Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've updated my blog to include the e-mail from Janice Okubo confirming that they assign birth certificate numbers in the state registrar's office and the day they do that is the "Date filed by state registrar".
The pertinent portion from Okubo's e-mail:
In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.
MY SUMMARY: As you can see, Okubo said that the “Date filed by the State Registrar” is the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office).
There are no pre-numbered certificates. A certificate given a certificate number on Aug 8th (Obama’s Factcheck COLB) would not be given a later number than a certificate given a number on Aug 11th (the Nordyke certificates).
There is no way that both the date filed and the certificate number can be correct on the Factcheck COLB. The COLB is thus proven to be a forgery.
|
"Yeah, I've seen it.I don't think Wong Kim Ark was running
|
EXACTLY !!! |
Just letting you know I don’t read your logorrhea.
Lies.
Spew.
Feeble attempts to distract.
I didn’t read the one to me, nor the ones to others. Eyes skip over ‘em.
Well, you've certainly fallen for the intentional double-speak. Director Fukino did not cite an official birth document to back up her claim of Hawaiian birth. This is signficant. The ONLY documents in that office that legally verify birth for Obama would have to be an original, doctor-signed birth certificate. She said they have an original birth certicate on file, but she carefully avoided citing this same document as the source of her claim. Additionally, she made a statement that is NOT contained on ANY official document maintained by her department ... that of claiming anyone to be a 'natural-born American citizen.' Because of this, her statement loses a great deal of credibility. Second, the DOH has repeatedly said that disclosing ANY information from the birth records is illegal. If it's illegal, then she can't say Obama was born in Hawaii. If, on the other hand, she has legal authority to dislose the place of birth, then she would have the SAME legal authority to identify which documents supposably verify this claim. In such case, she could have specifically identified the birth certificate as the source of her confirmation. She did not do so. In fact, she made it very clear that her other public statement about the original birth certificate was a completely separate statement.
That, and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the records of the said department are incorrect.
There is no evidence that the records of the said department ARE correct. That's why skeptics want to see proof. If the evidence is legit, then there's no harm in showing it.
| Nope. I simply trust Hawaii's department of Health, whose records show that Bamabi was born in Hawaii, as officially verified by the director of said department.
Has Obama's Certification been submitted to be accepted as "fact" by a Court? Has the Hawaii DOH admitted the FactCheck COLB was sent by the Hawaii DOH? What was the Chain of Custody when FactCheck recieved the COLB from the Hawaii DOH? Lastly, are you saying that Hawaii's DOH records have appeared in court? |
“but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power,”
I think I have already sent you the appropriate language
which refutes the permanent domicile stuff. Do I need to re -send it?
“DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark’s claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as “FACT”.
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...”
No, they did not have the internet in 1898. GOTCHA!!! (I am just doing an imitation of edge19!)
Actually, the point here is, Obama hasn’t had to present the COLB, because no court action has made it that far, yet. Should it, I fully expect him to have to present a certified COLB. Which I have no doubt he will.
“Yeah, I’ve seen it. I don’t think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn’t.”
No, I think you missed most of it. Wong came to the decision that a “natural born citizen” is one born inside the country, subject to the stated exemptions, which do not apply to Obama.
The question of whether there is some other qualification which is necessary for a president, HAS NOT yet been put to the SCOTUS. But, after reading Wong, should this matter ever get to SCOTUS, I know where I am going to put my money....
I sort of doubt that it will make to SCOTUS. Some lower federal court will so rule, and the appeals court will affirm, and SCOTUS will refuse to take. Unless SCOTUS has original jurisidiction in these questions, which I have not looked up.
parsy
Look at what just happened to Gov. Patterson in NY.
Once it became clear that he would lose the next election, the Democratic Party elite made sure that the media protection came off and the NY Times began a campaign of vicious leaks to grease the skids for Patterson's exit, which has now occurred.
All of this was accomplished with no court action, Just inflaming the “court of public opinion”!
Now that Obamacare is failing and his entire "progressive" socialist program is being crushed, Obama's use to the Democrats is over and they must find a new champion to preserve the presidency in 2012.
Remember how Carter was challenged by Kennedy in the 1908 primaries in a vicious intraparty fight the wounded the Democrats so badly that it helped Reagan to get elected?
I expect Obama to be challenged one year from now by primary contenders from the left and right and they both may suddenly become interested (overtly or covertly) in whether Obama fraudulently hid evidence of ineligibility in his original (pre-amendment) HI vital records.
Glutton for punishment?? Your refutation was shot down and you started acting out instead of providing a countern argument.
No, they did not have the internet in 1898. GOTCHA!!! (I am just doing an imitation of edge19!)
Not only is this something I've never posted, but you can't even get my username right. Must have left a humongous big bruise on that ego ... bigger than Obama's ears even. So sorry (not really).
| Hmmm, let’s see what WONG KIM ARK v US says, referencing MINOR v. HAPPERSETT:
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. Wow. Sounds a bit like Vattel:
Palsy, are you NOW saying that Obama SR was a US Citizen?
|
Right! Public opinion is a FORCE!
~ ~ ~ ~
Rick Santilli = We need a Tea Party
Glenn Beck = 9/12 Project
Tea party movement = Convergence of public opinion
and activism
9/12/09 = Estimates of nearly 2 MILLION people swarm
DC
Public opinion, activism = Scott Brown, against ANY and EVERY set of odds
Scott Brown = Admin’s political fortunes, radical plans and equations BLOCKED
John Edwards ...
Need I say more ?
LOL ..
That’s called denial, LJ. I haven’t hexed the words. Yet.
parsy, who is calling a witch doctor right now...
Do they wear white coats and carry straight jackets these days?
Read the case and I will talk to you about the case.
As for the other, you read a private communication between me and bp2. Since you asked, though, I was poking fun at your way of springing silly “gotchas” at inappropriate moments.
parsy, who didn’t think you would see it....
OMG!!!! You done and went and found the secret language in Wong! We are doomed! Obama! Rahm! The jig is up! They caught us! Eric Holder, I still expect to get my check....Oh my world....wailing and gnashing of teeth....Why did I ever tell them to read Wong? Oh what could I have been thinking?...The reverse psychology failed....
That was fun. Now, seriously, I think what you are reading is the part where they are discussing the laws of nations thing. So, to discuss it, they first set out what some of the laws of nations were. Heck, they might even have mentioned Vattel.
The reason why they discussed the laws of nations was that they found.......drum roll.....drum roll.....rat-a-tat-tat....:
That the application of English common law, the jus soli part, was NOT something completely outside the law of nations. If you go to the Cornell site, and don’t get the habeus by mistake, you can find the exact language.
parsy, who says, “Gee, isn’t actually reading the case fun?” For real.
If I hadn’t read the case, I wouldn’t have known to cite the permanent-resident clauses nor would I have been able to immediately and easily shoot down your misconstrued and irrelevant citations. That you resort now to a drawn out, but transparent futility game fails to refute my arguments. If you choose to re-engage in an actual debate and show that you might understand the decision, feel free to post something constructive and meaningful. Just beware that I am always ready to tear down your flimsy arguments. Always.
No, Silly! That’s my regular doctor. The witch doctor has this grass skirt and a bone-in-the nose thing going on....
parsy, who has an appointment
Correct. She cited the state's official vital records.
This is signficant. The ONLY documents in that office that legally verify birth for Obama would have to be an original, doctor-signed birth certificate.
Not true. Official state vital records are sufficient to prove birth in the US before any court of law or government agency.
Additionally, she made a statement that is NOT contained on ANY official document maintained by her department ... that of claiming anyone to be a 'natural-born American citizen.'
LOL. Her department records show he was born on US soil, which in the common understanding means he's a natural born citizen.
Because of this, her statement loses a great deal of credibility. There is no evidence that the records of the said department ARE correct.
State vital records are presumed accurate until proven otherwise.
Okay—a test: what did Wong say about American indians? You have 60 seconds....
parsy, who wants you to know these response are time logged at FR....ready...steady.....GO!
(rolls eyes) Sad, really.
Hey! Glad you joined us. The natives are a little restless, if you know what I mean. I put a thorazine spell on the thread, and it will take a while to kick in. They had a bad night so I went ahead and dosed ‘em.
parsy, who can do stuff like this...
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.
