With Headlines Like This Is It Time To Ask Hard Questions?
Obama's eligibility? - Shocking scientific poll! You won't believe how few Americans think president has shown his qualification
POLL: Only 9% Believe Obama Has Documented His EligibilityMar 21, 2011 1:12:30 PM
New WND/Wenzel poll shows that 2 out of every 3 like state legislation that requires proof By Bob Unruh Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies.
Donald Trump Takes Birther Questions Mainstream - Again
Mar 24, 2011 2:38:06 PM
Donald Trump's natural habitat is the public spotlight, and he is making the most of it now that his interest in the U.S. Presidency is well-known. It was remarkable, then, that the real estate and media mogul's appearance on The View Wednesday brought to the mainstream an issue that has never - never - gone away:
With headlines like this, is it time to ask hard questions?
ARE THESE DOCUMENTS VALID?
IC EXAMPLE # 1 - IS THIS DOCUMENT VALID?Carefully examine the above document to determine if it is valid.
IC EXAMPLE # 2 - IS THIS DOCUMENT VALID? - YES OR NO AND REASON WHY
Carefully examine the above document to determine if it is valid.
The second document is my birth certificate. No, wait that isn't true. To be accurate I need to say, "Here is a scanned copy of my alleged "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" that has not been vetted by qualified forensic document examiners."
I do not have a passport. If I send a link to the "scanned copy of my alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners" to the State Department, do you think they will send me a passport? No, they will not!
I might protest, "But I put it on the Internet for all to see! I released my birth certificate to the public." "No", they would say "You released a scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners. We need the original document."
I might protest by saying. "It hasn't been altered (except for the little detail of obscuring the official number on the document); it has a doctor's signature, the name of the hospital, my parent's signature and everything!" "Nope," they would say, and if I insisted they might notice the line at the bottom "WARNING: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DUPLICATE THIS COPY" or "ANY ALTERATION OR ERASURE VOIDS THIS CERTIFICATE."
So, unless I am able to provide authentic documentation, I will not be able to go on my fabulous, all expense paid cruise.
Yet there are people who live among us, and even have the right to vote, who think that if I presented my scanned, altered "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" during an election in the same manner, it would be enough evidence to prove that I am eligible to become President of the United States.
And my altered, "scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners" is far higher quality than has been offered by AKA Obama.
AKA Obama has spent lots of money to keep the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations, and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states.
No matter what you might think, there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Far, far less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document, and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat. Or pictures of scat.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, (CV here ) a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit HERE that states, in part:
"I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org," and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document."
Sandra Ramsey Lines' summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Here is a link to another article of importance on the subject:
Is he or Isn't he an American citizen? - Professor Emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame University
This next linked article has gone viral and is now on numerous sites. By this time your Congressperson probably knows about it. But just in case, how about sending him/her a copy of the article or a copy of this link?
Obama "I have nothing to hide, but I'm hiding it."
Can Obama supporters see the logic here? Oh, I forgot, Obama supporters don't use logic; not "warm and fuzzy" enough for them.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.