Posted on 03/01/2012 1:50:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
I just finished Watching Sheriff Arpaio's press conference. The Sheriff's posse has concluded that the document was created on a computer and is therefore a forgery.
I will once again point out that if Obama was adopted, he would get a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate, but it will in fact have been created by the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii at the Direction of an Hawaiian State Judge.
"The Obama was Adopted" theory addresses the "forgery" issue head on, and precludes it from being a crime. In my opinion, this is the simplest explanation for the fact that Obama's document looks cobbled together, and that Hawaii is tacitly confirming it as legitimate.
I will further add, (for those who have not already been so informed) that *I* was adopted, and *I* have a birth certificate which was created six years after I was born, and is in fact a replacement birth certificate that lists my new last name, new parent's names, etc.
This theory ties up a lot of the loose ends neatly (not all of them) and it doesn't involve believing that the Hawaiian government is involved in a criminal "conspiracy." I urge people to consider this idea before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved with producing this document has committed a criminal act.
what might that mean...a true copy or an abstract...only the sheriff knows where the computer is located that this traversty came from, and I'm not going to be surprised if it turns out to be at the DOH in Hawaii. Now THAT would make it a legal forgery, wouldn't it? (sarc)
October 2008:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
“...have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Basically - “we have records.” But does not say - “born in Hawaii”. So at this point NO ONE from Hawaii - including Brian Schatz, head of Hawaii Democratic Party - had declared Obama born there. I point that Brian Schatz did not because legally he was supposed to - when Obama/Biden ticket is put on the ballot. But he removed standard wording when it was done - thus forcing Ms. Pelosi to submit the statement that the ticket met constitutional eligibility requirements.
Fast forward to July 27, 2009:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5193422-503544.html
“Some Republicans have been dancing around birther issue, refusing to state flatly that the president is a U.S. citizen.”
“”They can vote for the measure, and endorse the idea that Obama was born in Hawaii, which could earn the wrath of birthers. Or they can vote against commemorating the 50th state’s joining of our blessed Union. Or GOPers can skip the vote, but that could look nutty.””
“Fifty-five members did not vote – but don’t read too much into that, as 35 of them were Democrats. “
So Abercrombie used Hawaii’s 50th statehood anniversery to put the government on the record - FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME - that Obama WAS born in Hawaii. They threatened ridicule on anyone not supporting it. 55 abstained - over half of those were Democrats.
LATER THAT SAME DAY
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
“...have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.”
She makes this statement in a press release out of the apparent blue. It was not in response to anything. It is just a released statement. But the statement still leaves wiggle room. It says ‘the vital records say he was born in Hawaii...’. I bet they do! Manipulated vital records can say almost anything. As they do in adoption documents. She does NOT personally claim Obama was born in Hawaii. She relies on ‘the vital record’ to make that statement. So even in July of 2009 no one PERSONALLY has yet vouched for Obama being born there.
Two days later Janice Okubo issues this email in response to one received about the July 27, 2009 statement:
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Mark Bennett has refused to substantiate this claim by Okubo.
And remember Abercrombie. Becomes governor and is going to clear all this up. Weeks later he can not find it and gives up.
No one in Hawaii has PERSONALLY vouched for Obama being born there. Okubo and Fukino may have crossed the line and would like face a jury before anyone else. But everyone else has their “get our of jail” excuse ready. No pun intended.
*******
Obama could quickly put a stop to this Connecticut controversy by simply getting a copy of his original Social Security application form and showing it to the public like he showed his Hawaii long form birth certificate to the public back in April 2011.
According to the Social Security site, anyone can quickly and easily get a copy of his own Social Security application by simply requesting a copy and paying a small fee.
yea can’t make up a copy today today .
FFS
Ever wondered why the man will not just show the damn thing?
Even when judge rules he will not show it nor will he show his many [past records but of course the idiots out there who are so stupid who cannot think for themselves will sit there being told what to think and the lunatics on the fringe of the left will try and silence folks by making fun of them, don’;t you agree on that?
“1. Indonesian law seems to make adoption of children under five automatic.”
This is interesting because of the constant incorrect claim that SAD and Soetoro where married in 1967. That was ‘the line’ (and still is mostly). This blatantly incorrect date was obviously feed to the media time and time again. No attempt to correct it appears to have been made.
1967 makes Obama 6 years old.
1865 makes the date 3 or 4 years old. Thus the automatic adoption kicks in.
Also, one of the very few ways to annul this is for the birth father to ‘reclaim’ the adopted child. And in 1971 that is likely why Obama Senior was needed in Hawaii.
It is reported that he stayed in an apartment in the same building as the Dunhams and that they paid for that and his travel while he was there. He basically was the Dunhams guest on that trip.
It does feel like we are dealing with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!
The document went from physical to electronic to physical then to electronic.
It started out physical, bound into a book in the Hawaii DoH's records storage room. They took the book down off the shelf, opened it to Obama's page, and pressed it onto the copier glass. Then it went electronic as the copier scanned it and back to physical as the copier printed the copy (actually two copies were made, if memory serves).
Then they stamped and dated the copies with Dr Onaka's official stamp and turned them over to Obama's lawyer, who hand-carried them back to the White House.
At the White House, they scanned one or both of the copies back into electronic form and gave the PDF out to the press.
So, the question is, at what point did the forgery take place, if it took place? And with what purpose?
Remember, the original is still in the book on the shelf at the Hawaii DoH. If the electronic document the White House put out has any substantive discrepancies (facts, not pixels, that is) vs the document in the book, then the Hawaii DoH ought to be blowing the whistle! Unless they are in on it, which would be huge. But in that case no WH forgery would have been needed.
What happened with this document could only happen if someone took an image, scanned it to a computer, and then digitally altered it. It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.
If you’ll take a look at Barry Soetoro’s St. Francis Assisi School record, then you’ll notice Barry was born in Honolulu, HI and identified as an Indonesian National.
How is it Barry Soetoro could renounce his U.S. citizenship and Barack Obama could not?
St. Francis Assisi School of Djakarta, Indonesia is operated by St. Francis Assisi Foundation of Connecticut, U.S.A.
Are all these coincidences clerical errors?
There are some ‘funny’ people where you is...did you hear the one at the sheriff presser who asked ‘WHAT’S YOUR MOTIVE’?
Whichever the cawe, “none so blind as he who does not wish to see” fits.
How is it Barry Soetoro could renounce his U.S. citizenship and Barack Obama could not?
So? Priests and nuns can screw up a nationality, especially if they are ignorant furriners. Lolo probably told them the kid was Indonesian. He may even have believed it. But under the 14th, little Barry was an American, and minors can't renounce their citizenship, nor can their parents do it for them. So, the Catholic school record just proves he was there and reinforces that he was born in the USA. IOW, it damages the birther case; it doesn't bolster it.
St. Francis Assisi School of Djakarta, Indonesia is operated by St. Francis Assisi Foundation of Connecticut, U.S.A.
So what.
Are all these coincidences clerical errors?
No, but your obsession with them is a sign of mental illness.
That would mean the alteration would have had to have been done by the WH, and the State of Hawaii is party to the crime by tacitly validating it (failing to blow the whistle).
Pretty neat if the Sheriff can prove that! He'd have to persuade a court with proper jurisdiction to subpoena the Hawaii original and call the Hawaii officials as witnesses. And, of course, the evidence, once dragged into court, would have to prove the case. Maybe if he can get Arizona to deny Zero ballot access, he can bump the case into federal court and persuade a judge to do the above. Don't hold your breath.
Under U.S. law, a minor child born in the U.S. cannot renounce his U.S. citizenship until he reaches his majority.
As Lolo Soetoro's adopted son, young Barry became an Indonesian national (in the eyes of Indonesia) -- but he did not lose his right to declare for U.S. citizenship upon reaching his majority.
an adopted child should not run for President.
Too much baggage.
I think your analysis is good.
The problem is that Obama has presented a false story. He presented this pile of garbage as an original document. He needed to to keep looking eligible.
The postal stamp on his elective Service is a big problem. It's my understanding that you can't get a job in government without signing up.
Obama did live as an Indonesian citizen. You cant live as a foreign citizen and then become president of the United States... Legally. And you can't undo the fact that he has sworn allegiance to Indonesia, just as we were swearing allegiance to the united states when we were children.
Agreed. Or documents are morphing to fit the desired reality due to a higher power - whether lawyers or someone from the future, it isn’t sure.
I’d rather focus on the Obamanation’s unconstitutional acts than his birth. He’s violated the Constitution, acts don’t stand, annul and continue with life.
God help us, though, I worry about the timing of Andrew Beitbart’s death compared to his planned release of Obama video from college.
Whatever happens, the conspiracy theories on Obama will certainly rival those with Clinton, probably more so.
If you’ll look at Stanley Ann’s passport renewal form, 1968, then you’ll see she wrote and struck out the Obama’s name. The instructions on the renewal form clearly indicate a person listed on the original passport who has naturalized in a foreign state is to have their name written and struck out.
It’s proof Obama’s mother was notifying the U.S. State Department that Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) is to be taken off her renewed passport because he has naturalized with a foreign state.
The instructions for striking out a name because they have naturalized in a foreign state are clearly indicated in the declaration above Stanley Ann’s signature. Most Obots choose to ignore this incriminating fact.
Makes no difference, Sven.
The mother cannot renounce the citizenship of a minor child born in the USA. Nor can the father...or anybody else.
Only the minor child can, once he reaches his majority.
lj what is the “Auntie” thread? Link please and ty.
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.