jbjd, BIRTHER

(08.08.09:  I wish I had entitled this post, “HI OFFICIALS CONFIRM BO NOT A NBC BY CLAIMING, HE IS.”  Because that is the premise of the piece.  And these statements coming from Janice Okibo, Communications Director of HI Department of Health; and Dr. Fukino, Director, are important additions to the narrative that can support charges of election fraud against both NP and the DNC, filed with your state AG.  That is, in order to get BO’s name printed on state general election ballots, they Certified he is a NBC without first determining whether he is.  After reading the post, read the Comments below the post.  I have written tomes in response to readers’ queries.)

*****************************************************************************************************

Notwithstanding that several times I have outlined the case, when it comes to determining whether BO is a NBC, the burdens of proof and production are on him, I have nevertheless been struck at how easily people were duped into construing that recent pronouncements from the state of HI legitimized BO’s HI birth.  On the contrary, they did no such thing.

I was reading td’s blog – she’s on my blogroll – when I came across this seemingly innocuous comment by a poster named Michelle in Texas:

Posted on BBC news. Most facts are correct. More telling are the omissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8171314.stm

I read that article.  Here was my reply.

Thank you Michelle, whoever you are. I read this link; the article mentioned that Janice Okubo, Dir. of Communications for HI DoH, said in the Washington Independent that, no one born outside HI can get a HI Certification of Live Birth saying he was born in HI. Here’s the money quote.

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Ms Okubo told the Washington Independent, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

(Recall I wrote in a comment on a previous post that Hi has now undertaken the wholesale substitution of the word “certificate” for the word “certification.”)

The Washington Independent printed Ms. Okubo’s statement on July 17.  Here is that link.  http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam

IN OTHER WORDS, MS. OKUBO IS SAYING THAT ANY CHILD NOT BORN IN A HI HOSPITAL CAN STILL OBTAIN A HI CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH BY PRODUCING RECORDS VITAL TO IDENTIFYING WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.  HOWEVER, SHE FAILED TO IDENTIFY WHAT WERE THOSE ‘VITAL RECORDS.’ AND, GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION, HER ANSWER SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THIS INFORMATION.

Then, 10 (ten) days later, on July 27, the Director of the Dept. of Health, Dr. Fukino said she had “seen the original vital records…” “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”  http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials Know what I think she saw? The documentation BO’s mother was required to submit to the DoH verifying her newborn child was born alive in HI outside of the hospital, in order to obtain a HI Certification – oops, I’m not used to HI’s revisionist terminology – Certificate of Live Birth.  These vital records could include a photocopy of a passport verifying his mother is  an American citizen.  And these original vital records submitted by his mother verifying BO was born in HI and she is an American citizen, are still in the file.

The original  COLB is also in the file.  This means that when Dr. Fukino said last October she saw BO’s original birth certificate – remember, HI officials now call the “Certification” a “Certificate” – she was telling the truth.  (“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.  http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html Indeed, she was telling us the following.  ‘According to state policies and procedures, BO’s mom provided information to us verifying her son was born in HI outside of a hospital.  And we believed her and issued a COLB saying Hi is where he was born.’

Presumably, back in October, she also saw the evidence submitted by his mother verifying she was an American citizen.  So, on July 27, up to here with 9 (nine) months of constant questions about details of his birth records in relation to his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS, Dr. Fukino also  announced in good faith, he was a NBC.

In other words, we still have absolutely no idea whether BO is a NBC.

About these ads

25 Responses to jbjd, BIRTHER

  1. Patriot Dreamer says:

    I am particularly bothered by the fact that Dr. Fukino took it upon herself to declare BO a “natural born American citizen”. She has no authority to make such a claim. Whether or not BO is a “natural born citizen” is a conclusion of law, not a statement of fact. Ugh!

    Patriot Dreamer: Yes, but, I think this was an innocent mistake. See my remarks to snk, above (or below?). ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Brian H says:

    Presuming any officials (or media rep with access to such officials) defending Obama’s NBC status without hard documentary backup are “innocent” is a concession too far.

    Brian H: Officials addressing a person’s birth records, which are protected by HI privacy laws, are constrained as to what information they can reveal without violating the privacy of the person whose records they are discussing, and subjecting themselves to suit for such breaches. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Miri says:

    jbjd: Thanks for elucidating this issue. Many didn’t catch the import of what Fukino said and what she didn’t say.

    Miri: You are welcome. It hit me like a ton of bricks in the wee small hours of the morning. (As to the other questions on another topic, can you re-post on that blog and I will answer?) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Is Fukino now saying she READ the information on the records? So why does she have authority to say whether or not BO is a NBC unless she identified the father’s nationality as US citizen by reading the birth certificate?

    Or was she just sloppy with her words?

    NBC issue is STILL not settled.

    snk: No; Fukino is not saying, she examined the documentary evidence in the record and agrees that the substantive information contained in these records is true. She is only saying, the nature of the documentary evidence in the record verifying BO was born in HI appears to be in accordance with HI specifications. I have not searched for HI DoH regulations for those years but, the statute allowing out of state births to qualify for HI birth registrations is not specific as to what evidence must be presented to obtain the HI Certificate of Live Birth. There is a vague reference to something like, ‘in a manner the Director of the DoH deems appropriate.’ So, for example, the vital records Fukino referenced could be affidavits; or a copy of a U.S. passport. And if the regulations at that time listed affidavits and copies of U.S. passports as documentary proof of conditions of birth then, she was honest in saying, the record complies with HI law. But she isn’t verifying BO was born in HI; she is saying, the vital records verifying he was born in HI, are on file. Get it? As to stating, BO is a NBC; I believe she made a good faith conclusion based on the vital documents verifying his mother was a U.S. citizen AND he was born in HI. I think she has no idea that the citizenship of the father comes into play. So, you are right; the NBC issue is still not settled. ADMINISTRATOR
    (CLARIFICATION 02.01.12: I am not saying dual citizen parents cannot produce a NBC but only that, determining whether Obama is a NBC must include an analysis of what impact, if any, the nationality of his father, whoever that turns out to be, has on his U.S. citizenship status.)

  5. finneganswig says:

    Didn’t Governor Lingle state that the original record was “sealed”? (Done, unless I’m misunderstanding the Hi statutes, when a subsequent record is issued – I assumed the supplemental adoption cert.)
    For Fukino to even verify “the nature” of the supporting documentation from the original, wouldn’t this involve unsealing the record – which according to HI.gov is only possible via court order?

    finneganswig: Your questions seem simple on their face but, they led me to a clearer analysis of HI records laws. Let me state at the outset, I have not yet thoroughly researched these laws. (After all, I only just entered the fray of weighing in on the sufficiency of what we know about HI DoH records to tell us whether BO is a NBC. I hated all the speculation. Then, when I thought I ‘heard’ an admission about those records from the DoH, I took a side. But I still have to examine the law to fill in any blanks.) To the extent that Governor Lingle made any reference to BO’s records – and without a cite, I cannot say what she said – she would only have pointed out that his ‘original records’ enjoy the same protections from violations of confidentiality and privacy as any other personal records in HI. But you point to a circumstance that leads me to re-think my legal theory as to what information about those records can be revealed under HI disclosure laws. Think about it. The 2 (two) people making statements about the contents of BO’s records were both attached to the HI DoH. As such, one would expect, they could have access to such records. However, this employment relationship alone does not entitle them to speak publicly about the contents of those records and avoid liability for exposing personal information protected by statute. No; there must be a provision in HI law that allows the dissemination of certain information on record, and not other information. These people at the DoH have received numerous inquiries about the contents of BO’s files. Perhaps they made these public statements in response to those requests. If so, this would mean, information of the type they released is allowed under HI law; and releasing this information is also allowed. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Miri says:

    jbjd: Is it a crime to present to a qualified attorney, in the midst of an active case, a fraudulent document (in any form, digital or otherwise)?

    If that image/document was sent to Dr. Taitz, in her capacity as an attorney and in reference to a case currently before the court, with a message stating false information or information intended to mislead this attorney, then is that a crime?

    Isn’t Dr. Taitz an “officer of the court”?

    Wouldn’t attempting to mislead her concerning a specific case before the court be a crime similar to obstruction of justice, jury tampering, and/or fraud?

    About the Honolulu Advertiser and the story that ran on July 28 about the birth certificate issue, especially with regard to that coincidentally fortuitous photograph of Mrs. Nordyke showing the world exactly what a legitimate, Hawaiian, long-form birth certificate looked like back in 1961, including the names and signatures of the registrar, the doctor, etc.:

    Don’t newspapers have a legal department?

    What would a lawyer say about a woman displaying for the world to see the original birth certificates of two other adult women?

    Did those twins give their mother permission to display to the world such important vital records that might lead to, say, identity theft?

    I, for one, would be quite upset to learn that any relative of mine had my birth certificate posted on the Internet and/or printed in a newspaper, for all to see.

    Are these twins still living? What the heck was their mother thinking?

    What the heck were the reporters, editors, and any attorneys hired by the newspaper thinking?

    Miri: Whoa! I will answer those questions that are not so fact specific as to render an opinion little more than speculation. First, while Orly is an officer of the CA court, she is not licensed to practice in GA. Therefore, she needs permission to file a case in GA through a process called pro hac vice (for this time only). (She also needs to provide the court with the name of a GA attorney licensed to practice there.) As an officer of the court, in whatever state, rules of conduct would prohibit her from knowingly introducing as evidence a document she has prior knowledge is fake; but the action she took, as I understand it, was to compel certain individuals to investigate whether this document was fake. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      I guess what I was asking was whether the hoaxster who forwarded the digital document TO Dr. Taitz committed a crime, if that person represented to Dr. Taitz that the document is an authentic piece of evidence, related to her case? Meaning, is there possibly such a thing as attorney tampering? Attempting to mislead an attorney by submitting knowingly false evidence, to waste hers and the court’s time?

      Miri: I say all the time, I cannot get into a discussion of whether a document posted on the internet is real; I would rather find out where it came from. I have no idea how Orly came to be in possession of that document, or whether it was a photocopy. But giving her a document that turns out not to be what it purports to be on its face, and nothing more, is not a crime. Orly petitioned the court to order HRC to authenticate it; she should have authenticated it before giving it to the court. This is the problem. You characterize giving this document to her as an enticement for her to submit false evidence to the court. But her job is to prevent evidence a reasonable person should know if false, from entering the court record. She is supposed to question things like chain of command, for example. People lie to lawyers all the time. Lawyers are supposed to know better than to buy into every scam that comes along. That’s their job. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. juriggs says:

    jbjd,

    I believe you’re right about there being a HI law that allows the dissemination of certain information on record. A “Miss Tickly” has been posting on that topic over at Donofrio’s blog lately. She dug up a document on Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act. You can find the pdf at:

    http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf

    Might be an interesting read.

    juriggs: I am so pleased to hear from you. Yes, I am in touch with MissTickly. In fact, I contacted her much like I contacted you, having been impressed by the straightforward dogged nature of your work. It is incredible to me that any of the ‘solutions’ I propose to get to the heart of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, necessarily incorporate the stellar dogged work of so many of you out there in the blogosphere. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. aware4now says:

    jbjd,

    After reading your excellent discouse above on the different HI Health statements, it occured to me
    that I have read somewhere that Obama’s half sister,
    Maya Soetoro, has a COLB from HI as well? Know anything about that? Any truth to it?
    Keep up the good work…

    aware4now: Welcome to the blog. Yes; this is another one of those rumors that had caught on. However, to my knowledge, no one has established such COLB exists. (Of course, based on HI law, it could…) Now, let me ask you a question: do you know whether your state has a law regarding the Constitutional eligibility of the candidate for POTUS from the major political party with regard to getting his name printed on your state’s general election ballot? (Or you could just provide me with the state…) ADMINISTRATOR

  9. MissTickly says:

    If you have touched on this, sorry–I may be a little behind:

    Someone, don’t know who, proffered that a letter to a hospital, 48 years later, stating “congratulations on, me, the president being born there,” and the hospital’s acknowledgment and use of that letter could be used as evidence of a birth in the hospital and therefore history my be revised easily.

    Anyway, that’s how I approached it. Is that where you are coming from jbjd?

    MissTickly: Hello again. Although I have seen the document in question, this hospital letter is one of those unsubstantiated rumors I wrote about in the comment below. WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about this letter, at a press conference. At that time, he disavowed any knowledge of it. (This is why I tend to stay out of discussions about the authenticity of records.) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Miri says:

    jbjd: Do the people who were injured (allegedly) by SEIU thugs at Rep. Carnahan’s townhall have a civil case against politicians who put the unions up to getting into opponents’ faces? In other words, can you sue someone who, it can be argued, incited the attacks? It’s been reported, for example, that Obama told people to punch back twice as hard. Immediately thereafter, violence broke out at townhalls. AFTER the unions were told to attend, not before, when anti-Obamacare protesters may have been loud or rude, but never violent.

    Now that some anonymous blogger has supposedly admitted forging that Kenyan “birth certificate”, the one Taitz submitted for verification, I still wonder whether that was a crime to mislead an officer of the court (and waste the court’s time, besides)?

    Miri: Okay, let me start with your question about causes of action resulting from the attacks on attendees at these health insurance reform meetings. By pointing out that the protagonists were sent by the government (or people acting on the government’s express direction, same difference) you have outlined a civil rights claim, that is, people exercising their 1st Amendment right to assemble and speak were restrained from so doing by the government. Defendants named in such a suit would include all the officials you can think of, both in their professional and personal capacities. But if you expect to see the ACLU coming to the aid of these protesters at any of these sites; or for the US Justice Department to investigate this coordinated effort to deprive a class of citizens across the country their civil rights, don’t hold your breath. ADMINISTRATOR

    Note: Usually I eschew the use of invectives on this site. However, “thug” used in context here referred to specific individuals who were physically assaulting a man, even after they got him down; and these individuals belonged to the SEIU, as evidenced only in part by identification on their apparel. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Papoose says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Is the Commander in Chief inciting riots with his solicitations to fend off and overpower the citizens having opposing views inre their personal welfare?

    ~~ also, have you seen The Obama Files’s latest banner. My heart is sinking and I feel he is relaying a message.

    Thanks, Friend.

    Patti

    Papoose: Yes. See my response to Miri. No; I will take a look. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Patti says:

    So basically, it does not matter if the CIC recruits people to harm others, there is no recourse because the DoJ is stacked with Holder and others…it’s a lost cause because they can and will…

    I was hoping it was illegal to incite gangs to intimidate and cause bodily harm…

    I think I get it, jbjd. Thanks.

    Patti: This conduct is illegal. Someone needs to report this to the FBI, who will investigate and determine whether to prosecute. On the civil side, I could expect to see individual lawsuits but nothing from the ACLU or Lawyers Guild. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. MissTickly says:

    I am sure you’ve seen this but, just in case:

    Greg Goss said…

    The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

    EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
    Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

    MissTickly: I hate to burst your enthusiastic bubble but, capitalization of words in the original Constitution document operated under different rules. In that line you cite, above, notice which words are capitalized? Nouns. Besides, our understanding of what is meant by the word NBC has no relationship to what the word means in determining whether the POTUS is a NBC, except as to obvious facts such as, being at least age 35, for example. The meaning of our laws – and this refers to both the Constitution and the federal code, the basis of which laws must be found in the Constitution – is determined by the appellate court, which includes the SCOTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. aware4now says:

    jbjd,

    You asked if I know the law for my state for candidates
    to get on the ballot of major parties.
    I’m in Texas and here is all that I found:

    “§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON
    BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its
    nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
    placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
    (1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those
    offices prescribed by federal law;

    So, not much, and seems to leave the vetting to the party. I assume this is what you are asking?
    By the way, I did a search to see if I could find anything on Maya Soetoro and a COLB from HI. I found
    a reference that I am following up on. If it turns out to be anything, I’ll let you know.

    aware4now: BINGO! (Thank you for doing the leg work.) This law means, you are about to file a charge with your AG accusing NP (and the DNC) of election fraud.

    By submitting that Certification of Nomination to TX elections officials – SoS? – to get BO’s name onto the general election, NP (and the DNC) implicitly Certified, he is also a NBC, in compliance with state law! Plus, since the DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC then, just making him their nominee implicitly means, he is a NBC. Okay, so here we are, TX law says the party nominee must be a NBC and NP and the DNC Certified, BO is a NBC. (Details: find out from your SoS whether the D state party chair forwarded the DNC Certification to that office or whether it came directly from the DNC.) Now, next question. Does TX have any law that requires the state to check whether the DNC Certification of eligibility is true? No. (You can double check this if you want.) But just because no law requires a public official to check whether the DNC submitted the name of an eligible candidate, this does not abrogate the Party’s obligation to make sure the candidate they submit is eligible. Next question: on what basis did NP Certify, BO is a NBC? Or, put another way, did NP vet whether BO is a NBC before she Certified he was? Several voters in several states have submitted that question to both NP and the DNC; neither will respond. (Have you asked? Do you know of anyone else in TX who has? No matter; I have Certified documentation Floridians corresponded with both NP and the party, with no reply.) Presumably, if they have documentation that BO is a NBC, they would have produced this, on request. But they won’t. Looks like fraud to me!

    See if you understand this and get back to me. In the meantime, I am working on gathering records from various sources, of their contacts with the HI DoH in an attempt to obtain BO’s records, without success. (Did NP have more success than these citizens? Or did BO provide her with documentation of eligibility he refuses to show the rest of us? Or did she not vet him at all?) ADMINISTRATOR

  15. MissTickly says:

    “Can this be obtained through a FOIA through Pelosi’s office? I have FOIA on the brain still.”

    By this I mean of course, IF, she can produce documentation that he’s a NBC….which you are right, she probably can’t.

    MissTickly: Aha, there is the rub! Given that certain state laws require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job; and given that, the laws of those states fail to provide any state officials have to check; and given that in certain states the name of the candidate from the party is “entitled” to appear on the ballot; and given that, when asked, state elections officials have admitted they “assumed” the party checked whether its candidates for POTUS were Constitutionally eligible for the job; then, I would argue, the major political parties in those states were acting qua state. And, as a state actor, I would argue, the DNC, therefore, is subject to the FOIA. Now, I should warn you, all attempts to obtain documents from the DNC related to their Certification, BO is a NBC; have failed. They maintain, they are not a public actor and as such, are not subject to the FOIA. But as far as I know, no one has raised the argument I just put forward. If you do request records from the DNC, I propose you try asserting the FOIA, as well as the argument they are acting as the state in determining whether their candidate is qualified for the office sought, according to state rules. Then, when you receive their rejection reply, come back to me.

    In those states where the law requires the candidate to be eligible before his name can go on the ballot, like TX, I would love to be able to show these A’sG not only ‘generic’ requests for documentation but also requests couched in FOIA laws. The DNC is playing immunity at both ends. Again, if it looks like a duck…
    ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      MissTickly: Since you’re thinking about FOIA requests, have you thought about looking for marriage announcements, similar to the birth announcements?

      If those lists are compiled at the DOH and then sent to newspapers, as has been reported, then what happens to the lists? Could they still exist?

      There should be no privacy problem with getting copies of them, if they still exist, because that information is RELEASED to newspapers for publication, which apparently was done, if the birth announcements are real.

      So, what happens to the lists? Does the DOH keep copies of them? Can somebody get copies of those lists, including births, deaths, AND marriages?

      If so, then the lists for 1960 and 1961 SHOULD contain his birth announcement, the birth announcements for the Nordyke twins, and also an announcement of his parents’ marriage. Right?

      The state where I live did KEEP such lists. When they computerized the death records, they created an index from the lists, not from the scanned images of the death records. As a result, it’s caused problems when people search for the document images, because there are mis-spelling and typos in the index.

      But the state did keep these indices for all of the years that death records were maintained. And these indices still exist, in books at the State archives.

      One can go back and look at the original, typewritten index pages. One can also see them on microfilm. And these microfilms exist in multiple places–the state archives, libraries, and historical societies.

      It’s possible that the Mormons have copies in Utah.

  16. aware4now says:

    jbjd,
    I definitely see your point,both in your reply to me and to MissTicky above. I will email the SoS here in Texas first and then attempt to get info from the state
    DNC. I will save and transmit any replies, if any. Either way I see your strategy and glad to help. I think this has been done in Texas, but no harm doing it
    again.

    aware4now: ‘This’ has not been done in TX in such a way as to forestall the elected official who received the request for investigation from disavowing any responsibility in this election fraud. First of all, make clear this is not a request to investigate whether BO is a NBC. (I wonder whether this was filed with the SoS instead of the AG.) Please make clear you are not saying BO is not a NBC. You are not saying, the DNC said he is but you believe, he is not. You are saying, they said he is but, they won’t tell you on what basis they made such determination before signing the Certification of Nomination that permitted his name to be printed on TX’s general election ballot in accordance with TX state law. (Check back with any questions.) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. d2i says:

    Way back during the early part of the general, when this story was heating up in the blogosphere, and Dr. Kate guest poster over at TD’s blog posted a template for a complaint to the SOS, I spoke to our State’s Secretary Board of Elections about the ineligibility issue. I explained that there were serious questions being raised by legitimate citizens about his natural born status.

    The Secretary called me back several days later and told me “I spoke to a colleague at the FEC about this issue and he assured me that the FEC vetted him and that it wasn’t an issue to be concerned with.”

    By then, I knew too much about the whole vetting process, or should I say the non-vetting process, and elected not to push it.

    Of course, we knew then like you are working on now, that the only vetting/nonvetting that took place of 0 was via NP and the DNC NOT the FEC or any other federal entity.

    I think I need to revisit this conversation. Any thoughts?

    d2i: I am so glad you mentioned this. Last summer, when the issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for the job heated up – this was AFTER he posted that HI COLB on his newly created FTS site – people in the blogosphere asked what to do next; and some of us tried to figure out an answer. Several people turned to the federal authorities, including the FEC; but as I pointed out in comments on various blogs – I had not set up my blog yet – by statute, the FEC has no authority to vet the candidate for POTUS from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility.

    Here is the mission of the FEC:

    In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
    http://www.fec.gov/info/mssion.shtml

    But when people contacted their state elections officials to complain, BO is not a NBC, these officials correctly responded, it is not our job to vet the candidate from the major political parties. And as I have been saying for over a year now, that is true. In fact, in an effort to address concerns as to BO’s eligibility, I searched through state and federal laws and learned, no provision in either federal or state law requires any state actor to vet the candidates for POTUS from the major political parties as to Constitutional eligibility. Nor does the Constitution instruct the EC to vet them; nor the Congress before they may Certify the EC vote. So, to whom in government does one protest, BO is not a NBC? Shortly before the Convention, I discovered that some states, like TX, GA, and HI (off the top of my head) have laws that require these major party candidates to be eligible for the jobs sought, in order to get their names placed onto the general election ballot. (In fact, the purview of state officials is not to interfere with the choices of candidates put forward by the parties but to make sure that only the names of eligible candidates are printed onto state ballots.) So I figured out, given existing laws, the best way to complain BO is not a NBC is to exercise existing avenues to challenge names placed on the ballot! The biggest obstacle to this solution was time; plus the fact, as soon as state elections officials heard, ‘BO is not a NBC,’ they fobbed off the voters of their states by framing this issue of eligibility as the exclusive domain of the parties, instead of recognizing this is a state general election ballot eligibility issue and not a POTUS Constitutional eligibility issue.

    As BO and the DNC passed each hurdle to the WH, options for redress as to whether he is Constitutionally eligible changed; some were eliminated altogether. But one option that has remained untried is the one I am proposing now, and first mentioned on this blog back in January or February. That is, given everything we have learned in the past several months, including the impossibility that anyone other than BO can obtain records from the HI DoH – I am writing more about this shortly – it appears impossible that NP and the DNC could have verified BO is a NBC before they Certified to the states, he is. And when we ask them, they refuse to disclose the basis for their Certification.

    At some point, I will switch my primary focus to drafting model legislation for the several states, to include state verification of the parties’ nominees. For now, I want to use existing laws. After all, this is why we enacted them! ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Brian H says:

    With respect to HI’s records and original BC, any relative can get access, such as someone doing geneological research. So anyone out there with a distant linkage to the Dunhams, e.g., could request the original. Or, for that matter, any relative of the Obamas.

    Brian H: People interpret HI’s UIPA differently. Then, there is the problem of reconciling the opinion of the person submitting the request for records with the opinion of the person providing the records. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. jan C says:

    I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals. Is that confirmed anywhere? What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?

    jan C: Welcome. Before I could answer any of your questions related to the publication of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Observer, I needed to address the underlying assumption in all of these questions. Namely, did the Honolulu Observer publish BO’s birth information? I don’t mean whether the picture of that announcement that is posted all over the web, is for real. Your guess is as good as mine. Rather, I wanted to find out where it came from. And research as to its origins has inspired the subject of tomorrow’s post. Look for your answers there. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. rlqretired says:

    Jbjd – In reference to Aware4now’s comments and a possible AG fraud complaint in Texas, where they actually do have a state law referencing eligibility, any of the certified letters referenced in my election fraud complaint, which was received by Florida’s AG July 30, is available upon request if they can be of any use.

    I have certified letters requesting copies of the documents used by the DNC as well as one to Obama himself and Obama’s was before he was inaugurated. Also, the state party.

    The election fraud complaint and request for investigation is posted at:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6929

    Scroll down to post headed “I Am A Natural Born Citizen of the USA.” Pages 1-4 establish the premise for the complaint, page 5 is the fraud complaint against the DNC, page 6 is the complaint against the SoS and page 7 is the summation.

    Florida is unique in that the Florida Legislature provided no eligibility requirement of the party nominee but gave the SoS authority to promulgate rules for the presidential preference primary. The SoS refusal to promulgate a rule that requires the submission of these verifying documents along with the names to be placed upon the ballot is the basis for their collusive participation in the fraud, like cops watching a crime but doing nothing. My goal is to get the rule promulgated. 2010 is an election year.

    Thanks for all your help and I am just tickled pink to see you and Leo back together, my favorite 2 legal minds.

    rlqretired: Hello, old friend. I am so glad you brought this particular comment to the blog, because it points to a universal truth. While laws vary from state to state as to how and when to get the name of the candidate for POTUS from the major political party onto the state’s general election ballot; the candidate who fails to meet Constitutional eligibility requirements in one state fails to meet those requirements in another, regardless of whether meeting those conditions was a legal prerequisite to accessing the state’s general election ballot. In other words, while state laws vary as to whether the party candidate MUST be eligibile for POTUS in order to have his name printed on the state election ballot; if he isn’t eligible for POTUS, he could not win the election, even with his name on the ballot in those other states.

    If no record exists in TX that citizens have asked the party to reveal on what basis they determined candidate BO is a NBC to meet state law that to get on the ballot, he must be qualified for office; surely the fact that in FL people have asked, and been ignored, will be relevant to TX state officials looking into complaints of election fraud there.

    Nice work, rl. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Claurila says:

    I wonder why you haven’t mentioned this study in connection with the Hawaii laws on the establishment of a birth certificate:
    (name of ‘study’ and ‘study’ results omitted)

    Claurila: I omitted the remainder of your comments because 1) they contained a discussion of substantive issues of HI law which are outside of the scope of this article; and 2) the information discussed is cited to a web link that while named to reflect some sort of journalism center is actually merely another web site ‘founded’ by Joseph Farah at World Net Daily. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. [...] Michael Isikoff, posting today at MSNBC on-line under the moniker “National investigative correspondent,” apparently is among those reporters who continue to assume that anyone still reading the drivel produced under a purported ‘news’ banner like MSNBC; is either too stupid or too gullible, or both, to discern fact from hype.   How else to explain his latest article, Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims in which he now seemingly tries to redeem those same HI election officials who failed miserably in 2008 to parse their validation of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS sufficiently so as to assuage genuine concerns the man might not even be a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born.  jbjd, BIRTHER [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: