CNN 'Birther Buster' Report 'Perpetrates Fraud'

wnd ^ | June 6, 2012 | Corsi

[Fred Nerks]

I wonder if the Leo Bernstein signature was a stamp? Because it looks like it was a stamp, both signatures are identical on the Nordyke certificates, but different on the 'BIRTHER BUSTER REPORT'

strange....

[bluecat6]

If you notice it is like an overlay that has the then current office holders and their signatures. Certainly they do not sign each individually.

The older certified copies look like photographs of the original LFBC - still in a bound book. The bound book statement is due to the obvious ‘left bend’. Like scanning a book in a current flat bed scanner.

The post-1981 (and maybe earlier but the earliest I have seen is 1981) certified copies are obvious images out of a digital (likely optical mass storage) library. These images have a flat appearance.

The odd thing about the Obama Laughable Fake Birth Certificate is the fact that it combines the distinct left bend from the old ‘Nordyke era’ certified copies (i.e. mid-1960s) and the cross-hatch modern ‘security paper’ with a digitized image printed on it. No other LFBC certified copy that I have seen displays this odd combination. How surprising!

[TXnMA]

I'm quite satisfied. Since you brought up the subject, I really expected a direct answer from you on the order of, "No! Check my posting history for confirmation." -- and that definitely would have sufficed.

I'm in the camp that holds that the Founders intended to specify Presidents WITHOUT divided loyalties and/or NOT under foreign influence -- hence the "NBC" stipulation in Article II -- and that "NBC" means "offspring of two citizens".

Øbozo, of course is a prime example of violation of all of the above. IMHO, he has always known that he was ineligible, and that he -- with the knowing collusion of many like Nanzi Pelousie -- set out perpetrate the biigggest [stet] scam in the history of our Nation. My guess is that he is still somewhat surprised that he did succeed, and that explains his rush to do the maximum damage before he is caught and dragged from the office.

Although the investigation is interesting, I have always maintained that the BC was intended as misdirection to keep his inescapably guaranteed ineligibility -- and the massive FRAUD that he and his enablers have perpetrated -- behind a screen of "smoke & mirrors".

My guess is that he will be caught out on "high crimes and misdemeanor" charges of fully-proven FRAUD, long before (if ever) the second order question of his birthplace is settled.

~~~~~~~~~~

I find that most of the FReepers in the class you mentioned, exhibit a supercilious, lecturing, even sneering tone that is typical of the "FedShills" that we have nailed here in the past. I thought I detected a small whiff of that style in your #16 -- hence the request for clarification...

I would apologize, but clarity is a rare commodity with this medium -- even with the aid of HTML markup. So, I offer no excuses for seeking clarification.

Besides -- how else could one have precipitated an amusing discourse on "Pugnacity ...the antithesis of pusillaNiMity"? <LOL!!!>

Peace, FRiends! I would have been quite happy with,

"No."...

'-)

[bacall]

Good point about the Bernstein signature “stamp”. Although I still can’t read the CNN version, it’s readily apparent that it’s not Obama’s, unless it proves he’s lying. Look at the date accepted. It’s not Aug. 8, 1961. The day looks like 21, not 8. Look at the doctor’s name. It’s not David A. Sinclair. But even if it were, on Obama’s so-called LFCOLB, the doctor’s name does not begin abutting the left side of the box; and the mother’s name does not read: Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, with “Stanley” in parentheses.

What do you make of this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz Scroll down to page 11 to see another letter of verification, sent to the Democrat Party of Mississippi; but this one claims to be signed by and initialed by Onaka and has an embossed seal. Is it real?

[philman_36]

I'm quite satisfied.
I'm glad you are.

I really expected a direct answer from you on the order of, "No! Check my posting history for confirmation."
Which is exactly what you got @ #22...

No way! Look up my posting history on this issue ... I merely wanted someone else to confirm it as well.

I thought I detected a small whiff of that style in your #16 -- hence the request for clarification...
Really?! And yet look at my wording again... @ #16

And they'll strongly argue and tell you...
They'll strongly argue, not "we'll" strongly argue. That one word lets the reader know I'm in the opposite camp.
No worries, I'm not immune from making mistakes either.
And as to the whiff...always be prepared to turn an opponents tactics/strengths back upon him. Read Sun Tzu if you haven't already.

Besides -- how else could one have precipitated an amusing discourse on "Pugnacity ...the antithesis of pusillaNiMity"?
That comment by Flotsam_Jetsome was pretty darn funny, wasn't it.

Peace, FRiends!
Peace pipe has been smoked.

[Fred Nerks]

Here they both are, both stamped and initialled, one with Seal, one without...different form numbers at the bottom.

[Fred Nerks]

I think what we have here is another ‘abstract’ - created for illustrative purposes only...of course. They didn’t mean to fool their viewers, just show them what a birth certificate from Hawaii looked like. No harm intended...(sarcasm.)

[tumblindice]

Ah, the good, old: "You lie and I'll verify, certify and swear to it". Too bad it's the only move they have. Clinton did the same thing--Slick marched his cabinet out on the lawn of the WH, and one after another they swore, affirmed and insisted that he hadn't done anything wrong ..... then, that blue dress--out damned spot! Same-same here: where's the dress/original, authentic birth certificate? A chain-of-custody determination would be nice too, considering the Three Card Monty and shell games advanced thus far by Spanky & Our Gang. Thank goodness we've got those hard-charging GOP stallions keeping Zero honest .............................

[butterdezillion]

Can you read what it says? Is there a BC# on it?

[butterdezillion]

How do I get them to listen?

Onaka just indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC is not legally valid, by refusing to verify Obama’s gender, date of birth, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name to Ken Bennett of Arizona. He did verify that they have a BC for Barack Hussein Obama II and that the “information” on Obama’s posted long-form matches the “information” on the record they have, so he acknowledged that Bennett was eligible to receive a verification. The only reason, then, to not verfy ANY of those items was because they were not on a LEGALLY VALID birth certificate.

Now how do I get Drudge, Breitbart, or anybody else to actually come out and say that? Especially when my e-mails sometimes get delivered and sometimes get intercepted, which seems to be done by Homeland Security so there’s no way I can get around it?

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Peace pipe has been smoked."

Stop bogarting that thing, or I'll have to get pugnacious up in here! ;)

Still trying to figure out a way to work that into a country tune. . .

Blessings upon you, FRiends. We all have undivided loyalty: to the Constitution.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Yes, I had the N and M reversed. Type too fast for my own good, sometimes. :)

[butterdezillion]

It seems to be genuine but it doesn’t mean anything because the lawyers for the Mississipi Democratic Executive Committee only asked for verification that they have a BC for Barack Hussein Obama II and that the “information” on Obama’s posted long-form matches the info on their birth certificate. The MDEC lawyer explains in their court document exactly what is meant by “information” - “each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov”.

IOW, they only asked whether the claims about Obama’s birth that are made on the posted longform are also made on the original record. The wording of the MDEC request matches the apparent “wording” change for AZ SOS Ken Bennett, where Bennett was required to change his request for verification that Obama’s posted long-form is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” (which is the kind of language required for a document to be accepted in a court of law) to a request for verification that “the information contained in the posted long-form matches the information in the original record.”

So the long and short of it is this: Onaka already indirectly confirmed that Obama’s actual record in Hawaii is not legally valid. The claims on Obama’s forgery match the CLAIMS that are on the record in Hawaii, but Onaka can’t verify any of those claims as being true because the record is not legally valid. The democrat lawyers “conveniently” worded their verification request the same way the HI AG forced Bennett to revise his wording - so that HI wouldn’t have to say straight out that the only thing they can verify is the existence of a legally non-valid record.

There’s a bunch of stuff about this on my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/

Something else people should notice is the distinct features of that seal. That is Onaka’s seal - the same one that is SUPPOSEDLY on Obama’s PDF, which was supposedly scanned just as this one was. Because Obama’s long-form was copied on a copier/scanner, it couldn’t be given the computer-generated dots-and-dashes seal. It had to be given a hand-stamped seal, like this one. Onaka’s seal. So this scanned image of Onaka’s seal is an apples-to-apples comparison with the “seal” on Obama’s PDF and Guthrie’s photograph.

And the indirect confirmation of Obama’s BC being legally non-valid explains why Obama had to post a forgery - complete with a forged seal - instead of a genuine copy with a real seal, even though the HDOH says that the claims on the forgery are the same as the claims on the original. It’s the same reason he had to post a forged short-form: both the short-form and long-form have LATE and ALTERED stamps on them and a notation of the documentation to support the late and amended filings. That’s why Onaka can’t verify any actual birth facts for Obama - only verify what is or isn’t on the (legally non-valid and therefore totally worthless) record.

There’s way more that it explains than I can list here, but it explains everything we’ve seen.

[butterdezillion]

Flash Player messes up my computer so I don’t want to install it to watch this. Is this the same report that originally had Stig Waidelich go to the HDOH and get a short-form? If so, do they still have that part in it?

[butterdezillion]

I doubt whether Onaka actually did the verification for AZ. Or if he did, he left the door open to claim that he didn’t, by having initials other than his own right next to the certifying statement. Also there wasn’t a seal on the AZ one. I think Onaka knows that the list on the AZ one comes dangerously close to claiming to verify those “facts” as genuine. He avoided doing that by not actually using a sentence that explained what he was verifying. Contrast that with the full, clear sentences he used on both portions of the response to the MDEC. The AZ request was complicated by the fact that Bennett submitted an actual application, so he was requesting the actual birth facts to be verified and not just the claims on a particular document.

Onaka initialing the second verification is cover-up for the first verification if it was done without his approval though. I think Onaka knows he’s in dangerous territory.

If I were him I’d be furious. Onaka has spent a lifetime building up a reputation and position, and Obama is blowing it all to heck. Of course, it is within his power to report the crimes and get his credibility back...

[philman_36]

Stop bogarting that thing...
I would never do such a thing!
I wouldn't "intercept" either! {;^)

[edge919]

I don’t know what the Obamathugs have on these people, but the UIPA would protect Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. or anyone else who wanted to blow the whistle. I still have a feeling that Mike Zullo may have found something incriminating, like a hard copy of the 1961 newspapers with no sign of Obama’s birth in them. The time for the DOH to bail out of the Kenyan Coward™’s sinking ship is now.

[edge919]

I don’t know what the Obamathugs have on these people, but the UIPA would protect Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. or anyone else who wanted to blow the whistle. I still have a feeling that Mike Zullo may have found something incriminating, like a hard copy of the 1961 newspapers with no sign of Obama’s birth in them. The time for the DOH to bail out of the Kenyan Coward™’s sinking ship is now.

[butterdezillion]

I’m eager to hear what they’ve got.

I think there’s more behind Clinton’s actions of late than meets the eye also.

[thecodont]

I still have a feeling that Mike Zullo may have found something incriminating, like a hard copy of the 1961 newspapers with no sign of Obama’s birth in them.

That's what I've been saying. The original newspapers didn't have the birth announcement. The birth announcement was doctored and inserted onto microfilm.