Posted on 07/29/2009 10:42:06 PM PDT by MissTickly
This is in follow-up to my post on Tuesday: "The Day I asked a question and got the MOTHER of all answers"
The implications of the following account is that the President's REAL NAME did not appear on any ballot, in any state.
That's just one of MANY implications. Let me preface by saying an AMENDED birth record could indicate that the President was adopted by either Lolo Soetoro and/or His grandparents, the Dunhams.
My story:
I have serious reasons to believe that Janice Okubo and/or Director Fukino, Department of Health in Hawaii are under duress. Something is preventing Director Fukino from making statements that she has the statutory authority to make.
And my story coincides with the recent revelation that the President is a Natural Born Citizen and born in Hawaii, all along.
On Monday, on a whim I decided to try my hand at a question for Ms. Okubo, Communications Director for the Department that holds the President’s vital records.
In a nutshell, this is what I asked her:
–Ms. Okubo–
If the Director made this statement:
““Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures… ”
…she has the statutory authority to answer this question:
“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?”
Please reply with her answer.
–
You see, they have the same statutory authority over an Amended Original Birth Certificate that they have over an (unamended) Original Birth Certificate.
No one has to attest to an Amended Original Birth Certificate’s existence. By virtue of STATUTORY AUTHORITY she can make this statement, AND she clearly says so.
But, to my surprise, at 11:47 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 2009 I got the press release in answer to my question with the recent revelations and now the words ‘VITAL RECORDS’ are referenced.
Now, taken at face value, the press release seems to affirm the question I asked, but I wanted clarity. So I asked specifically if the Director could make a statement that she has the STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE:
“As Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
But I got this in return: “The director has nothing further to add to her statements.”
More than once. I even asked if she can make the statement if she was compelled to. Nothing.
I let Ms. Okubo know that I fear something is preventing them from making statements they have the authority to make. And told her I was compelled to tell someone.
Not that anyone will care, but I have alerted the media in detail.
I have the emails to corroborate.
I am VERY concerned.
And after all this fuss, that's probably were a bunch of Original Birth Certificates, including that of Whats His Name, might end up.
Because the secretaries of state are either cowards, negligent, or lulled into complacency is not an indicator of the need for a new law.
Of course the "natural born" issue was not germane to the case, so the Court did not get into it. She was definitely a Citizen, her parents could not unilaterally change that, nor could the Secretary of State.
Yes, yes, yes, but is he a mutt?
Dr. Fukino is not supposed to look at it either.
(She has the authority to do this—read the oct 2008 statement)
She is certainly not supposed to look at it and reveal any of it’s contents without permission from the person or their parents/children.
(You’re right here, she has no authority to do this)
I don’t know what to say about the rest of your post, you and I could be made of better stuff than her. If I had information that the President was ineligible or that the election was not valid—I’d say so, too.
That is my exact point and I think you missed it.
All states simply accept the signature of the person running for office. No state that I can find puts into their election law a requirement for the Sec. of Elections to ask for any supporting documents.
No, Obama did not commit perjury. He would have to be found ineligible in a court of law and found guilt of fraud etc.
This is how ridiculous it is.
Obama can simply sign a form stating he is eligible.
His signature alone is accepted by every state without seeing corroborating documents.
“We” have to prove he is not eligible, that he knew he was not eligible and that he knowingly committed an act of fraud by signing the forms.
Since NBC has never been put down into law by the USSC he couldn’t have known, legally (that would be his defense) that he was ineligible, therefore no fraud committed.
This is rotten to the core; if the states do not change their laws this will keep happening over and over again.
The more I study this entire issue the sicker I get. How damned easy it was to pull this off.
Look at this scenario.
Let’s say a candidate for president knows that his birth certificate contains information that would either embarrass him or give people cause to doubt he is a citizen.
He runs for office anyway and receives the forms from each state and signs them. One Sec. of Elections from State X asks the candidate for his birth certificate.
Candidate’s crack team of lawyers looks at State X’s election law and realizes there is no requirement for a candidate to present his birth certificate or any other documents.
1. What legal recourse would the Sec. of Elections of State X have.
2. Would any court force the candidate to produce documentation not required in State X’s election law?
How can you take seriously the qualifications in the constitution and the state regulations if they can't require a birth certificate?
As I said earlier on this or another post, the president is required to provide for the national defense, but there is nothing in the constitution or federal law that authorizes him to transport troops by airplane. Where does he get that authority. It is a method he may chose to carry out his responsibilities. Why don't you take that to court and see how far you get?
What you say does not follow. Birth certificates are not held by the Passport Office. They are used as evidence of citizenship but not held.
If the Passport Office faced a legal challenge over a falsely issued passport, they would simply use their authority to compel the State having a record of the birth certificate to provide them a copy.
But they do not retain such vital records. There is no federal agency that retains vital records, no national database for vital records. Such records are maintained at state level.
Hillary has no way to access Obama’s vital records except under legal authority to compel the State of hawaii to turn them over for investigation. That will not happen.
However, Hillary could be compelled by court order to turn over passport records, but not vital records because the State Department has no vital records.
That’s exactly the problem there is NO requirement to Vet the candidate.
As much as we thought there would be, think there should be, are shocked there isn’t, can’t believe there can not be, fact is no state has set into law the exact means by which they are to confirm eligibility.
Check Fla law as example http://election.dos.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/2008-2009/08-09ElectionLaw.pdf - then go to 99.012, the relevant section on candidates and qualifications.
2. Each candidate for federal office, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to office shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A printed copy of the oath or affirmation shall be furnished to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:
Then they check their bank accounts, the candidate pays a fee and it’s off to the races.
Nothing but a friggin oath - NO verification of the persons eligibility, they take everything simply by their word.
As we all know a politician would never lie, so what else do we need but their word, right?
(i’m sickened over this)
Since before the election, the judges have been in the same situation. Until recently none did their duty.
Pivot - bull.
The facts do not change because we do not like them - the states have no requirement in their election law on how to vet, period.
It’s a sham and if we do nothing about it, in each of our states, we WILL have another Obama in our future.
Now, you are 100% correct on one part, in states where there was a legal challenge to Obama’s (or McCain’s) eligibility. Upon receipt of a the law of the state should state what the exact procedure and responsibilities the Sec. of Elections is bound by.
You also have the double whammy, in two states I can think of (Ca and Pa) where the judiciary is responsible for failing to do their jobs along with the Sec. of Election’s when a challenge formally filed and was brought into the legal system.
Here is where we go from negligence to outright duplicity. So far no court, including our own USSC has agreed to hear a single case on it’s merits. We wait now for the few remaining cases left.
I know Phil Berg and Ortiz has filed against Sec. of Elections in their respective states. Each case was thrown out on the standing issue.
All of this could have been avoided before the election took place. All it would have taken was for a few, if not all the states, to have have in their election law that any candidate for public office must provide signed releases for their birth certificates, school records, passport, selective service registration - whatever would be required to prove identification and eligibility.
Allowing the candidates themselves to provide the paperwork isn’t a viable option.
In effect there should be no difference between a person applying for an employment position which requires a background check and a person running for elected office.
The secretaries of state, the congress and the courts have all the power they need. Bye.
The why has every single state accept Obama eligibility by via his signature and not confirming documents? Bye to you too....
Starwise,
Do we feel pretty good about the integrity of both docs, i.e, the dates of creation of both?
Trying to be sure that one wasn’t altered for wild goose chase purposes by the Left.
All I know is what I found in July when I discovered there were 2 different docs. I would think copies of the actual doc stamped ‘received’ and dated by state election boards would be evidentiary.
How could I have missed you were still here! I am such an IDIOT!
And REALLY glad you are too!
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.