But isn't THIS all that can be found?
Posted on 06/07/2012 11:11:57 AM PDT by Red Steel
Network misrepresents microfilm birth record as Obama's
On the heels of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s investigative trip to Hawaii, CNN pulled out old material – including microfilm misrepresented as Barack Obama’s birth certificate – to run a report called “Busting the Birther Conspiracy Theory.”
In the segment, broadcast May 30, reporter Gary Tuchman declared his intention to refute conclusively the contention Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Some careful observers, however, objected that the Tuchman report was a rebroadcast of material that CNN originally broadcast last year and possibly even earlier.
Moreover, CNN showed a microfilm copy of a birth certificate as if it were Obama’s original 1961 record. But it turned out to be someone else’s birth certificate.
At approximately the 1:22 mark of the segment, CNN displayed a microfilm copy of what viewers were led to believe was Obama’s birth certificate.
Close examination of a screen capture as seen in Exhibit 1 makes clear that the document is not Obama’s.
As seen in Exhibit 2, when the microfilm birth certificate is enlarged, the number appears to end with the digits “000,” while the computer-generated long-form birth certificate displayed on the White House website on April 27, 2011, bears the number “10641.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
FROM 2002:
Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., Earns National Recognition
Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar and Chief of the Office of Health Status Monitoring of the Hawaii Department of Health was recently elected President of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) at their 69th Annual Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska...
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2002/02-43onaka.html
(He certainly appears to have a LOT to lose.)
“Are you claiming that any COLB’s which have “Date filed” on them are indications of a court ordering it to be filed and/or adoption?”
Correct. Date filed = Court ordered.
Date accepted = witness attested, signatures with date signed under threat of penalty for perjury.
Certainly Arpaio could use more support. But think about it. Obama’s (in)Justice Dept. has declared all out war on the state of AZ, and what do you hear from the GOP? Crickets. If these corrupt jerks won't even stand up for an American state under assault, they sure as he!! will not stick their necks out for Arpaio. Why, the MSM just might call them racists! You don't expect them to risk that, do you?
Fortunately Arpaio has something a lot better than the support of the DC Ruling Class. He's got Mike Zullo. Given the choice, I'd take Zullo any time. MZ is a consummate professional and a dogged investigator. If I were Obama, I would NOT want Zullo delving into my past. My $ is on MZ to produce a smoking gun that at least some in the MSM won't be able to wholly ignore indefinitely. Time will tell.
“Onaka also cites Hillary Clinton as he explains how Hawaii became the first state to require a bride and groom to declare both their middle names and surnames after marriage.
He said there was confusion about what women could use as a middle name. At the time he looked into it, Clinton was in the White House.
Onaka was working with a colleague in Arkansas and learned there was no legal document indicating what her name is, he said. He called the White House and “was very impressed that the Office of First Lady returned my calls.”
Her marriage certificate said she was married to William Jefferson Clinton and that she used the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, Onaka said.”
Hillary’s middle name is Diane and not Rodham. Rodham is Hillary’s maiden name. And Onaka is dumber than driftwood.
And it’s typical of Onaka to think the SSA uses the State of Hawaii as a sole source for name verification. Biographical data in a Federal agency supercedes biographical data at the State of Hawaii or any other state. Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization on file with the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security trumps any contrary data at the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
It’s unfortunate Onaka fails to realize records with U.S. Customs and Border Protection with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service on an infant entering the country in August, 1961, trumps a Certificate of Live Birth in the State of Hawaii for that same infant.
See post #95.
BRIAN SCHATZ refused to sign a document claiming Obama is eligible under Article II.
BRIAN SCHATZ either submitted a legally worthless document (since it did not meet the criteria) or he was trying to commit fraud and ‘slip it by’.
BRIAN SCHATZ actions are very telling. But no reporter has had the guts to question him. Reporters are puppets now-a-days.
All these accolades for Onaka yet the forms Hawaii issues seem to be the weakest in country in terms of security features.
In fact, the old ‘Peter Boy’ COLB issued in 1991 has much more security features than modern COLBs. It used VOIDSecure paper and had a very fine border.
Hawaii’s documents have been dumbed down over time and on Onaka’s watch.
Well, you know what ‘they’ say, the more awards they get the more you have to be suspicious of what the awards and accolades are really hiding.
Interesting to see in next couple of weeks it this is an isolated preemptive or will gel to a more concerted effort amongst other media outlets.
Why would a court order Virginia Sunahara’s BC to be filed in August of 1961?
Why would a court order Danae’s BC to be filed?
What is your reason for believing that is what “Date filed” indicates?
But isn't THIS all that can be found?
zero appears to be safe, he's got one of each? A COLB filed, and a forged BC (abstract) accepted...
I can’t get my head around this, but I’m sure you can:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Since the original publication of this article, a response was received from the Hawaii Department of Health regarding this question. The reply was as follows:
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.
Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on O‘ahu (the island with the largest population in our state). In the past, when births were recorded on paper they may have been accepted at a health office on an island other than O‘ahu, such as Kaua‘i. The paper record would then need to be sent to O‘ahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawai‘i is comprised of multiple islands with miles of water in between). The electronic age has changed this process significantly, and it was determined some time ago that one date would suffice.
Janice Okubo
Hawaii State Department of Health
What I find most informative in this response is the confirmation that certificates are numbered centrally, something I have been saying had to be the case.
Update 3: Something has been staring me in the face for two years and I never noticed it. There is no “Date Filed” on a Hawaiian long form birth certificate from 1961. The COLB is abstracted from the long form. Therefore, no matter what the COLB says, the date on it is the “Date Accepted” because that’s the only date on the form it’s copied from. Hawaii may have changed terms, but the 1961 form only has a “Date Accepted” on it.
Many of us suspected Obama’s COLB embossed seals are not genuine. You could send your analysis to the Arpaio Posse and whoever else.
Correct. Onaka wrote a paper in 2005 called Birth Certificate Integrity: Strengthening National Security. In it he cites Section 7211 of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Here is the part:
purposes that—
(A) at a minimum, shall require certification of the birth certificate by the State or local government custodian of record that issued the certificate, and shall require the use of safety paper or an alternative, equally secure medium, the seal of the issuing custodian of record, and other features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting,or otherwise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent purposes;
Now according to the Act, Hawaii BC would not be accepted by the Federal government :
shall require certification of the birth certificate by the State or local government custodian of record that issued the certificate ( THEY DO THAT )
shall require the use of safety paper or an alternative, equally secure medium, (THEY DO THAT )
the seal of the issuing custodian of record, (THEY DO THAT)
and other features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting,or otherwise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent purposes; (THEY DON’T DO THAT )
Like you mentioned, there are no additional security features to prevent tampering. That is what I have always found lacking with Hawaii. ANY certified form I have ever received, be it school transcripts, things from state of local governments, ALL had an additional security feature built in. If you scanned the copy, you would see something like VOID all across the page. Hawaii’s “security paper” doesn’t do that.
It seems pretty ironic that the guy ( Onaka ) writing about security in BC’s has the weakest security of all the states to prevent tampering or counterfeiting.
Peterboy COLB frmo 1991.
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4746/peterboycertificate.jpg
This used to be readily available on the Hawaii DOH website. Then they put a password requirement for it.
Accepted, with SEAL, 1983
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't mean Accepted by the State Registrar. What I was referring to is what according to the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, the Federal government requires at a minimum in order for a birth certificate to be accepted by one of their agencies. Now whether or not they adhere to section is another thing.
Now that is very interesting. They used that paper back in 1991 but don't use it now. Wonder why they changed and when ?
Bfl
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.
