DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

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".

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.

“Hawaii is knee-deep in people who know the whole Obama history,” she said.

________________

“Lingle tells Brokaw: no one in Hawaii knew Obama” (September 4, 2008, link)

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and spent part of his early childhood years here.

But during an interview with Tom Brokaw Thursday, Governor Linda Lingle said that doesn’t mean that everyone in the state is familiar with him, or his policies.

BROKAW: You’re running against Barack Obama who has real roots in Hawaii, spent his summer break there. His granny is there. It’s going to be tougher for the Republicans isn’t it?

LINGLE: It will be tougher. Hawaii is a small state, they are very proud of anyone from home that does well, but honestly Tom, not too many people in Hawaii had heard of Barack Obama until he ran for president. Because as you know, as he was born there, he spent a very few years in school but they are very partial to people who were born in our home state. However, Senator McCain has tremendous ties to Hawaii. His father headed Pacific Command and of course Senator McCain met his wife Cindy on Waikiki Beach in Hawaii...

In her own interview Tuesday with FCN, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said she found that amusing on more than one level—including the fact that Obama never voted in Hawaii, never owned a business there, but spent time in school there.

“Most people in Hawaii had never heard of him until he ran for president, so I was amused on that level,” she said

“Abercrombie to Lingle: don’t disparage Obama’s Hawaii ties” (October 18, 2008

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?S=8955821

EPIC FAIL!

You are still failing basic reading comprehension.

Since I can see that you will never figure this out on your own, let me help you out:

I threw the Dred Scott decision out there because that is how stupid you After-Birthers sound when you keep throwing out the Kim Wong Ark decision in an attempt to prove something that has nothing to do with the actual INTENT of the Founding Fathers. Just like Dred Scott, Kim Wong Ark doesn’t matter in this context.

Let me elaborate:

I DON’T CARE what case you or anyone else is using to justify whatever you wish to believe. Nor do I really care whether Vattel’s definition or Blackhole’s definition was floating around in the heads of the Founding Fathers when writing that the President should be a Natural-Born Citizen.

I am a Constitutional Disciple. I CARE about the INTENT of the words Our Founding Fathers used when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

The INTENT of the Natural-Born Citizen requirement was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to assure that the Office of President was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S.

This is VERIFIABLE FACT. I am sure you have come across a statement by one of Our Founding Fathers, Charles Pinckney: “...and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”

——****——

In St. George Tucker’s Treatise on the Constitution (1803), St. George Tucker wrote:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague....”

——****——

President George Washington said in his farewell address:

“Passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils...Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

“And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”

-——****-——

Obama freely admits on his official campaign website that he was born with dual-citizenship.

In and of itself, being born with dual-citizenship brings into question a possible violation of the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

However, as you would most certainly agree with me here, dual-citizenship at birth vs. the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers is certainly open for debate.

You see, being born with dual-citizenship only becomes a major problem when that person begins to show split allegiances between the United States and the nation of his/her other citizenship.

Since Obama has certainly shown his allegiances to Kenya by actively participating in the affairs of the Kenyan political process when he went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga without direct orders from the United States government to do so, he has demonstrated his split-allegiances and is most definitely in violation of the INTENT of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, it’s getting late).

Therefore, I am of the opinion that since Obama has violated the INTENT of a Natural Born Citizen requirement, Obama is no longer a true, Natural Born Citizen (if he ever was).

In conclusion, it doesn’t matter which Supreme Court case one decides to cite in an attempt to define the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen.” Nor does the 14th Amendment in anyway change Our Founding Fathers’ INTENT when they wrote the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President.

To endlessly cite any SCOTUS decision as the word of law on this particular subject, ad nauseam, is just a waste of time and detracts from the one thing that matters most: The INTENT of the law.

Cheers

Taking a closer look at that Indiana court decision.

Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156

These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that is irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien.

You've got to be kidding me Parsy if you think this Indiana court case, you love to post, could really stand up to any scrutiny. These guys threw ink to paper just to sweep this case under the rug. If I can shoot holes in it from the early hours in the morning think of what a good team would do with it. It is pure folly barely worth the paper it's written on.

Re: No, we are addressing the meaning of a term...Only an amendment...

Your post makes my point. You want a law, but that would make anyone under that law a “statutory” citizen.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature). A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship.

That's the point. A “natural born” citizen just is.

When Barack Obama was born of a Kenyan parent, his birthright, should he have chosen, was to affirm his Kenyan citizenship. He had a choice under the statutes (laws) of both the US and Kenya.

When John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama his birthright gave him a choice to affirm, should he choose, a Panamanian citizenship. He had a choice under the laws of both countries.

When Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, of parents who were American citizens (also born in Illinois), he was “at birth” a “natural born” citizen. he had NO choices.

Have you ever read Wong? If so, you should know the answer. I don’t think you have enough grasp of Wong, or you would not be asking this question. But I am tired of doing your homework for you.

YOU write something intelligent for a change. If YOU think Wong has some deficiencies, then YOU provide something more than a bald assertion that “Wong has problems.” YOU obviously have a key board. YOU know how to type. So YOU tell me, and the other people on this thread, what it is those acts did and why YOU think Wong failed to address whatever concern YOU think Wong has.

I realize this will require much more mental activity than simply posting cutsie pictures, and making snide comments. Are YOU up to the task?

Jump on out there big boy, and do provide something useful. And, FWIW, snide comments are fun. I do them sometimes. But I also ain’t afraid to analyze a case and lay it out there. Why don’t YOU grow a set and try it on? It’s fun. It is OKAY to poke fun, but you should mix some intelligent discourse in so it is not just a Three Stooges pie throwing episode.

And, something else YOU can do. Get with the other Birther Kiddies, and snipers, and try to earn your Junior Perry Mason Merit Badge. Here’s how YOU can do it.

Take all the crap that you Birthers think you have and set it forth in a logical fashion. If YOU want someone to agree with YOU, then YOU ought to do the courtesy of making it easy to understand. You should not expect other people to do your thinking for YOU and somehow just sort of translate your arguments from Birtherese (which appears to be a subset of primal screams and irrational sobbing mixed with a healthy dose of maniacal blather) to English.

Or, are YOU really so clueless that you think if the Birther issue ever makes it to court, that having a mob of people shouting “Obama’s A LIar” is going to pass for a legal argument.

Now, if YOU don’t understand what I am telling YOU here, then read it a few times until it sinks in.

parsy, who says YOU ought to be ashamed at your lack of intelligent discourse.

A mom sees her child with chocolate on his face. He swears he didn’t eat the candy bar. But his fists are closed tight and nothing short of an act of God will get him to show what’s in his hand.

Because the mom can’t nail him down with proof means he’s innocent, right?

Your claims that there is no evidence looks to the rest of us (if I dare speak for others) as if you are doing your level best to make sure that the people asking the logical questions get interrogated rather than the person who is hiding behind technicalities.

Now I’ve shown that the hiding that’s been done is not even TECHNICALLY correct - a fact we’ve only been able to find out because “vexatious requestors” were able to pester Fukino into posting the rules that should have been posted all along.

This is like the child’s buddy hovering around the kid to keep everybody from looking closer, and blinding the mom so she can’t see that the kid has chocolate on his face.

Of course concerned citizens are frustrated. I don’t see any of them going and shooting people though, so they’re better than the Obot professor. And I don’t see them threatening to steal somebody’s FCC license and/or inflict harm to anyone’s life or family if they report anything. So that makes them better than Obama’s lawyers.

As for credibility, some of this stuff is just plain complicated at best, and we’ve got the legitimate sources hiding behind the shield of laws supposedly prohibiting disclosure but using illegal disclosures as a sword to try to cut down people who want legally-binding, accountable answers. Plus Obama’s got paid disinformation artists a la Axelrod. And because the state-run media AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA have all been threatened into silence, we only have stuff like blogs to try to get the accurate information out.

It’s definitely a David v Goliath scenario. If Goliath wants to moan about what color the rock in David’s sling is, fine. But I think most normal people can see what’s going on here. When they get exposure to the facts. That’s why this issue is growing in visibility rather than fading away.

Gamaliel once counseled the Jews regarding those pesky Christians. He reminded them of all the people who claimed to be something but once they were dead the movement fizzled out. He said, “Therefore in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

The truth has a way of eventually being heard. All the powers-that-be are against any scrutiny of Obama’s origins but in spite of all the ridicule, scrubbing the internet, threatening the media, judges saying the case was already decided on Twitter, etc... the issue still grows. It does so because Obama and his minions have fought so hard rather than just coming up with the documentation like any of us little peons have to do every day.

The emperor is naked. I’m a little kid who doesn’t care if people say that my statement shows that I’m stupid. I can see what’s in front of my eyes and so can everybody else. The con artists who sold the magic clothes to the Emperor have told everyone that they’re stupid if they can’t see the clothes, and everybody who wants to be “credible” is afraid to say what we all see because then the con artists will call them stupid.

But I’m a little kid. I don’t care one whit for what the “credible” con artists have sold the world. The emperor is naked. I’ve posted the evidence of the con artists’ work AND the evidence that the “clothes” that Hawaii says they have for Obama don’t give him legal cover for anything, since it’s not prima facie evidence. Obama’s little tush is sticking out for the whole world to see, if only the world stops caring whether they will be called “stupid” for saying so.

Race Bannock is a long-time, well-respected poster at FR. He posted an account of a conversation he had with a guy who in retrospect had to have been Obama, who said he had lived in Indonesia, was born in Mombasa, and wanted to be president someday. The reason Race knows he’s remembering correctly is the Mombasa connection. Race had been in Mombasa not long before and had considered trying to find the guy again to show him the pictures of his birthplace.

The original story he wrote is at:

http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980/#comment-567

The thread about it here is at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2397370/posts

And a news report at
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Feb06/0,4675,ObamaHawaiianRoots,00.html corroborates the possibility of the encounter Race describes on a military base, saying:

“As a teenager, Obama went to parties and sometimes sought out gatherings on military bases or at the University of Hawaii that were mostly attended by blacks. He wrote in his book that he tried drugs and let his grades slip in his final years of high school.”

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.