Posted on 02/22/2011 10:46:07 AM PST by rxsid
"Dr. Ronald Polland: Obama's Two Minute Warning; Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Birth Certificate
Game over, Barack Obama. This 2-minute video will destroy your birth certificate fraud.
You were not born here. You are not a US citizen. Your FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, fabricated by Annenberg Factcheck, proves you are a liar, a fraud, an imposter, and an illegal alien.
The FIRST EIGHT SECONDS of this video buries your rabid liberal media in their own lies.
They demanded that conservatives accept what the Hawaii Governor said about you and your birth certificate.
We do - now you and your gullible supporters must do likewise.
The former Governor said that requesting a Presidential candidate to show his or her birth certificate to prove eligibility is a legitimate question for Congress.
Mr. Obama - or whatever your is real name - you had seven years to prove who you are, and you refused to do so.
Obama must go, NOW. - Dr. Ronald Polland - Source.
YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgAuVFo7iU&feature=player_embedded"
From: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/02/dr-ronald-polland-obamas-two-minute.html
Flashback from the Right Side of Life; - Meet the only 2 people to ever "examine" Obama's SHORT-FORM COLB's. -
The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.
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. Much more here.
And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more here and here.
So what court case and Obama Lieyer was that again??
You need help in finding those court briefs? /sarc.
It is not possible to determine the authenticity of a document from a scanned image of that document posted on a web site. Both printers and scanners introduce artifacts to the image of any document. For authentification, you need a hard copy.
______________________________________________________________________________
We have found a genuine point of agreement. And it agrees with what Sandra Lines stated in her signed affidavit.
Since Fight the Smears is an advertising site and has not obligation or reason to ‘publish’ or post fact it is reasonable to assume that both Daily KOS and Factcheck are registered and legally in the same category. Thus, all 3 can post whatever they like regardless of authenticity or accurateness. So members of those are probably protected from formal criminal prosecution using their 1st amendment rights.
That is the shell game that has been played. When people say ‘Obama released...’ someone from the media/press needs to say ‘no they did not...a website that acts a front released...’ and that should happen until an actual document and supporting, detailed facts are presented from an actual human in the 3D real world representing the current holder of office of President.
Peace.
Not to come across as uninformed, but did not one of our own Freepers prove Rather’s Burkett docs were forgeries based on online images alone? That is my understanding, anyway. Am I missing the point, and/or comparing apples to oranges?
The same has happened in disproving Obama; the difference is that no politicians are going to defend Dan Rather and CBS for passing off a forgery, but they will defend one of their own ... and evidently go to great lengths to do so, even across party lines.
Well that’s certainly how it looks to me. Rather was an old white has-been, and Obama is a PC/MSM/AA ‘black’ sacred cow. Nobody on either side dares to touch him or his weirdly inauthentic docs.
Well Obama’s polls are on the way down. We’ll see what the landscape looks like when gas hits five bucks at the pump. Even sacred cows have a shelf-life.
Not to come across as uninformed, but did not one of our own Freepers prove Rather’s Burkett docs were forgeries based on online images alone? That is my understanding, anyway. Am I missing the point, and/or comparing apples to oranges?
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am not familiar with the Dan Rather forgeries. I am familiar with digital photography and my conclusions are based on my own review after being pointed to the issues by entries here and at P&E.
With the explosion of high resolution photography and with HD screens for computers and powerful tools like photoshop it now possible to construct almost any document or image to be placed on a document in a computer. The work in the computer can be extremely precise and look amazingly authentic on the screen. And if it looks good on the screen it will look amazingly good in print. Why? Because print is still relatively ‘low resolution’. This is why it is so easy for forge things nowadays and why the dollar bills had to be changed.
Given what I just indicated above. It is almost amazing the sloppiness of what is shown with the Daily KOS image and the Factcheck photos.
Lets start with the Daily KOS very high resolution image. It has unique and distinct smugs or dots in that image. While Polland says that this image is not a scan, somewhere a scan, likely of an authetic COLB was done. The smugs, and dots are likely just ‘scanner dust’ captured during that process. That original scan was heavily manipulated to create the Daily KOS image. I believe Polland is 100% correct in saying that is not a native scan image. In fact the image was verified as being last processed by Adobe Photoshope Mac C3.
Factcheck photos 2, 5 and 6 show signs of coming directly from that ‘image’. The same small elements are present. Even their exact source is no consequence. They map precisely to the same anomalies in the DK image. It is like birth marks. Those printed documents come from the DK image - NOT, I REPEAT WITH A DOUBT, NOT from a actual COLB. These are confirmed photos of fraudulent documents.
Add in that FC#3 has no seal and that FC#9 could not have made the bleed through in other photos or the DK image and you have further verifiable proof of fraud.
Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. It sounds open and shut to me, and as you said, surprising more for its sloppiness than for its probative value.
If anybody had doubts, though, Abercrombie helpfully laid them to rest. He said he would resolve the issue once and for all, went looking for Obama’s BC, and emerged clearly shaken. He could have said, ‘I saw it. It’s in perfect order, and I’m willing to repeat that under oath to put this matter to rest once and for all. I can’t release it due to legal issues, but take my word for it: it’s there’.
Instead he blathered inanely about something being ‘written down’ and then retreated into silence. Anybody who watched his performance and didn’t come away with the sense that Obama’s BC is BIG trouble for 2012 is either stupid or a leftist partisan hack.
I also wanted to add to my comments re: Rathergate. I originally made it sound as if a Freeper had proved, in a matter of hours, the TX Air National Guards docs were forgeries, and the MSM capitulated, threw Rather under the bus, and moved on.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The MSM circled the wagons, defended Rather, attacked bloggers, derided them as nonprofessionals who sit in front of their keyboard wearing “pajamas”, and groused, grumbled and haughtily pontificated about the Net’s lack of “fact-checkers”. The more the evidence accumulated against Rather’s forgeries, the more rabidly the MSM attacked the messengers and defended the docs. It culminated in the desperate, ludicrous, grave-yard-spiral idiocy of “fake but accurate”. Only after months of defending the indefensible did the MSM gracelessly abandon the field, and grudgingly allow the charge of ‘forgery’ to stand.
Anyone who thinks they won’t fight ten or a hundred times harder for Obama and his forged documents is either stupid or a liberal hack. Their investment in Obama dwarfs even their BDS. They’ll have to be hauled off in straight jackets before they willingly question anything to do with their Post-American, Postmodern, anti-colonial America-hating hero.
zero is President Photoshop - this guy doesn’t have a history. It’s all made up! How in the hell can an entire country be bamboozled by someone’s whose entire life was created in photoshop?
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/VB5o1cmiCjo
Show us which attorney representing Obama has presented the two statements or a transcript of Lingle’s lie.
219 posted on Thu Feb 24 2011 05:17:49 by edge919.
jamese..again..you stated the briefs were scanned, would post them online.
You stated..”searching for them on scrib.com”
We offered to assist you..since you have been unable to locate.
You stated the Obama attorneys would have the two statements in their brief.
Jamese where are the documents?
Little Jamieeee OBot mind has conjured up so much BS that he has trouble telling the truth about facts.
The closest that an Obama lawyer, Robert Bauer, has come to alluding about anything Hawaii was in small footnote in his court brief to federal judge Robertson that states to the judge he could see Obama’s COLB image on the Internet. LoL.
The post regarding Justice Miller explaining subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is getting several thousand views from various sites in photobucket.
Forget when/where I located the document.
it seems that George Washington was the first
prominent Founding Father to truly appreciate Addison’s legal talents. It began on November 1798 when Addison sent the former President a copy of his most recent charge entitled Liberty of Speech and the Press.
The charge addressed the Alien &
Sedition Acts, including whether the President had the power to remove any alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”
Incorporating Emer De Vattel’s Law of Nations,
Addison believed that (quoting Vattel)“every government must be [the] sole judge of what is necessary to be done, for its own safety or advantage, within its own territory.”
Mr. Rogers this is domestic not international.
page 538.
http://www.clevelandstatelawreview.org/58/Issue%203/Charles.pdf
“Addison believed that (quoting Vattel)“every government must be [the] sole judge of what is necessary to be done, for its own safety or advantage, within its own territory.””
Do you agree with Addison and Vattel? Would there have been an American Revolution if it is a true statement?
The Founders by reading Vattel’s Law of Nations found their justification to have their revolution.
Vattel gave inspiration to the Founders..they printed pamphlets using quotes from the Law of nations to rouse the colonists.
It is your groaned frenzy to deny this..to beat your own drum....
If Vattel is a nobody..as you proclaim..why is Addison quoting him in a letter to Washington.
Your nonsense posts on freerepublic are fables to promote your own self interests.
You rather see the Constitution destroyed to advance your own posterity.
The Founders COULD have used Vattel in determining who qualified to run for President, but they did not. The did NOT require a “native citizen”, “natural citizen” or an “indigenous citizen” - any of which might reference back to Vattel.
Instead, they used a legal term - natural born citizen. Not found in Vattel, but with a specific legal meaning.
And the quote you just cited would have made the American Revolution unjustified.
jamese meet Buckhead
Instead, they used a legal term - natural born citizen. Not found in Vattel, but with a specific legal meaning.
___________________________________________________________________________
Legal term???
A defined legal term would be Natural Born Citizen - in all caps. This is how legal definitions are documented in a legal document. But this is not what the founders did.
They did used a legally defined term Citizen. It is capitalized. Thus it is a defined term in the Constitution. In English language terms it is a proper noun.
So you have ‘Citizen’ and the base. It means Citizen of one of the United States. Because of this I will go halfway with you and say that this means that in a strict sense Vattel was NOT used, at least exclusively as the basis for the Article II term. Because Vattel would not have written about a “natural born Citizen of one of the United States”. So Vattel writes about “natural born citizens” (lower case c and a common noun) and Article II uses Citizen as the base for “natural born Citizen”. It is not the same citizen Vattel refers to. At least not in a 1 to 1 match.
So lets look at “natural born” is it a special or defined term? Actually it is merely two adjectives. The ‘term’ is not hyphenated (another common mis-characterization that distorts the founders intent). And the words are not capitalized. So that means the founders did not intend and did not mechanically create a new proper noun that is undefined. In short they did not screw up and not define a term that is not a proper noun.
I contend that since these are simple adjectives they have the same meaning as “natural Citizen and born Citizen”. In the same way if you say it is “green short grass” is the same as saying it is “green grass and it is short grass”.
Some say “natural born” means simply ‘at birth’. They say there are only 2 ‘types’ of citizenship - born and naturalized. This is a lie. A pure lie. There are two types of citizenships but it is the ‘natural’ part that comes into play more than the ‘born’ part. There are ‘natural’ citizens and there are citizens by statute. THESE are the true two types of citizens. Naturalized citizens are a SUBSET of Citizens by statute. A naturalization law. But, especially with the introduction of 14th Amendement we can see that you can be born a Citizen but not be a natural citizen. 14th Amendment citizens are not natural. The do not derive their Citizenship from natural forces - i.e. their parentage and their location of birth together.
As for ‘born’ - it means ‘from birth’. It is not simply AT BIRTH. It is FROM BIRTH. You have to be born a natural citizen and stay that way through out your life.
So “natural born Citizen” is not a proper noun and it is not a legally defined term using any acceptable legal constructs. The founders did not fail us by leaving us with an undefined term in the Constitution.
“A defined legal term would be Natural Born Citizen - in all caps. This is how legal definitions are documented in a legal document.”
No. That is not true, and the US Supreme Court has already disagreed with you, at length.
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.