Back to the thread; check out # 50 , # 81 , # 92 , # 96.
(SP Alert.)
Thanks, Smokeyblue.
Posted on 04/22/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by Daffynition
Let me tell you a little story.
A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!
On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.
It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.
Within a week or 10 days, Obama did just that.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I do not have faith in Congress ever addressing this issue as their negligence to uphold their oath to the Constitution is as traitorous as the usurpation itself. The States need to pass one simple law and this would never happen again.
I call it the "Usurpation Protection Law". It would require documentation from Congress and the President proving that the Twentieth Amendment, section three was complied with and that eligibility was no longer an issue BEFORE the State would recognize the legality of the president. Any failure to prove compliance would then automatically trigger an investigation request from that State's representatives in Congress. This would certainly pass Constitutional muster in that it supports the enforcement of a portion of the Constitution itself. This law could be passed tomorrow and have immediate effect. There is no time limit on enforcement of the Twentieth Amendment, section three.
Who could reasonably oppose such a law? Certainly not a "legal" President.
Looks like the Indonesians know WHO he is. Or at least who he THINKS he is.
Back to the thread; check out # 50 , # 81 , # 92 , # 96.
(SP Alert.)
Thanks, Smokeyblue.
No weakening of federalism required.
But even all 3 would not be a weakening of federalism. I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law. That law would just be enforcing the eligibility requirements of the Constitution as per the last of the powers delegated to Congress in Art.I section 8.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Well said and I agree with your tagline, too.
If the last few years were written as a novel, it would be ridiculed as too contrived to be realistic.
““who actually believes this crap screams about the Birther stuff”
So you believe the birth certificate is real?
So you believe the selective service record is real?
Are you calling Sheriff Joe a liar?”
You just proved that BCrago66 is a useful idiot! Don’t be too concerned, not all posters on FR have the semblance of a brain!
“something else too.....world class talent world wide are helpin the investigation...”
That makes me feel a lot better, honestly, especially since the feds are trying to jerk Sheriff Arpaio around.
It’s going to come from somewhere else too, from people Obama and his minions can’t easily influence.
I don’t know anyone in Missouri.
OMG, you people get so upset every time a gay Indonesian from Kenya wins election as POTUS!
This I believe is where the confusion about the content of the hearing in NJ got started. Counsel for "Obama" didn't come right out and admit that the online image is a patent forgery (it is). They simply stated that it's irrelevant. Kinda like the rule of law.
You are correct to say that the states are legally free to require proof. They will not do on their own volition in the present political environment, however. As long as Obama's political fate might be in the balance, we've seen cold feet everywhere, even among Republicans, when the issue comes up in the state legislatures. Nah, no one wants to be branded a "birther", because the next things you'll be called are "racist," "demented," "paranoid," or any combination thereof. Some Republicans might also be thinking that such legislation might negatively impact Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal at some point in the future.
I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law.
It could be argued either way as to whether the "necessary and proper" clause is applicable to enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency and vice-presidency. For all their wisdom, the Founding Fathers laid out no specific means of enforcement of those requirements, perhaps relying solely on the good faith of prospective candidates to abide by such requirements. They did not explicitly delegate such an enforcement power to Congress.
Since it's forged, it's clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.
Next case.
Happens in EVERY election. Any state AG can throw Obama off the ballot and order him to show how he is constitutionally qualified. BTW, same is true for any candidate.
No guts. And no AG apparently wants the glory.
Same here. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and all that.
it’s actually more like not gettin shot
From one Arizonan to another, let's stay safe out there!
“Since it’s forged, it’s clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.”
Why do I keep picturing Groucho Marx routine?
As you correctly point out, that is what SHOULD happen.
More to the point, that is exactly what should happen in the short term...the Federal government isn’t going to do it, but the states could pass laws to keep people like Obama from getting on the ballot, which should have been done in the first place. If some of those big electoral college states do it, that would fix it right there.
Kind of wish that were true, but it would depend upon that state's election laws. At present, I doubt that any state's statutes would authorize such an action by its AG, and even if any AG did so, it would require, as you hint, a lot of guts.
That's why a federal constitutional amendment, or federal legislation along the lines I suggested earlier this thread, would, IMHO, be necessary in order to enforce the Article II constitutional requirements for the presidency and vice presidency.
0b0z0 isn't "gay" for three (3) reasons :
1- Medically speaking, 0h0m0 IS an h0m0sexual in general. Further sub-classification may describe him as bi-sexual, which I can't be sure of.
2- Colloquially speaking, he's a fag.
3- His mood isn't gay = happy because he's known to be depressed and a druggie.
Caution has to be exercised when talking about POTUS.
Dr. S. Alinsky, Ph.D. in Deviancy and Perversion
We already have that in the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The problem is that Congress has simply ignored it's duty. Congress would ignore it's duty to any other Amendment as well. Besides that, you're asking the same folks who are complicit in the usurpation to pass an Amendment catching them in the act. It will never happen.
A better, more readily available approach lies in the state houses all across the country. It may not pass in every state, but if one or two passed this simple law, it would END the charade. See my post in post 101.
Remember that McCane was ahead in the polls until the market went crazy....At that time there was much speculation over who manipulated it...Recent voter fraud investigation in IN shows that Obama didn’t even quality to be on the ballot. Remember posting at the time of the election that IN (the home of Klan) had too many bigots for BO to win here. Well, he manipulated the vote by having out of state students use their college ID to vote.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
That's pretty basic, but to do what you and I and the rest of us paying attention want to see happen will take both rock solid proof and the political will to do the right things.
My guess is that it takes time for all the stars to align just right, so that can happen.
I also think we have gone way past the point of no return for ignoring it and something this way comes. I can feel it.
If anything, the Clinton impeachment taught them that things have to be just right or you don't take the shot.
This is much bigger, with so many dirty hands and potentially worldwide repercussions, the return fire for this will be intense. No second chances.
Interesting times, eh?
(2)but if one or two (states) passed this simple law, it would END the charade.
There is ample "law" now. What, imnsvho, is required is the courage to enforce the law at the state level.
For instance, Real World: Sheriff Joe and his Posse haven't really ... legally ... proven a thing. However, they have raised MANY questions of reasonable doubt; many more than enough for the AZ AG to pull Obama from the AZ ballot pending presentation of bona fides.... or to (get this) at the very least, ASK for them.
Look, youse guys, this is a very specific and very thorny problem that has never really come up before exactly liket his. That's one reason the issue has not been addressed.
The other reason of course, is institutional cowardice. If a couple of thousand, a couple of hundred, or two or three, people in a state think a guy is ineligible to run for ANY office, which happens all the time, that is ample cause for the AG to... or a committee which he heads ... to pull that SOB from the ballot ... or threaten to do so ... until the bona fides are forthcoming.
If the system works for mayoral candidates, Congressional and Senate Candidates, etc., it is in place. Therefore it ought to work ... right now ... for the Presidential Candidate Obama, who after all is said and done, has presented NO, NONE, bona fides as to his Constitutional Qualifications for the office.
Since it's forged, it's clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.
Next case.
I keep asserting that the document was created by Hawaii's department of health, and the reason it is so poorly done is because it was created by bureaucrats in the normal process they use to create replacement birth certificates for adopted people.
I really cannot comprehend why people believe that it was created by some other third party forger, the consequences of which would have half a dozen people in jail.
Seriously people, the document *IS* fake, but it is a LEGAL fake. Obama's lawyer got a court order to get Hawaii to produce a replacement birth certificate. No other explanation makes any sense.
What happened to the one he had?
Did the dog eat the one he talked about in his book?
Did he simply lose it?
I wish a reporter would ask Obama why he ordered a new long form birth certificate.
A reporter should have quickly asked Obama and his staff at the April 27, 2011 press conference the obvious question as to why Obama ordered a new long form birth certificate in the first place.
You are falling behhind in your Deconstructionist and Post-Modern reading.
cf: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada
FYI, the HDOH NEVER released a Certified Copy of the LFBC. What they gave Obama's Lawyer was a Digital File ABSTRACTED from data allegedly "on file" in their archives.
It was the WH that took this digital file and turned it into a digitally produced "copy" of what they thought a BC should look like, complete with "official" stationery background and stamps. There is no "document," was no document," and never will be a "document."
Try registering an automobile with this sort of "documentation." After you catch up on Dadaism, you will soon see that there is no "there," there.
Yes, that is exactly my argument. The PDF came from Hawaii.
It was the WH that took this digital file and turned it into a digitally produced "copy" of what they thought a BC should look like, complete with "official" stationery background and stamps. There is no "document," was no document," and never will be a "document."
This I do not believe. It is a felony, and Officials in Hawaii would be aware of it. To remain silent during the perpetration of a felony is itself another felony. People in Hawaii could face prison, and as much as they may love Obama, they love themselves more. I do not believe any of them would risk such a thing. Obama's own lawyer would also be complicit in it, and if discovered, his career would be over.
Again, the third party forgery theory makes absolutely no sense. What makes sense is that Hawaii's DOH produced it, and as far as they are concerned it is a valid legal document.
The 50 states create 120,000 fake birth certificates every year. (There are 120,000 adoptions every year in the U.S.) *I* have a fake but legal birth certificate because *I* was adopted too.
You are spot on, it seems to me.
And the bottom line is that the courts are no more likely to view original intent in regards to NBC than they are to view original intent in regards to the ‘general welfare’ clause or the ‘interstate commerce’ clause.
Fighting for a general restoration of the Constitution can be successful, trying to unseat a sitting president based on an original intent theory that is in practice for no other part of the Constitution is not going to be successful.
Thank you. I've put a lot of thought into this, and I keep coming back to this as the only explanation that seemingly fits all the pieces. For some reason, many people are simply against it. I don't know why, but it inspires downright hostility from some.
And the bottom line is that the courts are no more likely to view original intent in regards to NBC than they are to view original intent in regards to the ‘general welfare’ clause or the ‘interstate commerce’ clause.
Fighting for a general restoration of the Constitution can be successful, trying to unseat a sitting president based on an original intent theory that is in practice for no other part of the Constitution is not going to be successful.
And I have woefully come to realize this as well. As Sir John Harrington said: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
That is exactly where we are at. Violations of the constitution have become so routine that they are no longer even remarkable.
Listed under horror-fiction.
I know you can’t be specific, but is anything “coming down” sooner rather than later? Later being after the election.
end of this month and start of the next
Excellent!!
Thank you for sharing that tidbit!
And thank you, JohnnyP, for asking the question. :)
I don't think Joe gets how lawyers operate (or he does but conceals it).
A lawyer's first gambit is to deny that his client has to produce evidence.
If the lawyer gets away with that he wins a battle. If he doesn't he moves to his next line of defense.
It's understood that the opening gambit is only the lawyer's first move, not an admission of the final truth in the matter.
If Joe were a defendant his lawyer would behave in the same way. It's the way the game is played (and for lawyers it very much is a game).
People say things like that that and then it turns out they don't understand manual typewriters or fountain pens or rubber stamps or binding documents in books or anything about office procedure fifty years ago.
Maybe a little less bravado is in order. If birth certificate 2.0 is a forgery, why not admit that one isn't an expert and that it's a pretty good one, as far as it goes? If there is a forger, and you give him his due rather than insult him, maybe more people will go for these theories.
I think you are familiar with my theory. Any further thoughts on it?
And I do not wish to believe it, either. However, as each round of evidence surfaces, I am forced to confront it.
It is painfully obvious at this point that the WH used digital data from the abstract to create a new digital document. The only way that could be in any way mitigated is if they were to claim that the data they put in their "document" was 100% complete and 100% accurate.
Since what they originally received from HDOH is an "ABSTRACT," that cannot be legally maintained, nor indeed is it possible.
I also am coming rapidly to believe that because of the enormity of the issue, they believed they could get away with it forever.
Start with the basic fact of the matter. There is no legally certified copy of a Birth Certificate that is on file in Hawaii in anyone's possession, including the WH. Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.
Nothing personal (and I mean it, because I really don’t know you) but I think that anyone with even a smidgen of abilty who has ever had the curiousity to take the time to see how things work in general, could fail to view that document and come to any other conclusion.
It isn’t even close.
I used to be a jet mechanic, and now work in imaging and have done so for a couple of decades, and while I have my faults, I can look at something and figure out how it was put together, and for the most part, how it works.
I have used Photoshop since 1992 and Illustrator since 1988, so I understand those technologies well enough to be conversant in them and create content from them as needed.
This is not bravado on my part. It is certainty, or as certain as I can get about anything like this. I am old enough to have struggled to repair malfunctioning typewriters, and have disassembled them, so I have a pretty good idea how THOSE work.
It is a fine document if you are going to flash it to get past a checkpoint or to use to get a job as a cook, if they needed a birth certificate.
Once one knows the problems with that particular document, is is impossible NOT to see them sticking out of the page.
Really. I am pretty angry because this guy now sits in the White House and is dismantling sectors of our economy and our society right in front of our eyes, and there isn’t a thing we can do about it. When I see this crappy forgery, and that is exactly what it is, it makes me even angrier, because if certain parties had done their damned job, we might be in the same place, but it wouldn’t be that terrorist-loving SOB doing the deliberate dirty work.
Again, if I seem angry, and I AM, it is directed at the parties that LET this happen and do nothing about it now.
I don’t know everything, and I am just as capable of being intellectually lazy and susceptible to incorrect information as anyone else. But because I accept up front that those are weaknesses, it helps me avoid falling into that pit, even though I still occasionally do.
But I take my responsibility as a citizen seriously, because if I don’t want to accept a spoon-fed conclusion from the likes of Dan Rather, I have to spend the time myself to view things critically, everything. That is what I have to do to stay informed without watching CBS or reading the Boston Globe. It is MY responsibility to do so, and I take it seriously.
It is one of the reasons I donate a monthy to FR, and when the money-raising is lax, I will kick in more. And then more.
Because, the truth is, there are all types on here. Some are sharp, some aren’t. Some are lazy, some aren’t. But we help each other view the issues of the day, and this issue is one of them.
I didn’t jump into a thread, read it and jump on the wagon. I have spent the better part of two years remaining impartial about certain issues as this forgery and viewing them on my own, coming to my own conclusions.
You either don’t think it is a forgery, or you don’t think that if it is, that it is important.
May I ask which it is?
But The non-imaging evidence is well established:
(a)A Team Obama Attorney traveled to Honolulu, and was handed ... not a document ... but a digital file described at the time as an "ABSTRACT" of data "on file" with the HDOH.
(b)What would normally be required was a "Certified Copy" of a Document on file with the HDOH.
(c) Many Americans have closed Real Estate Transactions and large loans, many more have registered cars, boats, airplanes, etc. in all of the states. What is required to close deals is "A CERTIFIED COPY" of a "DOCUMENT" (Titles, Deeds, etc) on file. One cannot "ABSTRACT" information and recast it oneself as a legal document of another kind.
Abstracts of titles, deeds, debentures, etc. are valid legal documents insofar as they are useful in arranging a transaction and for general information. But in order to be complete and certain, a "Certified Copy" or the original documents themselves are always demanded.
Why would an attorney travel to Honolulu to pick up a digital abstract, when a Certified Copy could have been made, and either electronically telefaxed or to be ironclad in certainty, couriered to DC overnight? This drama was part of the mysterious fog that has settled over this issue. What is the mystery here? This is done everyday! Ask your broker. Your bank. A clerk at DMV!
After this at least suspicious non-imaging information available to any non-expert, none of which is in dispute .... experts can take over to quite easily show exactly how The WH Team took the abstracted digital files transferred from the HDOH and recast them as if that data were a certified copy of the Birth Certificate. They even went so far as to reproduce the carefully culled data onto digital "Safety Paper" to make them "look more official," cutting and pasting as they went along.
It is wonderful that experts in digital imaging can confirm this trail of deceit and demonstrate how it was done. However just as one need not be a chicken to judge a rotten egg, some of the tricks are also painfully obvious to any non-expert who ever bought a copy of Photoshop, or Corel Draw, or Illustrator.
One damning fact wraps this up: There is no "Certified Copy" of the LFBC Document because all the evidence tends to point toward the conclusion that there is no LFBC Document. None of which proves of course, that the man was not born in Hawaii, but that the proof he offers is suspect.
The entire charade was orchestrated, IMHO, to divert the attention of the American People away from the fact that since the man's father was a foreigner, he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.We cannot prove he was not born in Hawaii while the charade continues, just as he cannot prove that he was!
They didn't realize that the amount of ink a letter key of a manual typewriter left on the paper can vary so the letter may look different. They didn't realize that with documents written with a manual typewriter the instances of a given letter had better not all look exactly alike.
An FBI expert can tell the difference between letters typed with the same key and those from another make of typewriter, but if one letter looks thicker to you or me that's not in itself a sign of forgery. It may just be a matter of a little more ink on the key.
It certainly isn't a sign of an inept forger who took images from obviously different documents and pasted them together on photoshop. Wouldn't a half-way intelligent forger, someone even of modest intelligence know not to do that?
Then there were people who assumed the signature was a poor imitation of a modern felt-tip pen. They didn't know about fountain pens and the traces they left behind.
There were people who assumed that curvature on the image was a sign of forgery, rather than the result of copying a document that was bound in a book, and people who said letters didn't line up in a place where they did.
It matters if it's a a forgery. I personally don't know if it's a forgery or not. Perhaps it isn't. But if it is, it's a better forgery than those people thought.
Having seen people fall for all kinds of erroneous theories, I discount all this "obvious forgery" talk. It comes across as arrogant bravado, if you've followed the story up to now.
Nothing personal here. If you are an expert, fine. But you'd better have a knowledge of all those old manual or analogue technologies, as well as the modern digital ones. You should recognize that talking about "obvious fraud" leads people to assume that they don't have to acquire that knowledge.
The one seeking to be a legal President bears the burden of proof that he/she meets the eligibility requirements. If this has not been done, we do not have a current legal president. It's really that simple.
You seem like a decent person, and I thank you for the civil response.
I can see that you don’t see this the same way I do, and I will leave it at that,
But I DO understand the vagaries of typewritten documents, and I do understand the mechanics of how typewritten text appears on a page. I understand spread, bleed, kerning, pitch, etc. I understand the physical interactions between paper, ink and the machinery.
I also understand imaging, image compositing, noise, compression artifact, etc. This is knowledge I acquired over the years. Am I an “expert” on these things? No. Do I understand the concepts enough to be able to apply them to this particular issue? Absolutely.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not approaching this from that angle. As far as I am concerned, this all might be because he simply cannot find his birth certificate and felt something had to be done.
It might.
Or it might be some secret cabal with George Soros.
But I don’t care either way. All I know is that document is a lousy fake, and as my mother used to say, “I hate a sneak and a liar more than anything else.” If someone has an excuse, fine, let’s hear it. But the foisting of this fraudulent document gets my dander up.
If it was just the birth certificate documents being looked at, and NOT the social security number and the selective service registration...
I guess it boils down to this question:
How does somebody that was adopted via a “closed” adoption prove whether or not they are a natural born citizen?
Do they go get a court order to unlock the info?
Then go and research their biological parents’ citizenship?
What if nobody can find the documentation?
If the adoptive parents were staunch Constitutionalist conservatives, would that avoid foreign entanglements?
Not apologizing in any way here, just looking a possible real world situation on just the birth record.
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.