Posted on 08/23/2010 12:58:00 PM PDT by Corazon
WAS OBAMA GIVEN A CERTIFICATE NUMBER WHICH HAD BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE? by Sharon Rondeau In June, The Post & Email solicited funds for its Legal Defense Fund for a specific research project focusing on details and discrepancies surrounding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. Many of our readers were very generous with their donations, including one who put forth a “matching grant” challenge which was met and even surpassed. With the help of a private donor, The Post & Email was able to fund an investigative journey to Hawaii for an experienced researcher. The results of the investigation follow in the researcher’s own words.........
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It was bad to show the number the first time because Obama didn't have a number to show. The alleged COLB would have been immediately exposed as fraudulent. A number didn't appear until after the HI DOH made it clear they weren't going to discuss anything contained on Obama's birth certificate. The number looked legitimate until Eleanor Nordyke went public with her daughters' original, long-form certificates of live birth. I'm sure factlack dot org and whoever Obama's staffers were that participated in creating the photos with the certificate number assumed they were safe to go public with about any number with the understanding it wouldn't be verified by the DOH.
That would be an excellent question to ask Janice Okubo. Before the Factcheck photos came out showing the BC# she said that if somebody had the BC# they could hack the HDOH’s computers.
Seems like if that was the case they’d want to protect their system better, because they print out BC#’s on every BC they print out. What she said is the equivalent of saying that the HDOH gives out the bank account numbers and passwords for the HDOH every time somebody asks them to.
And The Advertiser reporter didn’t even blink when Okubo told him that. Not then, not ever since.
As long as the law is interpreted to mean that nobody has standing to do anything about it, then for all legal sakes and purposes it DOESN’T matter, since nobody can do anything about it anyway.
When we watched healthcare, banking, auto, etc being taken over by the government - when we scrambled like crazy to get Scott Brown elected so there would be the option of a filibuster and they just skipped over the rules to pass it by reconciliation while the whole country watched in horror - what we are being told is that the coup is inevitable, that there is not a stinkin’ thing we the people can do in the face of this lawlessness.
And that is the question of our day, because if we are willing to lie down and accept that we have been neutered and our lives are impotent in spite of this being America, then it really won’t matter. We really will be impotent. And this will be America in name only.
That’s why this issue is part and parcel with all the rest of this communist coup we have witnessed. People say we can’t do anything about the eligibility issue. Well, what CAN we do anything about? Can we force the courts to say that Arizona can defend her own borders? Can we force the courts to say that the DOJ has to treat blacks and whites equally? Can we force the courts or Congress to actually follow the Constitution?
There is NOTHING we can force our government to do unless we realize that we may HAVE to FORCE them, because they sure as heck aren’t going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Oh I am not willing to lie down and take it.
I am just stating a fact that the sheeple with believe what ever the propagandist tell them and unless there is a change of heart in the sheeple and in the legaslative and judicial branch of our government then it is all for naught.
I believe he is Kenyan by birth and he is a muslim.
But we have become the USSR.
We really don’t have say in anything.
The only way to force them is with force.
Something like that happened in the 1800’s and it didn’t work out so well and a lot of men died.
I’m not sure what the tipping point is for conservative Americans, but I believe many are very close.
That’s good information - do you have a link or citation?
Golly, you have evidence to prove BO was not born in Hawaii, but you can't show it to anybody, because you don't have permission. Lucky for him that such evidence didn't fall into he hands of someone who would release it, and damn the consequences.
/sarcasm
You need to listen more carefully. I didn’t say I have proof that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. I said I have proof that the newspaper announcement microfilms having Obama’s birth announcement have been changed out at least once in several different libraries.
The HDOH has also confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and that Obama’s BC is amended, which means it has no legal value.
Lucky for Obama it fell into the hands of people who have documentably broken laws and rules in order to cover for him, and judges who say it’s nobody’s business.
Oh - and a media that actually PARTICIPATED in both the COLB and birth announcement frauds also. Not just that failed to report it - there’s good evidence that members of the media actually created and/or legitimized those forged documents.
When you say you would need permission to release whatever information there is, are you talking about a librarian or somebody with one of the newspapers?? I'm trying to understand why this information has to be withheld pending permission. The person in question would appear to be an accessory to fraud, so you would be protecting this person from potential criminal prosecution by not going public. I would think the public interest at large outweighs whatever self-interests this person has.
I’m not sure where I stand with the people I was working with. Differences of opinion on what should be made public, when, and how.
“...without permission I can’t show you the proof.”
Permission to see the actual item you suspect to be fraudulent? Or permission to make what you believe public?
Permission to make the proof public. Although it may already be public. I just don’t want to violate the trust of the person I was working with. It’s her story; I was just helping her with it. So it’s up to her what happens with it.
Maybe the best I can do is just not say anything. It’s so hard for me to see people believe something I know to not be true, though. And I’m not sure what the benefit is of keeping everything hushed, unless further investigation is jeopardized by speaking.
Right now is a confusing and sad time for me. Who knows, maybe I’m a traitor and Obot just for saying that much.
“...maybe I’m a traitor and Obot just for saying that much.”
Welcome to the club.
Hi butter, I don’t know if you have seen this before, but it’s something to put your teeth in and be occupiend for a long time!??!
http://www.rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/
I’ve seen 2 people who are very committed to finding the truth be branded as an Obot and booted from contributing. It’s the “divide and conquer” thing. It’s hard when we know that there are people who are paid to infiltrate the patriotic camp. Hard to know who to trust. Keeps us disjointed and less effective. I don’t know how we overcome that.
Welcome to the club.
Nice to recognize that you are a committed traitor, btw, how many are you in that club???
lol. Maybe I can have “Vexatious Requestor” on the front of a t-shirt, and “Traitor” on the back.
I guess that would let people see trouble coming from a mile away so they can just steer clear of me. lol.
So you're not actually saying that you have evidence that the microfilm has been altered as part of this conspiracy, only that an old copy of the film was replaced by a newer copy. Is that right?
No, I’m saying that I have evidence that the microfilms have been altered. The “new copies” of the microfilms were obviously not made by professionals but by somebody not very good at making copies (lots of streaks, splotches, and fingerprints). And they weren’t made from clean master microfilm as libraries would get from a legitimate change-out of old microfilms, but apparently from used microfilms and/or microfiche in order to make it appear that they were old microfilms that had never been changed out.
One library gave out copies where what showed in the whole-page view wasn’t the same as what showed in a close-up of the same area. Really interesting stuff to try to sort out.
But until I can show the actual proof I suppose I should probably just keep quiet. lol
That makes no sense whatsoever. Microfilm doesn't work that way. Whole pages of newspapers are photographed. You zoom in on an area. It's not a different image.
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.