Posted on 01/03/2013 12:29:36 PM PST by butterdezillion
“I believe that early in his career, he spread the horsesh*t about being born in Kenya because that made him seem special, perhaps even got him financial assistance.”
Maybe but that wouldn’t explain the NY Times article from 1990 or the LA Times article from 1990 or the Chicago Tribune Article ftom 1990, they all say born in Hawaii. And of course there is his book in 1995 where he talked about the “remodeled hospital where I had been born”. In fact, if you complile all the articles (about a half a dozen or so) written about him between 1990 and 2000, the only I recall that says Kenya is the literary agent’s bio.
bttt
Sorry, but this is a presumption that simply isn't supported by any factual basis.
The reason we know that doc exists is that Alvin Onaka verified that it exists (and others in HI have verbally verified its existence).
This is circular logic. The existence of a birth record in the Hawaii files doesn't prove that Obama's PDF was NOT fabricated.
Two certified copies (meaning rubber stamped and embossed) were delivered to the WH in 2011 and xeroxes of those and those two certified copies were passed around and inspected by reporters (some of whom were admittedly clueless).
Sorry, but this is a bait and switch. We were told that two certified copies were delivered to the White House. The printouts given to the press are NOT necessarily the same document that was delivered to the White House.
No actual birther experts were allowed to inspect these unfortunately.
No, actually no LEGAL experts were allowed to inspect these documents. That's the problem.
Anyway, one of the certified copies was scanned into a computer in the WH by some foolish flunky who believes in playing birther conspiracy mongering. That is not surprising considering the juvenile types they employ. They took the scan into photoshop or some other program (it hardly matters at all) and played around, then exported as a PDF.
Or maybe some one with more expertise used the documents from Hawaii to build a legitimate looking long-form birth certificate. One thing that is curious is that Obama's press secretary said that Obama wasn't even allowed to handle either of the two hard copies delivered by his legal counsel from Hawaii. A nice way to give him plausible deniability in case the LMSM was smart enough to recognize that forgery had taken place.
The provenance is that the original 1961 doc in hawaii was xeroxed from the book onto green hashed paper. It was stamped and signed by Onaka and sealed (embossed). It was delivered to the WH and scanned. The scan was doodled around with. Could it have been substantively altered in that step? Sure. Who knows, who cares because the original exists. Then that was exported to PDF and posted on the WH web site.
Again this is all baseless speculation. One thing we do know is that the PDF lacks the embossed seal as required by law in Hawaii. A copy of that seal is on the MDEC letter of verification, but none of Obama's alleged birth certificates have one. Thus, they are not legitimate, just like the person himself.br
No, my explanation fits the evidence. You are completely incorrect about the seal. The WH PDF has the seal, although faint as would be expected from a scanner.
No, it presumes that you have all the evidence, but we don't. Obama has NEVER submitted the two hard copies of the documents from the state of Hawaii for ANYONE'S inspection. Until that happens, we simply don't know what the PDF represents ... except for a fabricate electronic document that lacks the required raised seal.
You are completely incorrect about the seal. The WH PDF has the seal, although faint as would be expected from a scanner.
Look at the MDEC letter. It was scanned and the seal is very clear and very legible. A proper seal would not be "faint." Second, the seal includes specific elements that are required by law and described at the HI DOH website. These things do NOT exist on the PDF or the document photographed by newsbabe Savannah Guthrie.
I’ve never said Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality or Certificate of Naturalization were available to the public. As a matter of fact, they are secure and protected by the Privacy Act. It would be a Federal Crime to make it available to the public without Obama’s expressed, written waiver of his privacy rights or a Federal subpoena.
Also, it is a Federal crime to demand, encourage or conspire with someone to make Obama’s documents protected by the Privacy Act to be made public without Obama’s expressed, written waiver of his privacy rights.
You should try directing your anger at Obama. He could fill out a one page document to waive his privacy rights, much the same way he did when he went public with his HI COLB, and publish his Certificate of Loss of Nationality and Certificate of Naturalization.
I think you should rethink your cause. You think Obama’s HI COLB is a forgery and the State of Hawaii Registrar is assisting him in the fraud. Yet, you continue to go the fraudsters and demand an admission. If he doesn’t have a valid BC, then he is an immigrant to the US. Why don’t you demand Obama make his INS file public? It’s a similar process to obtaining a copy of his BC ... fill out a one page document requesting a copy and waiving his right to privacy along with a small fee.
And then you want Congress to object to Obama’s qualifications on his citizenship status after Mario Apuzzo and several others pointed out Congress does not have Constitutional authority to challenge someone’s natural born citizenship status. Mario wrote his blog post on the lack of Constitutional Authority of Congress to question anyone’s natural born citizenship status over a year ago.
Don’t get mad at me for pointing out the obvious. If you want proof Obama is ineligible, then you should start with obtaining his permission to publish his INS documents or a subpoena for the INS documents. Or you can demand Onaka admit he’s complicit in a fraud and post the real Obama BC.
HRS Chapter 91 deals with rules. You can look through it all, starting at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol02_Ch0046-0115/HRS0091/HRS_0091-.htm Some excerpts:
” §91-1 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter:.....
(4) “Rule” means each agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency. The term does not include regulations concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights of or procedures available to the public, nor does the term include declaratory rulings issued pursuant to section 91-8, nor intra-agency memoranda.”
So when it talks about “rules” it is talking about policies, practices, and procedures. Like whether “additional information” has to be on a different piece of paper than the actual application. If that is a requirement then it is a rule. (See also the last case note at the end of this next part - showing that policies are “rules”, subject to the public notification section):
Ҥ91-2 Public information. (a) In addition to other rulemaking requirements imposed by law, each agency shall:
(1) Adopt as a rule a description of the methods whereby the public may obtain information or make submittals or requests.
(2) Adopt rules of practice, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, and including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency.
(3) Make available for public inspection all rules and written statements of policy or interpretation formulated, adopted, or used by the agency in the discharge of its functions.
(4) Make available for public inspection all final opinions and orders.
(b) No agency rule, order, or opinion shall be valid or effective against any person or party, nor may it be invoked by the agency for any purpose, until it has been published or made available for public inspection as herein required, except where a person has actual knowledge thereof.
(c) Nothing in this section shall affect the confidentiality of records as provided by statute. [L 1961, c 103, §2; Supp, §6C-2; HRS §91-2]
Case Notes
“Actual knowledge” referred to in section cannot give effect to rules not adopted in conformity with §91-3 and §91-4. 55 H. 478, 522 P.2d 1255.
Planning and permitting department’s policy of refusing to publicly disclose developer’s engineering reports prior to their approval constituted a “rule”; as this policy was not “published or made available for public inspection” nor did plaintiff have actual knowledge of the policy prior to its initial request for the reports, department did not comply with this chapter and was proscribed from invoking this policy; thus, department violated this chapter by refusing to publicly disclose any unaccepted engineering reports and written comments, and all of its files, including developer’s file, were public records that could be examined upon request. 119 H. 90, 194 P.3d 531.
Cited: 904 F. Supp. 1098.”
“§91-4 Filing and taking effect of rules. (a) Each agency adopting, amending, or repealing a rule, upon approval thereof by the governor or the mayor of the county, shall file forthwith certified copies thereof with the lieutenant governor in the case of the State, or with the clerk of the county in the case of a county. In addition, the clerks of all of the counties shall file forthwith certified copies thereof with the lieutenant governor. A permanent register of the rules, open to public inspection, shall be kept by the lieutenant governor and the clerks of the counties.”
If there is such a rule regarding requests for “addtional information” to be verified being on a paper other than the application/request, then it had to be posted with the lieutenant governor (who has all the rules accessible through his website). This is a Vital Records Office issue, and what the lt gov has on his site is “Public Health Regulations” and chapters dealing with foreign adoption. Nothing published about “additional information” having to be submitted on a different paper than the request/application form. As shown above, if it’s not published somewhere it cannot be in effect and cannot be invoked as policy.
I believe it’s the last page in this copy of the MDEC’s motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz
“What would prohibit a Congressman from filing a lawsuit or having standing?”
Mario can explain it better than me.
Congress or members of Congress do not have the Constitutional Authority to make determinations or challenge anyone on their natural born citizenship status.
These are certainly indications that Obama was a pathological liar. In one of those stories, it’s claimed that his father was “Oxford-educated” and there seems to be no evidence that Barack Sr. ever went to Oxford. One of those articles says his mother remarried when he was 2 and they then moved to Indonesia. The thing with the literary agent is that such bios are prepared from material supplied by the subject of the bio. That’s the standard procedure. A newspaper article may be based on multiple sources, but a P.R. bio is based on a CV or a bio submitted by the person himself.
Ummm, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Legislative authority has nothing to do with an individuals right to sue or whether he or she has legal standing.
To see how “faint” we can expect a scanned HDOH seal to be, look at the scanned seal on MDEC’s verification at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg
To see how faint the Obama people themselves claim a SCAN OF A PHOTO of a seal on the exact same kind of paper (and the exact same seal as is on the White House image) would be...... look at http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/items/barackobama_birth6.jpg
A little perspective is helpful.
Keep in mind, also, that the HHS Inspector General issued a report saying that a vague seal by itself is reason enough to legally require ALL the identity documents for that person to be audited before accepting the claims on any of those documents.
The question is whether individual members of Congress would have standing to ask the JUDICIARY to determine Obama’s birth facts, given that Hawaii has already disclosed that they can’t do it, and only someone in the judiciary can at this point.
I make it a point not to go to Orly’s website and I’m not particularly concerned about how “weak” the seal looks in Orly’s version. What you need to be concerned about is how “weak” the seal is in Obama’s PDF and the msnbc photo. There’s a reason why it doesn’t show up.
The seal in the photo doesn’t match the style of the seal on the MDEC letter. The HI DOH has a legal description of what that raised seal is supposed to look like. The photo doesn’t match. It’s not a legal raised seal. “Shadows” are irrelevant.
It's odd that instead you go to a scribd document that was uploaded by a raging leftist who writes for thinkprogress. I think you need to choose your sources a little more carefully.
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.
