Posted on 03/03/2012 7:02:42 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
Just a day after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apaio presented proof the birth certificate presented by Barack Obama as proof he meets Constitutional eligibility to be president is a fraud, we have a story coming out of Hawaii that may provide problems for Obama.
Jerome Corsi writes:
Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.
“During the course of my employment,” Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), “I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.”
As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.
“Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”
What exactly do you see?
I see Fuddy attesting to enclosures which are not shown.
It is theater. Theater to make you believe you've seen something which you haven't seen.
What exactly do you see?
I see someone tying themselves into knots to avoid the obvious.
Do you think for a second that two consecutive Hawaiian administrations (one Republican) have conspired with Obama to hide his true BC? Good luck with that legal approach.
You believe the WH BC PDF is a complete and accurate representation of the facts. Your belief is not based upon provable evidence.
Our legal system is based upon documented facts, not personal beliefs.
Hearsay. Nothing else. The only thing which has been submitted (if Obama's document can be believed to have come from Hawaii, which I argue it does) is the stamp that says a "copy of the original OR an abstract thereof" which is completely ambiguous. It is the same thing as saying "This is a boot or a jelly doughnut. " What it *IS* isn't clear. It is ambiguous.
It is also based on the absolute failure of the birthers to make a compelling argument that would stand up in a court of law.
Nonsense. You may regard the courts as competent, but all of my experience with court system indicates to me that they are anything but competent. I could point out case after case where the court was just stupid, so from the perspective of someone who has seen plenty of courts in action yielding ridiculous results, your argument is utter crap.
Face it - if birthers had their act together, it is completely irrelevant what Obama says and does. An official investigation by law enforcement can compel all the evidence they need. Yet birthers can’t seem to convince anyone of significance that they have anything that might justify such an investigation.
"Treason Doth Never Prosper "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Ovid.
I simply don't think you have an accurate grasp of the situation. Your thinking is far too simplistic. The Media are a POWERFUL ally, and they will attempt to DESTROY anyone that offends them. Look at Joe the plumber or Sarah Palin.
My suggestion would be to look at the public face of birtherism: A professional poker player with no legal experience; a dentist with a law degree from an online law school recognized in only one state; a “journalist” with a proven history of peddling any conspiracy theory he thinks will make him money; and the publisher of a tabloid web site that makes the National Enquirer look rational.
Simplistic and Superficial. I know people of consequence that believe in it, but dare not say so. Apart from that, you once again fail to understand the concept that an idea is not correct or false based on who thought of it or who supports it. An Idea stands on it's own merits. The evidence which these people have presented should cause any reasonable and objective person to question the common narrative.
You want to be taken seriously? Then get some serious spokespeople.
It will not matter who the spokesperson is. They will be painted as a nut and a kook regardless of who they are. Do you not remember what they did to Sarah Palin?
So if documented facts are so important to our legal system get a court certified document or fraud examiner to opine on Obama’s BC. There are laws that specify how expert witnesses must be qualified to present legally valid testimony. So far all we have seen is hearsay evidence from laymen.
Here are the requirements from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners:
http://www.acfe.com/cfe-qualifications.aspx
Here are the requirements from the Board of Forensic Document Examiners:
http://www.bfde.org/certification.html
Can you show me any instance where any certified examiner has declared the BC fraudulent?
That’s how Orly blew up her case in Georgia - she completely ignored the Georgia statutes on evidence and expert witnesses.
Well - it looks like you have a real mess on your hands. Hope you aren’t too emotionally invested - looks like a hard fall coming.
For the country more so than anyone else. People who don't want to do things the easy way will suffer the consequences of doing them the hard way.
Being ignorant of History and Not requiring actual proof from this guy is going to bite everyone badly. If he turns out to be the "anti-Christ" *YOU* will have helped enable him.
"If"???? Simply astounding.
...get a court certified document or fraud examiner...
That is what a grand jury can do.
Anyone can be tricked. There is no shame in that.
But you are as stubborn as a mule who would rather die of thirst than drink the water they've been given.
You've been shown how you have been tricked, yet you refuse to accept that you have been tricked.
This is not gullibility, it is asininity. There is shame in that.
You are the one that believes that the WND crowd led by Zullo, Corsi and Farrah can produce an honest and impartial investigation of Obama.
They are sucking money out of gullible birthers right in front of you.
The reason birthers are ignored is because they are lead by people that most in American can recognize as con men and charlatans. You are being led by the nose by a bunch of conspiracy peddling loons and you want to call me stubborn? OK.
A grand jury in Arizona can conduct an investigation. Since you want an investigation, why not have a conference call with Arpaio and Montgomery and get the ball rolling?
Yes, “birthers”... that’s all you have: insults.
Well how about this: you are a faither. Your belief is all that matters. Right? We don’t need no stinkin facts. Grow up.
Now go make that phone call.
I sent an email - is that ok?
Can you show me any instance where the original files have been opened to the public to allow a certified examiner to examine them?
But I thought you can detect fraud from internet images.
I notice that you've gone off on a tangent again instead of answering my question...
Can you show me any instance where any certified examiner has declared the BC fraudulent?
Can you show me any instance where the original files have been opened to the public to allow a certified examiner to examine them?
Your game is known and weak.
So what did the CCP mean when they said that Obama’s BC was a computer-generated forgery? They didn’t have access to the original documents. Do you agree with the CCP’s conclusion?
I agree with you that you need original documents to detect forgery or fraud. I agree with you that it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps with competent legal advice, a case can be advanced to the point where Obama or Hawaii will be compelled to hand over a original for examination.
So you can detect fraud by copying from a web cite a pdf copy of an original document?
Do you agree with the CCP’s conclusion?
Which conclusion is that?
The CCP examined a pdf copy of an original document and said it was a computer generated fraud.
If they are correct then you don’t need original documents to detect fraud, now do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.