Report: Trump continues to question Obama's birth certificate

CNN ^ | 11/29/17 | Sophie Tatum and Jim Acosta

[Seizethecarp]

President Donald Trump questioned the politics of his decision to finally acknowledge former President Barack Obama was born in the US, which he did late during the campaign in 2016, according to a source close to the White House.

The source said that shortly after he made the statement, Trump told aides that he would have done better in the polls had he continued to stand his ground on the birth certificate issue.

Trump has continued to question the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate during private conversations in recent months, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing advisers who discussed Trump's statements.

Trump still questioning Obama's birthplace is just one of several instances The Times pointed to as examples of the President's reliance on "manufactured facts," as the newspaper reported Tuesday.

One sitting US senator quoted by the Times, "who listened as the President revived his doubts" about the issue, "chuckled" when speaking about what was said. Trump "has had a hard time letting go of his claim that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States," the senator, who "asked not to be named to discuss private conversations," told The New York Times.

[butterdezillion]

So the photos may be real but what is seen in them isn’t. That’s quite an epistemology there. Of course, you never engage in what is actually in the photos, or anything else. I have made mistakes but if/when I’ve been shown wrong I change my mind and apologize if appropriate. If I’ve made a mistake it’s an honest one and I appreciate being shown the mistake. Others have done so. You haven’t. You’ve only ridiculed, because you are a troll and that’s what trolls do. Not sure why a troll would want to be on a site that has historically been very, very good at sorting out the truth from lies.

And the FOIA requests and responses?

Topographic maps?

Hawaii statutes?

We’ve had military people tell us what we see is real. One of our colleagues is a former Navy SEAL who did water extractions using SDV’s. We’ve had people within the NTSB tell us there was near mutiny over the crimes the NTSB committed. We’ve had former FAA and NTSB investigators tell us our conclusions are sound, to the point that Hugo was told he should be teaching forensics. If the credibility of the presenter is the whole story then you’re fighting a LOSING battle, HG, because we’ve got the most credible people there are agreeing with us.

And the best we get coming against us is cartoon frogmen.

That is, if you don’t count the computer hacking and the poisoning done to my family... Really big people, those deep-state hacks - attacking a defenseless pastor and a 15-year-old girl. Supposedly to stop me from making a fool of myself over total piddles, according to your version of events. Good to know they care so much about me that they poisoned my family over an easily-disproven wacko conspiracy theory that makes fools out of conservatives to the point that the libs don’t even have to fight us...

[humblegunner]

You’ve only ridiculed, because you are a troll and that’s what trolls do.
Not sure why a troll would want to be on a site that has historically been very, very good at sorting out the truth from lies.

You've only used "troll" three times in two sentences. Try harder.

We’ve had former FAA and NTSB investigators tell us our conclusions are sound

Did they explain how the ninja frogmen were able to keep hidden underwater the mechanic
shop needed to swap the engine in water shallow enough for people to stand in?

If the credibility of the presenter is the whole story then you’re fighting a LOSING battle, HG, because we’ve got the most credible people there are agreeing with us.

Can they explain why it is that a super-secret black-hat operation
has VIDEO and PICTURES of it for you to look at and "expose"?

Good to know they care so much about me that they poisoned my family

They're out to GETCHA!

[butterdezillion]

You still refuse to address the evidence.

As to your questions, the topographical maps and satellite imagery show that there are outcroppings on the ocean floor there. The overall water depth was 9-15 feet deep, but the volcanic rock sometimes has bumps on it that rise high enough to make it possible for a person to stand there. If you had read the book you would know that.

As for the “underwater shop”, Jerry Corsi was told by someone at the salvor’s company that they used a machine to cut the engine and nosepiece free, and that would explain the mismatched several dozen cuts that show up in the NTSB photos. It also would explain the movements of the plane in the water and the sprays seen in the water.

Why was there video taken? ABC was pretty clear about why they aired the video: to try to shut up the questions surrounding Fuddy’s death.

We haven’t been allowed to see the military footage that was most likely one of the reasons for the military airspace being reserved for 3-5pm that day in that area... We’re told we can’t know what operation that was for, because it is too secret. We do know they lied to us about the LaJolla being in the area, until the request was for a timeframe that would allow them to take the standard ZULU reference off of the records and make it seem that the LaJolla wasn’t there until 12 hours AFTER this water landing. Why did they lie to us? They could have said there were records that couldn’t be disclosed for national security reasons, like they did with the records involving the reserved military airspace from 3-5pm that day...

It is a fact that they lied to us.

It is a fact that they removed the ZULU time reference that is required to be on all records of ship movements.

It is a fact that once the ZULU adjustment is made, the LaJolla was ordered to move from an adjacent area into that specific area just before this “crash” happened.

What’s your explanation for why Ferdinand Puentes took and assembled video from 2 Go-Pros, using mounting equipment besides just an arm to hold the camera?

It is a fact that my husband and daughter had massive levels of lead in their body tissues. It is a fact that no environmental sources were found. It is a fact that a Fogbow poster (interested bystander was the alias at the time) tried posting as Zola on my blog, threatening (among other things) that my dear, sweet husband would have to lose his job if I didn’t stop talking about the Fuddy event. This “Zola” also threatened to hack my computer, and not only my computer but also my blog administration were hacked.

Strange, that somebody who so clearly hated me would try to stop me from making a fool of myself and other conservatives by presenting such a crazy, easily-disproven conspiracy theory.

The bad thing for Zola, though, is that the hacking of my email was done at the ISP level, which my IT-doctor friend told me requires high governmental involvement. And those who would know which email to hack, to support the unlawful excuses claimed by the FAA’s top legal expert, were the FAA, my colleague who crafted the FOIA request in the first place, and whoever snooped in my communications and had the knowledge and position to not only delete the “sent” email but also try to use that as a FOIA response’s reason to destroy records.

IOW, what Zola threatened was what happened - both with my computer and with my husband. And what was done to my email was done by somebody at the FAA or one of the federal spy agencies, and was used by the FAA to falsely claim they could legally destroy records. Not something a little ol’ “interested bystander” could accomplish on his/her own. Most likely a deep state operative posing as an “interested bystander”...

Oh - and did I mention that Zola also claimed to be a Freeper pretending to be a friend of the eligibility issue, and having moderation powers? It would seem laughable except that when I was gagged in the middle of the “What Do You See?” thread, interested bystander bragged at fogbow that he/she was giving all her “sockpuppets” (other freepers who are also fogblowers, posing as conservatives at FR while laughing about it at fogbow) a rest for a while. IIRC, the Freepers who had been attacking me like sockpuppets at the time... were you and your friends...

[4Zoltan]

You use to claim that Rosa Keys was stand on the ground. Do you see solid ground under her feet? And isn’t she riding on a seat cushion?

And you claim the plane was sitting on solid ground. Do you see ground under the plane’s wheels?

You dropped the ridiculous floating manikin hand only after it was pointed out that Yamamoto was standing there. So much for your Cracker Jack image analysis.

The stars on the seal become dots when you reduce the seal to the size of the one used to certify birth certificates. The statute does not say “only” you add it. But it does say this “the reproduction and use of the seal shall always be subject to the exclusive control of the director of health.” It is the director of health who determines where the official seal is used. If he or she decides to use it on letters of verification over the registrar’s signature that is their prerogative.

[butterdezillion]

Here is the statute. Note that there are 3 paragraphs: a) defines the official seal, b) tells how the official seal SHALL (mandatory) be used for certifications, and c) tells how the seal may be reproduced in enlarged or reduced form for items like stationery, etc. The OFFICIAL SEAL itself always matches the definition in paragraph a. Any seal that is a different size is a REPRODUCTION of the seal, not “the official seal”. Here is the statute:

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)
.................................

The word “shall” in legal terms means “must”. It tells what MUST be done. “May” allows discretion. So in paragraph b, for instance, it uses “shall” once and “may” once. “Shall” is mandatory ( “The official seal of the department of
health SHALL be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify...”) “May” is discretionary (” ... as the director of health
MAY determine on a case-by-case basis”.

“The official seal SHALL be embossed near the signature of the director of health to certify...” That is MANDATORY.” That is the ONLY USE authorized for the OFFICIAL SEAL. Note that reproductions of the seal may NOT be the same size as the official seal - only enlargements and reductions may be used. Since they are not the right size to be the official seal as defined, they are NOT the “official seal” and are not authorized to be embossed or to be used for certifications (how do you use an embossed certification on equipment, uniforms, etc, anyway - the stuff authorized to have reproductions of the seal on them?)

We were told time and time again that SOS’s could not take any steps to verify eligibility if those steps were not SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED in the statutes. So all of a sudden you’re refuting that argument?

But regardless of that argument, the use of the word “shall” in paragragh b MANDATES the director’s signature near the embossed seal for certification.

A star doesn’t become a dot just because it’s smaller. The embossed seals have very, very fine detail. You can’t use the argument as if it’s a low-resolution computer graphic that mushes into a dot when you make it smaller. And whatever the registrar uses to certify is irrelevant to this statute, since this statute is specifically about the OFFICIAL SEAL of the Department of Health. Onaka’s seal does not fit the very definition of the OFFICIAL SEAL - in size or in what is on the design - so it is obviously something different.

The point is that it is MANDATORY for the director’s signature to be near the embossed OFFICIAL SEAL for certifications.

[4Zoltan]

“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 ...”

No one is denying that the seal must be next to the director’s signature for those situations listed but what it does not say is,

‘The official seal of the department of health shall ONLY be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and ...’

And the third paragraph specifically says the use of the seal is under the control of the director.

[butterdezillion]

There is a difference between “the seal” and “the official seal”. The “official seal” has to be 1 1/4” in diameter. The “seal” is under the control of the director, but the statute itself says how the “official seal” - the 1 1/4” one - is to be used. The 1 1/4” official seal is only authorized to be used for verifications.

But even if it could be used for other stuff, that wouldn’t change that the statute says how it MUST be used when it is used to verify: “The official seal of the department of health SHALL be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify...” SHALL is MANDATORY. The embossed seal MUST be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify...”

Fuddy can decide what will be verified with the official seal. But to verify, the official seal MUST be embossed near the director’s signature.

Anybody who has dealt with legislation knows that “shall” is mandatory. Any lawyer who tells you otherwise should be disbarred.

[butterdezillion]

Wait, I just re-read what you wrote. Seems that you agree that the seal must be next to the director’s signature for those situations listed. What is listed is verifications of documents where the official seal is typically used or where the director decides to use the official seal to verify.

Fuddy could decide to use the official seal to verify a letter of verification, though I’m not sure if full faith and credit would have to apply then, because Fuddy was not the custodian of the record; Onaka was.

But if she decided to use the seal to verify the document then she MUST have the seal near her signature.

Seems like you are agreeing about that.

Well, that’s a problem, because the official DOH seal was used on the so-called letters of verification but it was NOT near her signature. Her signature was nowhere on those documents.

IOW, those documents were NOT certified. For that seal to verify anything - according to the statute authorizing the use of the official seal - it had to be used near her signature. And she didn’t put her signature on those documents.

Why didn’t she?

[4Zoltan]

The statute gives the director of health a lot of latitude with the seal. It is up to the director on a case-by-case basis to determine its use. And the seal’s reproduction and use are at the control of the director.

BTW, apparently the director of health does not sign or stamp notaries public commission any more. The attorney general does.

[little jeremiah]

I agree.

[butterdezillion]

The statute gives ZERO latitude when it comes to HOW to verify/certify documents - only latitude on which documents to verify. That’s the inherent meaning of the words “shall” and “may”. The way to verify documents is mandated (”shall”) by the official seal embossed near the director’s signature. That is how it SHALL (must) be done. ZERO latitude.

[Gene Eric]

>> CNN’s anonymous sources.

Prolly some AT&T executive.

[Candor7]

The SOB was probably born in the US, but fabricated everything else in his history.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama was a Fulbright scholar, which can be awarded ONLY to foreign nationals.He was Indonesian when he got his Fulbright.

Obama was not defacto born in the USA, his Hawaiian birth certificate was constructed AS IF he was born in the USA, just like hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Chinese had done as immigrant workers for Hawaiian pineapple plantations during the late 19th and 20th Centuries.

[dinodino]

Do you have a source for the Fulbright reference?

[Fantasywriter]

Wouldn’t Obama have to release his college records before something like that could be proven or refuted? Obama apologist sites claim he couldn’t have been a Fulbright Scholar bc Indonesian students are only eligible at the masters and doctorate level. Well ahem. What if he’s Canadian?

[dinodino]

Obama has never claimed to be a Fulbright scholar, as far as I know. What’s the source for the claim?

[4Zoltan]

No, you are wrong. Dr. Onaka and Director Fuddy interpreted Hawaii law differently. How do we know? Simple

Your argument has been that under your interpretation of the statute Dr. Onaka refused to use his little DOH seal and so Fuddy had to use her big DOH seal and that somehow that means there is no birth certificate. But all Fuddy would have needed to do is sign the letter too. Something like this:

You said it yourself, why didn't she sign it?

What would your argument be if she had? They didn't use both the big seal and the little seal?

The fact is that Fuddy and Dr. Onaka did not agree with your interpretation of Hawaii law.

[4Zoltan]

The source was a fake email.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

As for Canadian citizens:

"The Fulbright Program offers grants to qualified Canadian students to study at the graduate level in the United States. Canadian scholars may apply to conduct post-doctoral research at U.S. institutions and are eligible for Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence grants. In addition, Canadian students and teachers are also eligible for the Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant Program."

https://eca.state.gov/fulbright/country/canada

[butterdezillion]

I have said that Fuddy could have chosen to certify the document with the director’s seal, but she would have had to put her signature. I am not sure that Full Faith and Credit would require AZ to recognize the certification that way because Fuddy was not the custodian of the record. Thinking about it, though, it probably would be OK because that is how they used to certify long-forms - with the certifying stamp and signature of the registrar and the director’s signature close to the official DOH embossed seal.

But the point is, she didn’t sign it anywhere so the document remains uncertified, according to the statute that describes how the official DOH seal is to be used to verify documents.

To be certified it had to either have Onaka’s name and Onaka’s seal OR Fuddy’s name and Fuddy’s seal. It doesn’t have either of those combinations so it is NOT certified.

The statute is clear. “Shall” means must. There was zero latitude there. Fuddy knows how to certify documents; she refused to do it. Why did she put her seal there without the required signature?

Onaka knows how to certify vital records; he does it all the time. Why didn’t he do it on these documents? The only LAWFUL reason for him to not do it is if there is NOT a valid HI BC for Obama.

[Fantasywriter]

If Obama was a Fulbright Scholar, he’s the last person in the world who would admit to it. He’d seal his college records and pretend it never happened.

If you go back and read my my post, I never made the claim. I only said Obama’s college records would have to be unsealed before we could know for certain one way or the other.

Otoh, I’m unconvinced by the Obot argument that Obama couldn’t have been a Fulbright Scholar at Occidental bc it cannot be awarded to Indonesian undergrads. I’m unconvinced that he’s an Indonesian citizen.