Posted on 12/15/2016 4:30:41 PM PST by Fractal Trader
A years-long forensics investigation into the computer image of the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate image that Barack Obama released during a White House news conference during his first term and presented to the American people as an official government document reveals it is “fake.”
It also confirms those who were subjected to the derogatory “birther” label from many media outlets and Democrats for badgering Obama with lawsuits, petitions to the Supreme Court, and more, were right – at least in the dispute that the document was manufactured and the questions about Obama’s birth and legitimacy to be president under the Constitution’s requirements still are unanswered.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
He(the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
A fake "president" with a forgery of a birth certificate could not have legally (via the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution) nominated anyone.
All of his false and illegal actions are null and void.
Yes they are, and they are blaming it because it wasn't even more biased in favor of Hillary. They fault the media for covering any bad stories about her, such as "email-gate."
The truth remains, her scandals and her corruption go far deeper and to a so much greater extent than her media sycophants have made the public aware.
Nobody really gives my argument much credibility, but I still think it best fits the available facts.
Yes, Obama's "birth certificate" is a legal document produced and supported by the state of Hawaii, and no, it's not his real birth certificate.
I suspect he doesn't actually have one. I suspect all he has is some records in state files, but not an actual valid proof of being born there.
It is beyond question that Obama was born at or around this time. The salient question is whether or not he was actually born in Hawaii, and that explanation doesn't fit very well with the available facts. You know very well that his mother was in Seattle in the later half of August, and this bit of evidence does not comport with a Hawaiian birth.
Here's what I consider to be a more probable explanation. Racist parents Stanley and Madeline Dunham being furious that their daughter had ended up getting pregnant by a black guy, sent her "away" to have the baby in secret and thereafter give it up for adoption. (The adoption part is confirmed by a letter from Barack Obama's Senior.)
She was sent to live with Aunt Elenore who was at that time either living in Canada, or in Blaine Washington, which was right on the border with Canada. (Sending embarrassing pregnancies away to live with relatives was a very common practice in 1961.)
If either location is true, Stanley Ann likely ended up giving birth in a Canadian hospital. Upon further reflection she decided to keep the baby rather than give him up for adoption as the original plan called for, and upon informing her mother of his birth, her mother immediately set out to insure he received American citizenship rather than Canadian.
Madeline Dunham filed the paperwork which automatically generated those newspaper announcements. Hawaiian law allowed up to a year for the child to be examined by a physician in order to claim Hawaiian birth.
Given Hawaii's laxity in birth laws, this scenario is easily realizable. It also makes quite a lot of sense from several angles. Certainly more sense than the idea that Stanley Ann just decides to leave her familial support system at a vulnerable period in her life.
I would like to see this. In Johnson's dictionary, he cites the person who used the word thusly. Perhaps OED is citing a usage traceable to Switzerland. After all, the Swiss were using the word in that manner since 1370.
I keep pointing out that no other nation in the world referred to their members as "citizens." All the rest called them "Subjects" or "Sujets" in French.
The simple fact remains, the normal manner of referring to membership in a state for that time period was "Subjects."
That is a brilliant post. It had never occurred to me, but you’re right. Off teleprompter, Obama is a walking cliche machine. Nothing creative, unexpected, novel or even interesting comes out of his mouth. ‘Painful,’ is the best description of the result of having to listen to him. If honest history books are written about him and his tenure, he won’t be treated kindly.
Ayers has copped to writing Dreams on more than one occasion. You can imagine how it galls him, to see Obama take 100% credit for the effort. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
Here’s some of the available evidence for a Hawaii birth (stuff that is in print) that would need to be successfully impeached by an attorney or congressional committee:
1) Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth has been verified three times by the Hawaii state Registrar Alvin Onaka (twice for state Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas and once for a federal judge in Mississippi) and three statements of authenticity have been issued in press releases by two Hawaii Directors of Health (Dr. Fukino and Loretta Fuddy). Under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, Arizona and Kansas afforded the birth certificate “full faith and credit, as did the Mississippi federal court judge.
2) Hawaii’s Governor from 2002 until 2010, Linda Lingle stated in a radio interview that “its been established, he was born here. And that’s a fact.”
3) 1960-1964 Birth Index Data for the Obama Hawaii birth is published on the Hawaii Department of Health’s web site.
4) “Health Bureau Statistics” data for the birth was published in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser on August 13, 1961
5) Listing of “Marriage Applications, Births and Deaths was published in the August 14, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
6) A Freedom of Information Act request released Immigration and Naturalization Service Officer William Wood’s memo on the Student Visa Extension application interview with Barack Obama Senior conducted on August 31, 196. The memo documents the birth of a son to a U.S. citizen wife in Honolulu on 8/4/61.
7) September 14, 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Service Agent W.L. Mix documents that Lolo Soetoro has a U.S. citizen step son born in Honolulu on 8/4/61
8) January 1, 1968 application for Obama to attend Santo Franciskus Asissi Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia lists “Honolulu, Hawaii” as Barack Obama’s birthplace.
9) February 6, 1990 New York Times profile of Obama when he was elected President of Volume for the Harvard Law Review mentions Hawaii as his birthplace.
10) February 7, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Tribune lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
11) February 8, 1990 profile of Obama in the Washington Post discusses his birth in Hawaii.
12) May 3, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Daily Herald says that he was born in Hawaii.
13) Columbia University magazine “Columbia Today” did an article on Barack Obama for its Fall, 1990 edition. The article states that he was born in Hawaii.
14) Chicago Magazine article in the January, 1993 edition says Obama was born in Hawaii.
15) Chicago Tribune article of February 10, 1993 “25 Chicagoans On The Road To Making A Difference” lists Barack Obama, born in Hawaii.”
16) August 7, 1995 Los Angeles Times review of “Dreams From My Father” written by Barack Obama states that he was born in Hawaii.
17) October 1, 1999: Obama’s Illinois state Senate page lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
18) January 22, 2003 Chicago Daily Herald article on Obama’s Senate campaign states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
19) June 24, 2004 Time Magazine article on Obama running for the U.S. Senate says that he was born in Hawaii.
20) Obama’s U.S. Passport lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
21) U.S. House Resolution 593 (111th Congress) contains a “whereas clause” stating that “the 44th President of the United States was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” the resolution passed the House on a vote of 378-0.
President Eisenhower was a home birth in Denton, Texas and he never received a birth certificate. When Ike was in his 50’s he got a birth certificate issued on the notarized testimony of his wife and brother.
A birth certificate is “self-authenticating” under the Federal Rules of Evidence if it has the signature of a custodian and a seal or if it is testified to be authentic by its custodian.
In order to invalidate a birth certificate, probatve evidence of a birth somewhere else would need to be presented. If fraud or deception was done by Obama’s relatives in 1961, that would not impact him in the final month of his presidency in 2016.
There can be 10,000 instances of lawlessness by DHOH, until someone PROSECUTES the alleged lawlessness, it has no relevance. Its just discussion in an Internet forum.
None of your list actually proves that he was born in Hawaii, and much of your list is simply the consequence of people accepting what other people said or asserted.
A non-fake birth certificate is something that has yet to be shown. Everything else is hearsay or legally condoned fiction.
Well, I’m glad to be wrong. My thinking was off the cuff, and yours was based on the Constitution. I tend to doubt his residency will be mercifully expunged from the history books, but hopefully I’ll be wrong about that, too.
And once again, you are talking "legal" jiggery-pokery while I am talking about factually true.
I do not give a D@Mn that rules assert that we should simply accept bogus crap put down on paper. As I have constantly pointed out, *I* posses an authentic birth certificate issued by a state, and it contains all sorts of non-truthful information on it.
What the "Federal rules of Evidence" do not do is make the truth out of non-truth, and we should be concerned with nothing else.
In order to invalidate a birth certificate, probatve evidence of a birth somewhere else would need to be presented.
The US Constitution does not require that someone else prove a man is unqualified. What it requires, or what it would require in a COMPETENT society, is for the man seeking the office to PROVE he is qualified.
What we have nowadays are a collection of disinterested fools in positions of legal authority refusing to do their D@MN job because they don't want to, and then making up legal sounding bullsh*t to alleviate them of any responsibility to do their jobs.
Had Obama been a white Republican, he would have had the entire media, all the Democrat lawmakers and many Democrat lawyers on his @$$ telling him that what he had provided was not good enough.
But because he is a black Democrat, nobody wanted to do their jobs.
“Madeline Dunham filed the paperwork which automatically generated those newspaper announcements. Hawaiian law allowed up to a year for the child to be examined by a physician in order to claim Hawaiian birth.”
However “up to a year” is irrelevant since Obama’s mother, not grandmother, signed the certificate for the birth on August 7, 1961 and Dr. Sinclair signed the certificate on August 8, 1961 for a birth that occurred at 7:24 pm on Friday August 4, 1961. The birth was reported a week later (August 13, 1961) in the newspaper.
Here’s the only “paperwork.” When an expectant mother checks in to the hospital a Certificate of Live Birth is generated with a pre-stamped registration number. After the child is born, the attending physician and the mother sign the Certificate of Live Birth and it goes to a Local Registrar who stamps it and signs it. Verna K.L. Lee who was the local registrar who signed the Obama birth certificate is still alive and living in a nursing home.
The newspapers get their “Health Bureau Statistics” data from that process.
If someone can find proof of delayed registration of the birth, that would be big.
Obama doesn’t have to prove his place of birth. Challengers have to prove a different place of birth. A stamped and sealed birth certificate is self-authenticating.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902
Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
A president qualifies by winning a majority of the votes of the Electors.
If over eight years challengers to a candidate’s qualifications are unable to convince the courts, congress or 50 states’ Chief Elections Officials of their allegations, then there is no other recourse that I can think of.
American voters had the opportunity to rule on Obama’s qualifications, twice.
“And once again, you are talking “legal” jiggery-pokery while I am talking about factually true.”
For the record, I don’t consider Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution to be “legal jiggery-pokery.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause was the Founders’ way of preventing chaos from state to state with regard to public acts, records and judicial proceedings.
The only proof for your assertions is a document that has been demonstrated to be fake. (And clearly so in my opinion.)
Here’s the only “paperwork.” When an expectant mother checks in to the hospital a Certificate of Live Birth is generated with a pre-stamped registration number. After the child is born, the attending physician and the mother sign the Certificate of Live Birth and it goes to a Local Registrar who stamps it and signs it. Verna K.L. Lee who was the local registrar who signed the Obama birth certificate is still alive and living in a nursing home.
The normal process does not preclude the occurrence of an abnormal process. Given that a fake document has been presented as genuine, all "normal" processes must now be regarded as within doubt.
If everything is on the up and up, why are they trying to fool us with this fake document?
If someone can find proof of delayed registration of the birth, that would be big.
Again, the shoe is on the wrong foot. It ought not be the duty of the American people to prove a candidate is fake, it ought to be the duty of the candidate to prove himself genuine.
Its just a hobby! I enjoy debating political issues with other folks who share a passion for debate.
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.