Al Jazeera Censors: Obama to Muslims: “I know because I am one of them.” Update: Other Censorship and Evidence of Islamic Influence
Via TheObamaFile, Al Jazeera originally reported the actual phrase when the President was speaking to the Turkish parliament. The original story, now scrubbed, can be seen here (as stored on TheObamaFile’s site) with the following original verbiage:
Al Jazeera’s Anita McNaught, reporting from Istanbul, said: “This was the address we had all been waiting for, it hit all the right notes.
“He talked about the contribution of the Islamic faith in the life of American Muslims and then he personalised that message by saying ‘I know because I am one of them‘. It was a message that reached out to many today.
“Of course it needs to be followed up by actions and by discernible policy changes.” [emphasis mine]
The above has since been replaced, here, with the following:
Al Jazeera’s Anita McNaught, reporting from Istanbul, said the highly anticipated address hit all the right notes and reached out to many.
As TheObamaFile opines:
Well, I have the Al Jazeera page cached, so they can kiss the soles of my feet.
I have repeatedly been called every name in the book by the Obots for re-publishing articles that even remotely suggest that Obama is a Muslim — but here it is — straight from the donkey’s mouth — Obama, himself, telling the Muslim world that he is one of them — that’s why he humbled himself before the protector of the two holy places.
Now, get ready for the Obots to parse what Obama really meant, as they try to cover up this frank admission.
While the American Constitution provides for no eligibility test based on religion (and we are all glad that it does not do so), the bottom line is that the President fully admits — and, apparently, the press censors at will — that he is a Muslim. Therefore, one should not be in any way surprised when any actions by this President can be seen as accomodating to Muslims, especially in light of his Executive Order to shut down Gitmo (to which a number of federal officials have since reacted), just to hit the tip of the iceberg.
Update: Commenter “suzy123” point to this New York Times article, specifically:
Showing more self-confidence each day on his maiden overseas trip as president, Mr. Obama, in addressing a majority Muslim country for the first time, appeared to have prepared carefully for one particular line in his wide-ranging speech.
“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans,” he said. “Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country.
“I know,” he said, “because I am one of them.”
And then he paused. Throughout his speech, he had moved swiftly from passage to passage, but this time, he waited for the interpreter to catch up. After about five seconds, the applause came.
The line was a bold one for Mr. Obama, who has been falsely described as a Muslim. The claim persists on some right-wing Web sites, which may try to interpret his remarks as proof of that view.
But Mr. Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, is calculating that the benefits of demonstrating to the Muslim world that Americans are not antagonistic toward it outweigh the potential political fallout back home. His calculus may also reflect an increased belief that he has enough political capital that he can spend some of it in pursuit of strengthening ties between Muslim nations and the West.
Update: If I haven’t made you PO’d at me yet, then this should do it. A reader reminded me of the following concerning this President:
Obama -- Agenda thus far in 2009:
His first phone call was to Abbas, the terrorist leader of the Palestinian
Authority and al Fatah;His first interview was on al-Arabiya News Channel, where he apologized
for the United States;His first appointment of an envoy to Syria was the appointment of George
Soros;He bankrolled Hamas out of Whitehouse funds to the tune of $23 million,
following Israel’s invasion of Gaza to stop the missile strikes;He promised another 900 million to Gaza;
He immediately adopted the Saudi Plan as policy for Israel, which favors a
contiguous Palestinian state (that is, a geographic area that connects Gaza
with the West Bank and includes Jerusalem -- necessarily dividing Israel);He dismissed charges against the perpetrators of the bombing of the USS
Cole;He announced the shut-down of Gitmo, and apologized to the Islamic world
for its existence;He announced that his first summit would be an Islamic summit;
He turned a blind eye to Iran’s launch of a satellite capable of
triangulating coordinates for ICBMs that Iran is furiously trying to develop
for the delivery of nuclear weapons;He turned a blind eye to the release of A. Q. Khan, Pakistan’s top nuclear
scientist, who is believed to be the very person to have delivered nuclear
bomb technology to North Korea;He intends to eliminate our anti-ballistic missile defense program;
He intends to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal by 75%;
He intends to reduce our military budget by 25%; -- Announced on todays
news.He has reneged on developing nuclear power; (increasing dependence on
foreign energy)He continues to block off-shore or expanded drilling; (increasing
dependence on foreign energy)He continues to try and block the production of coal (45% of our electric
generating capability)
Update: Even better, check out the following definition for “Taqiyya (taqqiya):”
Dissimulation as sanctified hypocrisy. It is considered a part of Islamic strategy to lie and deceive unbelievers by any means. Thus exercising taqqiyah is very pious behavior. Veiling the truth: Adjustment, deception up to the open lie. -Taqqiya is attached, if it is helpful to the well-being of the religion -Islam (Khomeini). Sunnis will deceptively say that this goes only for Shiites…
Also, Forbes had an article regarding the President at the end of last year that they subsequently deleted (but never managed to remove from cache).
And finally, commenter “Seeking_Justice” points to a particular video concerning the President’s perhaps not so much practicing Muslim upbringing:
So, we see that the “that-really-wan’t-a-bow” bow to the Saudi king as well as an assortment of anecdotal evidence — some of which is rather direct — shows that the President is at least partially Islamic in his beliefs.
I will again reiterate that it is not unconstitutional to have an Islamic President; it is, however, important to realize that none of this was discussed during the presidential campaign; in fact, his middle name — Hussein — was significantly downplayed as well in order to not draw attention to his heritage (of course, one wonders why?).
-Phil
This is not true; college transcripts do not ordinarily show citizenship info, nationality or place of birth.
Some public university records might show whether the student is a state resident for tuition records, but Obama attended private universities.
Records of financial aid are kept entirely separate from academic records, handled by a different office. Noncitizens are not eligible for any federally subsidized aid (subsidized loans, Pell grants) unless they are permanent residents — and most colleges that give need-based grant aid to their domestic students do not promise similar aid to internationals.
The whole thing about applying for aid “as a foreign citizen” is a fantasy made up by people who don’t have a clue about how college financial aid works. There are very few aid programs for foreign students unless subsidized by their own countries. (The only third-world country that I know of that pays to educate their students abroad is Cuba.- and I don’t think anyone claims that Obama is Cuban).
In fact, I think its an invention by people who must never have gone to college or seen what a college transcript looks like, or understand that a high school transcript has to be submitted during the admissions process.
Again, you are admitting that you would not be satisfied with disclosure of the so-called long-form or vault copy birth certificate, but would want to see “discovery” beyond that. The whole “college record” thing is just an illustration of that point.
College and university records often contain citizenship information (for example, whether he applied for aid as a foreign citizen). These would be appropriate, not unrelated, as evidence to be released during the discovery phase of a case involving citizenship.
College and university records often contain citizenship information (for example, whether he applied for aid as a foreign citizen). These would be appropriate, not unrelated, as evidence to be released during the discovery phase of a case involving citizenship.
You did, referring to college & university records.
There’s no evidence that I know of that Obama was attending college anywhere at the time of his birth.
Who said anything about personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth?
That’s the point – the bottom line is that the release of the so-called “vault copy” of the birth certificate would just be used as a rationale to demand an ever-increasing amount of discovery into personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth.
You answer the question, “why doesn’t he release the vault-copy” very well.
Sue:
The law speaks for itself. A parent could walk in with a baby, claim it was born in Hawaii, and get documentation. If you don’t understand that this means a foreign-born person could hold the same document Obama is displaying, I don’t really know how to dumb it down any further.
Practical Kat:
First, if this was introduced in court, the opposition would show that a foreign-born person could have the same document under Hawaiian law and request the full documentation which would show whether there was actually a documented, attended Hawaiian birth. This is precisely the kind of thing that would come out during the discovery phase – Obama would not be allowed to refuse to release his birth certificate, college records, university records, and any other records that might serve as evidence, which is why Obama is fighting to keep it from reaching discovery. Second, he didn’t provide this as legal proof – he provided it to prove to US, the voters, that he was born in Hawaii and was eligible… and since we know for a fact that a foreign-born person could hold the same document, it doesn’t prove anything of the sort unless you simply want to believe him.
Sue:
To say that he has not proven Hawaiian birth is not to say that all ten people/agencies on your list are operating in a conspiracy. I hope I don’t need to through them one by one.
Sue says:
April 16, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Jacqlyn,
Silly me. I forgot. You buy into this “huge conspiracy theory.” Who all is in this “conspiracy” to date?
1. Governor of Hawaii
2. Hawaii Dept. of Health officials
3. Congress
4. SCOTUS and all who work at SCOTUS
5. Federal Judges
6. All Attorney Generals
7. FBI
8. Homeland Security
9. Selective Service
10. DOJ
And anybody else who doesn’t agree with you. And, Dr. Taitz immediately tries to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with her or comply with her “demands.” Example: The National Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield by posting a two year old news article on her blog.
Have I left anybody out? Now, this is really an example of having “good common sense.”
***************************************************************************
Sue—-You left one important name off the list….That would be BARRY SOETORO….Imposter and biggest hoax on the USA in our American History…..I bet you believed Nixon was innocent too and that the people not buying into his cover-up didn’t have “common sense” either!! You wouldn’t know “common sense” even if it hit you on the head at least a dozen times!!! WAKE UP OBOT you have been programmed!!!!
Jacqlyn,
Silly me. I forgot. You buy into this “huge conspiracy theory.” Who all is in this “conspiracy” to date?
1. Governor of Hawaii
2. Hawaii Dept. of Health officials
3. Congress
4. SCOTUS and all who work at SCOTUS
5. Federal Judges
6. All Attorney Generals
7. FBI
8. Homeland Security
9. Selective Service
10. DOJ
And anybody else who doesn’t agree with you. And, Dr. Taitz immediately tries to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with her or comply with her “demands.” Example: The National Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield by posting a two year old news article on her blog.
Have I left anybody out? Now, this is really an example of having “good common sense.”
Sue continues to believe…….
This “guy” that I quote happens to be the Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. His email is rflahavan@sss.gov. His statement is posted below. You don’t have to believe me. His email is provided so you can verify the information for yourself. Why don’t you email him?
*********************************************************************************
Here Sue…..Better yet…..Why don’t you e-mail Mr. Coffman at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net and see what he has to say on the matter??? Why would I believe your guy is any more an authority on the IMPOSTER’S Selective Service Registration than you are….I’m sure he is not only lacking in “common sense” like you but he also is trying to twist and turn the truth to fit the cover-up!!!
———————————————————————–
The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.
But the Selective Service System registration (”SSS Form 1″) and accompanying computer print-out (”SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:
* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008
First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
As the retired federal agent notes:
Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?
It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.
Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80″ instead of the current “08″. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.
And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:
When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.
Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.
The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08″ in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!
* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form
On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B”. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80″ or “90″. The retired federal agent investigated further:
Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80″ or a “90″.
But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)–meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980″.
Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.
The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C”. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.
* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1’s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D”. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E”. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)
* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970
Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E”–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.
Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?
* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID
The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F”. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.
The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:
Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Sincerely,
Janice L. Hughes/SSS
Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?
On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.
* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page
Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?
And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:
The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.
Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].
Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?
A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).
Which is it?
It’s incredible that our Commander-in-Chief either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.
The documents indicate it’s one or the other.
*** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:
My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A”) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8″ was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:
The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.
His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.
He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.
He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.
UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):
Sue says:
April 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jacqlyn,
“I guess your obtuse lack of “common sense” is why you continue to post these ridiculous statements over and over again.”
The ridiculous statements that I continue to post happen to be actual laws, so I guess you think the law is ridiculous. If you would try to understand them, rather than make fun of them, you might just realize why all these lawsuits have failed.
Why do you continue to post false information and statements over and over?
***************************************************************************
I could ask the same of you Sue…..I don’t believe the authorities you post and neither do a lot of other people here!!!
So what? The registration still stands as legal proof of time and place of birth no matter who fills out the forms. Every state in the country has procedures in place allowing the registration of unassisted births.
Blake,
“But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.”
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that a person who was foreign born was issued a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1958 to present?
Of course they must ostensibly be born in Hawaii. But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.
Jacqlyn,
“and this guy you quote has had these documents in hand and is suppose to be credible???? I seriously doubt him and anything else you say…”
This “guy” that I quote happens to be the Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. His email is rflahavan@sss.gov. His statement is posted below. You don’t have to believe me. His email is provided so you can verify the information for yourself. Why don’t you email him?
And, the Selective Service Registration–guess you haven’t seen this, have you.
“Dear Mr. Arduini:
Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:
a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.
Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.
Richard S. Flahavan
Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Selective Service System National Headquarters”
rflahavan@sss.gov
Blake,
“How so?”
Hawaii Department of Vital Statistics says so. I emailed them to ask if HRS-38.5 allowed people born in a foreign country to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate. Here is their response.
vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
“A person must be born in Hawaii to obtain a certificate of birth from Hawaii. HRS-338-5 simply states that every birth in Hawaii must be registered with our department.
Aloha,
kd
Vital Statistics & Records
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Hawai`i Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813″
If you don’t believe me, email them yourself at the above email address which is also on their website.
What about that language changes the fact that a parent was allowed to do this after the fact and in absence of any actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth?
Sure. After all, what illegal alien doesn’t know the nuances of Hawaiian law and have the means to go there and register? Like none, amirite?
Because of this language in the law.
“a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred,”
If foreign births could be filed in Hawaii and be issued a Hawaiian birth certificate, then we would have no problem with illegal aliens. They would simply go to Hawaii and be furnished a birth certificate.
Jacqlyn,
“I guess your obtuse lack of “common sense” is why you continue to post these ridiculous statements over and over again.”
The ridiculous statements that I continue to post happen to be actual laws, so I guess you think the law is ridiculous. If you would try to understand them, rather than make fun of them, you might just realize why all these lawsuits have failed.
Why do you continue to post false information and statements over and over?
How so?
I’m not a lawyer so I wish Kat would jump in here and explain to you how “discovery” works. Lawyers cannot go on “fishing expeditions.”
*********************************************************************************
WOW Sue’s not a lawyer….imagine that everyone!!! I doubt very seriously that this KAT person is ether….at least not a very convincing one anyway!!
************************************************************************
Now Sue thinks she is a forensics expert….
Obama’s CCOLB is NOT forged and the Hawaiian Health Dept. officials have verified that they have Obama’s “original birth certificate.” So, I’m not going to be running anywhere. And, the Selective Service Registration–guess you haven’t seen this, have you.
*************************************************************************
Sue—-Seriously…..listen to yourself….just because you say it is so we are suppose to believe it….give me a break!!! I guess your obtuse lack of “common sense” is why you continue to post these ridiculous statements over and over again..it is as if you believe you are all knowing or something or other…and this guy you quote has had these documents in hand and is suppose to be credible???? I seriously doubt him and anything else you say…the more you talk the more suspicious we all become of the IMPOSTER!!!
Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
It doesn’t matter if you sent 1 or 1 million “petitions” — the LAW requires the full House and the full Senate to consider and deliberate if there is only ONE objection, signed by only TWO people, as long as one of those signers is a Senator and the other one is a member of the House of Representatives.
So your problem is that you couldn’t manage to find TWO people with the proper credentials to raise ONE single objection.
******************************************************************************
Kat—That is why in 2010 many of these cowards and morons( idiots who don’t even understand the Constitution) will be looking for real jobs…..wasting tax payer money is not an option anymore!
Practical Kat says:
April 13, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Jacqlyn Smith wrote:
Kat—-There were thousands of “point of order” petitions sent into Congress before they voted to elect the IMPOSTER and all of them were in writing and none of them were acknowledged
There is a LAW that CLEARLY SPECIFIES how objections are to be raised.
It is called Title 3, US Code, Section 15. You can read it here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html
The law says: Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
It doesn’t matter if you sent 1 or 1 million “petitions” — the LAW requires the full House and the full Senate to consider and deliberate if there is only ONE objection, signed by only TWO people, as long as one of those signers is a Senator and the other one is a member of the House of Representatives.
So your problem is that you couldn’t manage to find TWO people with the proper credentials to raise ONE single objection.
**************************************************************************
So it is like I said…”we the people” were denied our legal right to have our Representatives object to the election of an IMPOSTER to be POTUS when our “point of order” petitions went unrecognized!!!
Practical Kat says:
April 13, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Blake, here is the full text of HRS 338-5:
§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
Link: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0005.htm
That statute clearly refers to mandatory registration of births IN HAWAII by “in the district where the birth occurred“.
It obviously does not “allow a foreign-born person to obtain the same document” as you claimed.
******************************************************************************
Blake—-These Obots will never use their “common sense” so why bother…we all know that anyone who is good with Photo Shop could make up and authentic looking BC on the computer and try to pass it off as real….that is why we need to see the legal long form vault copy that we all have to present when you get a job working for the government!!!
So your contention is that the original birth certificate might disclose that one of Obama’s parents registered his birth as an unassisted birth, 4 days after Obama was born?
That’s highly improbable … but assuming you found that: Where would that get you? It would still be legal proof of birth in Hawaii.
“Yes… and since the parent themselves can register the birth, and they can do so after the fact and in absence of any documented, attended Hawaiian birth, they simply have to say that the birth occurred in Hawaii. Get it?”
That is NOT factual. Get it? [unneeded verbiage]
Also, regarding travel to Kenya in 1961; as I recall, GeorgetownJD? did extensive research on this subject. Perhaps GeorgetownJD would share that info again with the group.
To even suggest that a woman, in 1961, would give birth to a child (Aug. 4th) then travel to Hawaii by Aug. 8th to file a birth certificate lacks common sense, especially under the travel conditions in 1961. Obviously, you have never had a baby.
Both the birth annoucements were generated by the hospital–that has been confirmed and discussed here. Posted on Texas Darlin.
Jacqlyn,
“The two documents you keep denying as relevant will be relevant as SUPPORTING documents in the total information of the lawsuits…these two documents are only a small piece of the puzzle…until every document requested is allowed to be examined then no one really knows where these lawsuits might lead to”
I’m not a lawyer so I wish Kat would jump in here and explain to you how “discovery” works. Lawyers cannot go on “fishing expeditions.”
“also these lawsuits could be criminal as well if it is proven that the BC on line is indeed a forged and doctored up document to mislead the American people…..or that any other documents the campaign submitted such as the Selective Service Registration have been tampered with…..IF and WHEN we see the real thing(long form vault copy of the BC) and all the other pertinent documents being requested then you can bet there will be a lot of Democrats running for cover!!!”
Obama’s CCOLB is NOT forged and the Hawaiian Health Dept. officials have verified that they have Obama’s “original birth certificate.” So, I’m not going to be running anywhere. And, the Selective Service Registration–guess you haven’t seen this, have you.
“Dear Mr. Arduini:
Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:
a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.
Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.
Richard S. Flahavan
Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Selective Service System National Headquarters”
rflahavan@sss.gov
The ememy is in front of us, And his name is Obama.
Do not get mad buy weapons of freedom and use your brain when the time comes to fight against evil doers.
Yes… and since the parent themselves can register the birth, and they can do so after the fact and in absence of any documented, attended Hawaiian birth, they simply have to say that the birth occurred in Hawaii. Get it?
Jacqlyn Smith wrote:
There is a LAW that CLEARLY SPECIFIES how objections are to be raised.
It is called Title 3, US Code, Section 15. You can read it here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html
The law says: Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
It doesn’t matter if you sent 1 or 1 million “petitions” — the LAW requires the full House and the full Senate to consider and deliberate if there is only ONE objection, signed by only TWO people, as long as one of those signers is a Senator and the other one is a member of the House of Representatives.
So your problem is that you couldn’t manage to find TWO people with the proper credentials to raise ONE single objection.
Blake, here is the full text of HRS 338-5:
Link: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0005.htm
That statute clearly refers to mandatory registration of births IN HAWAII by “in the district where the birth occurred“.
It obviously does not “allow a foreign-born person to obtain the same document” as you claimed.
Blake wrote:
First, a Certification of Live Birth isn’t a document unto itself. It is a certified copy of a Certificate of Live Birth, i.e. the birth certificate. In other words, you’re not issued a Certification of Live Birth unless you have previously been issued a birth certificate. And the information on the Certification of Live Birth is the information that’s given on the birth certificate.
Second, there are only two Hawaiian statutes which allow for the issuance of a birth certificate to those born outside the state of Hawaii.
The first, HRS 338-17.8, allows for the issuance of a birth certificate to a child born out of state to parents who had declared Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year prior to the child’s birth.
The second, HRS 338-20.5, allows for the issuance of a birth certificate to a child who was born in a foreign country but adopted in Hawaii.
However there’s a problem. Neither of these statutes existed at the time Obama was born and his birth registered by the State of Hawaii (which was August 8, 1961). 338-17.8 didn’t exist until 1981, and 338-20.5 didn’t exist until 1979.
As for the 338.5 you cite, all it does is require a compulsory registration of births in the State of Hawaii.
k
Sue says:
April 13, 2009 at 9:46 am
Jacqlyn,
“You can believe what you want but I know for a fact that the two documents that have been discussed here are some of the supporting evidence in both Berg’s and Dr. Taitz lawsuits and probably in some of the other lawsuits as well and I didn’t say they are the evidence to convict”
I think you mean “only evidence.” The two documents that you keep harping on are not relevant. Convict? Of what? These lawsuits are not criminal but civil.
******************************************************************************
The two documents you keep denying as relevant will be relevant as SUPPORTING documents in the total information of the lawsuits…these two documents are only a small piece of the puzzle…until every document requested is allowed to be examined then no one really knows where these lawsuits might lead to….also these lawsuits could be criminal as well if it is proven that the BC on line is indeed a forged and doctored up document to mislead the American people…..or that any other documents the campaign submitted such as the Selective Service Registration have been tampered with…..IF and WHEN we see the real thing(long form vault copy of the BC) and all the other pertinent documents being requested then you can bet there will be a lot of Democrats running for cover!!!
HRS 338-5.
Jacqlyn,
“You can believe what you want but I know for a fact that the two documents that have been discussed here are some of the supporting evidence in both Berg’s and Dr. Taitz lawsuits and probably in some of the other lawsuits as well and I didn’t say they are the evidence to convict”
I think you mean “only evidence.” The two documents that you keep harping on are not relevant. Convict? Of what? These lawsuits are not criminal but civil.
Practical Kat says:
April 13, 2009 at 1:55 am
Yes, I did, and Mr. Linder appeared to begin running with the issue.
Good for you. But Mr. Linder did not actually object, did he? Did he even show up that day? Did he attempt to find a Senator to co-sign a written objection? or did he change his mind? Did you follow up to find out why he didn’t object?
that Joint Session acted unconstitutionally because nobody ever asked for objection
Phil, I can’t believe that you don’t know that the law requires that the objections be made in writing. (“Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.” 3 USC §15
If there had been a written objection presented before the commencement of the hearing, then of course it would have been heard. The Democrats figured out how to do that in 2004, despite a Republican-controlled Congress at the time — they had their debate over the Ohio vote.
**************************************************************************************
Kat—-There were thousands of “point of order” petitions sent into Congress before they voted to elect the IMPOSTER and all of them were in writing and none of them were acknowledged…..this points to corruption and Phil’s reasoning that they never asked if there were any objections. I sent 4 “point of order” petitions myself and to this day not one of my Senators or Representatives have acknowledged my petition of redress!!!
So you can believe all you want that things are being handled by our government in a transparent and legal way but this whole 2008 election cycle reeks of corruption and if you and Sue here took off your “rose colored glasses” long enough to use some “common sense” then you too might be able to see what many of us have seen for several months now!! Many of you OBOTS believe this is just a game here that we are playing and that you won the game when the IMPOSTER was elected…..this is not a Democrat vs Republican concern….this is a freedom vs. tyranny matter so get off the kool-aid already and join your fellow Americans in bringing down the corruption in our government!
This is not the first time our government has tried to cover up the truth and unless “we the people” call them on it…..then you might as well say goodbye to freedom and liberty because that is what we will be giving up!
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent” Thomas Jefferson
There is NO SUCH LAW, Blake. None. Not now. Never was.
Practical Kat,
No.
-Phil
This assumes that it could pass inspection for physical tampering; an argument based on assumption doesn’t get us very far.
Would not specific evidence that shows it to be inconclusive also render it meaningless as prima facie evidence? The Hawaiian laws that allowed a foreign-born person to acquire the same document would fit this description. This would seem to require a viewing of his full birth certificate, which would show whether there was actually a documented, attended Hawaiian birth.
Good for you. But Mr. Linder did not actually object, did he? Did he even show up that day? Did he attempt to find a Senator to co-sign a written objection? or did he change his mind? Did you follow up to find out why he didn’t object?
Phil, I can’t believe that you don’t know that the law requires that the objections be made in writing. (“Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.” 3 USC §15
If there had been a written objection presented before the commencement of the hearing, then of course it would have been heard. The Democrats figured out how to do that in 2004, despite a Republican-controlled Congress at the time — they had their debate over the Ohio vote.
Did Mr. Linder try to make a written objection? Does any member of Congress claim that they submitted a written objection as required but it was not heard?
I’d also point out that Constitution does NOT specify the manner of raising objections — that comes from the statute. There is no “asked for objection” requirement in Article II, the 12th or 20th Amendments- so the failure to do so certainly does not render the process unconstitutional.
You’ve got it backwards: there is no court precedence that would negate the presumption that the Congressional certification of the electoral college vote, by its nature also acts as the final determination by Congress of eligibility.
The 20th Amendment expressly spells out the procedure to be followed “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” — which allows for 2 possible outcomes:
1) President-elect fails to qualify —> Congress designates VP-elect as President, if qualified, until a President has qualified.
2) President-elect is qualified –> Congress certifies electoral college vote and names the incoming President.
You are trying to interpose a third step along the way. What it is, I’m not sure. A mandatory hearing and debate in Congress on whether each and every President is qualified? (Legal, if you amend 3 USC §15 to so provide — but unless and until the law is amended, clearly not required).
Some third party “authority figure” to rule on eligibility either before or after Congress meets? (Clearly unconstitutional, because it would infringe on the electoral process and powers of Congress that are laid out in the Constitution).
But whatever you want, certainly is not required by the Constitution.
Sue says:
April 12, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Jacqlyn,
“By the way Sue….There are far more attorney’s working on this issue that support my point of view rather than yours….so I think you are the one that needs to find a competent attorney!!!”
Gee, seems like I’ve heard you birfers claim that Obama had a “team of attorneys” fighting to keep his records sealed. What about them? Seems they are pretty competent too because so far they are beating the attorneys who share your point of view.
“Sue still doesn’t get it!!!!”
You are the one who still doesn’t get it.
Do you know he could have a birth certificate in Hawaii…but never have been born there??? WE must see the real thing to finally put an end to all of this speculation….once again….any and all documents may come into play in a court of law….you don’t know anything for sure and I just wish you would come to realize your opinions are not gospel!!!”
Your statement is false. And No, any and all documents will NOT come into play in a court of law. And again, it has nothing to do with MY opinion but rather the Federal Rules of Evidence. I wish you would go read them.
*******************************************************************
Again Sue—-Remove your “rose colored glasses” for just a minute and see if you can use some “common sense”…I know it’s asking a lot but it’s much easier than trying to convince everyone here that we should not be suspicious and how dare we ask the though questions that the MSM should have been asking many months ago of this IMPOSTER you all put in the White House!!!
As I said before….you just really seem to think you know it all…so why can’t you answer that one simple question…..Why do you suppose Barry continues to use those “pro bono” attorneys to keep all his records sealed??? Sounds to me like you think this is a game when you say…. “so far they are beating the attorneys who share your point of view”…..WOW…I’m impressed….they are doing such a great job at it too…even though the IMPOSTER promised transparency!!!
You can believe what you want but I know for a fact that the two documents that have been discussed here are some of the supporting evidence in both Berg’s and Dr. Taitz lawsuits and probably in some of the other lawsuits as well and I didn’t say they are the evidence to convict….they are documents to support the truth of the IMPOSTER’S personal history…but here again as Phil has said….until the real BC surfaces….we can only speculate as to what might be on the legal long form vault copy that is being held in Hawaii…supposedly!!!
I guarantee though….you will be the first to know when we finally get it…I just hope that then…..you will be able to remove your “rose colored glasses” long enough to realize what has been staring you square in the face all along!
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent” Thomas Jefferson
You are absolutely correct that there is no law that would empower a Court to rule, and so no paperwork submitted would be “relevant”. But under the same analysis, there is no authority figure who is so empowered, either.
So now you want an “expert” to give an opinion on whether an “irrelevant” document would be sufficient for a nonexistent authority figure to make a decision that no court is empowered to make?
That’s true, but the COLB is a document, so examination of the actual (”original”) COLB is what is required to determine whether it is genuine. That is what Factcheck did when they examined and photographed the document.
That doesn’t mean that examination of the COLB wouldn’t also suffice. (Note that she doesn’t say “is the only way”). Since you are so expert at parsing the words of the Director of the Hawaii Dept of Health, I’d think you would be alert to such a glaring omission from the affidavit of the expert you rely on.
In any case, her expertise as a forensic authority does not give her the ability to render an opinion on what legal documents would suffice. If she had any experience with examining public records, she would know that absent a court order, no public agency would ever release the original, so-called “vault copy” (not a legal term to refer to a specific record — you won’t find any statutory reference to that phrase).
What some agencies might release, though it is not the practice in Hawaii, is a CERTIFIED COPY of the original file copy of the long-form birth certificate.
But legally that would be no difference than the COLB.
“I have one question for anyone supporting Obama.
Would you allow a stranger watch your home for 4 years, allow access to your bank account, have power of attorney over your property to do as he sees fit without knowing anything about his background and when you try to check his past you find his records are sealed???
Please answer, especially Sue.”
First off, his records are not sealed. His records are protected by the same privacy laws that protect your records.
This “conspiracy theory” has taken the Constitution, laws and court precedents and tried to twist them to fit your agenda. [uneeded verbiage]
Blake,
“Do you understand the concept of “cover”? When factcheck.org exposes that Obama is a Marxist (an established fact), when factcheck.org exposes that Obama owns a mansion bought with the help of a criminal slumlord (an established fact), when factcheck.org exposes that his claim of Christianity is a blatant lie (an established fact), when factcheck.org exposes that William Ayers is his political ally (an established fact), then they will be going beyond covering their asses to actually exposing facts. Don’t be foolish here.”
Not established fact but rather “your opinion.”
“When Hawaiian birth is proven, you can pursue this argument. Until then, you have no leg to stand on.”
It has been proven and verified. When you can produce some credible evidence that would prove otherwise, then you are the one that has no leg to stand on.
“We’re not only talking about his childhood here. He traveled between Indonesia and Pakistan in his twenties, and Pakistan was under martial law at the time and did not allow entry on a US passport – he used his Indonesian passport, meaning that he renewed and maintained it (and his citizenship) into adulthood.”
False.
http://whatsyourevidence.com/
“We have found no evidence of any State Department Travel Ban to Pakistan in 1981 and, in fact, a contemporaneous NYTimes article stated that travel visas were available (and necessary) for Americans.
1/26 Update: The US State Department Advisory directly confirms that US citizens could obtain visas to Pakistan in 1981.”
Using your own words, when you can provide credible evidence that Obama has a Indonesian passport, then you are the one that has no leg to stand on.
“I am quite sure that’s what the parents told them. And?”
And, you birther bunch are the ones who seem to think the Indonesian school registration is significant. I don’t. But, you can’t cherry pick the information provided.
Jacqlyn,
“By the way Sue….There are far more attorney’s working on this issue that support my point of view rather than yours….so I think you are the one that needs to find a competent attorney!!!”
Gee, seems like I’ve heard you birfers claim that Obama had a “team of attorneys” fighting to keep his records sealed. What about them? Seems they are pretty competent too because so far they are beating the attorneys who share your point of view.
“Sue still doesn’t get it!!!!”
You are the one who still doesn’t get it.
Do you know he could have a birth certificate in Hawaii…but never have been born there??? WE must see the real thing to finally put an end to all of this speculation….once again….any and all documents may come into play in a court of law….you don’t know anything for sure and I just wish you would come to realize your opinions are not gospel!!!”
Your statement is false. And No, any and all documents will NOT come into play in a court of law. And again, it has nothing to do with MY opinion but rather the Federal Rules of Evidence. I wish you would go read them.
Practical Kat,
Yes, I did, and Mr. Linder appeared to begin running with the issue.
Yet, again, as I’ve already extensively covered, the lack of an objection in the Joint Session (and that Joint Session acted unconstitutionally because nobody ever asked for objections) does not equate to a given candidate being eligible; at least I have not seen any judicial precedence that dictates otherwise.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
Again, read what Ms. Lines actually said:
She is directly relating the concept of eligibility as being insufficient with respect to any format of the certification of live birth.
Even with all that being said, the bottom line is there is no currently existing law that enforces Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. Therefore, however the paperwork submitted to the Court would be construed is irrelevant RE: eligibility. Quite literally, a judge would have to “make it up” from the bench regarding the absence of enforcing eligibility; since there is no law to enforce, there is nothing upon which a judgment can be made.
Again, nobody is saying that any forensics expert would have the authority to declare any paperwork sufficient with respect to eligibility.
Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to get a forensics expert to declare that the certification is sufficient for an authority figure to determine eligibility; to date, this has not happened.
-Phil
Phil, there is no such thing as an “anonymous” affidavit nor “anonymous” testimony in a court of law — in this case you have linked to an “anonymous” declaration by “Dr. XXXXXX” signed by “XXXXXX” … which of course would have no validity in any court of law.
Also not true. You have the 12th & 20th Amendments. If there was a credible shred of evidence to contest Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, then an objection could have been raised by the procedures in place to raise it.
Your problem is not a lack of enforceability, its a lack of evidence.
Phil, you live in a state, you are represented by 2 Senators and a Congressperson. Did you personally write letters to your 3 representatives in Congress requesting that they raise an objection in the joint session?
There was a time and a place for raising the issue, and no one chose to pursue it at the proper time and place.
The reason, of course is obvious: the detractors would have lost. The COLB (paper version, not digital) would have sufficed to prove Obama’s birthplace — and there would have been a Congressional finding, entered on the record, to the effect that Obama had been determined by Congress to be a “natural born citizen”… and your phony “issue” would have been forever dead.
So you get more mileage — and certainly a lot more advertising revenue from your blog — by fanning the flames of a fake issue that will never be “resolved” precisely because it is built on a tissue of lies and innuendo.
P.S. Speaking of advertising revenue — I love the “International Muslim Matrimonials” ad! Capitalism produces strange bedfellows, doesn’t it?