AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 57
349
<< 54  55  56    58 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
John Rainey is the guy challenging Dr. Conspiracy's figures. So it is not the author admitting a mistake, but a challenger admitting his mistake.

But no, I didn't check the math either.


Yes I had to dig some more elsewhere on the site to confirm it was written by Dr Conspiracy since I don't see an attribution to him on the article itself, but I guess it's his blog so everything there above the comments is by him?

Glad you found the larger number but I'm not sure how definitive even that one is. If those numbers are right I'm amazed how few births there are outside of hospitals, I'm going to look into that a little more.




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by whatukno
The fact is, the BC that is online has been certified.



WHEN WHERE BY WHO?????


You are really getting boring you know?

The BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which is printed on an piece of paper is CERTIFIED. That is what makes it a CERTIFICATE. It has the Official Seal of the State of Hawai'i. It has the signature of the authorized State Department of Health Official. That is what makes it CERTIFIED.



The Obama Campaign has had the document scanned and allowed it to be fingered and handled and photographed from several angles for the sole purpose of transparency in the face of your doubts.

Dr. Fukino has further verified that the hospital registration still exists, and that she has verified that it lists his birth place as Honolulu Hawai'i.

That is all that there is to certify and affirm. Period. There is nothing else that makes any sense in the context. Period.

Furthermore, Department spokesperson Janice Okubo has made the following explanations:

I am extracting from this report:


The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past...

the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate...

certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”


So when Fukino says she has seen the original vital record, she means she has seen the original hospital document. When she says that original vital record says that Obama was born in Hawaii, she is saying that the computer data entry was accurate and that an OFFICIAL CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE printed from that computer data will say that he is born in Hawai' and is therefor accurate. Therefore, the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE issued to Obama is accurate, true, contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate, and the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.



[edit on 1/11/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by rnaa
But you knew that, because you read it, right?


You are good at the twist, first you say that something from 1961 had video conferencing in it then you twist and refer back to a 2005 document.

I did link to TWO different documents and I know clearly what they were. Quite playing games!


Oh, goody. A game of "He said, She said", with the history all laid out above.

You saidLook at this document that describes office close of business close off procedures, they prove my point about (something or other - that filing is different from accepting maybe?)

I said that the document describing office filing cutoff dates (the document you now admit is from 2005) was especially important these days because of electronic filing procedures, and that in 1961 acceptance of the documents across the help desk was the important date, not the date it was actually filed into the archive. Today electronic lodgment means that acceptance and filing occur at exactly the same time - there is no distinction between the two.

( I didn't mention that of course the close of business threshold was important in 1961 too, after hours mail drops existed then after all, but it is now really critical to let people know there is a dead line for close of business in the computer systems).

You said ha! There wasn't much electronic filing in 1961, so my argument is worthless.

I said there isn't much video conferencing going on either.

You said you said, you lie that document doesn't mention video.

I said you are full of horse puckey, it mentions it on pages...

You said OK, but that document is from 2005

I said what does it have to do with office procedures in 1961 then?

You said I'm not talking about that document, I'm talking about the 1961 document.


Here is the text from the post where you brought up the document:


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.


That first bit is a link to the 2005 document. So, I repeat my question: what does this 2005 document have to do with internal office procedures in 1961?

The 1961 document is about US Census bureau methodology for gathering and reporting birth statistics and has nothing to do with Hawai'ian State Department of Health office procedures.

Who is doing the twisting here? You have yourself so tied up in knots you can't even remember the rubbish you have documented only a few posts up the thread.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
The BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which is printed on an piece of paper is CERTIFIED. That is what makes it a CERTIFICATE. It has the Official Seal of the State of Hawai'i. It has the signature of the authorized State Department of Health Official. That is what makes it CERTIFIED.


You mean the raised seal that is not visible at all in the picture an has ONLY been mentioned by an anonymous person working for Factcheck?

Yes we can see the bleed through of an official stamp, but we cannot see any raised seal, even the picture on factcheck doesn't show the seal clearly enough to prove that it is the Hawaii seal


The Obama Campaign has had the document scanned and allowed it to be fingered and handled and photographed from several angles for the sole purpose of transparency in the face of your doubts.

Dr. Fukino has further verified that the hospital registration still exists, and that she has verified that it lists his birth place as Honolulu Hawai'i.

That is all that there is to certify and affirm. Period. There is nothing else that makes any sense in the context. Period.


and yet, Ron Polarik, In a phone call to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. Dr. Ron Polarik posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if he portrayed himyself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that he would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, he was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all.

He proceeded to ask Dr. Onaka questions about the COLB that only he, or a manager in Vital Records, would know. These are questions that Communications Officer, Janice Okubo does not know or anyone else not connected with Vital Records. Polarik did this as a way to corroborate his conversation with Onaka.

Polarik asked Dr. Onaka if the COLBs are stamped using a machine or by hand. He said, "Both." Hawaii uses a machine that applies the Seal and stamps electronically and simultaneously. That's why they appear to be placed in the same position, from year to year -- except in years where the large Seal design is used. He said that they use a desktop Seal embosser, similar to what notaries use, but much longer, so as to place the Seal higher up on the paper.

Polarik then asked him, "Why is the border on 2007 COLB different from the 2008 COLB, why is the Seal larger, and why is your signature stamp located off to the side instead of directly under the Seal? He told Polarik that they alternate the Seal design and border design, and when the Seal (the larger one) doesn't leave enough room to place the signature stamp below it, it's put off to the side. Evidently, this larger Seal is what is applied by hand, as in every case where it has been used, the Seal impression appears in a different spot on the paper.

Then, Polarik slipped in the the following question. He asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."

That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from Polarik. Since then, Hawaii has not answered anymore questions about Obama's birth record from anyone.

Furthermore, Department spokesperson Janice Okubo has made the following explanations:


So when Fukino says she has seen the original vital record, she means she has seen the original hospital document.


Why does that HAVE to be the only conclusion? There are different ways that a person was allowed to receive a CoLB in Hawaii in 1961:


1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:

a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate," that required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).


Just because they see a vital record does not mean they saw a hospital issued long form BC, even if they saw "A" Birth Certificate, it does not necessarily mean that it was from Hawaii since


In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.


We have seen a picture of a CoLB issued in 2007. We have 2 carefully worded statements from the State of Hawaii that reflect that there is a Birth File and an original Birth Certificate within the file, yet we still do not know if it was a late (delayed) filing, or an unattended birth (which has no way of being verified).

Hawaii also allows for amendings to BC's including people of foreign birth


Amended certifications of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
hawaii.gov...


When she says that original vital record says that Obama was born in Hawaii, she is saying that the computer data entry was accurate and that an OFFICIAL CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE printed from that computer data will say that he is born in Hawai' and is therefor accurate. Therefore, the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE issued to Obama is accurate, true, contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate, and the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.


Except that she never does say he was born in Hawaii in This Statement

on the Politifact site, they even quote


The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama's birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.

"I guess the big issue that's being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature," Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. "Because they scanned the front … you wouldn't see those things."

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? "When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it."

Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."



Of course, you may be thinking of the statement issued on 7/27/09


“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”


Which leads one to wonder, since we have no "official" definition of "Natural-Born Citizen" how did Fukino come to that conclusion & what evidence was used by her to base that determination on? Could she possibly have used Senate Resolution 225 as her evidence?



[edit on 11/1/09 by redhatty]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Con't from above...

If some other evidence was used, then If it was something else, then why would Hawaii need to invoke attorney client privilege Violating their own state law in the process?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

You mean the raised seal that is not visible at all in the picture an has ONLY been mentioned by an anonymous person working for Factcheck?

Yes we can see the bleed through of an official stamp, but we cannot see any raised seal, even the picture on factcheck doesn't show the seal clearly enough to prove that it is the Hawaii seal


No, I mean the raised seal that cannot be scanned clearly because scanners don't pick up texture. The seal that has been photographed to clearly demonstrate its existence and the fact that it is indeed the Hawai'ian State seal.





and yet, Ron Polarik, In a phone call to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. Dr. Ron Polarik posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if he portrayed himyself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that he would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, he was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all.


You mean the "Ron Polarik" that makes supposedly 'legal' affadavits and signs his name 'XXXXXXXXXX', yet claims to be literate, educated, and expert in image analysis? The one who is a fraud? The one who uses "Ron Polarik" is an internet handle with exactly the same usefullness as "redhatty" or "rnaa" does in identifying a person?

That "Ron Polarik" won't reveal his true identify so that his 'expertness' can be judged. Certainly his image analysis 'skill' has been thoroughly discredited.

Forgery part 2

Rewrite History



...
Then, Polarik slipped in the the following question. He asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."


I do not believe that ever occured. "Ron Polarik" is a fraud, and arguments based on his 'information' have no merit.




So when Fukino says she has seen the original vital record, she means she has seen the original hospital document.


Why does that HAVE to be the only conclusion? There are different ways that a person was allowed to receive a CoLB in Hawaii in 1961:


Because that is the definition of "vital record".



...

Just because they see a vital record does not mean they saw a hospital issued long form BC, even if they saw "A" Birth Certificate, it does not necessarily mean that it was from Hawaii since


In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.



And Obama was born in 1961, the 1982 law change is irrelevant to him.

Even if it did, any such birth certificate must show the true birth place. If it was Kenya, then the Birth Certificate must state that he was born in Kenya. Obama's says he was born in Hawai'i. What is so hard to understand about this?

Dr. Fukino in an OFFICIAL statement, (not an imaginary phone conversation with a wannabe Deep Throat nine months before it was reported), that she has seen the relevant "vital record", and that it verifies that he was born in Hawai'i.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




Of course, you may be thinking of the statement issued on 7/27/09

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”


Which leads one to wonder, since we have no "official" definition of "Natural-Born Citizen" how did Fukino come to that conclusion & what evidence was used by her to base that determination on? Could she possibly have used Senate Resolution 225 as her evidence?


I would suggest that she used reasoning along the lines of those presented here: Natural Born Citizens for Dummies

But I grant that she is not known as a Constitutional Lawyer, and the declaration that he is a natural born citizen by stint that he was born in Hawai'i may have been overreaching her expertise.

However, every American who has grown up in America, and attended school in America, and took Civics classes in America, understands that "Natural Born Citizen" in its simplest interpretation means born on American soil.

Anyone who can read English can read the 14th amendment and understand that the phrase

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
is drawing a distinction between two classifications of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. You really can't twist things the meaning of the words to invent additional classifications of citizenship. There is only one class of born citizen and that is exactly the "Natural Born Citizen" referred to in the list of Presidential qualifications.

And Hawai'i was most emphatically American soil in 1961, and still is, (not withstanding those who feel that Hawai'i was illegally annexed).



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Con't from above...

If some other evidence was used, then If it was something else, then why would Hawaii need to invoke attorney client privilege Violating their own state law in the process?


If no opinion, formal or informal, was given about the subject referred to, then there is no formal or informal opinion to release and no law was broken.

The statement from the AG denies a formal opinion was given, but is silent on whether an informal opinion was given.

The FOI request could be challenged on that point, I suppose, but for you to assume that means that the AG is guilty of breaking Hawai'ian law is a bit premature. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Donofrio might have had better luck if he had argued his case in court rather than on his blog.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


If anyone in the Congress or Senate really wanted to prove this thing they would have done so a long time ago. They have plenty of money and resources to do so. Get over it. And for those people saying he is the first black president, you are wrong. It was John Hanson (before the Constitution) and these guys AFTER the Constitution: diversityinc.com... If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, why do you people on here continue to debate about it?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by logistix111
It was John Hanson (before the Constitution) and these guys AFTER the Constitution: diversityinc.com... If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, why do you people on here continue to debate about it?


Your link is interesting because it says the following:

diversityinc.com...

Some blacks say Obama isn't "black enough," which seems ironic because for many blacks, former President Bill Clinton was "black enough." In 2001, Clinton was honored as the nation's "first black president" at the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Annual Awards Dinner in Washington, D.C.


The reason I find that interesting is because one of the theories about why Obama may be fighting so hard to avoid revealing his long form birth certificate is the possibility that the race section could show that he's white.

Personally I don't care what race is filled out on his form, but apparently that might matter to some people, or some people seem to think so anyway. And there are a couple of other theories too about reasons he might have for not giving permission to Hawaii to reveal his birth records, some of which have nothing to do with his place of birth. All interesting theories, but we may never know the real reason.

And if that article is true that Thomas Jefferson tried to hide facts about his heritage also, I find that interesting as I didn't know that.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Unfortunately it is true that if the race tick box does NOT say black there will be those in the community that will feel betrayed based solely upon that fact alone, in fact I know two in my own area that voted for him ONLY because he was perceived to be black and no other reason, they have told me about countless others who did the same thing, so I have to wonder the following:

Is he afraid that if that is the case, that he doesn't have nearly the "real" support that he thinks he has....



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Man i wish he was born somewhere because most of our american born presidents have been pretty #ty no offense its just that look how corrupt all our stuff has been. Thats not from kenyan or other birthplaces it's from our American born citizens. Evil doesn't come from birthplace. Id rather a Chinese man be president or something now ( pun intended). Maybe we need some foreign intervention.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 
correct me if im wrong here, but didn't george bush win the presidency without even being elected?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


Does this issue really Matter that much? Think about it. If true this opens the door for Swartzenager/Palin 2012!!!! With that in 900 years the Script of Demolition man can be turned into a religious book!! Think about it wouldn't you love to have Arnold as President? Who better to be in Office when we need to effectively end Aggression towards America? Would you attack the Army of the "Terminator"?
I appologies if my sarcasm is out of step, but we KNOW that he was Kenyan born. We will never get an admitance. So just get over it, and move on to things he actually had control over and that actually effect us, Please!



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 
correct me if im wrong here, but didn't george bush win the presidency without even being elected?



Even if true, which it is not - we seem to have another proponent of the "two (or multiple) wrongs make it right" philosophy.


Reminder: That's why we have laws and a constitution, so that people can know the rules and act accordingly. You don't like one or more of the laws, work within the framework provided to change them. No one gets to ignore the laws and constitution as a convenience.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnlawfullPriest
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


Does this issue really Matter that much?


Answer:

See my post directly above.

If the answer is "no" and that means we can ignore election laws just as long as the guy we like wins.

How about the next time someone breaks into your house and the police, etc. tell you that they're not prosecuting because they like the burglar better than you?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 
What about McCain being born in Panama?


[edit on 23-11-2009 by technical difficulties]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 
Notably, McCain provided both his short form and long form birth certificates which can be seen here:

www.scribd.com...

There was some debate about his eligibility as a natural born citizen also:

www.scribd.com...

In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[49] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen, although he acknowledged the possibility that the applicable laws had been enacted after the fact and applied only retroactively.


But by providing the long form in addition to the short form, it appears McCain wasn't hiding anything. So why did McCain allow his long form birth certificate to be released while Obama didn't? Curious people will wonder what Obama is hiding because of that even if he's not really hiding anything.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
True. Someone in this thread brought up the possibility that he's not realizing the documents to keep people arguing and distract them from the other issues going about. Someone else brought up another possibility of his long-form birth certificate showing that he is white, which would probably piss off a lot of people. But I guess we'll never know until he decides to release them.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Why executing an Hussein and electing a president called Barack Hussein Obama II two years after? Maybe there's a correlation somewhere.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by D1ss1dent]





new topics
top topics
 
349
<< 54  55  56    58 >>

log in

join