Posted on 04/30/2010 7:45:37 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
Dr. Ronald J. Polland, PhD, has posted on YouTube a series of videos that are part of a book he has been writing for two years. The title is “Fraud in the USA: The end of the birth certificate controversy.”
As described in his, “About Me” video, Dr. Polland’s expertise is in Research and Program Evaluation, with over 31 years of post-doctoral scientific research experience. He is also the leading authority on scanning, photographing, (and videotaping) both sides of authentic, paper Hawaiian COLBs.
Because of YouTube length restrictions, Chapter 1 has been split over four parts (uploaded now) and Chapter 2 has been split over two parts (will be uploaded by 6pm EST). He has also posted an “About Me” video that has his full credentials and highlights important aspects of his career.
For those who wish to see it as one entire video, he will be posting the full-length version on Screencast.com and will be available tomorrow morning).
Space those posts as much as you can to take up as much of the page as you can. You’re so obvious you sorry sack of ^%$&.
I missed that thread so I can't speak to your point, sounds like I missed a good one, would you happen to have a link?
I still need to watch the rest of the vids and will a little later, I have a few errands to run.
Maybe we can pick this back up then?
One of the reasons Hillary got dumped for Obama is that he will be around to rerun if he gets voted out. You have to get rid of him for good or he will be around for more hell. You can can be so short sighted.
Well well you just have to keep on coming back.
BTW, if Obama failed to qualify impeachment is not necessary.
but Congress could go through the motions.
Paragraphs are your friend... :-)
Part 1: An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
Part 2: No Proof (Obama birth certificate investigation)Part II of an investigative series
-PJ
I never figured it out why five (5) democrat Senator sponsor of 511 would go out of their way to make sure their opponent was eligible??? — Makes absolutely no sense, hmmmm!!!
Sure it dose.
Obama and the democrats knew McCain was ineligible, and McCain and the republicans knew Obama was ineligible — and the Democrats had already put their money on Obama v Hillary — woman gets only 2 points — African-American gets 4.
They made a deal. McCain would lay of Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Frank Davis and the rest of the commies, socialists and assorted dirtbages that populate Obama’s life. And the Democrats wouldn’t publicize McCain’s ineligibility.
One sentence does not constitute a paragraph you idiot. You do it to take up space and hog the thread, don’t play stupid, everyone is onto you. GET LOST!
Looking at the thread for part 2, I see your name on posts 10, 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 43, 50, and 68. I guess you do know about it after all.
-PJ
You are just making a fool out of yourself.
On this page, 1 out of every 3 posts is you — whining.
In your social life — if you have one — do you insert yourself where you don’t belong and are not wanted?
Thank you.
I will then watch the entire video, and reserve judgement.
Appreciate ot.
BTW, if Obama failed to qualify impeachment is not necessary.
The two ways that have been discussed here on Free Republic for Obama to not qualify per the Constitution are (1) not being born in the United States and (2) not being a natural born citizen.
And this has to do with the three mandatory requirements for someone to be President. They must be (1) 35 years old or more, they must be (2) a resident 14 years or more and they must be (3) a natural born citizen.
And those two things discussed here on Free Republic ([1] not born in U.S., [2] not natural born citizen) -- are centered around #3 of the three Constitutional requirements.
Now, of the first of those, in the first paragraph above (#1 - not born in the U.S.) -- that seems to be a settled issue to me, because of the State of Hawaii officially stating that he was born there.
But, even if that is so, I've always said from right after the election that some states should put up a law that requires any candidate to produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. And I think we'll get that one through before the next Presidential election (if Arizona hasn't already done it by now...).
However, the thing with that one issue is that since the State of Hawaii has already stated that Obama was born there in Hawaii and since they are the very state that issues a "certified copy" of the birth certificate (if one is ever required by a court, or an election) -- I don't expect to see that birth certificate to say anything different than that he was born in Hawaii.
So, that leaves the other issue in that first paragraph to center in on. That's #2 (in that first paragraph) of not being a natural born citizen (in regards to his father's citizenship).
Now, from what I've read on various FReeper threads, that issue is disputed among others (besides even disputed here on Free Republic) as to whether the father's citizenship has any bearing on the natural born status of a person.
And I'm not saying that one side is better than the other side in their arguments here -- but what I am saying is that no matter which side thinks that "they are right" -- that alone (just thinking you're right) is not going to solve this issue legally. And it's going to require a specific ruling on this particular situation by the Supreme Court, before it's legally settled as it pertains to Obama.
So, in the end, the only issue that would have any chance of getting anything "settled" with Obama's "qualifications" (from the way I see it) -- is -- the natural born status -- and that ... only by the Supreme Court rendering its judgment on it.
AND ... if I were to guess which would come up first -- (1) a Supreme Court decision (considering that there's not even a case like that right now going to the Supreme Court) -- or -- (2) the next Presidential election -- I would say that the next Presidential election is going to happen first.
Thus, that's why I come down to the point of saying that if one wants to get rid of Obama, then we better make sure he's voted out at the next Presidential election...
On this page, 1 out of every 3 posts is you — whining.
I think you mistake "whining" for stopping flame wars and keeping on track of the subject at hand on this thread ... :-)
I don’t chase it at all, and never read it’s comments unless by accident. I read other peoples’ comments.
If you didn't read the investigative report that I posted links to in #166, it is interesting. The investigator is setting out to review the claims that Obama proved his eligibility. He details all the "evidence" that has been presented, and tries to discern whether this evidence rises to the level of "proof," or whether it was a series of intentional smokescreens, each one being used to support another one, but with no definitive "proof" underlying them all.
One such claim that he reviews is that Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born there. His conclusion is that those who made confirming statements were not in a position of authority sufficient for their statements to be accepted as proof.
-PJ
Well, suffice it to say you can find that very thing in books, in periodicals, in newspaper articles and even right here on Free Republic. So, obviously there are a lot of other people who think so ... :-)
u should take your own advice
One such claim that he reviews is that Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born there. His conclusion is that those who made confirming statements were not in a position of authority sufficient for their statements to be accepted as proof.
Actually I did read it ... (just a few minutes ago and right before I saw this post ... :-) ...).
I've commented on this one before in other threads... I've said that you're dealing with two different things here. One is an official announcement from the State of Hawaii that puts out the fact (according to that statement) that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. The second is, "what does a court require for proof?"
The first is what I refer to as a public statement meant for wide-spread and public dissemination to citizens. One does not go into court with that official statement and say, "here's the proof"... but it is considered to be something for public information. It's something to inform the public (and the public does not have to go into court for every bit of information that they receive from the state; as the state can make official statements).
The second thing is that if it ever turns out that some court does order the "certified copy" of the birth certificate to be produced for them, I'm sure that the State of Hawaii will do so -- and -- I'm also sure that it's going to show that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the public statement said. For me, I don't go down the "conspiracy trail" and say "the State of Hawaii said he was born there -- but -- the birth certificate will show he is born somewhere else." I take it that when the State of Hawaii makes an official statement like that, it is indeed exactly what the "certified copy" that the State of Hawaii prints out -- actually says, too.
BUT, even so... and addressing that particular concern -- I've said, all along that if someone want confirmation that the State of Hawaii's official statement is actually true -- then they should be pushing for that state law that I've been encouraging all along -- in that some state should make it mandatory that any candidate must produce his birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. That's my answer to any concerns to someone who thinks that the State of Hawaii would say something different than is on the "certified copy" that they print out.
And so, that leaves the other issue, which is whether the citizenship status of the father bears on the "natural born status" of the child, with the child having been born in the United States.
I've addressed that up above and said that it's going to require a Supreme Court decision to settle that one. But, I don't think that such a Supreme Court decision is coming before the next Presidential election (if it ever comes, at all).
So, I'm back to the two things that I've said all along that is necessary to do in order to get Obama out of office. One is that state law in which a candidate must produce his birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state -- and -- "we must vote him out of office" ...
Ummm... what names have I been calling you or flaming you about? ... LOL ...
Oh yes, I remember that one. Sorry, I’m on so many of these type threads the titles all meld into one.
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.