It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by redhatty
Boy, lots of speculation there. Good job
Where's the proof it wasn't accepted? Or is that your opinion?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by rnaa
Since you don't provide any sources, I have to assume that you're guessing about why those certificates have different wording on "accepted by" versus "filed by" Note that one of the accepted examples is way before and the other is way after Obama's birth date.
I don't know the significance of the wording difference either but I'm going to research it instead of making up an unsourced guess like you did.
Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by rnaa
And your source for that OPINION is?????
Here's some REAL Sources for you to investigate.....
Federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for "Race" -- enter "227" in the "Page" text box and hit "Enter" -- warning big .pdf file.
Hawaii statutes on the "FILED" and "ACCEPTED" on the COLB: -- see sections 11-1-4(d) and 11-1-28.
The statute specifically states that the date of filing is the date that a document is "RECEIVED" at the Department of Health office. Obama’s information was received or "FILED" on Aug. 8, 1961, according to his COLB. It was never "ACCEPTED" by the Registrar. Obama’s COLB is still being "MAINTAINED" -- awaiting acceptance by the Hawaii State Registrar.
Originally posted by rnaa
The key point you are missing is that it is 100% irrelevant.
The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children is electronically cloaking what it had touted as a Jan. 24 letter from the president, in which the commander in chief, just four days after his inauguration, supposedly wrote, "As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters."
So if it turns out that Obama wasn't born at Kapi'olani Medical Center after all, then it's irrelevant to discuss that as his birthplace. If he WAS born there, why was the hospital advertising that fact and are now hiding it? Or was he born at another hospital so what they were doing amounted to fraud? Either way it's a compelling story of mystery and intrigue whether you happen to think it's relevant or not.
Here is the UPI screen capture that claims Obama was born at Queens -- but now the UPI claims Kapiolani. Remember, Obama, himself, told UPI that he was born at Queens.
On weekday mornings as a teenager, Barry Obama left his grandparents' apartment on the 10th floor of the 12-story high-rise at 1617 S. Beretania, a mile and a half above Waikiki Beach, and walked up Punahou Street in the shadows of capacious banyan trees and date palms. Before crossing the overpass above the H1 freeway, where traffic zoomed east to body-surfing beaches or west to the airport and Pearl Harbor, he passed Kapiolani Medical Center, walking below the hospital room where he was born on Aug. 4, 1961. Two blocks farther along, at the intersection with Wilder, he could look left toward the small apartment on Poki where he had spent a few years with his little sister, Maya, and his mother, Ann, back when she was getting her master's degree at the University of Hawaii before she left again for Indonesia. Soon enough he was at the lower edge of Punahou School, the gracefully sloping private campus where he studied some and played basketball more.
Originally posted by rnaa
OK. So? I didn't at any time describe the layout or contents of the form the Hospital turns over to the State. The Feds made a perfectly reasonable agreement with the States to present statistics in a particular way, and negotiated with all 50 States to make that happen. I expect most States asked the Hospital to use the recommended (not legislated!) standard form so duplication of effort was not necessary. Notice that the text makes clear that the States may, and do, alter the recommended standard form.
The document is never-the-less, NOT a Birth Certificate unless it is sealed and signed by the authorized State officer. The Feds can require statistics in certain formats all they like, but it is the State that has the sole authority to issue a Birth Certificate. The possibility that the State of Hawaii certified photocopies of the Statistics sheet as Birth Certificates in the past doesn't make it more or less valid. It only makes it a different form.
And by the way, the process chart near the top of the report validates the process I described, but with a little more detail.
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
(combined), and "other nonwhite."
The category "white" includes, in addition to persons
reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto
Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with
any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed
parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite
parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the
father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and
any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.
In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and
"nonwhite" is used.
Please read the read the Scope and Purpose section 11-1-1. This document, (which has no provenance by the way) is specifically to cover the administration of Federal programs that the are administered by the State of Hawaii.
Repeal of State of Hawaii Public Health Regulations
“Rules of Practice and Procedure” and Adoption of
Chapter 11-1, Hawaii Administrative Rules
§11-1-1 Statement of scope and purpose. (a)
This chapter governs the practice and procedure before
the department of health, State of Hawaii, provided
that an attached entity may adopt and shall be
governed by its own specific rules of practice and
procedure if it has rulemaking authority, and provided
that the director may adopt more specific rules of
practice and procedure for any specific program, and
those more specific rules shall govern the practice
and procedure in proceedings for that program. Where
such specific rules fail to cover particular practices
and procedures, then these rules shall apply.
Vital Statistics are NOT federal programs. They are State programs.
be interpreted to preserve the authority of the
department and State to administer programs under
federal law for which the department has primary
Section 11-1-4(d) does not say anything about 'ACCEPTED' or 'MAINTAINED'. It is not describing a work flow, it is just defining the threshold time of day for when some document is judged to be filed. This is especially relevant for an electronic lodgment. If it happens after office hours but before midnight, the filing day is the following day. And it doesn't seem to be talking about birth records anyway, there is no circumstance that would make it important that a birth certificate is filed on a Monday or a Tuesday. But if say, you a Doctor who has to, for example, file an insurance certificate by a certain date or lose your right to practice, then this cutoff is important.
Section 11-1-28 has nothing at all to do with Vital Records (births, deaths, marriages, etc). It has to do with "contested cases" not "event registrations". In what way do you find it relevant to the discussion?
But wait! How could Obama get a social security card without a birth certificate? It's impossible!
Oh yes, Orly Tait's deranged pseudo list. The one from her "P.I." that listed a bunch of phony SS#s associated with addresses? Of course! But of course her "P.I." Had to be secret so Obama's death squads couldn't silence him.
Of course, because no one could possibly just make up 39 random numbers and assign them to Obama No, with all the TRUTH Orly Taitz has spouted throughout this BS she must be completely credible.
So tell me, how did that DAMNING evidence do in court?
It's important to note that the Judge in this dismissed case yesterday felt he simply did not have Standing or Juridstiction that would ultimately lead to the removal of a sitting President based on a potential ruling on the matter.
He did not say the matter did not have merrit. He said he felt he lacked the Constitutional Authority and Power to provide a remedy if the matter did have merrit.