Posted on 04/13/2009 9:04:32 PM PDT by Polarik
|
Q: What do these four things have in common?
|
||||
|
Aliens from |
Abominable |
Boogeyman |
Barack Obama's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: All of them are imaginary! | ||||
People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth. He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Factcheck was complicit in falsifying this image and passing it off as a genuine scan.
Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate.
It's been more than two years since Obama announced his candidacy for President, and five months since he was elected President, yet Obama has repeatedly refused to provide any proof that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Despite what you may have heard, Obama's eligibility issue has never been settled. If you are looking for reasons why, there is only one reason that you should know:
In March 2008, a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain, the GOP candidate, from the ballot because his natural-born status was also in doubt. John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to Congress.
On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth." HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known. What makes it a forgery?
Many people who also saw this image (see Appendix A) had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently. Here is an annotated list of them:
The consensus among all of us was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored. What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it. They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way. Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama. The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery.". Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus. We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud. So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website. Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus. For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides. Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported my conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images. A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
Does anyone see a pattern here?
From the first day he ran for President, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become President. But, he ran anyway. Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
Well, it's a lot more than that. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our Government, our Judiciary, our Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is Constitutionally qualified to become President.
Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution. Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
There is no question that Obama fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen. But, what about the question of document fraud? Has a crime been committed? Who's responsible? What if a President was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
Conspiracies in Presidential elections do happen. Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat. It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?" Where, indeed.
At the same time that I saw Obama's alleged COLB, a discussion of that image was taking place among the registered readers of a popular blog (HotAir.com) that is a repository of top stories from other blogs and websites. I had not seen these comments until now, ten months after they were published. Although the Hot Air community is mostly pro-Obama, a number of members had identified the very same anomalies as I had while working independently. The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated as it serves to validate the work that I've done in proving this image, and ones to follow, to be false, forged, and fabricated. Here, in their own words, is what they said on June 12:
From JM Hanes:
it really bothers me when something like this simply makes no sense. I couldn't begin to guess who would have fiddled with the document — or the when & why either — but I also can't think of a single logical reason (including filters, sharpening, or conversions) that a scan of an original document could result in the kind of selective pixelization/artifacting in evidence here. Pasting from one image into another, however, would produce precisely that effect.
"The pixilation around the text is...completely inconsistent with the background, which is discontinuous behind the text. Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse “JUN 6 2007? in the lower middle of the doc for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted. That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone Photoshopped it. The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text. Nice try with the “Photoshop filter” theory though! In any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
From Spolitics:
The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it. So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties. According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh. That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no “date acquired” listed which would have indicated this was scanned.
From LimeyGeek:
Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them. I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text. Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering. Contrast the artifacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars - that’s original text. The text in the body of the document has been doctored. Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy. I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
As somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artifacts are nothing of the sort. This is not a case of lossy artefacts due to image encoding (jpeg). Such artifacts would be consistent, these are not. In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts.
The point is that an original document would have consistent artifacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artifacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression) Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
From RightWired:
It’s a 100% forgery. There are numerous reasons, but the #1 reason: Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts. Zoom in to 600% or greater in Photoshop or Corel. Look at an “A”. Notice how it’s smoothed a bit? You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green gov’t background. There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character. When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision. It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
I work in advertising. I have studied this..as well as our department’s graphic artist—it’s fraudulent. Also file properties say Adobe CS3, black copy is much darker than the rest. The official seal is blurry and pixilated.
From Just A Grunt:
Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well. While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped. The integrity of the typcial 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot. I may not be using the right techno terms here — alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomolies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
From WoosterOh:
I find it odd that every word is pixilated around it, yet the black box is not. Those words are not on the document. To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates. Select a background image, select text to put on the background image. I guess that {the Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated printout) could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it. You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate. Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image. FAKE
From G Charles:
A word of caution. I use photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text. I agree that this is not a scan of an original document “AS IS”. Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a photoshop filter once or twice. And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo. And as support for my “photoshop filter” theory, the seal carries the same pixelation artifacts. Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed–whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixelation.
From Sue:
I was able to see what you are explaining. If this is obviously doctored, and I am going with you on this one, why would they do it?
From iurockhead:
Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background. I call fake. I don’t doubt his citenzenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
From wise_man:
And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.
From SilverStar830:
Looks ‘chopped. It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake.
From Buford:
When blown up it is clearly a fake. At 2000% it is clear that the pixilation of the text is much finer than the pixilation of the background. It is an extremly low quality fake. If this served any purpose but to drive traffic to the KoS site I would be surprised.
From infidel65:
After repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, a copy shows up on the Daily Kos. This stinks to high heaven. The Obama campaign may have thought they’d put this issue to bed, but they have only succeeded in fuelling the suspicions.
To date, the suspicions have not subsided, yet people are talking about Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as if it really exists. Why? Because they know that foreign-born children are also issued a COLB by Hawaii, and therefore, the COLB cannot confirm one's natural-born status. Only the actual, "vault" original birth certificate can, and Obama knows that better than anyone. What other reason could there be for a sitting President to refuse such a simple request?
Funny you should mention that because I was going back over the two articles that Politifact, the St. Pete Times sister site to Factcheck, had published when I uncovered two glaring errors they made which I forgot to mention.
For starters, Hawaii, as in Chyome Fukino, Director of Health, and Alvin Onaka, State Registrar and Head of OHSM, never said "Boo" about Obama's alleged "Certification of Live Birth." Now, here's where Politifact's Amy Hollyfield coughs up this big hairball on June 27, when she claimed that spokesperson, Janice Okubo (who else?), told her that "he, the registrar, looked at the image" she sent her and said that "he thought he saw traces of the embossed Seal."
Yeah....right. Funny, he didn't know anything about this COLB when I talked with him.
Hollyfield's article stinks to high heaven on this and other dubious claims. For one thing, we don't know which COLB image Hollyfield allegedly emailed to Okubo, but the odds are that she emailed the same copy that Politifact had posted: a shrunken, 93K, 811 x 786 pixel, hackjob that was almost as small as the one on Fight The Smears.
Getting back to Onaka and Fukino, right around the time that Bozo made his third visit to Hawaii, on HALLOWEEN (how appropriate), they went looking for "Obama's original birth certificate" (aka, Ghosts of birth certificates past). Now ONLY a government agency would call, "timely," an otherwise, a four and one-half month hiatus AFTER the bogus, one-side COLB was posted on the Internet, and subsequent cries of "fake! fake!" were defended to the death by Factcheck, Politifact, Politico, Snopes, and the ever-reliable Chicago Times.
As a matter of record (and "Record" is the operative word here), when Fukino made her "earth-shaking" announcement on Oct. 31, that she and Dr. Onaka had "personally seen and verified" that they have "Barack Obama's original birth certificate on record," they may not have even looked at a physical piece of paper!
They could have been staring at an envelope in which the original birth certificate would have been sealed when it was exchanged for a Hawaiian COLB up to a year after Obama was born. Heck, the envelope could have been empty, or contain a blank sheet of paper for all we were NOT told.
They could have been staring at a computer screen with a database RECORD on which the date of the late birth registration was entered and the country of origin for the original birth certificate accepted for exchange.
What else could "on record," mean? One one thing that Fukino and Onaka NEVER SAID was that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they knew Obama was a Hawaiian homey, there would be a State-sponsored luau in Obama's honor still be going on.
The two of them ought to go on "Dancing with the Stars" the way they danced around Obama's birth certificate issue.
As far as who we'd like to see on a TV show, my vote goes to Politifact's Amy Hollifield, as a guest on FOX's MOMENT OF TRUTH.
Not only does she provide a patently false answer to the question as to why was the COLB date-stamped "June 6, 2007" when Hollyfield quoted Janice Okubo as saying that "someone ordered his birth certificate in June 2008," but that she doesn't remember who. Ah, let me remind her of another suspicious quote.
In Hollyfield's original article on the COLB, circa June 13, 2008, she specifically quoted Obama's Muckraker Madam, Shaun Daly, as the one requesting his "birth certificate," -- which Hollyfield later admits that "only family members can get a copy" and that's the reason why they (Politifact) are only now receiving a copy.
Then on the follow-up article on June 27, Hollyfield repeats the criticisms of the bogus image, including the one about why is it stamped 2007 if ordered in 2008, but STILL says nothing in response to them!:
"When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real."
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
Then the firestorm started:
• Where is the embossed seal and the registrar's signature?
• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.
• Isn't the date stamp bleeding through the back of the document "June 2007?" (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)
• There's no crease from being folded and mailed.
• It's clearly Photoshopped and a wholesale fraud. Well, she did quote Okubo again who said, as to why the Seal and the Registrar stamp are not shown, "the scan was made of the front side and they would not be seen because they are on the back side."
A simple solution to that problem would have been for anyone to get off their backside and request a scan of the reverse side.
That is, of course, if there really was a reverse side of a genuine COLB to scan - which we now know is imaginary.
Here's an interesting factoid:
For kicks, I did a search of "Polarik" on the Daily Kos website, and the only things it turned up were two comments of about ten words each -- one, in Dec 2008, by Corvo (whom I believe is actually Jay McKinnon) noting my apparent anonymity and use of a pseudonym (which, presumably, no one else does on the Internet), and the other, in June 2008, by a sarcastic Kossack (that's what they call themselves) who went "whoo-oo" in response to my announced use of GIMP.
The Daily Kos couldn't stop ragging on the tea parties and the "kooks" who participated in them. No mention of what happened to former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo this past week when he visited UNC-CH to give a talk opposing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.
These are the typical liberal left scum who demand to be heard, yet refuse to let anyone with opposing ideas be heard.
Very interesting. Why not post the whole thing on FR or elsewhere, or have you?
BTTT for definitive comments on the HI “official” statements about O-Trauma’s supposed BC.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
OK, I think we know that, but here's what's really important. This paragraph plainly states that a person's original birth certificate ("Certificate of Birth" -or- "Certificate of Live Birth") is absolutely obtainable by an individual provided that they indicate on the request that it is for "DHHL purposes."
When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "For DHHL Purposes," and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your request form, please fill in "For DHHL Purposes" in the "Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy" section.... In the event the Vital Records Section does not have a birth certificate for any of your parents or grandparents, they will issue a "No-record" certification. "No-record" certification means after searching its records, the DOH cannot find the requested birth certificates.
OK, got that? Now, that explains what Fukino meant by saying that they had Obama's original birth certificate on record."If Hawaii did not have Obama's birth certificate in its records, then Fukino would have stated that, "We do not have Obama's original birth certificate on record."
Here's more from the DHHL document:
Secondary Documents
There are times when the birth certificates for yourself and/or your parents
or grandparents are not available and you have gotten "No-record" certifications
from DOH. The following are some of the secondary documents which may be
used. The list is in the preferred order of priority:
- Certified marriage certificates for your biological parents,
- grandparents, etc. (If these are not available, you will need a
"No-record" certification from the Department of Health.)- Certified death certificates for your biological parents,
grandparents, etc. (If these are not available, you will need a
"No-record" certification from the Department of Health.)- Family history charts and documents such as marriage, divorce
and death records from the State of Hawai`i Archives, state
courts, public libraries or U.S. Census records**;- Official baptismal records from your church or other church
- documents showing your race or the race of your ancestors;
- Official records from the files of military services, schools or hospitals.
**Notice that it said "marriage, divorce AND death records," (not OR) from State of Hawai`i Archives, state
courts, public libraries or U.S. Census records" (and NOT from the Internet).
Just asking for clarity - a person can ask for their original Certificate of Live Birth even if they don’t want it for DHHL purposes, right? (This is probably a “duh” question but I am sort of a “duh” person!)
So they have SOMETHING on record for him, which could be showing his birth in HI or elsewhere. Am I right?
And it is obvious from your other comment that they absolutely did NOT say that they personally viewed his origianl BC with their eyes nor did they even hint or insinuate where he was actually born.
Well, yes, if you mean that the person doesn't actually want or need it for DHHL purposes. They just have to write that they do, and the "Door shall be open to them."
So they have SOMETHING on record for him, which could be showing his birth in HI or elsewhere. Am I right?
Well, yes, they said that they have "his original birth certificate" ON RECORD, amd I have no doubt that Fukino and Onaka KNOW exactly where Obama was born, and to whom, but they will not confirm what's on it because of its volatility, and the fact that its contents refute the contents of the phony COLB.
The only way for Hawaii to be Obama's place of birth would be if his birth record listed someone other than Obama Sr. as his father. Otherwise, there's no big woof in releasing it.
And it is obvious from your other comment that they absolutely did NOT say that they personally viewed his original BC with their eyes nor did they even hint or insinuate where he was actually born.
Yes, that is exactly what they avoided saying, but as I said above, I think they know that O would be in deep doodoo if his actual birth record were made public.
Check that, THEY (Onaka and Fukino) would be in deep doodoo if they even so much as breathed a word about its true contents. That is, unless they want a very early and hasty retirement.
Go get ‘em, P!
Hollyfield is wrong.There is one other way a certificate can be obtained. A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant can request a copy. Now in this case, that is supposedly what was done - with Daly requesting the certificate. Now if that is true, then DOH must have on record, a letter signed by Obama authorizing her to act as his agent in requesting the certificate. If they don't, it is one more piece of evidence that the COLB is nothing but a fraud.
I also certify that the information provided on the document is true and correct.
By claiming she is a family member and wasn't, she has committed wire fraud. Now, no member of the Obama team would ever be dishonest and do something such as committing wire fraud, would they ? (/sarc )
Thus it begs the question. Why go to all the trouble of writing a letter for authorization and flying out to Hawaii to obtain a copy ( or simply ask your sister or grandmother who are family members to obtain a copy ) when he himself could have requested a copy via the Internet in the same amount of time it would take him to sign a letter. The only explanation would be if you were requesting a Certificate of Live Birth and not the Certification of Live Birth ( COLB) The Certificate has to be requested in person. So then where is the Certificate ? The only thing that actually makes sense is that she never requested a copy of the COLB or of the vault copy either.
Here’s the comment I mentioned.
But you are well aware of my sarcasm and so your comment reveals your insincerity, and your dishonesty.
Thanks, Polarik.
Ping to Article. Informative comments, too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2228564/posts?page=139#139
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2228564/posts?page=36#36
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2228564/posts?page=38#38
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2214150/posts?page=121#121
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2225649/posts?page=53#53
Thanks Lucy
Book marked for later. Nighty nite.
THANKS.
Thanks for the ping, LucyT.
Thanks for another great article, Polarik. How anyone can disagree with your work is beyond me.
Then, in her follow-up article on June 27, Hollyfield committed a huge gaffe by mentioning a reader's question about the date-stamp on the back and then creating a conundrum, when she pondered (in parentheses) the obvious contradiction of a "June 2007" date-stamp on a COLB that Okubo claims was requested in "June 2008": • Isn't the date stamp bleeding through the back of the document "June 2007?" (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)
Odd, indeed!
Directing you to Polarik’s valuable work in relation to this issue:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
What I want to know is if Obama seeks reelection (that is if this country doesn’t get destroyed first), will we be faced with the same debacle on the birth certificate issue? Can he “legally” pull the same stunt again? Or will there be states (Oklahoma? Alabama?) that will now be legally prepared and start asking the right questions rather than assuming everything must be hunkydory??
For new info, please visit Dr. Orly Tait website:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
The following excerpt refers to Obama’s Campaign organization and money:
“... interesting payments during the first three months of the year [2009], the period covered by Wednesday’s report, included $688,000 in legal fees to the firm of Bob Bauer — the top lawyer for the campaign...”
Note: this is just to one law office. (Original source was Politico).
Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations ($688K to atty, incl. eligibility lawsuits (01 to 03/09)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2232462/posts
Well, Eagle Forgotten, are you satisfied that lawyers are really working at covering up this President’s past? It is a truism, you know, that people with something to hide go to great lengths to do so. Those who don’t, well, they let it all hang out.
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.
