Posted on 02/17/2009 2:09:42 PM PST by Fred Nerks
I was recently engaged in an exchange of emails with my buddy Fred Nerks from Oz that prompted me to revisit FactCheck.org, where the Annenberg-funded website has published a web page entitled, "The truth about Obama's birth certificate."
The information on this page is 100% bovine excrement.
FactCheck.org's Summary
1. "In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate..."
This statement is false -- the campaign released a "Certification of Live Birth." The document presented on this website is not now and never has been a birth certificate, and FactCheck.org knows it. So why did they publish this lie?
2. "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
This statement is also a lie -- the only people that have seen, touched, and examined Obama's birth certificate is Chiyome Leinaala Fuikino M.D., the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, and the Registrar of Vital Statistics.
Fuikino wrote, "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record."
So your conclusion, "We conclude that..." is false, because your conclusions are based on a false premise -- that you have seen Obama's birth certificate -- you haven't, because the State of Hawaii won't release it. What do you think is going on in the 48 lawsuits against Obama. These suits are all trying to get to Obama's birth certificate and 48 times, judges have said, "I can't go for that, ohh, no, I can't go for that."
3. "Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
Complete fabrication and bold-faced lie -- what Fuikino wrote was, "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
Nowhere in that statement does it say Obama was born in Honolulu, and here is the complete statement: -- check it out yourself.
And, nowhere does FactCheck.org identify the militantly partisan website that released the "Certification of Live Birth" -- The Daily Kos -- one of the wackiest websites extant. This FACT alone makes this entire scenario suspicious, if not patently ridiculous.
FactCheck.org's Analysis
1. FactCheck.org's own analysis confirms what I wrote above, under Summary.
2. FactCheck.org presents a photo of a "Certification of Live Birth," captioned, "The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller."
That's a lie, as well -- the document in this photo is a "Certification of Live Birth" (getting tiresome, isn't it) -- not a birth certificate. They are different documents, and the folks at this mendacious organization know the difference -- Joseph Goebbels would be proud of FactCheck.org's big lie.
FactCheck.org presents a photo image of the document further down the page, under Analysis -- That document is not a "birth certificate." It is a "Certification of Live Birth," again, FactCheck.org knowingly misrepresents the document as something it is not, and it's not even the document that was released.
Here is the document that was released to The Daily Kos. The original document released had its Certificate Number blacked out -- and if one looks at the document, it says at the bottom, "ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE" -- even if the document were genuine -- it isn't VALID.
3. FactCheck.org published several other images defending its false presentation on this page.
4. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
A birth announcement could have been easily phoned in to the newspaper from anywhere in the world. This "fact" is inconclusive, unless you know who provided the newspaper with the announcement, the means they used, and where they were physically located at the time.
FactCheck.org's Anal-ists
FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that's fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to make an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org's office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn't say. Wonder why?
FactCheck does say their, "representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago." In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.
Lie? Hell, this is a conspiracy and FactCheck.org boldly admits their part in it.
I prefer to give credence to Dr. Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters, who provides conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Petersburg Times, and Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Here, is his final report.
A second expert forensic document examiner Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has filed an affidavit associated with one of the lawsuits, stating the following:
1. I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an address at... I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer. I began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. I am a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials. My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto.
2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from "Ron Polarik." After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine.
My Comments
Since the title of the FactCheck.org web page is, "The truth about Obama's birth certificate," everything on the page is a bold-faced lie, because FactCheck.org has never, ever seen Obama's birth certificate and every image and reference is to a Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii is notorious for its issuance of COLB's. Click here to see a large copy of a beautifully printed Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (If you click it, it will get bigger or smaller). It belongs to Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China.
This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, dated March 14, 1904, was issued after Dr. Sun signed a raggedy type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870. Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not Hawaii, as this document affirms.
We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia.
None of this is surprising, since this website is funded by the same fine people who fund Obama's buddy, the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. They represent themselves as unbiased and non-partisan. That, of course, is just another lie.
This "birth certificate" controversy is not nearly as important as the fact that Obama is not a "natural born citizen."
"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed..."
George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
No doubt. The only thing we can hope for now(besides winning the house and senate back in 2010) is for Obama Inc. to overreach in such a way as the American people wise up or he gets caught in his chicago style thug corruption.
ARE YOU JANE DOE?
Moi? Non.
Lucy T,
Regarding your post #71, my source is Ed Hale, Plains radio discussion during Tuesday night show, and my follow up phone call to Ed after the show. During Tuesday night show, Ed stated, on the air, that he had received a letter from Fox and not an injunction or court order.
With regard to your post # 72 and few other comments by other people on this thread, I do agree that Ed Hale is a bit rough on the edges. He too often, at least for my taste, wears his emotions on his sleeves and sometimes tends to embellish a little. He never tries to be politically correct and some may argue that is part of his charm.
I do not know Ed personally but I listen to Plains Radio, when I have time, to follow up on events surrounding Obama’s constitutional eligibility and state sovereignty effort.
I personally do not think the letter from Fox had anything to do with political views expressed at Plains Radio but rather related to dispute between Ed Hale and Ms. Adams also known as MommaE. I believe Berg’s letter to Ed Hale in which Mr. Berg lists Ed Hale’s on the air derogatory remakes about his client, MommaE, was most likely sent to Fox and Fox, justifiably, does not want any part of it. That is my feeling but I could be wrong.
I did not have time to tune in to Wednesday night show and do not know if Karen or Ed contacted Fox as the letter by Fox had instructed them.
I am really very disappointed to see so much infighting among radio personalities and between attorneys who have brought legal action questioning Obama‘s eligibility. It looks as though they enabled Obama to laugh all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and continue to laugh all the way to January 20, 2017. I find that sad.
Very typical crank behavior. They're on the same side, and yet they fight over the smallest, insignificant detail. Each one of them thinks that their own version of the conspiracy theory is the only correct one, and anyone who disagrees with their version must be in on the conspiracy. This pattern comes up again, and again.
I find it very amusing. It's a lot like visiting a freak show at a circus.
Instead of "crank", substitute any designation that characterizes a faction (with sub-factions) whose existence and identity relies heavily on philosophical idealism. Infighting ranges from petty to serious, depending upon how much real power is at stake. I'm sure I don't have to point out that it is the LEFT that is most riddled with this malady.
If you want to see a real freak show, try observing the petty nonsense that occurs among faculty in a teaching institute. That would be a good example to point out, but maybe you have never had the chance or motivation to analyze such behavior. The nastiest of infighting can be found among collectivists.
By all means, take the time to snark on something that probably doesn't concern you at all, and, by all means, continue to overlook the very obvious examples of behavioral and philosophical differences between BIG NUTHIN' (that 1 followed by a lot of little zeroes) and our founding fathers. If you were really such a perceptive psychologist, you would not be so content with BHO's lack of cooperation with the American citizenry. Unless, of course, you are a collectivist yourself.
Coming in late here- GOOOOLLLYYYY!!!!
thanks for pings LucyT and STARWISE!
Forum has been scrubbed if you didn’t know already.
I might as well say what I’ve been thinking: these ‘born-againers’(and that’s a guess based on things they say) can really get nasty, can’t they!
We Traditionalist Catholics will get in a circle and shoot each other (not wildly, mind you-steadier aims!), though its almost always deriving from doctrinal disputes with traceable manifestations thereof entering into the personal. Such base vulgarity would never be so publicly heard even while the bullets are in the air! And you’d never get a blatantly effeminate (I guess converted homosexual) character acting as on-air assistant as Momma has. You’re a guest on this show and you have to refrain from making a comment when encountering him?!
I’ve thought Hale an old coot since just after the election. Doesn’t surprise me in the least he’s swimming in and flinging mud so.
This is, as I understand, basically from Momma jumping the gun on publishing ‘Obama divorce’ scans before given permission. That’s significant all right but hardly a chance of a reason for Hale to act like that. I think also Pravda contributor Mark McGrew was going to get a slot at Plains and went over to Momma in there. As usual I’d have to check back if it was so important.
Sounds like a job for Barney Fife (as in impossible).
Indeed. Right now it's a little subdued because they are still caught up in the euphoria of having elected their messiah, but this kind of behavior will become very common in places like Kos and DU.
If you want to see a real freak show, try observing the petty nonsense that occurs among faculty in a teaching institute...The nastiest of infighting can be found among collectivists.
I've seen it, but it doesn't happen in all departments (like mine, for instance). It's rare in disciplines grounded in empirical research, such as finance, economics and the natural sciences. It's very common, and downright amusing, in English departments. Thankfully, I don't have much contact with such people.
By all means, take the time to snark on something that probably doesn't concern you at all, and, by all means, continue to overlook the very obvious examples of behavioral and philosophical differences between BIG NUTHIN' (that 1 followed by a lot of little zeroes) and our founding fathers.
I'm overlooking no such thing. I realize that the election of Obama is going to have very bad consequences for the Republic. Unfortunately, however, coming up with nonsensical claims about his alleged lack of eligibility isn't going to help anything. On the contrary, it hurts, for it makes all of us in the opposition look like cranks.
Look! A new tag-team.
Yes, there are many instances of healthy departments, I agree. The mentality (and culture) in natural science departments can be almost anywhere on the political spectrum, but on average tend to be much further to the left than economics departments. So I disagree that it is "rare" in the disciplines you list, because the idealistic undercurrent is usually there, and of course it is difficult to avoid the unions.
Unfortunately, however, coming up with nonsensical claims about his alleged lack of eligibility isn't going to help anything. On the contrary, it hurts, for it makes all of us in the opposition look like cranks.
It is not that clear that all claims are nonsensical, or that "all of us in the opposition look like cranks". It isn't clear (at least to me) that Zero should be given a pass for hiding his records, since so much of what the guy says is BS, except for his forthright statements such as "spreading the wealth". Why should I have any more faith in his alleged paperwork than I would in a student's fake ID? The fake ID might be more or less harmless, and forgivable in some circumstances, but we are here talking about the POTUS, and probable fraud just as much as eligibility.
...good, let them talk to each other...
...good, let them talk to each other...
You should consider the possibility that there are many, many lurkers out there who read these posts much more carefully than you do, and how comments such as you made could be interpreted as lack of attention to detail. I'm just saying... as a friendly suggestion...
FACTCHECK
POLITIFACT
POLITICO
SNOPES
NBC'S "HYPOCRICY WATCH"
WASH. POST'S "FACT CHECK"
are just the most vocal. There are dozens more.
What an asinine comment to make to LucyT and Fred Nerks regarding how carefully they read the posts. (Are you a mind reader?)
I see you JOINED FreeRepublic Oct. 2008, so I guess that makes you an expert on who is making “careful” comments.
You are just upset that many have seen your “tag team” approach you have used with in various threads...the pattern of Trolls.
Make appropriate posts or don’t post at all.
I don't usually rise to provocation but I'll make an exception for you. Friendly? You've GOT to be kidding me!
obumpa
I do not consider Hale to be on anyone's side but his own.
I read his nasty letter to Berg and wonder, where does he get off saying that Berg is just looking to get money when he has not authored a single, legal action against Obama, nor does he understand the great costs involved, nor has he gone on as many different radio and TV shows as possible to get the word out about Obama, and given the fact that Hale, not Berg, is the one scamming the public?
A lot of these talk radio jocks have incredibly inflated egos. They all think that they are the only show in town and go out of their way to bash others.
Make no mistake: This brouhaha between Hale and MommaE has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's ineligibility issues. It is all about personality issues. So, please stop with this "Let's all get together on one side" mantra.
I say, don't waste your time on anyone who is not sincere about the issue of Obama's ineligibility.
What an astonishing reaction to a well-intentioned suggestion. I don't quite know what to say. I never expected this, or any, level of viciousness from you. I would have thought it out-of-character.
"You should consider the possibility that there are many, many lurkers out there who read these posts much more carefully than you do, and how comments such as you made could be interpreted as lack of attention to detail. I'm just saying... as a friendly suggestion..."
Let's start with the "comments" that were made: (Look! A new tag-team.) (...good, let them talk to each other...). To be honest, I didn't really take your comment to be anything more than a throw-away line, or part of an attempt at humor, or a chance to be one of the "in-crowd". The joke would be, of course, that I was part of a troll tag-team. Another possibility is that you meant it, and not as a joke. Either way, there is a risk to all of us when you make comments like that. The risk to you is that, since you try to do a lot of sleuthing and analysis, if you make obvious errors (in this case a blunder) not only does it hurt your reputation, but it hurts the credibility of others who are pursuing the eligibility issue, including me, and in addition embarrasses people like me who have been consistently arguing on your side!
"These posts" are the evidence of your mistake. I am the only one who knows whether or not I am a troll. I am the only one who knows with certainty that I am not a troll. Everyone else is guessing. Any conclusion regarding my status as a troll can go no further or deeper than my posted comments, which are a matter of record. Even if you factor in other people's opinions or your own woman's intuition, the trail stops at the posted word. There is nothing in my posting history that proves I am a troll. And unless you have a peculiar personal or emotional predisposition, it is not reasonable to conclude that I am a troll. Not a chance. If you have concluded that I am a troll, then you did so by ignoring the pertinent evidence. comments such as you made could be interpreted as lack of attention to detail. You would be shooting yourself in the foot, credibility-wise.
"You should consider the possibility...". I don't know how you missed this. Lack of attention to detail, I guess. It serves two purposes. The first is an invitation to stop, consider, reflect, review the evidence. Apparently that isn't your style. You missed an opportunity to do some damage control. The second purpose is that it makes the remainder of the remark a thought experiment, not a statement of fact. Emphasis on thought. Thought.
"a friendly suggestion". This was completely sincere. Of course, I wrote it before your hysterical PMS breakdown, and before you proved to the whole world that you actually HAD categorized me as an enemy. No matter. My position on Zero's eligibility hasn't changed, and I don't intend to do anything different in the future just because you turned out to be something of a disappointment. That isn't an emotional or personal conclusion, it is just an assessment of rank, so don't read anything sinister into it. I really enjoy the sleuthing and dot-connecting, and I'm going to continue to enjoy it as best as I can as time permits, but don't expect me to engage you in small-talk anytime soon.
Isn't it ironic that this thread has been about infighting. I argued that infighting occurs more among the LEFT, and then you and LucyT swoop in from the RIGHT and give a childish counterexample.
A special note to Iowan: Your post contained not a single pertinent remark, so I don't see any value in going over it point by point.
A special note to Polarik: I see that you are hiding behind the skirts of others. You, Polarik, are the only one of the eligibility people that I have ever criticized. I have never criticized anyone for citing you work, and I have never criticized anyone for believing your work. I used to think that the flaws in your work were due to wishfulful thinking. Lately I have come to believe that your work is chock-full of deliberate deception. But I have not crammed my opinions down anyone's throat. I presented a few things (much more honestly than you have) in such a way that people can draw their own conclusions. What I object to most about you is the way you act like a petty little tyrant. I detest tyranny. Keep calling me a troll all you want, it won't help you. The truth will out. Your vetting will take place, when freepers realize you are just as obscured as Zero. I doubt many of your present friendships will survive once people realize what you really are all about. And I've noticed something very disturbing:
FR is to Polarik as MSNBC is to Obama.
Cue waves of nausea.
Sorry Fred Nerks, some of the details in the last post were really meant to be directed towards Iowan, and I didn’t do a very good job of separating the proper recipients. Sorry about that.
So totalitarians lie.
You must salute the empty suit.
Don’t forget it.
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.