Posted on 01/13/2013 7:08:32 PM PST by Seizethecarp
A few weeks back we reported to you at PPS that some surprises were in the work on the Obama citizenship scandal. We reported that we expected some breaking news on the matter within weeks. The particular event that we expected did not happen, but only through a very strange and unfortunate set of circumstances. However, do not be dismayed, as it turns out the plan b for the matter may turn out to be a more powerful revelation event than the first planned one. Since it still involves some of the same major players and perhaps even more major players this time.
We still cannot reveal the details of the plan however I can report with honesty and accuracy these two facts:
1. A potentially monumental Plan B exposure of the Obama fraud is in the works by very reliable and competent people. The plan involves people who will easily garner national attention to the matter.
2. PPS has been in direct contact with the Sheriff Arpaio investigation. We have just again been assured by Lt. Mike Zullo lead investigator that the investigation and potential angles of prosecution are still going full steam ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Hmmm....shouldn’t the title of this article be Major Players To Expose Obama’s INeligibilty??? I’ll go with that assumption for now.
I’d be a little more credulous if they didn’t hype this crap like Geraldo preparing to open Al Capones safe...
Appreciate the Ping.
Some days I go to bed thinking that “Obama” and his cohorts will get away with their epic fraud. On others, as I lay down I wonder if I’ll wake up to find that the house of cards has collapsed ssuddenly and spectacularly, as such houses are prone to.
You can bet that the man calling himself “Obama” goes to what sleep he can find, thinking similar thoughts.
While O’s eligibility is an important issue to those who expect our government to obey the laws the past 4 years have proven that the law means nothing to those who hold power. It is merely a tool to be used at their convenience against society....not a restraint on their conduct. The ONLY people who are in a position to do anything regarding Obama’s eligibility is congress and the judiciary. We KNOW that congress will not do anything. If they haven’t by now they are not going to. And I can safely tell you that the judiciary will not do anything. If by some chance a jurist actually finds for Taitz, Arpaio etc. and rules that Obama must present proof of eligibility that ruling will be appealed...and the appeals will continue up to and including the SCOTUS....where it’s quite obvious that said
ruling will be tanked. If O’care was allowed to stand the courts who are owned body and soul by the power brokers are not going to rule against their desires....Obama managed to con America into putting him in office. He’s not going to leave....certainly not for something as inconvenient as not showing his COLB. Face it. The issue didn’t matter enough in 2008 to keep him out of office, it didn’t matter enough in 2012 to prevent his reelection, it certainly isn’t going to be a problem for him now. Arpaio and Taitz are “fighting the good fight” but the match was rigged and the outcome determined before the fight even started.
What exactly happens if bama is proven ineligible?
What exactly happens if bama is proven ineligible?....Everyone in Gubbermint will say “OOps! My bad.” and issue another Executive Order that says something like “Can’t stop now. The People have spoken.”
It is so predictable that on EVERY thread that deals with efforts to find out who Barry really is, posters come on to disparage anyone working on the problem and proudly declaring that the chances of success are a negative number at best....
Yes, that is true...as well as the same PhonyCon Media (Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O’Reilly...et al) who keep attacking Obama Eligibility people.
Really troubling is that many in the PhonyCon Media, who attack Obama Eligibility issue, were spending day and nite going after Bill Clinton for basically spilling babymaker on a chubby intern’s dress. Although morally repugnant, being horny and fooling around on your wife is not the constitutional violation compared to not being eligible to hold the office of President.
These people who continue to attack and deride the Obama Eligibility people and investigation are nothing more than Obama Supporters. They have spent years making up excuses to not go after Obama, and are the big reason why we are having a 2d Obama term
What exactly happens if bama is proven ineligible?
First, it proves that everyone attacking the Obama Eligibility investigation were nothing more than Obama Supporters. They will look more foolish than they already are
Second, it means that the Dems will have a much harder time running a candidate for the WH in 2016...and would win only if the GOP were dumb enough to, say, run an Ineligible Amnesty Liberal like Marco Rubio.
Third, The more Obama screws up, the easier it will be to force him to resign. Add Ineligibility to incompetence...and the Dems will push him out...just like the GOP pushed out Nixon during Watergate.
Of course, none of this happens if the PhonyCon Media keeps attacking Obama Eligibility and continues to be Obama Supporters
Right and left media outlets are playing us all for fools...notice how the country continues to slide to the left even with the continued braying of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck and so forth..?
I mostly question the arguments. Onaka was evasive: he would not verify certain facts asked by the AZ SoS like verifying the father or mother's name and when asked by Kansas SoS, he didn't say the WH COLB was "identical" to the one on file, but only that the information matches. There may be some reason to Onaka's evasiveness, but it's not a legal issue. Similarly there may be a reason that the WH decided to muck around with the COLB after scanning it. But it's not a legal issue unless they altered something substantive (e.g. removed some text or added some text). There is scant evidence of substantive alteration.
The second point that I usually make to some of the eligibility people's supporters is that issues like amnesty and gun rights infringment having nothing to do with eligibility. There is a potentially huge price to pay if one thinks otherwise. I am not willing to pay that price because I want to keep America free and strong via the political process and there are obviously some people who do not and eligibility is one of their excuses not to.
Are people who disparage fighting cancer with witchcraft nothing more than cancer supporters?
Reading this thread it is apparent some people have trouble holding two views simultaneously that some believe are in conflict with one another
1. There is a low probability the obama eligibility issue will go aywhere
2. We should fight like hell to ensure our country follows its laws and its presidents are eligible.
Even if we think we will lose we should NEVER give up.
Maybe they have recognized that success can happen only through valid:
1. Planning
2. Organization
3. Action
This may be the “Do It Right” the next time.
“What exactly happens if bama is proven ineligible?”
That depends on whether the ineligibility (as ultimately determined only by SCOTUS, not internet bloggers) was based on birth on foreign soil, lack of one or both US citizen parents, and also, crucially, whether Barry was guilty of fraudulently hiding the ineligibility.
IMO only a foreign birth (Kenya) that Barry knew about and hid through a criminal conspiracy in HI and with the DNC could result in his removal from office. Barry will get a pass on whether both parents were citizens. He never tried to hide that in so far as his claim that BHO Sr. is his dad goes.
For example, supposedly there is a “mole” inside the HI DOH that was a witness to the alleged LFBC NOT being there at one point and then suddenly appearing in the vital records just before the White House “released” the “authenticated” image. If that mole were to get protection as a whistle-blower from players strong enough to protect him/her, the story could get traction. Same for a cooperating credible witness from Kenya able to back up a claim beyond dispute.
“I mostly question the arguments. Onaka was evasive: he would not verify certain facts asked by the AZ SoS like verifying the father or mother's name and when asked by Kansas SoS, he didn't say the WH COLB was "identical" to the one on file, but only that the information matches. There may be some reason to Onaka's evasiveness, but it's not a legal issue.”I respectfully disagree and would ask that you humor me to question your arguments a bit. It seems we are in agreement that Onaka was indeed, as you say, “evasive” with his letters to the Secretaries of State. I am rather unsure of what you may mean by, “but it’s not a legal issue,” but I strongly suspect legal issues are in play with Onaka’s verifications.
The matter of the curious wording in those verification letters is in my view significant, not only because the letters apparently represent official communication directly from HDOH, but also because of the long string of maneuvers carried out by the Hawaii Department of Health and by the State Government leading up to the release of those letters. For the sake of brevity, I’ll only mention the simple fact that Ken Bennett’s original request was greeted by an eight week delay and much bizarre wrangling over how his request should be submitted, worded and justified before finally in the face of Bennett’s publically expressed frustration, was a letter at last produced. I propose that not even supremely inefficient government officials are likely to fight so hard in order avoid verifying public claims that have been fully true all along. And that, all the more given that a thorough, clear, unimpeachable verification letter would have served to partly assuage the arduous onslaught of scrutiny and accusation under which the HDOH has been laboring.
Is it not reasonable to suppose that Hawaii was trying to avoid falling into legal jeopardy or liability of some sort? I offer the speculative dialog below not under the pretense that it’s evidence, but to illustrate a proposed thought process internal to the HDOH that may represent perhaps a suitably plausible explanation of the delay and of the tortured language which emerged in the subsequently released verification letter.
“Wait, we should respond that his request isn’t in strict compliance with our verification laws. Of course we may have to answer Bennett eventually, but then again maybe he’ll keep letting us put this off until Obama is already on the ballot and the thing becomes moot. If he holds our feet to the fire, we’ll just have to do our best by sending something that sounds like an innocent verification to all but the most obsessively parsing skeptics. Who knows, maybe we will never be called to account for the deceptive intent of such a verification, but for now, lets avoid saying anything at all for as long as we can.”
I think Hawaii felt themselves caught between, either A) bringing great misery upon their heads by acknowledging that there’s something amiss with the Obama birth documents after all or B) responding with verbiage that they feel is technically true but would nonetheless expose them to charges of perjury or fraudulent intent to mislead.
You may offer a better explanation (which I would welcome) of what would motivate the HDOH to delay so fiercely and then to send the evasive letters. However, you should be careful to consider at least a half dozen other oddly chosen steps taken by Hawaii in the name of preventing the plain and simple truth from standing as witness to verify all the true story Obama has been telling us all along. Would Hawaii behave this way were there not both political pressures and the threat of real legal penalties at play?
“Similarly there may be a reason that the WH decided to muck around with the COLB after scanning it. But it's not a legal issue unless they altered something substantive (e.g. removed some text or added some text). There is scant evidence of substantive alteration.”There is fairly clear evidence, so far as I can tell, that there was indeed some alteration that happened with the document. How much, I do not know, but I am not so quick as apparently you are to dismiss Zullo’s conclusion that the digital file now on our tax-payer funded White House web site never existed as a single paper document, but was a fabricated piecemeal composite produced in image editing software. Add to that the fact that if the only editing done was the removal of a single small stamp indicating that the document was a representation of an amended certificate, that would be enough to open the floodgate to a world of false information filed without any attestation or support of being legally verifiable.
In the “amended filing” cover-up scenario, is it not just as likely as anything else that the amendments were made through a form filed around the time that the questions about Obama’s nativity began arising in earnest some 5-6 years ago? And then, would it not follow that whatever Hawaii may have had on file prior to that point could have been radically different from what Obama purports to be the truth about his birth circumstances? Conveniently enough, is it not also true that if there is an amended birth certificate as I am alleging on file in Hawaii, the HDOH could perform the necessary mental gymnastics as to justify some sneaky clearance to make statements which verify the “documents in their files” match what Obama purports to be the certificate, even though they know all the while that those documents on their files offer no conventional legal strength whatsoever to authenticate the claims of Obama?
Also why would the White House take the precaution of sending an attorney with whom attorney client privilege may be claimed to ferry the document by hand a quarter of the way around the world, if it were not indeed a very intentional precaution?
Are you sure that the evidence of significant alterations is so scant that further investigation should be deemed unwarranted?
The second point that I usually make to some of the eligibility people's supporters is that issues like amnesty and gun rights infringment having nothing to do with eligibility. There is a potentially huge price to pay if one thinks otherwise. I am not willing to pay that price because I want to keep America free and strong via the political process and there are obviously some people who do not and eligibility is one of their excuses not to.This latter point is harder for me to argue with. I suppose its possible that you’re right, and that I’m roughly wasting my energy on waging an unimportant and/or hopeless battle. In my defense I will simply posit, that there may indeed be at least a small and indirect link between A) ignoring the reasonable possibility that our current president is being suffered, unchecked by the press and ignored by constitutional checks and balances, to hide behind fraudulent documents openly circulated on his behalf through government channels and B) the swell of boldness by a growing cabal of those in power to increasingly employ widespread deception and corruption as most formidable tools in their mission to rob the American people of any and all freedoms otherwise ensured by our constitution.
If in the next year someone should produce incontrovertible and un-ignorable, smoking-gun evidence that Obama is guilty of multiple counts of identity fraud in service to his claim to the presidency, I here contend that such a victory may bear meaningful dividends toward pushing back against the evils of bad immigration policy and violations of the 2nd amendment. If you might answer that I’m chasing after a vapor, I can but concede that time may prove you right . . .
It’s absolutely a legal issue. He is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO VERIFY ANYTHING HE CAN. This is absolutely a legal issue. If he didn’t verify it, it’s because he CAN’T, because the record is legally non-valid. And that changes EVERYTHING, because it means Obama has no legally-determined birth facts - and given the suspect nature of his BC in Hawaii, the burden of proof falls on him and it is legally presumed that the claims are NOT TRUE.
Legally, this changes everything. It means that he is behind by 40-0; stalling is supposed to mean that he automatically loses. Totally different ballgame than him being legally ahead by 40-0 and stalling. The legal presumption at this point is that there is not compelling legal evidence for a Hawaii birth.
How about just political pressures (i.e. WH pressure)? The WH says don't send any reply. HI wrangles and says their law says they must reply. They go back and forth for 8 weeks. We do know for a fact that the WH has no intent of giving a full public explanation and viewing of the records. We just don't know why.
There is fairly clear evidence, so far as I can tell, that there was indeed some alteration that happened with the document. How much, I do not know, but I am not so quick as apparently you are to dismiss Zullo’s conclusion that the digital file now on our tax-payer funded White House web site never existed as a single paper document, but was a fabricated piecemeal composite produced in image editing software.
I have not read "Zullo" and probably don't need to. I read a lifetime supply of the Polarik nonsense in the summer of 08. I have image processing experience and a ton of common sense. I know exactly how to take a scanned document and turn it into layers and post process some layers and leave others. I suggest you ignore such rubbish.
Add to that the fact that if the only editing done was the removal of a single small stamp indicating that the document was a representation of an amended certificate, that would be enough to open the floodgate to a world of false information filed without any attestation or support of being legally verifiable.
I agree. That's not an "added" fact, that is the only relevant possible fact. I certainly cannot rule out any alteration of the scanned doc
Are you sure that the evidence of significant alterations is so scant that further investigation should be deemed unwarranted?
Not I am not sure there was alteration or not, I have no way of knowing. I know that further "investigation" will not be useful if it takes the form of past "investigation", things like Polarik's ignorant pontifications about digital processing.
f in the next year someone should produce incontrovertible and un-ignorable, smoking-gun evidence that Obama is guilty of multiple counts of identity fraud in service to his claim to the presidency, I here contend that such a victory may bear meaningful dividends toward pushing back against the evils of bad immigration policy and violations of the 2nd amendment
I don't mind your pursuing this in the various threads that it pops up in. I will continue to point out flaws when there are obvious flaws and I have the time to do so. If evidence of fraud arises then I will join the apology thread as needed. The post processing of a couple layers of a scanned doc is evidence of at least immaturity, maybe conspiracy or collusion with a coverup, but not ID fraud. It is far too easy to simply scan a doc and manipulate a couple of layers (sharpening, etc) while leaving others. Then export PDF. My theory is that this was done to perpetuate the birther movement. I have no proof other than the same evidence that points to potential alteration with removal of critical information. The evidence points equally either way.
OTOH the evidence of purely digital provenance is essentially nonexistent. There is also ample evidence that a 1961 paper artifact is in the book in HI. We do not know what is on that artifact because nobody trustworthy has seen it.
It's possible that there is a remaining burden of proof. There is a paper artifact in HI to which they are referring. We do not completely know what is on it. But enough of the essential info has been verified to say there is a piece of 1961 paper saying Obama was born there. It may have contrary info on it or a stamp on top of it saying invalid or other possibilities. But the paper exists, was photocopied, sealed, delivered, scanned at the WH, manipulated and released.
NO BIRTH FACTS have been verified. The record itself is legally as valuable as a $3 bill. Hawaii statute considers it no different than if there was no record at all.
Onaka verified some stuff, but not other stuff. The stuff he didn’t verify is not as important as the stuff he did. Your theory seems to be that anything less than 100% is 0%, is that correct?
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.