Posted on 11/24/2011 5:19:52 PM PST by STE=Q
In a belated response to the birther movement, earlier this year the White House released Barack Obama's "long form" birth certificate. Everyone believed it would finally silence the birthers; and it did -- for a while. But since then, various independent researchers, as well as experts in graphics, computer software, and scanning equipment, have examined the document and now allege that it shows signs of tampering.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
The corruption is deep and wide.
Another placemark.
This is an incredible thread.
Thanks. Cook’s hearing was scheduled for 9:30am Eastern time so if that Holder sighting occurred it had to have happened before then.
At http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/10/04/eligibility-update-ga-sc-va-election-fraud-complaints-where-do-birthers-come-from/ a foxbusiness web page is excerpted, posting Holder’s schedule according to the DOJ. His last event the 15th was scheduled for 3:15pm Pacific time (6:15 Eastern time). His next scheduled appearance was at noon on the 16th (3pm Eastern time).
So (using Eastern time) from the evening of the 15th until 3pm on the 16th he had nothing scheduled in LA, according to the DOJ itself. Could he have been in Georgia at 9am Eastern time? Absolutely. Was he? We have no way of knowing for sure.
Does Holder lie? Absolutely. Does he (or the DOJ) hide where all Holder goes? Yes - in fact, they hid the fact that from 4-5pm on the 16th Holder visited a Saudi-funded mosque that spawned the Pontifex Media Center - which is anti-America and supported a Muslim Brotherhood group trying to replace Ghadaffi’s secular regime in Libya with an Islamist regime. See http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/4023
The DOJ schedule apparently omitted that part. This is what they had for the 16th:
>>>>>>
Thursday, July 16, 2009
12:00 P.M. PT/ 3:00 P.M. ET Attorney General Holder will tour a transitional housing program. Following the tour, the Attorney General will hold a press conference to discuss how Recovery Act funds are being used to support the fight against violence against women. The Attorney General will be joined by Becky Clark, Chair of the Board of the Support for Harbor Area Women’s Lives (SHAWL) House, and Ken Calwell, Chair of the Board of Volunteers of America of Los Angeles.”
“7:30 P.M. PT/ 10:30 P.M. ET Attorney General Holder will meet with community youth and families participating in Los Angeles’ anti-gang program — Summer Night Lights — with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. This will be a photo opportunity.”
SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_12854958
>>>>>>>
So..... Though it is said that Holder could not have been in GA when this affidavit claims he was seen, a closer look at his schedule suggests that he could have been. A closer look also shows that Holder was places between his scheduled events on the 16th that the DOJ was not willing to publicly claim in their schedule for Holder that day. A pre-arranged event (attendees had been invited to the mosque event) that the DOJ didn’t list in Holder’s schedule.
That crook and his entire staff need to be interrogated. We can’t trust a thing they say.
I tried to see that Fox business page on the wayback machine. It says it has 5 snapshots of it dating back to Feb of 2010, but when you click to see those snapshots it always redirects you to a page saying the snapshotted page is not available. What exactly is a HTTP 302 response?
This is the URL for the page that listed Holder’s schedule for LA on July 15-16, 2009: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/attorney-general-eric-holder-visit-los-angeles-address-southwest-border/
But... but....but.... Wayback Machine doesn’t selectively edit which sites can be accessed. That would be a conspiracy! We know that nobody ever conspires to do anything, so this just can’t be. Never mind the screenshot I’ve got showing those snapshotted pages are ordered to be redirected...
I wonder why they don’t want us to see Holder’s schedule for those days. The trip to LA made a good cover for him, until you look at the schedule more closely...
“then 2 days later... 0failure announced the killing of bin laden”
Bingo!
I’ve posted this previously, but it bears repeating, because it is quite simply the most methodical, concise, easy-to-understand and devastating deconstruction of the faked LFBC copy, taken straight off the WH servers, that I have seen ever, anywhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
“Google is apparently blocking any search for “Lamberth” for my blog site.”
I found on my own a while back that Google is untrustworthy as a search tool for information on this topic. I compared results from several search engines side-by-side and the “hits” that Google returned were worse than unhelpful; they were downright misleading. I switched to Dogpile and haven’t looked back.
Exactly the guy is super slick and may be running the show for all we know.
Hmmm.
Thanks justiceseeker93 and bitt.
“So..... Though it is said that Holder could not have been in GA when this affidavit claims he was seen, a closer look at his schedule suggests that he could have been.”
That’s crank nonsense. No one has any reason to misrepresent Holder’s whereabouts just to debunk this particularly stupid theory. Based on an affidavit describing a down-sized version of Eric Holder in a Georgia coffee shop, birthers simply made up allegations of an ex parte meeting with a judge.
All I have said is that Holder’s published schedule leaves room for him to have been in GA when the affidavit claims he was there.
What’s “crank nonsense” about that?
It’s also a fact that the Wayback Machine is not allowing anybody to see the page where Holder’s schedule was published. Any theories as to why that might be?
It is also a fact that the DOJ invited people to see Holder at a radical mosque the afternoon of July 16, 2009 and left that off the schedule he released to the public and press.
I stated straight-out that we can’t know whether Holder was really sighted in GA the morning of July 16, 2009. But I have pointed out some information showing it is false/premature to say that he COULD NOT HAVE BEEN. And I have pointed out that his office was secretive about other appearances he made that same day - even an appearance where people were invited in advance to meet with him in a public setting.
The farthest I’ve gone in any of this is to say that Holder and those in his office need to be interrogated because we can’t trust anything they say. Given what we’ve seen with Fast & Furious, that is beyond question.
Did you see that they have sealed court records which reveal the big cover-up of Fast & Furious involvement in Agent Terry’s murder? This is 10 million times worse than Watergate ever was, and the whole thing shows very clearly a pattern of lawlessness, perjury, and obstruction of justice by Holder and just about every other government official involved. Blatant stuff. A perjurious and justice-obstructing conspiracy between Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Enforcement, AZ US Attorney, AZ Attorney General, Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It involves all these US government entities aiding and abetting the murder of over 200 people, including both US and Mexican citizens, and then committing multiple crimes to cover up their involvement. This is serious sh!t hitting the fan.
If you don’t think Eric Holder is capable of threatening federal judges into ignoring the rule of law, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
This Fast & Furious conspiracy was going on in Arizona - a state which has flipped Holder the bird in 2 ways: by passing a law to enforce the border, and by passing a law to require presidential eligibility to be proven before a candidate can be placed on their ballot. The eligibility law was later vetoed by Brewer, but both of those laws would have been heard in cases by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - and the only judge the Obama regime had to worry about, that he might actually obey the rule of law, died within 8 seconds after his aorta was hit by a bullet, in a shooting that came right after HI Governor Abercrombie had said he would release Obama’s BC to thwart the eligibility bills (the only one on the table at the time was Arizona’s) - a shooting that was immediately used for an AZ campaign appearance by Obama, the false accusation that Sarah Palin and/or the Tea Party had sparked the shooting, and a plea for gun control (the same thing Fast & Furious has been used for). The sheriff’s claims about why the judge was there at the time of the shooting has been flatly contradicted by the judge’s family members, some of whom have said they believe the judge was the real intended target of the shooting. His replacement was to be appointed by Barack Obama.
I’m not making accusations; I’m pointing out some “interesting” facts. And I’m reiterating what even Congress has found to be true through the perjury committed in Congressional testimony: Holder and his staff cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about anything. The only way we’re ever gonna know what really happened is by a complete, thorough criminal investigation.
Which is precisely what Eric Holder has been appointed to prevent. Just like Janet Reno and Clinton’s “Magnificent Seven” judges in the DC Circuit were appointed to prevent in his day, and which are STILL playing politics with justice in order to prevent the American public from ever getting answers to the nagging questions about very suspicious facts.
Eric Holder said he would not investigate or prosecute “his people” - and that, in a nutshell, is the most truthful thing he has ever said, in an accurate summary of what he knows his job description is in this regime. His job is to not investigate or prosecute “his people” - the people who committed crimes to put and keep Obama in office. And he’s been very effective at making sure nobody else does either.
“If you don’t think Eric Holder is capable of threatening federal judges into ignoring the rule of law, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.”
That’s more crank nonsense. Threaten the judge with what? The Attorney General has no power over federal judges. What’s more, the judge in the particular case wrote, “The undersigned has never talked to or met with the Attorney General.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996612/Rhodes-ORDER-Order-Imposing-Sanctions-10-13-2009-28
And the FBI, DHS, BATFE, AZ AG, and AZ US Attorney were fine with pretending that it wasn’t a Fast & Furious gun found at the murder scene of Brian Terry.
What don’t you get about the whole concept that political critters will lie, before, during, and even AFTER they’ve been caught in wrongdoing?
That judge thought he didn’t need to give a jury trial or other protections before slapping somebody with a $10,000 fine for a “frivolous lawsuit” that didn’t even meet the definitions for the charges he made, if what Orly cited was accurate. His whole claim was that Orly filed her suit to serve a political agenda. I could just as easily say he made his ruling just to serve a political agenda. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Not when the gander gets to make up the rules as he goes, which is what this judge is very clearly willing to do.
As I’ve said before, this judge’s decision is an indirect admission that the SS application form Orly requested is not Obama’s. IOW, this judge knows that Obama is guilty of SS fraud. If he’s not reported it to law enforcement then he is also guilty of misprision. That makes him non-credible. I don’t care what a non-credible person SAYS to serve their own interests, nor should justice care what they SAY. What matters is what can be documented.
At this point we have the word of a judge who is probably guilty of misprision and is defending himself, against the word of the person filing the affidavit on Orly’s behalf. This judge is calling Orly’s witness a liar/perjurer while at the same time withholding due process for both Orly and her witness to have the facts aired according to rules of evidence before an impartial jury. In short, this judge is allowing himself to decide his own guilt or innocence, which - again - speaks very, very badly of his own ethics and/or grasp of the whole concept of due process and equal protection.
And that is much more serious than whether a person redacts this jot or tiddle from her filings.
I think I’m getting the two judges mixed up. Both Land and Lamberth were allegedly seen with Eric Holder. Land was the one who slapped Orly with the $10,000 fine. Lamberth is the one who indirectly admitted that Obama is guilty of social security fraud.
So Land is not necessarily guilt of misprision but is being accused of unethical ex parte communications. Either way, it is him saying what serves his interests while withholding Orly’s right to have both the conflicting claims examined by an impartial jury. It is Judge Land claiming the right to decide his own innocence or guilt. Unethical to the very core.
If neither Judge Lamberth nor Astrue have reported Obama’s social security fraud to the FBI (which is governed by.....drumroll..... the DOJ, headed by Eric Holder), then they are guilty of misprision, as is Eric Holder himself. But then, Holder has already committed so many felonies what’s another one?
How do you know this? I have not been able to understand him on this issue. Given the subject matter he deals with on his programs and in his writing, obama's ineligibility would be worth perhaps a week or several of programs and a book or two.
Like you suggest, my opinion of him and his credibility fell due to his 'official' position and I only occasionally listen to his radio program and haven't looked into GBTV at all.
Yet, he wouldn't touch it and went so far as to ridicule his natural audience over it when he still had his program on Fox.
butterdezillion wrote: “I think I’m getting the two judges mixed up. Both Land and Lamberth were allegedly seen with Eric Holder.”
Who saw Land with Holder? Orly Taitz went off on someone thinking he saw a “not large of stature” version of Holder in a coffee shop, but there was nothing about Judge Land also being present.
butterdezillion wrote: “Lamberth is the one who indirectly admitted that Obama is guilty of social security fraud.”
False. In fact in his 17 Oct 2011 memorandum and order in Taitz v. Astrue, he noted, “The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits.” That’s not the Court admitting to allegations of fraud. That’s the Court dealing with crank nonsense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/69179304/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-39-MEMORANDUM-AND-ORDER-denying-36-Motion-for-Reconsideration-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-39-0
butterdezillion wrote: “Not when the gander gets to make up the rules as he goes, which is what this judge is very clearly willing to do.”
Judge land followed the rules; he did not make them up. Land did not sanction Taitz the first time she brought her frivolous arguments to his court, nor the second. He warned her that her filings were frivolous and continuing with more would be sanctionable. She did it anyway. Judge Land gave her the required opportunity to defend herself by issuing the order to show cause why she should not face sanctions. She disobeyed the Court’s order and instead petitioned for Land’s recusal.
butterdezillion wrote: “If neither Judge Lamberth nor Astrue have reported Obama’s social security fraud to the FBI (which is governed by.....drumroll..... the DOJ, headed by Eric Holder), then they are guilty of misprision, as is Eric Holder himself.”
Flushing crank nonsense is not a crime.
Just a quick response now, on the more important points.
Did you not read the citations Orly gave, showing the precedent that somebody hit with large ($10,000 being the amount from the case cited) punitive fees is to be given all the protections of a criminal trial, including trial by jury? Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited? If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt, rather than allowing an impartial jury to decide whether Orly was guilty of “frivolous lawsuits” simply because she didn’t accept his political decisions.
Lamberth ruled that Astrue did not have to disclose the redacted SSN application form because it would violate the privacy of the applicant. But the only unredacted item requested for which there would be a privacy right is the SSN itself, and Obama published the SSN he used on his tax return already so there would no longer be a privacy interest in that piece of information IF THE APPLICATION FORM WAS OBAMA’S. By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.
And yes, if Lamberth was aware that Obama had committed social security fraud then he had a responsibility to report it to law enforcement, as far as I know. Are judges exempt from the misprision laws? Surely Astrue was not exempt.
Some quick links. Doug Hagmann has investigated and says he has evidence and statements corroborating a signed statement by a talk show personality who said that on-air personalities had direct threats to their careers and veiled threats to their lives, health, and families if they reported on the eligibility issue. Hagmann has the hand-written notes from a secretary who was at one of the meetings where the head of the media company made those threats, saying that Obama’s lawyers (and Hagmann found that was at the behest of George Soros, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emanuel) had threatened the media company with FCC and/or anti-monopoly annihilation after the election if they reported on very specific parts of the eligibility issue. Fox was one of the media companies, and I think there were 3 other media companies as well. The threats were made once before the election and (as of about March of 2009) once after the election.
We saw the same thing basically done in public when Media Matters gave a Politico interview saying they were going to do guerilla warfare against Fox (by getting regulators to go after the parent company) just days after Sean Hannity (for the first time) came out in support of Trump’s stance on Obama’s birth certificate. So the story seems very credible for that reason, AND because of the behaviors exhibited during the times in question - which you noted as well, regarding Beck and all the others who would normally have the sense to know that the rule of law matters.
I could say a bunch more but need to tuck my daughter in. Here are some links:
Links for CFP articles, Hagmann interview about media threatened
9) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373
10) http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour1Aug0709.mp3
11) http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour2Aug0709.mp3
12) http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour3Aug0709.mp3
Are you seriously saying that you still believe the Birther rubbish...we should be addressing legitimate policies and economic proposals to woo the middle ground voters, not chasing straw dogs that most swing voters think are just irrelevant.
Bookmark
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.