Posted on 05/05/2011 5:22:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
On April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama held a press conference following the release of what he claimed is a copy of his long-form birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.
The image does not appear to contain an embossed seal, just as that of the “Certification of Live Birth” released on the internet in June 2008 lacked that sign of authentication. The registration number of the short-form document had also been blacked out, which, according to the statement on the bottom of the form, “invalidated the certificate.”
Obama himself claimed that the short-form certification was his “official birth certificate,” which could not have been true, given that he released something more detailed on April 27. However, many had already labeled it a forgery.
Upon releasing the image in June 2008, the Daily KOS stated, “In any case, here is Obama’s birth certificate.” However, that claim was disproved by the more detailed long-form birth certificates released by Eleanor Nordyke, whose twin girls were born a day after Obama’s alleged birth at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
One similarity between the Certification of Live Birth and the image posted last Wednesday is that neither bears an embossed seal. However, the birth certificates released by Mrs. Nordyke do, in the bottom-middle section between the signatures of the Director of Health and the Registrar General.
The U.S. State Department has strict requirements for those applying for U.S. passports, which the images Obama has claimed are his “birth certificates” do not meet because they lack an official seal. How, then, can these images be considered proof of anything? Why would they not have contained a seal from the state of Hawaii?
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
How about you citing it ~ not just “quoting a pertinent part” ~ so that we can go to the Hawaian regulations directly and see if that’s still current.
If that is true, I'm 99.99% sure she is misrepresenting her obligations. Confidentiality requirements would probably prevent her from saying what was wrong with a particular BC, or from responding to "probing" attacks (e.g. if shown a bunch of BCs that were identical except for certain bits of information, identifying which one had the right information). On the other hand, when the person who is the subject of a BC puts out what he claims to be an accurate representation thereof, she could challenge the authenticity of the alleged BC without revealing anything meaningful about the information thereon.
Actually, the right approach for the state certifying anything would be to allow a means by which people can request that a BC be made directly available to any specified person or persons, so that those persons could request an electronic or physical copy directly from the state. That would eliminate any possibility of tampering.
I would think she actually has a RESPONSIBILITY to report a known forgery to law enforcement. To fail to report a felony is misprision of that felony, as I understand it - which is itself a felony.
But her saying what she did tells us clearly that we can’t count on her to publicly call Obama’s forgery what it is. Members of Congress and most of the public - myself included, until my research showed me otherwise - assumed that if a forgery was presented, the HDOH would have said something to disown the forgery. But they’ve already told us they never would.
So if we’re thinking we’re safe because that alarm hasn’t sounded, we would do well to know that the batteries are removed from that alarm and it is deader than a doornail. The absence of an alarm from the HDOH tells us nothing.
However, their law-breaking in a multitude of ways in order to cover for Obama DOES tell us something, IMHO. It tells us that they will not only fail to alert us to forgeries (as Okubo openly admitted with her response), they will also actively COVER UP forgeries.
Yes, I quoted it to him already, with links IIRC. HRS 338-13, HRS 338-18, “Public Health Regulations” Chapter 8b, and Chapter 117 “Rules of Practice and Procedure”.
Not that it’ll change what he says or anything...
Suppose, hypothetically, that you had absolute proof that Obama was not born in the U.S. or had formally renounced his citizenship, but such proof was not in any form that could be shown to anyone else. What would be the proper thing for you to do about it? Regardless of whether Obama is factually eligible for the presidency, I would think one's energies would at this point be much better spent on getting him kicked out for stuff that can be proven (I think GunWalker would be a clear basis for impeachment, e.g. given that Obama has, before and since, tried to politically profit by it in his demands for records of rifle sales).
I don’t think the HDOH has ever said that either of his forgeries is an accurate representation of what they have. There was an article by Isikoff which had some Obama campaign person saying that Obama requested his BC in 2007 and that had Fukino saying they have a record for Obama, but the whole thing was very careful to never have Fukino say that they ever sent Obama anything or that what Obama posted was from them.
Lots and lots of wiggle room, and no direct quotes. When asked directly by Politifact, Okubo was quoted as saying that she could not say what the online image represents.
And that’s what we’ve had in everything: side-by-side claims intended to deceive people into believing that the HDOH has confirmed the online postings as genuine, when in reality it is a careful conglomeration of different sources - very few of them named and/or directly quoted.
“There is no way a cover letter would work to certify anything, unless the chain of provenance was unbroken. IOW, if the HDOH sent directly to a judge a cover letter saying that what was in the envelope was certified, then the cover letter could have meaning. That’s how it works with academic transcripts and such. But unless a person documents exactly what comes out of that envelope, a certifying cover letter would only be a signed blank check. I can’t see any court in the country accepting anything that way. That’s why certified records have to have a seal.”
It is frustrating as hell that now that Obama released this long form, even conservatives and FReepers are falling prey to the Alinsky tactic of going along with the mainstream and mocking people trying to determine the truth.
Fact: Obama never claimed once by word or deed that the original COLB was his or legit.
Fact: he had attorneys fight for years against having to show a BC. He even let a good military officer go to jail over it.
The above two facts allowed a lot of suspicion about why this President, the most international of any other, would wish to deny or hide his origins.
Fact: when the public was pushing this issue into critical mass, he shows up with a long form BC.
Fact: there are some very weird things about this long form, like no official seal, different fonts within the same word, etc. Nothing that proves it was a forgery, but things that prove it isn’t pure or original.
Fact: relatively no one cares that this long form has problems. On the left or the right, the chant is that “birthers will never be satisfied.”. Obviously an Alinsky tactic to mock anyone who says this suspicious document isn’t quite the answer to all questions.
For two years we knew that there was a good chance thT Obama could put out a fake and make everyone happy, because the Hawaiian officials have been proven to support the President to the point of obfuscating and breaking laws.
I do not care where Obama was born; if he was born in Hawaii, so be it.
But any conservatives mocking the good people who have demonstrated that there are things wrong, big things wrong, with Obama’s holy long form, are sucked in to Obama’s Alinsky Job. Their priority is to mock, rather than to discover the truth.
Maybe we will all be reading the fascinating truth in 2053 in the detailed historical book, and forgetting how many of us went along with the media back in 2011, um, if we live so long.
Here’s a BC# 151-1961-010637.
The 151 is pre-printed. It is a code for a birth record. For late birth certificates the preprinted number is L151, as evidenced by a blank copy of a late BC that I got directly from the HDOH via a UIPA request.
The next number is the year of issue - or, as the HDOH Administrative Rules refer to it, the “volume number”. Before the Y2K issue that was a 2-digit number (61 - as the Nordyke long-forms show); now it is 4-digit (1961 - as shown on both of the Obama forgeries and on other COLB/BC’s printed since 2000).
When I refer to the BC# I refer to the last of those 3 hyphenated numbers because that is the number that changes with each different BC.
The current CDC-recommended birth certificate says that the number is supposed to have 6 digits and have leading 0’s to fill in digits not yet reached in the sequential numbering. (So the first # would be 000001). When I refer to the numbers I usually leave off the leading zeroes just to make it easier to immediately see what number the BC is.
If you think I would spout off about this stuff without even knowing what those numbers represent then you have obviously never read any of my work, which seems like a lazy man’s way to check out my claims.
But thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had forgotten that some people may not know this yet. It’s been so long since that issue was first raised and answered that I had forgotten all about it.
I already did that in post 46 of this thread. In a post specificially to you I gave the specific citations and a link to a blog post of mine which has clickable links to all the original legal sources.
Why are you still asking for what you’ve already been given? It’s tiresome and makes it appear that you’ve got an argument when the point has already been documented. IOW, it OBFUSCATES. Why would you want to obfuscate on facts already substantiated?
I can’t do anything about Gunwalker.
I CAN work to see states pass laws that would allow normal people to challenge presidential eligibility so we can have the legal evidentiary processes find out the facts rather than housewives having to put aside most of their normal life in order to expose the lawless government, media, law enforcement, and courts.
At this point I have no way to prove where Obama was born. But we already have proof that he has blatantly committed the crime of forgery - and it is that crime that the “birthers” are largely wanting investigated and prosecuted.
Why should I stop pressing to have that crime investigated and prosecuted? Obama could never have done Gunwalker if he hadn’t first committed the crime of forgery. If that crime had been investigated Gunwalker would never have happened - nor any of the illegal garbage Obama has done since being allowed to illegally inhabit the White House.
The root source of all the lawlessness we see in so many different areas of this administration and government agencies is the lawlessness that put Obama in the White House. If we’re afraid to cut this lawlessness off at the root, then we’re just hacking off one branch to have another grow in its place.
Either we’re serious about reclaiming the rule of law, or we’re not. And if we’re not, this country is history, because the enemies of this country are knocking down foundations at break-neck speed; they are not one bit afraid of our timid, self-conscious requests for them to stop. If we don’t meet this wanton lawlessness with equal and opposite force, we will be annihilated by enemies who were more serious about their cause (tyrannical power “for our own good”) than we were serious about our cause (freedom and the rule of law).
“If we live so long” is the key there. These people are hell-bent on destroying this nation. If they succeed there will be none left to tell the real story of how they were able to do it.
I watched “Valkyrie” with my family Friday night. If Hitler had won, we today would never know those brave men and women as anything but traitors. They couldn’t tell us; they were dead.
The “Weather Underground” folks planned on exterminating 25 million people who would not allow themselves to be “re-educated”. Those are the Columbia University people that Ayers and Obama hung around with.
What we are fighting for right now is the chance for there to even BE history books that tell this chapter of history. Because if the enemies of America succeed, all that will be left is what the tyrants allow to remain. And they have always planned to exterminate the people who put them in power (so they can’t get disillusioned and fight) and the people who fought them. IOW, there will be nobody left who knows and can tell the truth; all that will be left is their own story line.
I was abed having my daily beauty rest.
You were simply overlooked.
BTW, your cites didn't grab my attention because, alas, you didn't provide a URL with them. That's always nice to do.
So, that's the record type? Hmm. That, by itself, raises some questions about how they actually "file" these dudes.
I asked the question about this because the RUBBER STAMP NUMBERS to the right of the preprinted number under the "FILE NUMBER" could mean all sorts of things ~ INCLUDING ~ the addition of that number to the image at the time the forms were photographed for use in a microfiche system.
No one was coming up with information about it that made any sense. At this time you think it's simply pre-printed but what about 1961?
Your work is appreciated, but we still need to take all the information we have and set it out sequentially in terms of what goes on in the Hospital with the baby, what goes on in the DOH as they both distribute and collect the forms, and finally a sequential array of what has happened to all of this as the system(s) have been brought up to date over the years.
NOTE: It's entirely possible that the Hawaiian BC system has been designed with the purpose in mind of allowing non-citizens to take over the identity of dead citizens (kid from overseas replacing dead kid in same family group in Hawaii) ~ I know of one case, and they have a reputation for playing with BCs there.
G-d forbid. Your post is too sad to contemplate. We must not let it happen. We are stronger than these pitiful fools.
Oh, and Happy Mother’s Day, Butter. :)
The BC forms have always been pre-printed with 151, based on the appearance of BC’s from way back. The year/volume# and serial number are assigned at the state registrar’s office.
The BC’s were all complete before they were microfilmed, so they had the number on it when they were microfilmed.
When the system switched to computerized records the information from the BC’s were entered into the database.
If you have evidence regarding the HDOH trading out the identity of a dead child to a foreign-born child for purposes of identity fraud, that would be an important thing to document. Particularly if it sheds light on the system and how this could be done. Was this done recently?
Happy Mother’s Day to you to, Yaelle, and the Lord protect the child you carry. Those times were always really scary for me because of what happened with our first child, but also so exciting. Life is a beautiful thing. I’ve always thought that children were the Lord’s way of saying the world should go on. =)
No doubt it still goes on in Hawaii ~ but the case I know of is a bit remote, but typical of the method.
Is that the sequence?
That would imply the "original document" has no seal, nor did the microfilm image, nor would a microfiche image, nor would a modern digital "image" stored on a DVD somewhere.
The "seal" would show up with a final end stage copy to be handed over to the customer paying for a copy.
Basically, that's it. Make a copy (or summary, in the case of the short form) of the record, stamp it with today's date, formally state that it is a true copy or, in the case of a short form, a true abstract, sign the statement and apply the seal. If a person requests their birth certificate multiple times, there will be different dates and possibly different registrar signatures. And possibly also different quality copies or a copy in one case and an abstract in another, all dependent on the procedures the given registry follows. But the only thing that matters is the original document.
Hopefully, the seal and signature will discourage forgery, but the ultimate authority is always what's on file at the registry. That's why forgery is only practical in situations where the original agency cannot be consulted, or at least not in time to keep the forger from getting away with whatever he's up to. When I was a kid, I had a forged draft card, made with a Polaroid print copier. Perfectly fine for buying booze, but all they'd have needed to do to catch me would have been to call the local draft board, LOL! Forgery is pointless if there is any possibility of asking the originating agency to authenticate the forgery.
Hawaii doesn't use microfilm or microfiche, as far as I've heard (maybe for backup). They keep the certificates in bound volumes. So, presumably, the procedure is find the aisle, shelf, and book covering 4 August 1961, turn to Obama's BC, xerox, and apply the certification (date, signature stamp, and seal).
Of course, as I pointed out above, now that we have the internet, strong cryptography, and SSL, there is no need. They should just put any requested documents on their website, and any person needing a birth certificate would then cite the URL instead of presenting a piece of paper, sealed or otherwise. The URL would be unforgeable and direct from the horse's mouth. No need for signatures or seals. That's all taken care of by the HTTPS protocol.
Thanks, sweetie. I am sure even Mother’s Day is made bitter sweet by the loss of your first child. No one should have to outlive their child.
(JUST A NOTE testing the size of the file number).
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.