Skip to comments.Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s
Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
click here to read article
It’s a moot question because Bennett submitted all the same information as is on the record - and yet Onaka only mentioned Honolulu and none of the other things from the application.
He serves as long as he does TPTB's bidding."I stand corrected.
"Americas Historic First Martyred Black President and Ascended God"
Pretty much the only thing I fear more than the prospect of another four years with this enigma "at the helm."
“and yet Onaka only mentioned Honolulu and none of the other things from the application.”
And in your opinion it is because he cannot verify them and in my opinion it is because they are implicitly verified in the “Verification of Birth”.
We may never know the answer.
I hope you and your family have a happy and health New Year.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Onaka verified that the information on the White House image is also on the genuine record. The WH image says Oahu, so the HDOH record does too. That’s why it doesn’t make sense for Onaka to verify the truth of some of those claims on the White House image but not others. That’s why it has to be presumed that he wasn’t verifying the truth of ANY of the birth facts - but was only verifying that those claims are “from the record of birth”.
See, “verify the following items from the record of birth” can easily be interpreted to mean “verify that the following items are on the record of birth”. And the only way to make sense out of Onaka’s mention of some things from the BC and not others is if he wasn’t verifying the truth of any of it, but was only verifying that the claims are on the BC - which also explains why he only listed information which had Bennett’s “from the birth certificate” language applied to it, and didn’t say he verified anything from the actual application, which is known to be a request for the TRUTH of the claims to be verified.
“Verification” can be used to mean many things, depending on what specifically you’re verifying. The application is a request for verification of the existence of a birth certificate and verification of the TRUE FACTS RELATED TO THE VITAL EVENT. IOW, birth facts.
A person could verify that the “date filed” was Aug 11th whether or not the BC that was filed that day was valid or not. That’s because it is not a birth fact, it’s a processing fact. Same thing with the dates of the signatures. Those are processing facts. So is the BC#.
The fact of the matter is that unless both Verna Lee and Janice Okubo have lied about how the BC’s were numbered and they were in fact numbered totally at random (which defies what is claimed in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report AND the use of a Bates stamp), the HDOH has been changing around BC#’s. The only legal authorization for a new BC# to be issued to somebody who already had a BC# (like Stig Waidelich or Virginia Sunahara) is if law enforcement says they are in danger and a new BC has to be created in order to protect them - in which case a new BC# will be on the new BC. So the BC# switching strongly suggests that Obama was issued a new BC and had to be given somebody else’s BC# - supposedly for his safety.
And the kicker of that is this: in that instance, law enforcement can make up whatever “facts” they want and that’s what has to go on the new BC. So Eric Holder just had to say he wanted a BC made up that says it was filed on Aug 11th, was signed on Aug 8th by Dr Sinclair, etc etc.... and VOILA! There is is! None of it true, but all of it on a record at the HDOH as if it was true.
If that’s what happened with Obama, then none of those dates are necessarily true. But they are on the newly-created BC, and that is what Onaka verified.
What’s interesting is that Abercrombie started making noise in response to Judith Burges saying she was going to try again to get an eligiblity bill passed in AZ. Abercrombie said he was going to come up with the BC to clear this issue up, because it was going to cause problems in the 2012 election. Then there was the shooting that killed Judge John Roll, the judge who would have heard any challenges to the AZ eligibility bill that Abercrombie was publicly so worried about - and the Obama people were trying to make conservatives out to be these crazy, violent people. Just in time for Eric Holder to request a new birth certificate to be made, to protect Obama from these crazy Arizona birther-types...
But the new BC apparently wasn’t being created quickly enough. Abercrombie was asked by a columnist at the Star-Advertiser how his investigation was going and Abercrombie blustered around about finding something “actually written down” in “the archives”. That got Mike Evans wondering what was up so he called Abercrombie and Abercrombie told him he couldn’t find a birth certificate for Obama. So there was a serious problem holding up the creation of the new BC.
I suspect it was Abercrombie’s appointed HDOH Director, Neal Palafox, because next thing we knew (like about a week after the Mike Evans radio interviews, Palafox suddenly resigned and Abercrombie and the AG claimed that they hadn’t forced him to resign; Okubo said he resigned for personal reasons. But Palafox himself said he had no idea why he resigned. Eventually the liars were forced to admit they had forced Palafox to resign.
That allowed Fuddy the Yes-woman to take over and then we started to see real changes. All of a sudden “policies” that nobody had been obeying for the last 10 years suddenly cropped up, totally negating the statutes by keeping anybody from being able to see original birth certificates. All they were allowed to see was easily-manipulable computer printouts.
And then we started to see what we now know are switched-out BC#’s. Sunahara got his sister’s forged death certificate with a totally screwy BC#. Then Johanna Ah Nee showed up with a BC# that was screwed up. Then Stig Waidelich pulled a stunt with the HDOH and CNN to show a totally screwed-up BC#...
And then, with all these BC#’s switched around to make room for Obama, at last Obama’s forgery appeared. He has a real BC at the HDOH that claims those things, but apparently Onaka had the last laugh because a new BC can only be created for somebody who was actually born in Hawaii and Onaka knew they didn’t have a legally-valid record for Obama that would allow HI to determine that he was born in HI. Onaka knew that this new BC, if allowed to be presented as if it was valid, would be document fraud ON THE PART OF FUDDY, WHO FORCED HIS DEPT TO MAKE THE BC IN VIOLATION OF HI STATUTE.
Onaka has the responsibility to refuse to issue a certified copy of a BC he knows/believes was obtained through fraud. So he made sure that the copy that was sealed up in the envelope for Corley to pick up had the LATE and/or ALTERED stamps that were on Obama’s genuine, non-valid BC. Which is why the Obama people had to create the forgery - to hide the non-validity of the record.
So the timeline, the HDOH’s shenanigans, the forgery, the verifications.... they all make sense when you understand HI statutes and the evidence we have now.
No, it’s a very critical legal question. If Onaka complied with HRS 338-14.3 as he swore he did, there’s only one answer for it: because Onaka never verified Honolulu as the actual birth city, since the record is non-valid and he couldn’t certify any of the birth facts claimed on the non-valid record as being the way the birth actually happened.
If Onaka certifies a letter of verification that means “I verify everything you said”, that is legally a signed blank check, because the requestor could claim they submitted ANY facts and that Onaka verified them all without mentioning any of those facts specifically. Ken Bennett could fudge his request and say that he submitted the facts that Obama, female, was born on Feb 30, 1242, in Honolulu on the island of Hawaii, to Osama Bin Laden and Cleopatra - and bring forward Onaka’s verification to prove that all those facts were true, since Onaka had verified it all in one fell swoop without specifically mentioning anything except Honolulu.
That’s not how this stuff works. If Onaka doesn’t say a verification of “any fact” he doesn’t DO a verification of that fact. If I signed an affidavit saying “I swear to everything he said once” I would be laughed out of creation. That’s not how certifications and/or sworn statements work. If you don’t say it, you can’t swear to it.
Ditto for you and your family on the New Year. I hope 2013 is good to all of us.
“And then we started to see what we now know are switched-out BC#s. Sunahara got his sisters forged death certificate with a totally screwy BC#. Then Johanna Ah Nee showed up with a BC# that was screwed up. Then Stig Waidelich pulled a stunt with the HDOH and CNN to show a totally screwed-up BC#...
And then, with all these BC#s switched around to make room for Obama, at last Obamas forgery appeared.”
First - Obama’s certificate number revealed in August, 2008
Second - Waidelich’s certificate number revealed in April, 2011
Third - Obama’s long form BC revealed April 27th, 2011
Fourth - Ah’nee’s certificate number revealed September, 2011
Fifth - Sunahara’s certificate number revealed January, 2012
We can’t talk about the BC, Benghazi,Iran, Syria,or Hillary and all her ailments. Its all the fiscal cliff which zero won’t climb.
Sunahara started the pursuit for his sister’s long-form around the time that Fuddy started changing the rules. I’m not sure when he got the short-form, but he didn’t reveal it publicly until later. I don’t have access to some of my records, or I could be more specific about the timeframe. But Duncan Sunahara started getting the runaround from the HDOH around the time that Fuddy took over, according to Duncan’s statements.
But Waidelich’s was the important one, if Verna Lee is correct. If so, Obama was given the BC# of the 3rd person born in Honolulu after Susan Nordyke. It would be important that the person either be dead or go along with the swap - and either not have or else surrender the original BC they had been using their whole life. Waidelich’s mother said he requested a BC (in April, 2011 just days before Obama’s long-form forgery was revealed) because he didn’t have a long-form. Handy.
The agreement had already been made by the time the passport file was cleaned up in March of 2008, but the HDOH itself didn’t even have an Obama BC for Abercrombie to find until after January of 2011. They had been hoping the issue would just die away before the HDOH had to actually alter records. I can’t remember exactly, but I think it was mid-March when Micki Booth’s friend got a long-form and then the next week there wasn’t an option to order a long-form; the HDOH had changed that practically overnight just a couple weeks before Waidelich’s stunt was orchestrated with CNN and the HDOH...And all this came shortly after Fukino had given an interview with Michael Issikof claiming that the BC is “properly numbered” - revealing that BC#’s were at the front of her mind at the time...
The timeframe is actually quite revealing... especially when combined with the evidence we now have.
On page 1 of the four page analysis by Klayman he seems to infer that:
Onaka can not verify those facts
The question than becomes is can that be enough to take to court and stop obama from being sworn in?
What govt. agency or “who” has the authority or ability to change/alter/destroy records like this years ago?
You have my admiration and respect. for what its worth.
Wow great stuff, thanks.!!
Before June, 2007 when the colb was issued.
It helps to know and understand the context of Kobach's comments. It's not an official statement. He requested a third verification letter because Obama's attorney's refused to provide any evidence of any kind in response to the ballot eligibility challenge in Kansas. Kobach knew about the other two previous verification letters but since neither was admitted as evidence, the Kansas Objections Board had no evidence upon which to declare Obama to be eligible to be on the ballot. He also acknowledged the language in the previous verification forms was not legally compelling. I believe that's why he asked if the information was "identical" ... which Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. obviously punted.
The eligibility challenged was dropped, therefore the board could take no further legal action, but by that point, they had already requested a letter of verification. It's not really their burden to produce evidence for a candidate and second, such evidence doesn't satisfy the legal precedent for defining NBC as was brought up in the objection. Kobach failed to explain what legal foundation he was going to use to make Obama eligible, but he didn't have to worry about it after the objecion was withdrawn. The objections board consists of three members, so Kobach's opinion on what the third letter said is simply a personal opinion and doesn't represent the legal opinion of the board who had statutory responsibility to make an official determination. The problems Kobach acknowledged about the AZ and MDEC letters also applied to his letter, so it's not clear how he would have reconciled those issues had the objection not been withdrawn. As far as making a statement to the media, this was simply a political statement to appease potential voters.
Me too. I’ve had this fear since the start of the first four years.
I believe this may be the case if Obama's mama claimed her baby was born "en route" ... according the standard procedures, children born in transit, such as on a ship or on a plane, can claim the arrival city as the place of birth, even though they weren't born in that city. Thus, it's possible that Honolulu was the city of birth but officially the child was NOT born on the island. Second, if the baby was born while crossing the international dateline, then maybe they can't verify which day he was actually born on. That would explain why Onaka didn't verify the date of birth.
Nobody has the authority to change BC#’s. The only authority given in the statute is to create a new BC with a new BC# - not to steal a BC# from anybody else.
The HDOH has been lawless beyond what most people would believe. It was that lawlessness that made me realize I had to go public with what I was finding out, which is why I started my blog. It wasn’t just about Obama any more; it was a battle for the very rule of law. And since the day I started out my blog with that point we’ve all unfortunately seen the lawlessness expand into all areas of life, like a cancer that has almost totally taken over the body. The lawlessness I started out sounding crazy for talking about is by now an acknowledged reality among most conservatives and gradually even liberals like Oliver Stone are having to realize it as well.
It can’t go on like this much longer. We’ll be reaching critical mass soon.
The COLB is a forgery as well. If the HDOH was truthful in their UIPA disclosures, the birth record was amended in late 2006 or early 2007 - before that COLB was supposedly printed out at the HDOH. And that amendment would have to be noted on the face of the COLB - but wasn’t. Also, the “seal” doesn’t distort like it should if it was really on a piece of paper and then folded and held at that angle to the camera. I did experiments with real paper and there is no way that the “seal” on the Factcheck photos was on that paper when it was photographed.
Since the COLB is a forgery, we have no idea whether it was made from a genuine COLB and if so, what had to be altered. So the COLB doesn’t tell us anything about when anything was done. The first that the BC# appears is in the photos taken at Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters in a couple different shootings, with the camera’s time-clock being altered to make it look like it was all done in one shoot. The first shoot seems to have been done just days before the 3rd/final breach of Obama’s passport file.
Bluecat6, correct me if I’ve remembered anything incorrectly.
Thanks for providing that context. Do you have a link for Kobach’s acknowledgment of the problems with the previous verifications?
Onaka verified that the info listed on the White House image is also listed on the record at the HDOH, so Aug 4, 1961 and Oahu are both on the record they have. So that can’t be the reason to not verify those “facts”.
It would be in the Q&A part of the eligibility hearing, if there’s transcript. There was a stenographer there, but I don’t know if the state of Kansas posts the transcripts on its website.
He can only verify information as it is stated by the applicant. That’s the way the law is written. Having information on a record doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
I agree and you work, by the way, is nothing short of brilliant and impeccable both here and on your blog.
Many here have concentrated on the legal side of the BC issue and IMHO have proven the case of a phony bc not really acknowledged by Onaka.
From what I have read it goes sort of like this. Zero was born elsewhere,probably Kenya.
To counter that claim which collapses the house of cards, holder,FBI,Secret Service or some individual/agency decided to change or recreate,invent, create paperwork in Hawaii to continue the lie.Zeros entire existence is done Pinocchio style.It's a huge mountain of lies with a base of shifting sand.
It's always been up to us to bring the pile of lies down but difficult to do with all the variety of deceptive techniques they use to divert attention/control the media etc.
Politically here's what I see going on. And, if I'm too far out on the ledge please let me know!
I bring up the political side since it's all the regime cares about from Axelrod on down to the bottom which is zero.
IMHO,what the regime does best is to divert peoples attention while running out the clock.I think we are being played by the regime one more time.
I think they know as previously stated here earlier that once the various states have certified the election it will be near impossible to impeach Obama and collapse the house of cards they have built. Along with the media and other interested parties who are behind the entire USA takeover it will be near complete. So the stakes are incredibly high.
IMHO, we are all being played once again by the regime.Just like they tried to use the pawn Susan Rice to pretend that it was the video not the willful killing of four men in Benghazi they are using the fiscal cliff to divert our attention from the certification issue of obama. Once zero is certified for a second term lots of stuff goes away or gets incredibly harder to prosecute.Its all about running out the clock.
1. Once the votes are certified the discrepancies in the BC will be that much harder to enforce.If Klayman can't get the election put on hold or stopped before the date its basically over.
2.There is a lot invested currently in Hillary Clinton. She does not want to testify about anything to do with Benghazi.Certify the election and bring in John Kerry and much of that jeopardy goes away. It's going to be real hard to bring her in as a private citizen and make much of anything stick especially if she lawyers up. Even worse we have a weak congress. Hillary "is" 2016 for the left. The stakes are high for the road to communism.
3. The entire destruction of the US from obamacare on down is at stake if zero is not confirmed. In addition, the voter fraud in several key sates from Fla. to Va, Ohio, Penn. is going to be that much tougher to prosecute with the commies back in power.
4. IMHO, once again the regime has played us by diverting attention from the certification of his presidency to the phony fiscal cliff. The willing media lap dogs are playing into the con as well.
5. In an ironic twist this is the muslim way as well. They love to do things in plain sight and use our assets to destroy us. Anyone remember 911? This is the final stages of 911. They take over for another four years and by the end if they successfully get Hillary in office she can collapse the economy for Soros currency manipulations if it hasn't already happened by then and who knows how much control the MB will have worldwide by then.
Lots at stake simply by letting our legal process continue to certify their illegal ways.
The COLB pictures first presented by Joe Miller and Jess Henig and Fact Check in August of 2008 are not photos of an authentic COLB. That is also easily shown under relatively easy scrutiny.
Thus this is also a clear example of official document fraud. And that fraud is perpetuated by Alvin Onaka.
For Mr. Onaka there is no grey area. He can not hide behind the labyrinth of regulations and laws of Hawaii. He has the responsibility to know what is and is not an authentic state of Hawaii record. And when he is aware of and has had reason to personally inspect and validate the record, its history and associated supporting documents and evidence he has a duty and responsibility to clarify or call out any and all frauds, misrepresentations, half-truths and lies. Or to validate without any qualification the authenticity of a presented document OR image of a supposed authentic document.
This he has not done. It would appear that Mr. Onaka is an active participate in document fraud if he does not stand behind the LFBC image (which he can not since it is a digital creation) or the COLB pictures.
For Mr. Onaka - THERE IS NO GREY AREA.
Could it be this?
Here is a copy of the transcript (starting on page 84).
Personally, I do not see where SoS Kobach questioned the validity of the previous verifications.
Unless I missed something these are the only relevant exchanges:
Kansas Hearing Transcript starting on line 20 of page 120
SECRETARY KOBACH: I would note that there is that this case similar cases have been raised in other states, and I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying certifying that the birth certificate on the website of the White House is consistent with or Im not sure I cant remember the exact phrasing but contains the same information as the certificate.
MR. BRYANT: The Information matches I think is what that letter
SECRETARY KOBACH: Information matches, yes, the information matches the one on file. One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
And at line 7 of page 126
SECRETARY KOBACH: Well, I agree with the Attorney General that it is disappointing that the legal representatives for the Obama campaign did not provide a more robust response as far as certification or other legal documents. My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table. But I understand your point, Mr. Attorney General, that the standard is going to be high regardless of whether such documents are present. If we did do that we would have potentially Monday to reconvene and evaluate whatever documentation was presented. Im merely suggesting this as an option. We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.
I didn't say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications. I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling. That's exactly what he's acknowledging when Kobach says, "One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question," and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
If the other verifications were compelling, he wouldn't need to seek "some kind of certification." He said in what you quoted that he already inquired about that information including the MDEC letter of verification that was "in our packet." Kobach and the objections board clearly did not feel that what they aleady had was compelling. Kansas law says they are supposed to make a decision at the time of the hearing, but instead Kobach postponed any decision by the board until he could gather something more compelling. Personally, I believe they knew they didn't have a strong enough legal foundation for denying the objection as it was presented, especially in how NBC is defined, so they were trying to buy time to come up with something/anything that could get them off the hook.
“I didn’t say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications.”
“I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling.”
That’s not how I read it. The only verification they had in their packet, as far as I can tell, is the copy provided as an exhibit in the objection.
“My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table.”
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. It’s not like he is saying “maybe we can get something more definitive.” Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didn’t feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
There was no copy provided as an exhibit. In the part you quoted, Kobach says he made an inquiry for this information.
I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii ...
Neither the objector nor Obama's counsel provided that to him.
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. Its not like he is saying maybe we can get something more definitive.
He acknowledged that Obama's lawyers failed to provide a "robust response" to the objection (as in, they provided NO evidence). But, he says specifically:
One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
This indicates that Kobach isn't confident he has enough information, not just a hard copy, to resolve the "factual question." But, no one was asking him or the body to resolve any factual questions. Their job is to respond according to law.
Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didnt feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
Because he wanted to see that the information was actually certified. That's the legal standard for birth evidence when it's actually presented to a legal body. That's why he kept saying they needed to "to seek some kind of certification" and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
The Objections Board already had three days to prepare for this hearing. They should have had this information, but they obviously didn't realize how weak Obama's response and their own was going to be in the face of this challenge. The only real "factual" information that mattered in the challenge was that Obama was born to a foreign national who did not have permanent domicil in the United States and who never became a U.S. citizen, and under whom Obama already acknowledged foreign citizenship on his own website. No letters of verifcation or certified documents would overcome these facts, unless it could be shown Obama had a U.S. father. Obama's counsel did not make this argument.
“There was no copy provided as an exhibit.”
Sorry, my mistake, I thought this was the packet sent to Kansas in the objection.
“Objection to the Certificate of Nomination of Barack Obama to appear on Kansas General Election Ballot - filed by Joe Montgomery, Manhattan”
Appendix E is the MDEC verification.
And in the transcript Attorney General Schmidt said, “I’ve reviewed all the material you submitted and listened carefully to your testimony.”
Kobach said he had something in his packet that was “given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii.” Appendix E doesn’t list the court as a recipient. Appendix E was an exhibit to show that the verification was missing language pertinent to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which explains why it was not legally compelling. Again, the lack of compelling evidence is why Kobach felt compelled to get his own letter of verification from Hawaii and it’s why he talked about contacting Mississippi and Arizone for CERTIFIED evidence. What part of that is unclear??
But Appendiz E was given to the Board by the objector - right?
And Appendix E is the Hawaii verification that was given to the Mississippi Court by the lawyers for Obama, right?
They are the listed recipients
“Recipient of Verification: Scott J. Tepper and Samuel L. Begley, attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party in Taitz et. al. v. Democratic Party of Mississippi [sic], et al, No 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.)”
So are you saying that when SoS Kobach says “and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying”, he is not talking about the Mississippi verification that was in the material submitted by the objector but a different Mississippi verification sent directly to the Mississippi Court by the Hawaii DOH?
In other words, you are saying that there are in fact four certified verifications (Arizona, MDEC, the Mississippi Court and Kansas).
Courts don’t do their own investigations, so someone would have had to request Hawaii send directly to the court a verification. That would be reflected in the docket for that case.
Why if he already had this new verification did he say “We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.”? Arizona and Mississippi could not send him certified copies unless they decided to send him their original Hawaiian documents.
IMO, when he talks about the one in the packet, he’s talking about Appendix E, not some new verfication.
He would not know the provenance of that document. So seeking additional information would be the prudent thing to do. Looking at one of the other objections - Mr. Sawyer’s, they took a lot of testimony and evidence to determine the residence of a candidate, so I’m not surprised that they would try to get additional info before making a decision.
Placemark - crawling back from bad flu.
"He would not know the provenance of that document. So seeking additional information would be the prudent thing to do."you're agreeing with me. This shows that Kobach acknowledged the MDEC letter of verification was NOT compelling evidence to make Obama eligible to be on the Kansas ballot. That's what I said already.
Yes, they had a chance to do this in three days prior to the hearing. At the hearing itself, Obama and his counsel were no shows. For some reason Kobach took it on himself to represent Obama. When Kobach said, "I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states ..."; this means he did some sort of fact gathering or fact checking prior to the hearing. He should have already obtained whatever additional documentation, certified or otherwise, was needed because the law says the board is supposed to make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing on the same day.
BTW, Kobach also claimed he had studied up on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but he had NOTHING to counter what the SCOTUS specifically said in that decision: the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Obama's attorneys relied exclusively on the 14th amendment, but that claim is contradicted in Wong Kim Ark and by the caselaw in the seven other Supreme Court cases that were cited.
Well, I’m reading this on Jan. 9, after Congress has certified the election. I hear a group of birthers are threatening to impeach John Roberts, which isn’t going to work. Your work is appreciated, though. Obama will be sworn in however and it’s perhaps the biggest shame in the history of man.
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.