Posted on 06/04/2013 1:09:33 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
People look at him and see a color, not a man. If they treated him like a man instead of a color, the media would have been screaming for his head four years ago.
You sir, were a great Republican. Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Sodomite, and deeply Religious. The Democrats have made a mockery of your legacy.
Has any jurisdiction anywhere failed to accept the statements or certified verification letters from Hawaii as proof of Obama ‘s birth there?
Wasn’t he on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, twice?
The verification letters were only presented to two secretaries of state. One made a decision to keep Obama on the ballot without actually reading the letter. The other state didn’t need the letter for an official purpose other than to file it with meeting papers. It wasn’t germane toward keeping Obama on the ballot. No “statement” was used to put Obama on any state ballot. Thanks for resorting to a typical circular logic argument.
The fact remains that the Certified Letter of Verification from the Hawaii state Registrar verified 12 specific data points that the Arizona Secretary of State had requested be verified.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
The FACT remains that it's the other specific data points that were requested and NOT verified that prevents the PDF from being authentic. The AZ SOS didn't care. He didn't read the letter to see if it verified everything he asked for.
There are only two pieces of data that can be found on a birth vital record that are relevant to Article 2, Section 1 eligibility: place of birth and date of birth.
Arizona Secretary of State Bennett wasn’t interested in specific verification of date of birth, he inquired about place of birth and other non-constitutionally relevant data points.
The PDF is irrelevant. The only birth certificate that matters is the original one which is stored in Hawaii state Registrar Alvin T. Onaka’s safe in the records division of the Hawaii Department of Health. The PDF (and copies of the PDF) is for demonstration and exhibition purposes.
Placemark.
Not because he’s sort of black. But because of who he really is. Touching the fact that his b.c. is forged leads directly to the next questions:
Why did he have to forge it?
What info on the forgery is not true?
Place of birth?
Time of birth?
Mother?
Father?
Name at birth?
If it was just one of the above, or even two, they could have used his real b.c. and changed just a bit of it. But the entire thing is forged, so a rational person will conclude that everyone on it is a lie.
Yeah, BO was really born in Minnesota. This has always been a source of great embarrassment to him. /sarc
What part of "he didn't read the letter" do you not understand?? Bennett only wanted a CYA. He didn't simply inquire about the place of birth and check to see that the place of birth was verified. He asked for a letter of verification and got back an e-mail saying a letter was attached. That's all he wanted, but it still doesn't account for why Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refused to verify all the data that was state by the applicant. For people who read the letter and understand the law, that's a deal breaker.
The PDF is irrelevant. The only birth certificate that matters is the original one which is stored in Hawaii state Registrar Alvin T. Onaka’s safe in the records division of the Hawaii Department of Health. The PDF (and copies of the PDF) is for demonstration and exhibition purposes.
Sorry, but this is nonsense spin. If the original one "stored" in Hawaii isn't identical to what Obama posted on the Internet, then we have an act of criminal fraud committed on behalf of the president of the United States. And second, nothing in the letter of verification makes Obama constitutionally eligible for office under Article II of the Constitution. We know this thanks to eight Supreme Court rulings that explain how natural-born citizenship is defined. s a deal breaker.
“Additionally I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”
I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.
Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
State Registrar
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is CERTIFIED as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is TESTIFIED to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
Thanks for posting a vague and legally meaningless statement. It was this ambiguity that made Kris Kobach decide to ask Onaka if the record was identical when he asked for his own letter of verification, which Onaka refused to do, by the way.
Why does Onaka say "additionally"?? Notice, Onaka says the copy matches the original record in their files, but he doesn't say it matches the original certificate of live birth. He could be talking about anything but a certificate of live birth.
I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.
Again, this doesn't mean anything, because it's the facts that were NOT verified that prove the PDF is not authentic.
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is CERTIFIED as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is TESTIFIED to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original.
Ummm, are you intentionally arguing against yourself?? Did you read this?? Onaka didn't testify that the copy was CORRECT. Let this sink in. Onaka refused to verify the information that is part of the DOH's own standard request form. He refused to say that the PDF is a correct copy of the original certificate of live birth. What part of that do you NOT understand??
>>> That’s a great question.
As best I can tell, their position is that the only birth certificate that matters is the one stored in a safe in the Registrar’s office in the Hawaii Department of Health, the original version. That one has been verified as authentic by Hawaii officials on eight occasions since 2008.
They further believe that what some folks call “forgery” is nothing more than misunderstanding the optimization process used when creating a PDF from a scanned document. In layman’s terms, digital manipulation doesn’t alter the content of a scanned document, it just makes the document easier to read on a computer screen through compression and optimization of graphics.
It’s like saying that a scanned picture of the moon that has been digitally manipulated and enhanced through the use of Adobe Illustrator software algorithms does not change the moon itself or render the moon as fraudulent. <<<
You’re a fraud and your work here is finished. Beat it.
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.