Posted on 11/24/2008 9:29:07 PM PST by pissant
Think about this:
Barack Obama purportedly has a legal, long form birth certificate on file with the state of Hawaii. If it contains the same basic information that is on the forged copy of his Certification of Live Birth, then why didn’t he just order the real thing from the state of Hawaii?
There’s nothing on the short form copy that could have hurt him, legally, or otherwise.
So why did Obama and his people go to all of the trouble (and risk) of manufacturing a fraudulent copy, if the limited information on it is consistent to that which is on his long form vault certificate?
Think about it.... there isn’t much information on the copy that Obama released, besides his mother’s name, his name, father’s name, date of birth, etc. If all of that information is accurate, they could have just ordered the real magilla from the state of Hawaii, but they didn’t.
That means...... the information on the forged copy isn’t consistent with what’s on the long form vault original of his birth certificate.
Now........ what information on that forged copy do you think is phony?
He could become a puppet to certain people in government who could push to expose him as a fraud and that he has no legal authority to make any decisions a POTUS.
Why would George Soros allow them to mess with his property?
It isn't necessarily what information is on the one released. It is what is not on the one released that is normally on a Birth Certificate?
Never mind. I just took another look at the forged BC and realized I’m in error with this theory.
It’s obvious that the only reason Obama et al created this forgery is the birthplace information, which I’d forgotten is included on the document.
My mistake.
And the Bush conspiracy theories are purported to have weight on the rafts of litigation surrounding 9/11. Did any litigant mention the purported Michelle Obama tapes in his filings? Has any court considered them?
And as far as Area 51, it’s a total side note.
The only difference between Area 51 -- or any other specious Internet claim -- and the Michelle Obama tapes is that you want to believe the latter and not the former.
And the Bush conspiracy theories are purported to have weight on the rafts of litigation surrounding 9/11. Did any litigant mention the purported Michelle Obama tapes in his filings? Has any court considered them?
***Now you are arguing in circles, using what I pointed out as a weakness in your usage of Occham’s Razor. The fact that there is a supreme court case docketed for the CoLB means it’s at a level above your average conspiracy theory. I can see where you are trying to go with this misdirection. For instance, we know that the MO tape happened AFTER Berg vs. Obama so your question is blatantly wrong headed. Your misdirection is useless because you’re writing about Area 51 and Bush and conspiracy theories rather than Berg vs. Obama.
The only difference between Area 51 — or any other specious Internet claim — and the Michelle Obama tapes is that you want to believe the latter and not the former.
***Wrong on that one. I’ve dug extensively into the Area 51 stuff and even have a publisher for the book I wrote on that material. But it has nothing to do with this supreme court case and there are very few court cases associated with Area 51, especially since the Desert Rat retired.
Interesting points. What if O’s mother registered him in Hawaii within a year of his birth, regardless of where he was born? Would his COLB appear different? Did O’s cmapaign ever “officially” endorse the BC that was shown on the Dem. website?
“Actually, Dave, Obama’s apparatchiks are lining up at my door to confiscate funds for the bailout.”
“I never took out a 401k or a Roth, forgoing the deferred tax options they offer so my savings and investments are taxed and paid in full. Hoping this loop hole isn’t discovered and changed when the new administration assumes office.”
You are worse than Joe the Plumber, pure evil!
So is your assertion that the purported tape has anything to do with a case the Court has accepted for review.
Your misdirection is useless because you’re writing about Area 51 and Bush and conspiracy theories rather than Berg vs. Obama.
I thought we were discussing the API and their alleged tapes. You're conflating that with Berg v. Obama. The original topic was your claim of some elaborate reason for why API is acting like a bunch of idiots, when the simpler explanation is that they're a bunch of idiots.
Obama and the Potential Blackmail Factor
Posted By Claudia Rosett On October 31, 2008 @ 2:15 am In Uncategorized | 18 Comments
There’s a huge and much-overlooked reason for filling in those gaps in Barack Obama’s resume, and letting America’s voters see any and all tapes, transcripts and other documentation of his career and friendships — and fast. It’s called the potential for blackmail.
Actually, full daylight is the only way to be reasonably sure that Obama himself is safe from blackmail. If voters have seen the worst of it, and don’t mind — well, OK. But if there is damaging information still unknown to the public, but known to somebody out there, then Obama — if he wins the presidency — could make a tempting target.
The same could be said of anyone running for public office. But there is a worrying convergence here of the most powerful office in the world, and the most untested and cryptic candidate in living memory. The question is not simply what Obama knew at the time about a variety of friends and associates, from his not-so-distant past, who in one way or another have been involved in criminal acts, or embraced as a theme the subversion, destruction or damning of America and America’s allies. The question is also: What might such people might know about Obama?
This is not to accuse anyone of planning to lever any still-secret information into undue influence over the Oval Office. But the best defense against that kind of thing in politics has always been genuine and full disclosure.
Take, for instance, the mysteries surrounding the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release the [1] video of the 2003 Khalidi dinner – Obama’s toasts and all. The people who were there know what Obama actually said, or applauded — or whatever actually happened. The source who gave the video to the LA Times knows (and it’s an intriguing question, why, if nothing untoward took place, a source would want confidentiality for providing a video of a festive and well-attended dinner). Obama knows — he was there. But the American public does not know.
It is not John McCain and Fox News who should be left to [2] argue the case for a public airing of that tape. In the interest of good faith in asking the trust of American voters, it is Obama himself who should be trying to dig up it up, unedited; and in public, let it roll.
Or, take the case of the house for which Obama paid $1.65 million in Chicago, and the land purchase next door by Syrian-born Tony Rezko, who was convicted in Chicago this June on [3] 16 counts of influence peddling. Are the mysteries fully solved? I cannot vouch for the details in the links that follow, but they make interesting reading. Here’s a summary from [4] John Batchelor, whose blog links in turn to [5] GOPMOM – where there is a photo of a very nice house, and an account of real estate dealings that suggest a weirdly intricate deal, a disturbing number of people who won’t talk, and some good questions which — in the interest of both the public and Obama himself – really deserve to be answered in full before Nov. 4.
No. Obama's original long form birth certificate will indicate the basic (and factual) information of his birth, no matter where it occurred.
At the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii allowed any person to register a live birth with their state recording agency. A legitimate COLB (certification of live birth) will show Obama's place, time, and date of birth, as shown on his original long form birth certificate.
What it won't show, is the name of the hospital, doctor's signature, attending physician, witness, parents' signatures, etc.
This is the sole reason that the forged birth certificates were created. Obama et al could not order a standard COLB from the state of Hawaii because the state would have issued a COLB showing that Obama was born in Kenya. At least that's the working assumption.
Did O’s campaign ever “officially” endorse the BC that was shown on the Dem. website?
I saw the image posted on Obama's official campaign website. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.
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.