Home > 2012 Elections > Dims Warned Against Certifying obama Eligible For White House

Dims Warned Against Certifying obama Eligible For White House


September 8, 2012 By

 

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.

 

Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/dems-warned-against-certifying-obama-eligible-for-white-house/

 

  1. September 9, 2012 at 06:41

    Suppose this did wind it’s way through the judicial system. If it gets before Judge John Roberts he will “reasonably construe” what he wants to “reasonably construe.” Words and facts be durned, construe it’s the intentions that count. It was meant to be valid, that “feels” good, right judge?

    • September 9, 2012 at 07:33

      I can’t even believe it’s been ignored. The facts are crystal clear on this. The documents they’ve presented as proof are falsified and he should never have been elected into the position of POTUS, according to the laws of this land. Our Constitution does not allow this, but people seem to have disregarded it in so many ways that it’s become irrelevant. It just seems so outrageous that people aren’t even giving it the attention that it deserves

      • September 9, 2012 at 08:15

        Somewhere just today on some site and it’s blog, I read this post. Supposely at Purdue students were discussing the requirements and qualifications one needed to become president. One particular student, in this case necessarily a girl, argued intensely that one not “natural born” could be just as qualified. She asked why her child wouldn’t be qualified just because she had the child by C-section? Duh, what have you been saying about the education system?

      • September 9, 2012 at 08:33

        Considering that obama had NO qualification for position of POTUS, it’s not surprising they would make such idiotic arguments. His ONLY private sector job ever was slinging cream at baskin robbins. Most voted for that beast on skin color alone. Racists, all of them. They can’t give one single example of how he was qualified for that job, only saying he was an effective “community organizer”. Yeah, he was acorn’s chief national trainer and lawyer. He taught them how to lie, cheat, steal and beat the opposition.

        And hitler painted nice pictures, too.

      • September 9, 2012 at 09:19

        They aren’t watching and are disinterested. Rather watch Madonna’s back side with easter egg decal “Obama” (doubt real tatoo). Well, maybe election credential officials are not watching that, but still disinterested. Far too many citizens now follow this sentiment : When I was a child I thought as a child, now that I’m a man…I think like a spermatozoa.

      • September 9, 2012 at 09:58

        Considering the top searches on yahoo and other sites are kardashians, moochelles nail polish and brangelinas dog, I wonder if Americans, as a whole, deserve saving.

    • September 9, 2012 at 10:14

      I’m definitely behind the “8 ball” then in terms of what’s going on. Know about Kadas ones. The Brangelinas Dog? Googled and… S#%T… $60.00 fer a dog pillow !!! How could I contribute to Obama if my dog pillow cost that much?

      • September 9, 2012 at 10:35

        Not I contribute of course, but one so inclined?

      • September 9, 2012 at 10:40

        They don’t care. They’ll take the millions their hollywood jesters raise for them, and they’ll leech the last five dollars from their destitute welfare mooches.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: