Posted on 01/03/2013 12:29:36 PM PST by butterdezillion
I just found out that all the faxes I sent to the Republican members of Congress have been referred to just the 3 Congress-critters who represent me. I need everybody to contact your own Congress members and let them know that Hawaii registrar Alvin Onaka has certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is not legally valid.
Bennett asked Onaka to verify, among other things, that Obama, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. According to Hawaii law, Onaka has to verify any submitted information if he can certify that the birth actually happened that way. And though Onaka verified that the claims on the White House image are claimed on the record they've got, he did not verify the truth of any of those facts. The only lawful reason for that is if the record they have is not legally valid.
You can see the documentation for all this at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
Two other verifications (to MDEC and to KS SOS Kris Kobach) are also consistent with a non-valid record. Onaka has been willing to say that the claims that are actually on the White House image "match" the claims on the record but is NOT willing to say that the information is "identical" or that the White House image is a "true and accurate representation of the original record on file". His refusal to verify what he was specifically asked is his confirmation that those things are NOT true. It is NOT a true and accurate representation of the original record and the information in it is NOT identical to the information in the real record. IOW, the White House image is a forgery.
Which is what affidavits by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse commander, Mike Zullo, also say.
This fits with the 1960-64 birth index being altered to include non-valid records (which I've proven in an affidavit filed for a NE criminal case). And a bunch of other evidence too.
The long and short of it is this: Hawaii has officially certified that they cannot verify Obama's date of birth, city and island of birth, and parents' names. Those are critical to eligibility. With no legally-established birth facts, there is nobody who can certify that Obama is eligible, and every Official Certification of Nomination that Bob Bauer sent to the state SOS's to get Obama on the ballot are fraudulent at best.
IOW, every electoral vote that Obama got was the result of legally-acknowledged (by Hawaii) fraud.
We need the members of Congress to know that every electoral vote for Obama that they accept tomorrow is a vote to accept known criminal behavior.
Please help me get this word out to everybody, since the "machine" will only let me contact 3 people, and I've already done that. We need one Senator and one Representative to object to all the known-fraudulent electoral votes for Barack Obama.
Thanks for the update!
Thanks for the update!
"In matter of citizenship, Congress has under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, power only to make uniform the laws of naturalization. This power does not include the power to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” To grant Congress the sole or any authority to decide what a “natural born Citizen” is would also defeat the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate that it is the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 237 (1993). Indeed, Congress is constitutionally bound to follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning and application of the Constitution. "
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
In laymen's terms, the Congress does not have the authority to determine who is a Natural born citizen of the United States. Congress does not have the authority to define Natural born citizenship or declare anyone to be a Natural born citizen or declare any U.S. Citizen ineligible for Office of POTUS or VP.
Congressional resolutions on the determination of John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama II as a Natural born citizens were an opinion and not legislation.
The Constitution limits Congressional authority to writing legislation on immigration and naturalization. Once an immigrant becomes a U.S. Citizen, U.S. immigration laws cannot be applied to them because they are no longer an immigrant.
The Constitution grants the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch of Government authority to make a determination as to who is and who is not a Natural born citizen. The Judicial Branch of Government makes determinations on Natural born citizenship status through Court rulings and opinion.
The Executive Branch of Government makes determinations on Natural born citizenship status through issuance of a Certificate of Loss Nationality subject to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Consequently, only the Judicial Branch of Government has the authority to determine who is eligible for the Office of POTUS and VP.
Interesting. If I’m interpreting this correctly, Congress had no authority to declare John McCain a NBC, correct?
Congress does not have Constitutional authority to declare anyone NBC or write or interpret a definition of NBC. Nor does Congress have the Constitutional authority to declare any U.S. Citizen ineligible for the Office of POTUS or VP because of their Natural born citizenship status. Previous resolutions on the NBC status of McCain and Obama were opinion and are meaningless with respect to Constitutional authority.
Congress does have the Constitutional authority to investigate, call witnesses, put witnesses under oath, and subpoena documents to gather evidence of a U.S. Citizen’s Natural born status or lack thereof. But, the evidence can only be referred to the DOJ or a Special Prosecutor for adjudication in Federal Court.
If there is a referral of evidence to a prosecutor who files suit in Federal Court, then it will be the Judicial Branch of Government that makes a determination of NBC status. Only the Judicial Branch has the Constitutional authority to define, interpret or declare a U.S. Citizen NBC based on the evidence presented.
Onaka wasn’t the person making the deceiving public statements. He wasn’t the one who altered the 1960-64 birth index. Onaka has tried his level-best to stay out of this issue altogether; he’s been impossible to reach. I’ve requested stuff from him and heard nothing back. This was the first time Onaka personally was put on the witness stand, so to speak. And he was willing to contradict his own Director and show her up for a liar. That takes some guts. I was stunned that he actually did it. And when he stayed true to his guns THREE TIMES I knew there was no chance of anybody saying it was just a mistake or oversight.
The items from the request form are the only items that Onaka couldn’t possibly interpret as being requests to verify simply that those are CLAIMS on the birth certificate. Bennett’s wording allowed Onaka to interpret that as what was being requested to be verified on the letter Bennett sent, but the application is submitted in accordance with HRS 338-14.3, which specifically mentions that the existence of a birth certificate is to be verified and any other information that is to be submitted pertaining to the birth event.
And Onaka divided his verification into 2 sections - the one where he was verifying stuff from the application (where the only thing he actually verified was that they have a birth certificate) and then the section where he verifies that the claims are on the BC. He divides those sections by re-stating Obama’s name, even though that was not on Bennett’s list of additional items. That name was added to show that Onaka was starting a NEW section of verifications - the ones that simply verify that the claims are on the record.
And if you look at those claims, he is not just verifying that the content is the same content as is on the HDOH record. Dates can be formatted in a number of ways and still say the same thing (be the same “information”). But Onaka gave the information verbatim from the BC. What Bennett submitted v what Onaka verified v what’s on the WH BC:
Bennett Onaka WH BC
Parent Sig 8-7-1961 8-7-61 8-7-61
Attendant 8-8-1961 8-8-61 8-8-61
Date Filed August-8 1961 Aug 8-1961 Aug 8-1961
IOW, Onaka is giving Bennett a photocopy of what is contained on the record, not confirming that the information which Bennett submitted is correct.
Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY claim that Bennett submitted. The only lawful reason for that is if he CAN’T. And the only reason he can’t verify the truth of any claims that are on the record they have - like in this case - is if the record they have is non-valid.
AND the evidence is the legal, certified document from Alvin Onaka himself, confirming that the record they have is non-valid, none of Obama’s birth facts can be verified, the WH image cannot be verified as a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, and the information contained in the WH image cannot be verified as “identical to” the information in the original record.
The forensic evidence and legal certification both say that same thing: the White House image is a forgery that does not accurately represent what is really on the BC at the HDOH. Onaka’s certification goes one step farther and reveals why the forgery had to be made: to hide the non-validity of the HI BC at the HDOH.
Only the judicial branch (at this point) has the lawful authority from Hawaii statute (HRS 338-17) to determine the probative value of Obama’s non-valid Hawaii BC - which is a prerequisite for having his birth facts legally determined.
The only way that the judicial branch gets a “case” through which they can decide this is if somebody with standing files suit. I would presume that a member of Congress would have standing if they filed a lawsuit - if for no other specifically-authorized reason regarding the powers and duties of Congress, then simply on grounds that Obama “acted as President” (such as nominating SCOTUS justices, appointing a Cabinet, or vetoing a law) within the last 4 years when it is NOW revealed that he never qualified.
I need the input of attorneys who know what would be the best legal approach for a member of Congress to break this wide open, now that we have the legal evidence required to make the burden of proof fall on OBAMA and not on those who believe his public birth claims are false. Anybody who is an attorney, please post or Freepmail me to advise on the best way to proceed. We don’t have much time. At all.
I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but the law means nothing to these organized criminals.
What's your point?
That is precisely why Butter's "script" (which I've been editing) calls for a member of Congress (who has "standing" if anyone does) to bring suit in a judicial court.
That is in accordance with both HI and Federal law.
So I ask again: "What's your point?" Or are you just being your usual disruptive self...?
Aagh. That chart was so clear when I typed it in but not when it posted. Let me try again:
Bennett’s request.....8-7-1961.....8-8-1961.....August-8 1961
Onaka’s response......8-7-61.......8-7-61.........Aug-8 1961
WH image.................8-7-61.......8-7-61.........Aug-8 1961
Sorry, I will have to explain this slowly for you.
THAT'S FORGERY
IMPORTATION into the file is not OCR.
What you and the other birthers completely fail to realize is that there is a real 1961 doc
Where? From Kenya?
Some of those people in the WH are devious.
Some of those people in the WH are CRIMINALS. You are a troll.
One or more of them decided to scan one in and play around with it
IMPORTING Hawaii Onaka's signature text block and seals is FORGERY.
Gee, ya think? That's the whole point. Follow along here will ya.
Have you used a scanner and image processing SW? Regarding software like OCR, I wrote similar image processing software in the mid 80's.
Some of those people in the WH are CRIMINALS. You are a troll.
Agree with your first point. As for the second, yes, I occasionally troll on the birther threads to point out their flaws. Once I even made my own birther thread to point out what an idiot Polarik was (he and his useful idiots didn't like that). That was very troll-like. But other than that, I mostly comment on keeping America free and financially strong, protecting the 2A. I have an NRA license plate and I am not afraid to argue in public (with my real identity) or private for the 2A. Not a troll on that issue whatsoever. I also point out problems with the theory of "catastrophic" global warming being used to raise energy
IMPORTING Hawaii Onaka's signature text block and seals is FORGERY.
Technically true. Any manipulation of the scanned image for any purpose is technically forgery. But there is a BC sitting in vault in HI (probably both a short and long). It was created in 1961. We can't say exactly what it says because the certified copies of it that they have shown us have not been placed into our hands. But it's almost certain that it says he was born in Honolulu.
I explained early on that the paper delivered from HI was scanned, manipulated and exported as a PDF. That's elementary.
Maybe not. Those items on the form were used to identify the document in question which was to be verified.
So far as I can tell Bennett didn't ask for them to be specifically verified over and above the general verification that a document with this information on it existed in the files (though apparently he thought he did).
If you have another request form that was submitted and the response to it you might be able to establish if this is the case. Until then, you really can't come to the conclusions that are being made based on the response.
"That was very troll-like."
Thank you for telling the truth.
"IMPORTING Hawaii Onaka's signature text block and seals is FORGERY."
"Technically true. Any manipulation of the scanned image for any purpose is technically forgery."
Thank you for telling the truth.
I rest my case.
The first 2 sentences of Bennett’s letter:
“Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth….”
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.