Dims Warned Against Certifying obama Eligible For White House
Attorney Larry Klayman has warned Robert Bauer, the General Council to the Democrat National Committee, that members of the “Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.”
Klayman–the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch–bases his warning on the fact that Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka refused to verify to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett “the birth facts for Barack Hussein Obama that are claimed on the birth certificate posted on the White House website…” In addition, Onaka “undeniably failed to verify that the [birth certificate] image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files.’”
On March 30th, Secretary Bennett filled out a standard request form, asking that Onaka “verify as true” that Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4th, 1961; that he was born in Honolulu, Oahu; that his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham and his father Barack Hussein Obama. Two months later, Onaka wrote back that “a birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” But the Secretary refused to verify the date of birth, the name of the mother or father, or even the gender of the baby!
Why would Onaka admit that a birth certificate is indeed on file, yet refuse to verify much of the information that certificate ostensibly contains? According to Klayman, “…the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so.” That is, “… the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’”
And as for the long-form posted on the White House website, Klayman says, “…the only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not.” “There is no other plausible explanation.”
What does all of this mean? Klayman explains that “the only Hawaii statute rendering completed (and therefore numbered) birth certificates to be non-legally binding…applies to ALTERED or LATE birth certificates.” According to Onaka’s written response to Bennett, Obama’s birth certificate is indeed numbered. Therefore, as Onaka refused to legally verify the “facts” contained in the certificate or verify that the long-form “is a true and accurate representation of the original record,” it can only mean the Obama birth certificate is either altered or late, as defined by Hawaii statute.
Altered or late birth certificates cannot “stand on their own” as evidence of anything! They have no legally probative value and can therefore not be used as proof even of an individual’s age, never mind the natural born citizen status of a candidate for the nation’s highest office! Moreover, altered and late Hawaii birth certificates and copies have the word ALTERED or LATE prominently stamped on them. It’s altogether possible that Obama “created” his birth certificate online in order to hide such an obvious and troublesome imprint from the American public.
According to Hawaii statue, Obama could only correct the situation by presenting the totality of his birth records along with all existing corroboration to a proper judicial or administrative body. Such a body would then weigh all existing evidence according to “legal evidentiary standards.” Needless to say, Obama has no intention of following such a procedure.
Four years ago, the Democrat National Committee refused to certify that Barack Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” This year, Larry Klayman is strongly advising Democrat attorneys to disavow Obama altogether! It will be interesting to see what Robert Bauer and Co decide.