their pages 20 thru 32 ,
There were 8 attempts by Democrats to try to "Change the Qualification Rules" BEFORE Obama was elected.
Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy.
It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obamas went to the beach to cool off.
While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial
General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!).
Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth."
.svg/250px-Kenya_(orthographic_projection).svg.png)
From the Airline Timetable Images - List of Complete Timetables, the cost of BOAC from April 24,1960 until October 1, 1962 was:
Look at all the financial supporters Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had.Most of these early "supporters" of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF were party to the Communists "spooks".
There's a great volume of history you have to go through to understand this, and it goes back to about 1850.
Read these three articles on one of my earlier post:
Way too late, this should have been pushed in fall of 2007....
Finally the truth comes out.
Sure why not — now that he has already been re-elected and will serve out his current term. You slam that barn door shut just as soon as you are sure the horses have crossed the river over younder.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Who are tose people?
Ping
The birth certificate is a fraud. The election was a fraud. So what? If it meant anything AZ wouldn’t allow him to be on the ballot and the republicans in congress would announce no more votes will be taken on anything since there is no legimate controlling authority to sign the bills into law.
AND, if a liberal had brains and a frog’s ass had springs....
Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com
There is no record anywhere of this guy certifying anything except the validity of the birth certificate. One bogus “news” site publishes this crap, and the other bogus news sites pick it up. It’s like the Newton massacre all over again.
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.
