Congress Moving to Cut U.S. Funding to U.N. in Wake of Anti-Israel Vote

Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.

Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.

I have facts and evidence. What I don’t have is a public willing to hear it and a media source willing to address it. That’s because trolls and paid disinformation bots are still trying to libel those who investigate things like Obama’s known document fraud (and other crimes to cover it up) and Pizza-gate.

You know who you are, and for the most part the rest of us know who you are too. We’ll see how many of them show up here AGAIN.

Let me just start with one point that has already been brought out here: the United States Coast Guard claims that it retrieved Loretta Fuddy from the waters off Kalaupapa in an infant life jacket with one CO2 cartridge still intact. Fuddy was videotaped in an adult life jacket with both chambers inflated. You can’t undo a CO2 cartridge puncture.

What the USCG retrieved was OBVIOUSLY NOT the Loretta Fuddy filmed in the video. What they retrieved, instead, was something that drifted a much farther distance than anybody else, in an infant life jacket with only one chamber inflated. But the USCG couldn’t tell that what they retrieved wasn’t a 240-pound Loretta Fuddy?

There’s much, much more, including blatantly false information in FOIA requests, answering a request I never made using selective language to try to deceive, and altering official records to try to hide the ZULU timestamp. There’s military equipment present filmed at the scene of the “accident” within at least a minute or two, such that a military person of significant stature turned white on seeing it and told my colleague that pursuing this would get us killed.

There is way, way more evidence than you or anybody else at this point is willing to even consider - all just waiting for somebody to have the honesty or integrity to address it.

But the regime has its bots to try to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Again, you and we know who you are. You’re not kidding anybody. Soon Obama’s power and ability to use sticks and carrots will be gone, and then where will you be?

Indirect confirmations have always been part of criminal evidence/proof.

The only way the lack of existence of a birth certificate could be legally confirmed is by it not showing up in the birth index (that I have already documented was manipulated, both in the database and in the paper copy at the HDOH) or by the registrar refusing to verify the existence when asked in a lawful request (which Onaka did). Both of those are INDIRECT CONFIRMATIONS - the only kind of confirmation there is for the non-existence of a birth certificate. And somebody at the HDOH has altered records for the express purpose of making it seem like those two indirect confirmations did not happen when, in fact, they did. (And of course, Obama’s friend Neil Abercrombie also told Mike Evans that there wasn’t a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii and said to an Advertiser columnist that there was something “actually written down” in “the archives”...)

It doesn’t get any more official than this. If Loretta Fuddy had not illegally used her own seal to try to certify Onaka’s stamp (that somebody even put their initials to, to ensure that it was known that it was NOT Onaka who stamped his name on it)... the whole world would have understood what Onaka by law had to do: refuse to verify. Fuddy’s stamp was an illegal deception to FAKE certification, just like the alteration of the birth index and birth database were illegal deceptions.

Stop saying there is no evidence. You don’t want to accept any evidence, but this is court-of-law evidence of a type that has ALWAYS been used. That’s why, when my evidence was being routed to Lakin’s legal team, the regime had to remove the sheathing off the wiring from my husband’s van, attack my computer, and shortly thereafter rule that foreign combat orders don’t have to be authorized by the POTUS to be lawful. By their actions they made it clear that they knew this evidence was devastating to them if it ever made it into a court of law, and the rest of us know it too.

It’s just the paid regime bots who try to pretend otherwise. And it’s very interesting to see who shows up to do that job, and when.

You didn’t even listen closely enough to hear what I said. Why bother answering to somebody who won’t even listen?

But in case somebody out there is interested in listening, the problem is that Loretta Fuddy tried to certify Onaka’s signature, with a seal that is only lawfully allowed to accompany HER signature. Her signature was not there; she was not allowed to use it. Why did she use it? Because Onaka would not use HIS seal to certify his own signature, and Fuddy had to hide to the world that Onaka would not verify anything about Obama’s BC or birth facts.

And the end result is that you have mismatched signature and seal. Nobody’s signature is certified on those documents. Fuddy has the seal but not the signature. Onaka has the signature stamp but not the seal. Nobody’s signature is certified on those documents. They are legally worthless according to Congress’ prescription for how “Full Faith and Credit” is to be carried out between different states. Full faith and credit is to be given if the documents are properly certified by the custodian of the record - which in this case is Alvin Onaka. He did NOT certify these “verifications” as required for another state (AZ, KS, or MS, for instance) to give the record full faith and credit. And the only lawful reason for him to do that is if there is not a BC for Obama in Hawaii.

Because it is a seal that can only be used with the director’s signature, and there is no director’s signature. It can’t be used if the director’s signature is not there.

If Onaka’s signature is the only signature there, then HIS seal has to be used. And he did NOT use his seal. Full Faith and Credit says other states are to honor another state’s documents if they are certified by the signature and seal of the custodian of the record. Onaka is the custodian of the records and his seal is not there to certify his signature. (And the only lawful reason for him to refuse to certify it is if there isn’t a BC for Obama in Hawaii.)

What is there is FUDDY’S seal, which is not lawful to be there without her signature. She put her seal there to hide the absence of Onaka’s seal, and to deceive the entire country with a document that LOOKS like it’s certified but isn’t. Her fingerprints are ALL OVER this, since she is the only one with the authority to have that seal used, but only where her signature is. But her signature doesn’t belong there because she is not the custodian of the record so she didn’t sign it. Instead she unlawfully put her seal without her signature as a head-fake to hide Onaka’s refusal to certify the document.

Where is the embossed seal of the DOH on any birth certificate that lacks the signature of the director? Show me.

Yes, the seal can be REPLICATED for use on stationery or other items, but the OFFICIAL SEAL, in embossed form, is to be used with the director’s signature. As it says (and you conveniently ignored):

(b) The official seal of the department of
health shall be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify commissions of
appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,
certificates, and other formal official documents on
which the official seal has been customarily used or
is appropriate to be used, as the director of health
may determine on a case-by-case basis. “

That is the only place where the use of the embossed seal is authorized, and it says that it SHALL BE EMBOSSED NEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH.

You are treating a REPLICATION as if it was the same thing as the official embossed seal, when the statute clearly makes a distinction.

And you are libeling me. Cease and desist.

I am going to C&P the full text so everybody here can see the whole thing. Notice that a) and b) refer to the “official seal”, which is specifically defined as 2 1/4 inch in diameter. c) refers just to the seal (not the OFFICIAL SEAL) reproduced in other sizes. b) tells how the OFFICIAL SEAL (2 1/4” diameter) - in embossed form - is used to verify documents.

The “verification” that you linked to has c) at the top of it, which is also on BC’s, etc. That verifies nothing. For verification of documents, the OFFICIAL EMBOSSED seal is to be used, and the statute that governs that says it SHALL BE EMBOSSED NEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH TO VERIFY.... (and then a list of documents that can be verified in that way).

Old birth certificates had the signature of both the health director and the state registrar, with the official DOH seal (2 1/4” diameter) embossed between the 2 signatures. They don’t do that any more. They have only the registrar’s signature, certifying statement, and embossed seal (smaller than 2 1/4”, made of dashes rather than solid lines, and with a different design). That is the registrar’s seal, the seal that certifies the registrar’s signature and certifying statement. They can’t use the OFFICIAL DOH SEAL because the DOH Director’s signature is not there. Just like it’s not there on these “verifications”.

Again, a) and b) refer to the OFFICIAL SEAL (1 1/4” in diameter), and designate how the official seal is to be embossed near the director’s signature to verify documents. c) has nothing to do with verifying anything, because it is not the OFFICIAL (1 1/4”) seal but visual reproductions of the design, used in non-official size.

Notice that the Director is given discretion as to which documents he/she will verify with the OFFICIAL SEAL, but NOT discretion to decide HOW to verify. That is prescribed by the statute, and it is the embossed official seal close to his/her signature. Period.

Here is the full text:

§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
a) The official seal of the department of health
shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches
in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there
shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the
curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words
“STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion
shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be
the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents,
which has long been recognized as a universal symbol
of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an
indentation, which shall separate it from the words
“DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For
illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of
the official seal is attached at the end of this
section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department
of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a
part of this section.
(b) The official seal of the department of
health shall be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify commissions of
appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,
certificates, and other formal official documents on
which the official seal has been customarily used or
is appropriate to be used, as the director of health
may determine on a case-by-case basis.
(c) The seal of the department of health may
also be reproduced, in either an enlarged or a reduced
size, on official stationery, reports, certificates,
equipment, supplies, uniform insignia, and other
objects and items to be used or produced by the
department of health, but the reproduction and use of
the seal shall always be subject to the exclusive
control of the director of health.
[Eff 2/14/2005 ] (Auth: HRS §§321-9, 91-2) (Imp:
HRS §§321-9, 91-2)

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.