Posted on 04/21/2013 9:17:31 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Now, 4zoltan, the shred of hope I had that you would try to maintain the appearance of intellectual integrity is fading. In the last few posts, you’ve raised several points and questions. In my opinion, the responses that a person from my perspective would offer to most of them will be immediately evident to most any discerning observers who might be tuning in to this discussion.
I’ll take the time for one quick example, but then I must get back to my day job.
Has Mike Zullo been granted access to the SSS microfilm record or national archive microfilm records, or is anyone contending that Zullo has been granted or could be granted that access at this point? Remember that I did mention the SSS changed its own rules; to be more specific, they did so such that going forward only federal law enforcement entities (i.e. entities that are generally under the direct authority of the executive branch—not unlike the SSS itself) would be assured access to microfilm or other evidentiary document sources.
Are you really telling me that I can only believe tampering would have occurred if I also concede that someone spliced an archival microfilm role?!
I certainly can’t rule out that, if not by now then perhaps eventually, someone may have had to go so far as to tamper with the film, but my hypothesis is clearly, obviously in no way dependent upon anyone having to do that up to this point. Am I just not understanding your “someone would have had to splice microfilm for that to happen” argument? Or did you just really not understand why MCSO would have sent letters asking to inspect whatever the SSS is keeping in their files? Or are you just having a bad day? Or could it be that your main goal is simply to blow some fog into the discussion in the hopes that it will confuse and dissuade those who aren’t paying close enough attention to the details.
Remember, it was the noticeable presence of intellectually dishonest, half-truth telling “debunkers” on these boards that really started to spark my interest in the Obama eligibility/identity fraud questions.
Alas, I realize for the sake of time, I won’t be able to keep up with you and you’ll think yourself a winner by virtue of having the greater endurance and keeping your questions coming faster than I was able to answer them, but I will cling to some optimism that many of the people reading these boards are more discerning than you give them credit for being. They will see right through your line of reasoning.
Do you really believe that, for example, a conservative Republican from a deep red state, like say, Wyoming, where 1% of the population is black is concerned about anyone playing the race card?
Did the race card stop House Republicans from issuing a Contempt of Congress citation for our first evert black Attorney General?
I have a relative who was a staff member to a former member of the Republican Majority in the House. There was a Republican National Committee meeting in 2008 that Governor Lingle participated in via conference call. Shortly after the New Hampshire primary in 2008, a conservative rank and file Republican sued John McCain and the Republican National Committee on the grounds that RINO McCain was not a natural born citizen due to his birth in Panama. McCain’s attorneys and the RNC’s attorneys decided to use the Article III standing defense to get the lawsuit dismissed. That defense succeeded, the lawsuit was dismissed.
http://www.moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php
Unfortunately for the plaintiff, a birth certificate that he proferred as an exhibit showing John McCain having been born in a private hospital in Colon, Panama was fake. McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.
Several members of Congress raised the question of Obama’s eligibility as the “Obama is ineligible” movement was just getting off the ground in early Spring, 2008.
The congressman that my relative worked for was a part of that meeting where the McCain campaign (following the lead of the Hillary Clinton campaign) decided to look into Obama’s birth records through Governor Lingle. Governor Lingle asked her Director of Health to confirm the existence of a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama and report back. Hawaii published a News Release on October 31, 2008 stating that Obama’s birth records were on file. At that time, the primary issue being raised was whether there was any birth record at all for Obama.
Sometime later, persistent complaints from constituents prompted the congressman that my relative worked for to request a report
from the Congressional Research Service on Presidential Eligibility and Natural Born Citizenship. That report was issued in 2011: “Qualifications For President and the Natural Born Citizen Requirement.” The 53 page report pretty much shut down any opposition to Obama on eligibility grounds for the 2012 election cycle. Yes, Congressional Research Service reports can often carry that much weight.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
and yet some here slavishly listen to, quote, purchase from and otherwise support these
same radioheads
4zoltan sees the world through the eyes of a liberal.
You have to read forward from this post to get the full gist of it:
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/2982757/posts?q=1&;page=251#286
Sorry I forgot your courtesy ping.
NBC/ABC/CBS and other broadcast networks have a disproportionate hold over low information voters, media heat soon drops a politicians poll numbers.
Governor Lingle was Republican in the same way Governor Crist was Republican. Both were/are puppets of the democratic party.
Both people were pure GOP-e in 2008, seekers of office not truth.
To even run as Republican in a Democratic fiefdom like Hawaii requires many “Deals.”
However some of the language in the US-Pamama treaty is total double-speak, typical of the sort of mush you get from diplomats.
The point is not actually that he was or was not NBC, it was that there was a sufficient element of doubt to get Mccain to agree a non aggression pact.
Low level staffers are not even going to get a hint of something that sensitive.
My understanding is that if a person was born outside of the US to citizen parents who maintain a permanent residence in the US , the offspring is a Citizen of the United States at Birth.
You’d be surprised at what congressional staff are privy to. Why sometimes even unpaid interns named Monica have access to important information.
All I am saying is that since Obama had the MSM to lick his boots in the 2008 campaign, it would be logical for Mccain to agree to not persue any deep probing inquiries on the Obama NBC issue as the media would be set on him with
“...but you were born in Panama, shut up you hypocrite..."
The way around that is to have your surrogates raise the issue, ask the questions and make the attacks while the candidate himself stays above the fray and never comments on the issue directly.
Not saying he's ineligible, just that both candidates against the lawless one had questions about article 2 themselves. This was not just a coincidence.
Your point is moot. There was never a question as to Mitt’s ArtII status, there was however a question about his Dad’s ArtII status when he ran fro POTUS. Congress even debated the issue and it is a fascinating read if you care to. But he did not get the nomination so that debates became moot as well.
And here I wondered if might be clashing swords with you in vigorous debate about whether there are legitimate reasons to doubt the certificate, but after a single (yes, a long one, I realize) reply to your post, you abandoned parrying and jabbing and tried dropping a piano on my head.
If I'm not mistaken our dialogue could be roughly summarized in this way:
ME: Hey rawlycat, I don't think its fair to declare the Birth Cert forgery evidence "irrelevant."
YOU: Hey ecinkc, did you ever consider that the reason everybody in congress ignores the Birth Cert forgery evidence is because they realize that it doesn't stand up to the fact that GOP Gov Lingle and her chums at the HDOH already told us "everything is hunky dory"?
ME: Oh, um, hi there Nero. Well, despite Governor Lingle's assurances, I actually think there's a long list of statements and actions which seem to thoroughly tip the balances toward casting doubt on Lingle's statement and adding strength to the forgery evidence. Can't you see why I would be influenced by the following issues?: long list, long list, long list, lon . . . etc.
YOU: Oh yeah, you lousy loser? How about this? Your puny team of weaklings loses everything! You lost this battle, you lost that battle, and then you lost these other fortyleven battles over there. You've never won anything, and no one who even counts agrees with you at all, dweeb! Your ridiculous Russian queen is the laughing stock of the entire universe right about now! All you do is lose, lose, lose, because you and your 17 loser friends are all a bunch of big, fat losers!
So if I'm to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll suppose you have chosen this course of "argument" because you actually do care enough to want me to come to the truth and have decided the best tact to accomplish that for a loser like me is to remind me of the overwhelming majority consensus standing against me and my rag-tag band of comrades. Maybe you thought, "I know how to refute each and every pathetic argument the pitiful ecinkc is launching, but who has time to work through all of the that? The best way to get through to this dolt is to tell him all his tea party heroes and all the judges and legal scholars in the land loudly and consistently disagree with him." Or, maybe you thought, "Hmm those would be interesting arguments to evaluate and research and hear him out on, if I wasn't already so sure that something so preposterous as a president getting away with a forged birth certificate is simply impossible. So I'll just give him the big picture and be done with it."
In either of those cases, I must agree that the numbers are thoroughly sobering and daunting, and I would be a fool to not consider the fact that if the whole world is against me, there's a good chance I'm simply mistaken. The trouble is, on this Obama identity fraud issue, it seems I'm just so remedial as to be incorrigible. I'm afraid I'm forever going to be lost in my bizarro-world until someone stoops to my level and convincingly goes toe-to-toe with me on the facts, weeding out my irrational views one at a time. So, you big bully, I've heard you out. I am a twerpy little loser on a team full of losers that practically everyone on the face of earth disagrees with, and so for that reason alone I should wake up and realize I must be wrong. I'll be spitting up sand for weeks, and I hope you're satisfied. Now, don't you have enough to do elsewhere, without having to take over my little spot in the playground also?
On the other hand if I'm to be less generous in my assessment of your tact, I might wonder if perhaps you're feeling as though you're outmatched when it comes to arguing the objective facts on whether Team Obama and the HDOH has been shooting straight with us. Perhaps then, as a result you've realized your best shot is to attempt to break my resolve (and that of others who may be watching) by rubbing my face in the fact that no one who's anyone is honestly giving the objective evidence its due weight. You hope that forcing me and others to face the crushing blow of the inevitable futility of our efforts, will be enough to get some of us to give up and go home. At the same time, faced with your inability to keep up with the arguments focused on actual evidence, this "yeah but you measly pipsqueaks have lost every game you've ever played in" offers you some comfort along with the empty pleasure you feel from gloating.
If it's this latter paragraph which describes you best, you are not merely a bully, you are a villain who stands against reason and wisdom. You should stop what you're doing right now and rethink your life.
Have a nice day! :-)
“Has Mike Zullo been granted access to the SSS microfilm record or national archive microfilm records, or is anyone contending that Zullo has been granted or could be granted that access at this point?”
Did he get a court order or search warrant? If not why not?
Or did they just send a letter saying we want to come in and look at your records?
“Are you really telling me that I can only believe tampering would have occurred if I also concede that someone spliced an archival microfilm role?!”
No, but if not than are you claiming that in 2008 the Selective Service Administration, when faced with a FOIA request for Obama’s SSR card, created one from scratch, including adding a DLN from the 1980s, and a paper copy of the Makiki Station PO handstamp (but not a paper copy of the 1980 stamp even though they have thousands of examples of it).
I have no problem whatsoever with criminal investigations by a statutory law enforcement agencies (which is not a volunteer posse’) or formal grand juries being convened to look into criminal indictments being issued for forgery, document tampering and identity theft.
I say Go For It! It should be obvious to all that civil suits will not do the trick.
My preferred method for getting to the bottom of the eligibility question would have been congressional hearings with witnesses being called to testify under oath with the threat of Making False Statements, perjury and contempt of congress indictments hanging over their heads. I was really hoping that such hearings would have occurred during the 2012 campaign season so that Obama would have had all the attendant publicity and media attention that Congresssional testimony and subpoenas bring. But the Republicans decided to go with Fast & Furious and Benghazi rather than natural born citizen-gate.
Your creative writing contributions are very entertaining. Thanks for the chuckles.
You have a nice rest of the day as well; take good care.
Nicely done.
Although I feel your precision scalpel line that happens to shun the tiny group of law enforcement agencies into which the Cold Case Posse would be categorized while welcoming all other law enforcement agencies is leastwise oddly arbitrary if not a bit silly, I’m content that we needn’t agree on everything, and I can’t deny that most everything else you’ve said in this last post seems quite fair and reasonable to me.
Thanks.
Cool!
"No, but if not than are you claiming that in 2008 the Selective Service Administration, when faced with a FOIA request for Obama’s SSR card, created one from scratch, including adding a DLN from the 1980s, and a paper copy of the Makiki Station PO handstamp (but not a paper copy of the 1980 stamp even though they have thousands of examples of it)."
Congrats, that's a pretty decent, reasonably challenging question. So, as I said before, I have no way of guessing actual flow of actions nor all the rationales for the decisions made along the way. Nevertheless, I do think that Team Obama relied in part upon some level of cooperation from the SSS (whose director is appointed by Obama) and also utilized the resources of a private firm and/or found a away to justify charging the Secret Service or the FBI with some of the tasks related to getting the forged registration card on file.
I agree that, on the surface, it seems odd that whoever produced the actual forgery would have had any interest in using a literal rubber stamp to make an impression onto paper--given that it seems likely that the forger would have understood that the piece of paper would never, itself be kept on file in the care of the SSS anyway.
What I think might have happened is that the forger was aware that applying a rubber stamp leaves a result with a fingerprint of it's own unique artifacts--each application is like a snowflake in that sense. So, the forger realized that by copying the mark left by the same stamp on some other piece of paper he could conceivably be leaving himself open to a situation in which somewhere somehow the identical snowflake eventually could turn up, casting enormous doubt on the card bearing Obama's name. He was determined, then to build an image that included a universally unique snowflake stamp impression.
According to this theory, the forger was so obsessed with the value of having a uniquely artifact-ed stamping that he compromised on the two-digit year, desperately hoping that people would conclude, as you have, that it's absurd to think someone would go to all the trouble of obtaining so authentic (including it's unique artifacts) a round stamp impression and yet be content to include a chopped up year insert. He told himself, "Most people will accept a 2-digit date stamp without any further thought, but those who care enough will tend to overlook the blaring mistake, because the subtleties are so perfect that they will be forced to assume no forger could be so dissonant with himself.
I know you'll think that I've taken quite a leap in proposing that interpretation, but don't forget that a forgery job by necessity involves trade-offs, calculated risks, strange disparities of resources, and the involvement of imperfect people who may at once weild well-honed skills alongside ill-developed idiosyncratic ones.
Your idea, on the other hand that the missing "19" digits were simply absent due to the fact that such absences often occur randomly when applying rubber stamps might seem more plausible than mine--if it were not for this fatal flaw: While it is true and normal that sometimes parts of a stamp are not visible in its inked impressions, it is most certainly not true that the same phenomenon could account for a year stamp that is offset to the lower right of where it would normally occur relative to the rest of the circle stamp into which it's inserted, nor is it true that the eight would so strongly bear the appearance of having been turned on its head.
One more quick point and then I'll depart this discussion, leaving the last words to you and the discerning onlookers. Thanks for the quote from the MRC compression engine developer. It illustrates a genuine effort on the part of the debunkers to overcome their hardest argument in all of this. Nevertheless, it is simply inadequate. Yes, you have the words of a bonafide expert, but the most he can say is, he sees in the White House pdf some similarities with what some obscure implementation of some version of his compression algorithms might have produced, but he admits that he hasn't taken the time to fully research the matter.
I will continue to contend that it is not too much to ask, when I say that I want to see a demonstration of a normal process using a normal set of tools that could have conceivably been used in the White House in 2011 that would produce principally the same layering scheme and other digital characteristics that can be found in the White House pdf.
There, now as I have said, my time constraints dictate that I will need to leave the rest of this debate for now in your hands and in the hands of others. Have at it. Decimate me; massacre me; do your best.
Count me in the rag-tag band, please. Carry on. I love a lopsided spat. You’ve overwhelmed the underwhelmable.
No, the primary issue wasn't whether there was a birth record at all, but whether the jpg that Obama presented in June 2008, and that factlack dot org CLAIMED to have photographed in August 2008 (despite embedded data showing the pictures ere taken in March 2008) was a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate. The news release issued by the HI director of health delicately avoided that issue. Second, this recollection about the Republican governor seems to leave out the falsehood she made in 2009 where she claimed that 2008 news release said that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. It did not say this. Second, Lingle made it sound like she was providing a timely response to the issues raised about Obama's birth certificate, but the news release only came out three days prior the election. IOW, too late for anyone to make a reasonable challenge.
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.