Posted on 05/07/2010 9:01:18 PM PDT by PilotDave
Here's a link to the Anderson Cooper 360 interview on tonight with Ltc Latkin. He's the Army doctor who has refused to deploy based on Obama's inelegibility for POTUS per article 2 of USCON.
> “It is not a forgery.” <
I just finished my yard work for the week... it’s hot and sunny here in the Piedmont Region just north of Raleigh. I’m enjoying a most excellent Brown Ale... “Newcastle”... and it’s deelish!
Now may I ask: Where the heck you’ve been? And what the heck are you smoking or drinking? It’s got to be alot stronger than “Newcastle.”
Geesh!
He wouldn’t have to provide a doctor’s examination within 30 days of birth, but would have to provide that specific piece of information from a source considered reliable.
For instance, if Obama had a Kenyan birth certificate which contained the medical information that was lacking on the Hawaii BC, he could submit that information to his communist doctor in Chicago, who would enter that on the medical history record. Then the communist doctor in Chicago could make a copy of that medical history record and send it to the HDOH in 2006 to complete the BC. Because it’s from a medical record it is considered authoritative even though the original source of the information (a Kenyan doctor) is never known.
That’s how you launder a Kenyan BC to create a Hawaiian BC.
Thanks, butterdezillion. And thank you for all your hard work in persuing the truth.
Regardless of NBC status, the Birth Certificate is a must. It is the cornerstone document of Obamas status.
If it states that Obama Sr. is his Father, then he is not qualified no matter where he was born. This document is key no matter where the arguments lead.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in the 1898 decision in US v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
Yes, what you say is true. The reason Obossy is refusing to release the Certificate is to keep the debate focused on his PLACE of birth rather than the fact one of his parents was a non-citizen. Thus, disqualifying him to be the POTUS.
It’s possible that the record doesn’t exist. But their response was that they cannot tell me whether it exists.
I have tried to get other non-certified abbreviated certificates and they won’t give anything. They keep saying that HRS 338-18 forbids it.
But the only certificates forbidden for release to anybody are CERTIFIED copies. HRS 338-18a forbids the release of any INFORMATION that is on a birth certificate EXCEPT as authorized by statute or rules. Because the rules authorize the release of non-certified abbreviated copies, HRS 338-18a never even applies to them. It does, however, apply to public statements such as Fukino’s, which violated HRS 338-18a.
HRS 338-18a requires them to release documents and forbids them to make announcements. So the HDOH makes announcements and refuses to release documents.
I asked the OIP whether the HDOH response was correct. I was told that the OIP lets the HDOH decide what the laws and rules mean. So much for the OIP being the watchdog for government transparency.... That is the entire function for the OIP to even exist - to interpret the law and force each department to comply with it.
And that is why I am so adamant that what we have is really the failure of the rule of law. To me this is WAY beyond just Obama. It is a whole system of lawlessness at the most basic, far-reaching levels of government.
You can see the statements at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ .
To understand them, you need to know that every legal source there is says that when a department denies access to a record they are admitting that the record exists, unless they Glomarize the response (such as, for instance, saying “Access to the records, IF ANY, is denied because...”
They gave a non-Glomarized denial of access to the records of Obama’s amendment. When the denial of access was appealed to the OIP the OIP attorney confirmed that it was a denial of access AND that it was a PROPER denial - which would not be a proper response according to OIP rules if the records didn’t exist. The OIP attorney had said twice that if the records don’t exist the HDOH should say that, and the OIP rules also make that clear.
> Here’s what HRS 338-17 says:
>
>§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]
>
>First, you’re assuming that Obama’s birth certificate has been altered. Second, the statement at the bottom of Obama’s ColB says that it is prima facie evidence
Concerning the statement at the bottom; do you think that intrinsically makes the document accurate? That is to say, which has more legal authority/power, an official document or a state statute?
To illustrate, let me show a conflict in two legal documents; my state Constitution and a State Statute. The Constitution says:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
One, of several violating State Statutes is:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
As you can see, this is obviously a law abridging the tight of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense.
You’re welcome. I hope all the work can bear fruit. If it does, it will have to be through word-of-mouth, as we can all see from the Cooper “interview”.
Polarik is not credible. His analysis is flawed.
Has the Constitutionality of that law been challenged? It certainly should be.
But it’s one more example where we can have what is supposedly a binding law (state Constitution) and in plain sight of everybody it can be broken by the legislature.
The Hawaii HDOH is not even pretending to follow their laws at this point - nor is the OIP, ombudsman, HI legislature, governor, attorney general, US attorney, or the department of public safety.
That should be problematic to everybody but a strict anarchist.
I have to go for now, but I’ll look over the link you sent and reply later.
In your expert opinion, what is wrong with it?
OK, if so, I would welcome more insight on his analysis...
I can’t say whether his analysis is flawed or not. But I can say that the Hawaii Department of Health has admitted 2 key facts which, when analyzed, confirm that the Factcheck COLB is forged.
An admission against interest is one of the strongest forms of circumstantial evidence there is. Their having admitted this shows not only that the Factcheck COLB is forged, but that the HDOH has known all along that it is forged - which means they are admitting to committing misprision of felony.
Powerful stuff.
Take Polarik’s stuff however you want to, but when the HDOH officially confirms the key facts necessary to prove the COLB a forgery (as they have).... it makes Polarik’s claim of forgery not so far-out as Obama would like you to believe.
>>First, if the FactCheck COLB online image is not a forgery, how do you refute the evidence given by Polarik here?
>
>Polarik is not credible. His analysis is flawed.
If his analysis is flawed, then you should be able to say how.
I appreciate your willingness to check it out. Time is always at a premium, and it does take time to really sort it out. Enjoy whatever you’re working on. =)
Now are you REALLY saying that you would not support the Attorney General of Hawaii conducting a criminal investigation and subpoenaeing Obama’s original birth records?
No I am saying I see through your false arguments and deception. YOu fool no one. You don’t want the truth but “pretend” that you do. You sound just like Obie...preach transparency and cover up all the facts and truth. Why does Obie do it? Why do you?
Here are some facts for you to ponder:
1) The prime opportunity to stop Obama on ineligibility issues was by not certifying his Electoral College votes. Any two of the 535 members of Congress oould have done that by submitting written objections to the President of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney. Not even one member of Congress submitted a written objection.
2) Seven Obama eligibility lawsuits have reached justices’ conferences at the US Supreme Court. They have all been rejected.
3) A conservative US Chief Federal Judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, Royce C. Lamberth rejected Orly Taitz’s quo warranto request against Obama on April 13, 2010. Chief Judge Lamberth said: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010.
4) The state of Hawaii has verified his birth in that state:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
5) Just this week the Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle referred to Obama’s place of birth as being born in the primary Honolulu obstetric Hospital:
From WorldNetDaily: “More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama’s birth, saying ‘the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.’
‘It’s been an odd situation,’ Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. ‘This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.
‘So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.’
6) Thus far 69 different lawsuits have looked into Obama’s eligibility and there have been two actual rulings on his eligibility, both by Indiana Courts. The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject”’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.’”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
You are now free to go back to your whining and ranting with your childish attempts at invectives and ad hominems.
Hmm, at least in theory, this would appear to make the OIP vulnerable to a writ of mandamus...
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.