Replies

It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?

There are only two possibilities I can see.

1. For some obscure Machievillian reason, he wants it to be determined to be fake.

2. It isn’t fake but merely appears to be so.

Occam’s Razor, to my mind, indicates 2 as considerably more likely. In fact, the “fakeness” of it makes it more likely to be real.

This is similar to the claim that “Bush lied” about WMDs in Iraq. That he knew they weren’t there.

It is obvious to me that if this were the case, intelligence officers would have brought WMDs along to be “found.” You can believe Bush to be stupid if you like, but certainly some of his handlers were not dumb.

"It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?"

Actually, DL has an intriguing theory on that. Said theory aside, who are these forgers of the highest quality that he can call up and demand spring into action to produce this masterpiece of a fugazzi? These charlatans have been bluffing, bullying and race-carding their way through this entire diabolical saga from the beginning and didn't count on Donald Trump "going 'birther'". They rushed this thing, because they never expected to be called on it in the national media by a well known, charismatic personality who's very hard to ignore.

"There are only two possibilities I can see."

Really? Just two? That seems a bit. . . myopic.

"In fact, the “fakeness” of it makes it more likely to be real."

Okay, that just doesn't make any logical sense. Did you read the article?

"It is obvious to me that if this were the case, intelligence officers would have brought WMDs along to be “found.” You can believe Bush to be stupid if you like, but certainly some of his handlers were not dumb."

I don't think that Bush is either stupid or dishonorable. Likewise, I don't think that's an apt analogy.

You're of the opinion that you think the "birth certificate" released by the WH on 27 April 2011 isn't fake. Got it. Your arguments to that effect however, could use a bit of buttressing. Throwing around terms like Occam's Razor does nothing in that regard if the follow up argument is less than solid.

Is that why the HDOH changed the BC#’s on Virginia Sunahara’s and Stig Waidelich’s BC’s too?

And why they refuse to allow anybody to see original documents rather than a computer-generated abstract?

Is it why they altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally nonvalid BC’s, or why they refused until a year after the election to post their Administrative Rules online as required by law?

Is that why HI Gov Neil Abercrombie told a Star-Advertiser columnist that his investigation had found something “actually written down” but that it was not going to convince skeptics that Obama was born there?

Is it why 2 different posters both claimed to go personally to the Hawaii State Library and make birth announcement copies from the Star-Bulletin microfilms when in fact what they produced was a scan identical (right down to the hair on the page and waviness of the scan’s edges) to a scan given to Michael Rivero by somebody at the Advertiser Office?

Is it why the HSL librarian gave Lori Starfelt a deliberately-blurred image of the Advertiser announcement that didn’t follow their protocol of having a copyright notice on the copy?

Is it why the microfilms that are in the libraries now have been microfilmed so poorly that they can not have been produced by the microfilming company who handled all the microfilming for the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin (whose company name is on the boxes at these libraries)?

I could go on a long, long time but need to go to work. There’s WAY TOO much stuff that doesn’t add up for this to be just some silly little game.

If it was some silly little game then Obama should face justice for what he did to Lt Col Terry Lakin and every other officer who (unlike him and all his stooges) had the honor to actually mean what they said when they swore to protect and defend the US Constitution.

"It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?"

The forgers would not only have to be "highest quality", but they would also have to be loyal. I'm sure it is quite easy for Obama to acquire a large army of liars and cheats, but it would be nearly impossible for him to get a large army who would also stay quiet about it. His circle of confidants who can be counted on to remain discreet is quite small, and not very capable.

It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality.

Your logic fails here.

Going around trying to recruit a top expert in forging documents greatly increases the people in on the scam and the chances of the operation being blown.

Especially risky is hiring someone on the basis of money or trying to order someone in an intelligence agency to do it.

This would have been done by a small circle of hard-core Obama insiders and ideologues who are politically committed to him come hell or high water.

Beyond the small circle, they would only have had to turn a couple of bureaucrats in Hawaii. In fact, that is probably the weakest link in the scam and where a professional law enforcement agency would have the most success in getting someone to turn state's evidence.