Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
On January 10, 2013 the Washington State Supreme Court fined Linda Jordan almost $13,000 because she legally challenged Barack Obama's use of forged identity documents: A fake birth certificate and phony Social Security Number.
Jordan wanted the original records to be produced for comparison. Why did Jordan want to see Obama’s real ID?
• The Maricopa County Sheriff Department has presented credible evidence that the birth certificate Barack Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 was forged. (Maricopa County Sheriff Department 602.876.1801) • Jordan’s own research confirmed that Hawaii law requires signatures on birth certificates to be in permanent ink. The signature of Obama’s mother, on his purported 1961 birth certificate, is partly ink and partly a computer created signature. This compilation means the signature was forged. • Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels has confirmed that the Social Security Number Obama is using was previously issued to someone else. SSN’s are NEVER re-issued.
Obama used this fake ID to prove he was eligible to be President. It got him on the ballot and into the White House. This is fraud in the least, treason at worst.
“I filed the lawsuit because I fear for America’s future. A serious crime has been committed right in front of us and federal agents turned a blind eye to it. There is substantial evidence that Barack Obama is using fraudulent identity documents. The court ignored this evidence and sanctioned me with almost $13,000 in fines for exercising my right to request an evidentiary hearing. They labeled my concerns "frivolous". Surely Americans have the right to confirm if Obama used fake ID to gain access to the White House.” Linda Jordan
http://www.obamaforgeries.com
Palmer, if you can look at all this stuff (including a law enforcement criminal investigation of the forgery of Obama’s birth certificate and draft registration - and confirmation that the media was threatened by Soros’ crew), and still think there is no real-world evidence of a problem/conspiracy, I don’t know what more I can do for you. I could talk your toes off about all the crimes and ethics breaches committed by the Hawaii government and Passport Office, but what would be the use, if you won’t even believe law enforcement?
BTW, the “Gorelick wall” between FBI, military, and CIA was NOT a factor in Able Danger’s work, because the AQ cell that was pinpointed by that military intel consisted of FOREIGNERS, not US citizens. US Rep Curt Weldon as well as Sen Arlen Specter were working to get answers as to why the leads were not pursued when there was no legal roadblock to doing so, when the DOD put a gag order on the members of Able Danger. And then the media machine went after Weldon to get him beaten in an election before he could push for any more answers.
BT, we’ve had this discussion before. Elsewhere you’ve said you are a Christian. For Christians, Sarah Palin is not the role model. Jesus is. Jesus never told people to kiss His...whatever, nor did He use any equivalent insult, whether abreviated or not. Even on the cross He returned insults with a petition for forgiveness.
Jesus set a high bar, but left us no wiggle room. His commands are plain: love your neighbor as you love yourself, and do to others as you’d have others do to you. Living by that standard precludes such degrading insults as ‘KMA’. It’s as simple as that.
A squeaky clean person from Nebraska would not be willing to conspire with communists and Islamists to destroy America.
What they needed was a “clean, articulate Black person” who was willing to be the puppet of the anti-American forces in the world. And that’s what they groomed all along in Obama.
Maybe one of the dogs is BO?
Sure, we should contact the critters. But ultimately talk is cheap. The mafia doesn’t talk; they are the ones who will control the day.
Until we realize we’re up against the mafia we’re going to keep on with ineffective strategies.
You assume I intended the vulgar “kiss my @ss.” You assume too much.
But since you’re lecturing LL about double standards where LucyT and I are concerned, I look forward to your instruction to her that she should love her neighbor and do unto others.
Foreign diplomats?
That would be Obama, to a T.
Hammer meets nail head.
Yes, I assumed ‘KMA’ meant exactly what it means. Now you say it means something else? That’s really a stretch. How, when you use a standard abbreviation, do you expect people to realize it means something other than its standard meaning?
Also, what exactly does it mean when you say it, specifically. I’m sure the person you addressed understood it to mean, ‘Kiss my A$$’ - as did everyone else who saw it. What should he/we have understood it to mean?
When you mention a FReeper you should copy him/her, right?
Yes, but I don’t ping LucyT at her request and LL is on this thread so he’s aware of the conversation. I pinged him once. That was enough.
Then don’t mention her name.
No wiggling room there.
That’s the one, Brown Deer.
Found by post 30 something.
Almost a shame isn’t it!
I have said this before, but I'll say it again, eligibility is a losing issue and distracts from the truly alien nature of Obama. It is painful to read your contortions of legal issues based on hunches and bias, not legal scholarship. You also need to learn about data gathering and data mining so you can understand why Able Danger as it has been imagined would produce nothing but false positives. I'll give you an A for effort, but F for effectiveness.
When JR writes FU so-and-so, he means Freep you! Likewise for WTF and Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Same thing here. Lots of people say “fudge” instead of the vulgar equivalent. Same for other vulgarities.
I promised Laz (and myself) that I would not engage in these pointless back-and-forth”s with y’all again. So, I’ve stumbled on that promise and now need to get back on track. I won’t respond further unless you want to discuss the content of the article itself.
Bookmark
Troll detected.
She asked me not to ping her. I’ll mention her whenever I need to if it’s pertinent to the conversation.
One problem with your scenario: According to the theory that Presidential qualifications can only be examined by Congress, there would never be a state challenge to Obama’s eligibility that would be justiciable, even if there was a person with standing (such as McCain, Palin, Romney, or Ryan). So there would be no basis for Congress members challenging electoral votes that could be based on a challenge in the courts.
And actually, the statute that codifies the procedures for certifying the electoral vote doesn’t make provision for challenges based on eligibility. The issues that are supposed to qualify electoral votes for a challenge are the integrity of the seal, the certification of the copies, and the state’s certification of the general election vote. Stuff like that.
These things are probably why the Congressional Research Service says that the Constitution MIGHT allow Congress to challenge eligibility.
But what was used by the WA judge and WA Supreme Court was the claim that STATES CAN’T deal with Presidential eligibility because ONLY CONGRESS can. And that is baloney, according to the CRS attorney. If this excuse hadn’t been used at the state level, we wouldn’t have to worry about what the Congress-critter politicians were willing or unwilling to do. It would have been handled at a more local level, where perhaps Obama would have been denied placement on a ballot and the stage would have been set for a judicial challenge by OBAMA, where standing was guaranteed and discovery mandated. That’s what we need. That’s what Obama refused to allow to happen. And that’s what folks like you are siding with the usurper on - and AGAINST what the CRS has been telling the Congress-critters this whole time.
IOW, the Congress-critters weren’t going to challenge Obama’s eligibility even if they wanted to, because the CRS had told them it was Constitutionally questionable whether they even COULD - because the states are supposed to govern their own elections. So folks like the CRS are saying, “Congress might not be able to do it. The states are the ones who are supposed to do it.” And folks like YOU TROLLS are saying, “States can’t do it; only Congress can.”
Classic talking out of both sides of the mouth so that both Congress and the states claim it’s somebody else’s job.
And the same thing happens with the judicial v legislative argument. We’ve all been taught in 7th-grade civics class that the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. But now folks are saying Congress is supposed to do it. So we’ve got Congress saying (on the basis of the CRS memo) “We can’t do it; the courts have to interpret the Constitution.” And we’ve got folks like YOU TROLLS saying, “The courts can’t interpret the Constitution. The Constitution specifically gives that job to the political system - and specifically Congress.”
The people who are playing both ends against the middle IN BOTH ISSUES are YOU TROLLS. Your arguments don’t make sense, and they are contradicted by both the Constitution, the laws, and the CRS.
First break of the promise in #395!
Make that #397
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.