Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Passport Update
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/passport-update-4.pdf ^ | Sept 27, 2010 | Butterdezillion

Posted on 09/28/2010 7:22:42 AM PDT by butterdezillion

Passport Update Background: The Department of State responded to Chris Strunk’s FOIA request for Obama’s mother’s passport applications by releasing passport records including a 1967 amendment to a 1965 passport and a request to renew that passport in 1968. Both those documents alluded to a 1965 passport, but the Passport Office said they could not find either the 1965 passport application or any record of it.

In an affidavit, the person in charge of responding to FOIA requests at the Passport Office, Alex Galovich, suggested that the records from that time period may have been destroyed. He claimed to have looked in PIERS (the electronic database of passport records from microfilms, which began in 1978, but included some records from before 1978 if they had been brought up for review after microfilming began), and in “the paper records”.

Galovich included in his affidavit an unauthenticated document (of unstated provenance) from the early ‘80’s claiming to be from the Secretary of State to consular offices saying that the retention period for passport records had been reduced from 100 years to 15 years for 5-year passports and 20 years for 10-year passports, and that a special project begun in June of 1984 had segregated and disposed of the disposable records (meeting specific criteria)through November of 1965 and would continue until all disposable records were removed through the year 1968.

The Passport Office asked that the case be considered closed.

Strunk objected, submitting affidavits with evidence strongly refuting the claim that records through 1968 had been destroyed – since Phil Jacobsen had been able to get two routine passport applications of his mother’s from that time period, the retention schedules show no changes from 100 years to 15 years and back to 100 years, and the Passport Office website in multiple places claims that passport applications are available from 1925 onward.

The Department of State responded by saying that the claims by Jacobsen were not true (but failing to say why they were not true or documenting their untruth) and irrelevant because the only thing that mattered was whether the Passport Office had conducted a reasonable search. They argued that a reasonable search had been done and that the “cable” presented in Galovich’s affidavit showed that it was reasonable for some records from the time period to exist and some to have been destroyed – as, they claimed, Jacobsen had admitted with one of his own cited sources.

Included in a footnote at the tail end of the DOS response was this:

“Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 217 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Discovery in FOIA is rare and should be denied where an agency’s declarations are reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith and the court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains.”). (emphasis Butterdezillion’s)

Strunk requested to be able to file a surreply in response to the new claims in the DOS response. Included with that request was another affidavit by Jacobsen responding to those new claims, which are listed and described below:

1. The claim that Jacobsen had admitted only some passport applications exist from before 1978. Jacobsen noted that the defendant (DOS represented by Bowen) had actually deliberately left off part of Jacobsen’s cited material to make it appear to say that only some passport applications from before 1978 are maintained, when in reality the quote referred to an ELECTRONIC INDEX that has all passport applications created since 1978 and some passport applications created between 1962 and 1978. As Jacobsen said:

“7. Defendant, referring to Plaintiff’s own filing(s) and, more specifically citing this Affiant’s previous Affidavit quotes @ 5:

“Jacobsen Aff. (Dkt. #41-2 at 20 (observing that State maintains “some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978”)(emphasis added).”

8. Defendant(s), at the time this entry was made, knew, or should have known, that it was a misquote, and that it would result in a statement likely to mislead the court. Defendant(s) further had the hubris to add the emphasis to this misquote. The quote correctly reads, in its entirety, the following:

“the State Department maintains an electronic index of all passport application records created since 1978, and some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978.”

9. The wording deleted from the beginning of the quotation completely changes the meaning of the quote and makes it appear that DOS has only some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978 when the full quote actually refers to the electronic index.”

That deliberate edit in order to misconstrue the actual quote and to falsely accuse Jacobsen of admitting what he never admitted shows that the agency did not submit that claim “in good faith”. In addition, besides emphasizing the misquote, DOS further adds to their misquote the following statement:

“It therefore should not surprise anyone that State might locate some, but not all, applications submitted by a single individual over the course of decades.”

This argument appears to be used in furtherance of misleading the court. The first quote is incorrect and the following conclusion by DOS therefore is also incorrect as can be plainly seen.

2. The agency’s claim that they did a reasonable search - which cannot be known because the agency’s declaration was NOT “reasonably detailed”, since they omitted any information on what paper records they searched or how.

The PIERS database would have been virtually useless for locating a 1965 passport application, since the only pre-1978 records in that electronic database would be from records brought up for appeal after microfilming began in 1978.

The only way to know how to find the paper records without searching the millions of records individually is to look in the index for paper records, which is stored on alphabetized paper index cards which have also been microfilmed. Those index cards are to be retained 100 years.

But though the index would certainly have had record of the 1965 passport and most probably noted where the records regarding that passport were located, Galovich had said they found no record of the application at all. That strongly suggests that they did not look in the index for paper records – the only reasonable way to try to locate that record.

IOW, the DOS staked their entire claim on the reasonableness of their search. But their own statements seem to reveal that their search failed to include the only reasonable steps for finding that 1965 passport application.

On my own personal note here, at least 2 requestors have also asked to see the index records for Obama’s mother’s passports – Jeff Otherson (in his affidavit for Strunk’s original objection ) and “Dr Conspiracy” of obamaconspiracy.org. I don’t know how long Dr Conspiracy has been waiting, but Jeff has been waiting over a year. These are microfilmed alphabetized records that are at the Passport Office. It might take an hour max to find these records. By looking them up Galovich could have completed two FOIA requests and actually done the “reasonable search” required for another. In over a year’s time, it appears he hasn’t done that. Any reasonable judge would be asking, “Why?”

Look at this docket . That is what the DOS has been doing the last year rather than simply looking in the index to find where the records are and disclosing them as required by FOIA. This is where your tax dollars are going.

3. The new claim that the document Galovich had submitted in his affidavit is actually a “cable”. If any of the agency’s declarations had been “reasonably detailed” they would have authenticated any documents they submitted as evidence. Instead, as Jacobsen noted, both the GSA and Galovich seemed to distance themselves from saying anything about the provenance of what Bowen also simply calls a “cable”.

Jacobsen also gave other reasons to believe that what was now newly called a “cable” is not credible – this being the first opportunity for anyone to address this claim of what that document even IS. What Jacobsen responded to was the DOS’ silence, which is itself a communication. This was the DOS’ time to respond to evidence suggesting the claims in the “cable” were not accurate. Their response was silence.

Jacobsen responded to that silence by pointing out that both a change in the retention period and the destruction of millions of records would leave a paper trail and witnesses that could easily be brought forth. But the only evidence presented was Jacobsen’s, showing the retention period did NOT change. The DOS offered no paper trail, even though they are the very people who would have direct access to that paper trail if it existed.

This means there is a very real, central factual dispute over whether the records in question should even exist. Galoway admitted that they do not know the disposition of the 1965 passport application in question. If he doesn’t even know whether the passport should exist, how could he know where to look in order to find it?

4. Bowen’s statement that it should not be surprising that some records were found and others not from the time period when the alleged destruction occurred. That hinges on whether records actually were destroyed as claimed in the “cable” of unknown provenance, and Jacobsen noted that if the “cable” was accurate and those records were destroyed, then the DOS should not have been able to find the 1967 amendment and 1968 renewal applications for Obama’s mother.

More evidence that there is a factual dispute over what records, if any, were destroyed.

There is other evidence which suggests that the “cable” has been fabricated – not just by the absence of evidence that the claims are true (some of which is analyzed here) but by evidence that they are NOT true. Specifically, the claims in the “cable” don’t match the information provided in a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 1981. A detailed analysis of that is here .

I repeat here what Bowen himself stated in a footnote:

“Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 217 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Discovery in FOIA is rare and should be denied where an agency’s declarations are reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith and the court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains.”).

Strunk’s response applies in every way to that footnote as well, because the DOS’ latest response itself could be an illustrated dictionary entry for ALL THREE CONDITIONS that justify a judge granting discovery in a FOIA case. Strunk’s response nails the DOS with the documentation showing just that.

Today, on Sept 27, the Department of State has submitted a request that the judge reject Strunk’s surreply on the grounds that the surreply does not respond to new information.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: eligibility; naturalborncitizen; passport; strunk
The Department of State keeps digging themeselves deeper in the hole.
1 posted on 09/28/2010 7:22:46 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The efforts to keep ANY personal information about Obama’s past hidden are incredible especially considering personal information about Republicans can be obtained by anyone.


2 posted on 09/28/2010 7:26:48 AM PDT by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; rolling_stone

I give up. I cannot get Wordpress to put the HTML in so the links are clickable. Sigh.

Sorry guys. I was going to have this HTML figured out before I posted again and I thought I did but Wordpress only added the HTML to half the post. Sigh.

The links are clickable on the blog. If somebody knows how to post a PDF here I would be eternally grateful for some help so I could post the PDF which would have clickable links like on the blog.

RS, this is one of those dog in the tree moments, I guess. lol


3 posted on 09/28/2010 7:33:34 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57
Democrats don't even bother researching ‘dirt’ on Republicans... they just fabricate it and then the MSM spews it (uncorroborated) 24/7

Nothing new here!!

4 posted on 09/28/2010 7:59:05 AM PDT by SMARTY ("What luck for rulers that men do not think." Adolph Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
.....“7. Defendant, referring to Plaintiff’s own filing(s) and, more specifically citing this Affiant’s previous Affidavit quotes @ 5:

“Jacobsen Aff. (Dkt. #41-2 at 20 (observing that State maintains “some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978”)(emphasis added).”

8. Defendant(s), at the time this entry was made, knew, or should have known, that it was a misquote, and that it would result in a statement likely to mislead the court. Defendant(s) further had the hubris to add the emphasis to this misquote. The quote correctly reads, in its entirety, the following:

“the State Department maintains an electronic index of all passport application records created since 1978, and some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978.”

9. The wording deleted from the beginning of the quotation completely changes the meaning of the quote and makes it appear that DOS has only some passport application records created between 1962 and 1978 when the full quote actually refers to the electronic index.”

That deliberate edit in order to misconstrue the actual quote and to falsely accuse Jacobsen of admitting what he never admitted shows that the agency did not submit that claim “in good faith”. In addition, besides emphasizing the misquote, DOS further adds to their misquote the following statement:

“It therefore should not surprise anyone that State might locate some, but not all, applications submitted by a single individual over the course of decades.”

This argument appears to be used in furtherance of misleading the court. The first quote is incorrect and the following conclusion by DOS therefore is also incorrect as can be plainly seen.......

----- This alone (and brand new to the reply where Strunk had no chance of responding to before) looks like sufficient bad faith to me to prevent a summary judgment. I think any impartial judge would be upset that someone tried to pull this baloney in their court. I guess we will find out if our Judicial System has been taken over completely by the Usurper. If the court refuses to allow this case to go to trial, as you stated it will come up again and again, and the truth will come out sooner or later even if it has to wait till January and the Republicans take control of the house and Rep. Issa gets his book of subpoenas out. Is this all part of a big stall until after the election?

I checked the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3 it looks like this may fit to me.

Rule 3.3 - Candor to Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, unless correction would require disclosure of information that is prohibited by Rule 1.6;

(2) Counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law;

(3) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel and known to the lawyer to be dispositive of a question at issue and directly adverse to the position of the client; or

(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in paragraph (b). A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/dc/code/DC_CODE.HTM#Rule_3.3(a)(1)

The most obvious question is WHY would an AUSA go to such lengths to mislead the court? Is Strunk's allegation of Fraud on the court correct? What is so important to hide to take such risks?

5 posted on 09/28/2010 10:06:37 AM PDT by rolling_stone ( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Whew! You’re smokin’ hot! I’d like to link to that Rule 3.3 on the blog page. That definitely applies. Bowen’s refusal to correct his false statement when it was pointed out to him is a new fact that the judge should DEFINITELY take note of.


6 posted on 09/28/2010 10:28:19 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

This is so bogus. If records prior to 1968 were destroyed, then how come files from Soetoro that are dated beginning in April of 1965 were released in the Allen case?


7 posted on 09/28/2010 10:28:56 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Hmm. I’m not up to speed on the Allen case. Do you have a link by any chance? If they gave different stuff to Allen than to Strunk that’s another big problem, like you say. Thanks for the heads up, and any links you can give would be fantastic.

This really is bogus, but the catch is that they have gone so far as to submit it in sworn testimony. Either they’re pretty sure the system is rigged to let them get away with it, or else they are dumber than rocks. Blatant defiance of the rule of law.


8 posted on 09/28/2010 11:01:03 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35189898/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10


9 posted on 09/28/2010 11:08:40 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Update/Correction, it seems the earliest application for Soetoro was atleast from 1961-62. Not an expert, I'll leave that up to ya’ll who do have it. Just passing on information.
10 posted on 09/28/2010 11:15:27 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Thank you.

Do you know if he requested stuff for Stanley Ann also?


11 posted on 09/28/2010 12:15:49 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Just WOW!.......Well done!


12 posted on 09/28/2010 12:19:03 PM PDT by mojitojoe ("Ridicule is man's most potent weap Pon" Saul Alinsky... I will take Odungo's mentors advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Exactly!


13 posted on 09/28/2010 12:20:06 PM PDT by mojitojoe ("Ridicule is man's most potent weapon" Saul Alinsky... I will take Odungo's mentors advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Not sure, I know he requested info for Obama. My question is, why not get the records for Obama Sr? Surely they should be releasable as Dunham’s & Soetoro’s were.


14 posted on 09/28/2010 12:26:59 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

BUMP!!


15 posted on 09/28/2010 3:03:57 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

BTTT


16 posted on 09/28/2010 4:24:45 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Don't worry Butter, what they don't realize is that their involvement in this whole cover up is being documented by the public in case there is a investigation in all of this, and this is going to make WaterGate look like a church picnic.
17 posted on 09/28/2010 7:22:46 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The-FEMA-camps-will-end-up-housing-their-architects ping.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

18 posted on 09/28/2010 7:49:35 PM PDT by The Comedian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

What you post always makes me laugh and just seeing that smiling face always makes me smile too.

Just found out that the judge accepted the surreply. There’s a minute order on scribd. I am so happy. Maybe this judge hasn’t been bought off yet.


19 posted on 09/28/2010 8:04:16 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

SEE# 19


20 posted on 09/28/2010 9:52:30 PM PDT by bitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
-- Just found out that the judge accepted the surreply. There's a minute order on scribd. --

I'm not detail familiar with the style of case at hand, but if it's a civil case before a "regular" judge (not an administrative hearing sort of event), the usual protocol is for one side to file a motion, the other side to respond (or reply), and then the initiator (of the motion) gets to rebut the counterargument. The State Department request or motion to reject the surreply is an unusual step.

That is, the judge expects 3 papers when a motion is filed, and the 3rd one is the surreply. Said another way, the filer of the motion is entitled to a surreply. The judge can and will decide for himself if the contents are persuasive or refer to controlling law; or if the contents are repetitive or junk.

Plaintiff here is making a great case and argument.

21 posted on 09/29/2010 4:25:34 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I’m glad you think so. I do too, and I hope the judge will also.

The motion to reject the surreply was a bit disingenuous, referring to a case where a woman’s surreply was rejected because she was responding to what she called a “mischaracterization” of her motives (she had been accused of trying to get a promotion through a court case rather than simply getting her specialized certification as required).

Bowen tried to say, on behalf of the DOS, that a surreply should be rejected if it is simply a response to a “mischaracterization”.

But to mischaracterize a person’s motive is totally different than outright misquoting them, which is stating a false material fact - an apparent violation of Rule 3.3 as rolling stone cited.

So Bowen’s motion to reject the surreply tried to classify Bowen’s own previous statement of a false material fact (a breach of ethics if he refused to correct is, as he did by the motion to reject the surreply) as a mere “mischaracterization” - trying to stretch a ruling on apples to apply it to an orange colored red with crayon.

Geez, that was a confusing sentence. Can you tell I’m running on low sleep? lol. Maybe I should take a nap before I subject anybody to any more of this.


22 posted on 09/29/2010 7:49:46 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist; Danae; David; rxsid; philman_36; Fred Nerks; BP2

Ah yes thanks to Danae for my tagline...the rest of the pings is FYI

David maybe you can comment on the DC ethics?


23 posted on 09/29/2010 8:12:58 AM PDT by rolling_stone ( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

DAMN Red!

Great find!


24 posted on 09/29/2010 9:16:35 AM PDT by Danae (Analnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
What was that about FOIA...?

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed [think Lakin] by disclosure , because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

When you lie right out of the gate what do you expect people to believe of the rest?

25 posted on 09/29/2010 9:32:44 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Of course, this Presidential Memo has no force of law so he knew he could lie through his teeth...
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
26 posted on 09/29/2010 9:41:24 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; Michael Barnes; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Passport Update

[Thanks, rolling_stone.]

27 posted on 09/30/2010 1:33:58 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Keep the pressure up. Good post.


28 posted on 09/30/2010 5:57:39 AM PDT by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; rolling_stone; All

I have to hand it to you, non-sequitur and the rest of the crew that is keeping on this flank of our last line of defense here in the US. You guys are guarding the Little Round Top of the Republic. Thank you.

Boots


29 posted on 09/30/2010 6:29:58 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Uncle Chip; TigersEye; wintertime; Fred Nerks; circumbendibus; editor-surveyor; manc; ...

Bump and ping!


30 posted on 09/30/2010 8:18:48 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Economic reform without education reform and originalism is a penny in the fuse box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
FWIW here's a list of the links:

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored

Request for Records DispositionAuthority

Separtment of State cable, Galovich Affidavit

Strunk's Opposition to motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss

Reply to Strunk's Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff's MOL w NOM for SURREPLY w Declaration and Proposed Order 08-Cv-2234

Affidavit of Phillip Hans Jacobsen

Strunk's Opposition to motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss

The Whopper That Got Away

GAO Recommendations Reveal Problems with DOS “Cable”

Main DOJ response

Best I can do with my limited HTML skillz...

31 posted on 09/30/2010 8:47:10 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 618 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Bump!


32 posted on 09/30/2010 8:47:42 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Every bit helps. Thanks!

Those who are able to post images, how do you do it?


33 posted on 09/30/2010 8:52:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
What is so important to hide to take such risks?

power and/or money

34 posted on 09/30/2010 9:15:57 AM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Thanks for the PING

The day after Barry Soetoro leaves (what a nice word)

all the info in the world about him will be available...


35 posted on 09/30/2010 9:22:45 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Nully's Quick FR HTML Guide:

Basic formatting:

Line break <br>
Paragraph break <p>
<blockquote>

Indented paragraph
</blockquote>
<u> underline </u>
<i> italics </i>
<b> bold </b>
<tt> typewriiter text </i>
<font color=red> Red font </font>
<blink> blink </blink> Use blink sparingly. People HATE blink

<font size=1>Smallest FR font</font> Displays as:
Smallest FR font

<font size=7>Largest FR font<font> Displays as:
Largest FR font

Or

Step font size up or down with <big>bigger</big>

and <small>smaller</small>

"Hidden" text: <font color=white> White font </font>
Drag cursor over blank area to highlight to read...

Posting a link:

General:
<a href=[web address]>[title]< /a>
Example:
This: <a href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179145/posts>Iran starts atom tests in defiance of EU deal</a>
Posts as this:
Iran starts atom tests in defiance of EU deal

Posting an image:

General:
<img src="[web server location]">

Clarity is needed - you can't just snag a favorite picture from a desktop folder...it has to be hosted someplace to be transferrable to our posts. ~ ErnBatavia

Example:
This: <img src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">

Posts this:

Tip: control the size with "height=nnn" like so:

This: <img height= 200 src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">
Posts this:

While This: <img height= 100 src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">
Posts this:


36 posted on 09/30/2010 9:25:44 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 618 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: null and void

37 posted on 09/30/2010 9:53:10 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Thanks!

Does a PDF work as an image? On Wordpress I can get a PDF to show because it uploads it as an image. Or at least that’s what they call it. I just tried to post a PDF and it didn’t work.

I suppose if a PDF is converted to some other format like JPEG it would lose its clickable links, huh?


38 posted on 09/30/2010 9:55:55 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I suppose if a PDF is converted to some other format like JPEG it would lose its clickable links

Yeah, I think so.

39 posted on 09/30/2010 9:59:25 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 618 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; rolling_stone; Michael Barnes; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; ...
When you read the above thread and all the other issues of Baracka Hussein Abu Amama's Constitutional eligibility issues, including the B.C., which is only a minor part of the NBC status, I have always wondered why/who/when the created "silence"(?) on the matter surfaced???

I always thought is very strange that the NBC issue on the airways went AWOL sometime after midsummer 2008 and wondered WHY!

Every possibly political issue is/was freely discussed on the radio/TV talk shows, but suddenly went underground!!

Even so called "Conservatives" like Coulter and Glenn Book made viciously attacks on we the Constitutionalists for bringing up the questions, made absolutely NO sense. They will mention masturbation, witchcraft, etc., but NOTHING about NBC and that includes Rush who went off the golden microphone one day, without telling he was called into the principals office(?). However I think the answer lies in this excerpts from NewsMax, and here you have it, see for yourself. Remember he also had a "secret" meeting with SCOTUS on January 14(?) 2009 and now Thomas says "EVADING"!!!:

"Obama Hates Fox News

Dear Dick Morris Reader: It's the summer of 2008 and Barack Obama is beginning to slip in the election polls. He blames Fox News for his election worries. He agrees to a secret meeting at New York's posh Waldorf Astoria hotel with the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes and other top honchos of their parent company News Corp. The meeting goes into meltdown mode as a finger wagging Obama furiously vents his anger against Fox and their top conservative host Sean Hannity. Have you heard about this? Probably not, but Newsmax magazine, in a just-released special report "Obama Hates Fox News," reveals how Obama's war on Fox News all began, how it unfolded, and even predicts what will happen in the future."

40 posted on 09/30/2010 11:26:59 AM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57

Yep, it’s as though there is this mass self-deception going on by the complicit concealers.


41 posted on 09/30/2010 11:34:16 AM PDT by Canedawg (...still not digging this tyranny thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
There are NO afterbirthers responding to this thread.

Usually, they are on these natural born citizen threads within **SECONDS** ( literally!).

Also...Did you notice that there were almost no afterbirther response to the following thread:

“The Democratic Party of Hawaii refused to Certify Obama”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2593610/posts

42 posted on 09/30/2010 2:56:50 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

After the massacre of November 2nd...all kind of stuff will start popping up...the protection of this fraud will be over!!!!


43 posted on 09/30/2010 3:00:21 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield

After the massacre of November 2nd...all kind of stuff will start popping up...the protection of this fraud will be over!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I pray that the GOP representatives will grow a spine and a set of gonads.


44 posted on 09/30/2010 3:47:53 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
It'll be the dems who'll do this...not the Republicans...if they are as upset as this guy says, it'll be the long knives....

White House Insider: What The Hell Have We Done?

45 posted on 09/30/2010 4:36:24 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: musicman

BFLR


46 posted on 10/03/2010 10:47:07 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson