Video: Breaking Movement In Sheriff Joe’s Obama ID Fraud Case

The Cold Case Posse is continuing to gather important information, particularly in just the last few days!!

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. smrstrauss says:

    Re: "New information…"

    That is what the Cold Case Posse has been saying for years.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/con

    • smrstrauss says:

      The following video is not real. It is a funny satire on the Cold Case Posse. But, its point about the importance of the use of the Xerox Workstation in making the copy of the BC and how doing that creates the anomalies that birthers regard as signs of forgeries is still significant.
      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/08/hidden-cam

      • See? It's stuff like this that shreds your own credibility. Claims from a clearly biased site that brush off their views as fact? We're just supposed to believe it just because you make a spoof video (not a very smart one, either)? I think it is your job to continue spreading misinformation and offering excuses as proof. Oh, they could have used a Xerox machine and THAT caused all the anomalies? What, are Xerox machines suddenly magic? Do they suddenly transform fixed text into different font types, type faces, close letter gaps, and give the letters a white outline? Do they also make curls in the side of a document suddenly disappear half way down so it looks like flat paper (shouldn't that curl be consistent all the way down?)? First, you cite sources that have holes in them, then you offer excuses as proof and expect nobody to actually do some research. Furthermore, you copy-pasta your counter points, weave some bits of truth into otherwise false statements, passing it off as total truth, and you also appear to believe your own propaganda. Just to top it off, you like to mix in 3rd grader style retorts and sideways remarks in your responses so it looks like you're not being totally unfair and unbiased. The very fact that you use those, suggests to me that you know deep down you're on the wrong end of the argument, but you want to be strategic about it in order to appeal to any unwitting on-lookers like you might actually have a legitimate case. Your conduct, distorting of the truth, and lack of any real evidence would suggest otherwise.
        So now I must ask you, who is your boss and how much are you being paid?

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: "So now I must ask you, who is your boss and how much are you being paid? "

          Answer: I'm not paid a cent. How about you? if you are, good for you, but I'm not.

          Re: "Oh, they could have used a Xerox machine and THAT caused all the anomalies?"

          Answer. The Xerox WorkCenter 7655 caused MOST of the anomalies. The one about the "curl" of the page was caused by the Hawaii photocopier machine when it made a copy of the original which is in a book and which when pressed against the glass was not completely flat.

          Re: "Do they suddenly transform fixed text into different font types, type faces, close letter gaps, and give the letters a white outline? "

          Answer: Yes, in fact, that's what they do. That is how they work.
          http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/xerox

          • smrstrauss says:

            Continuing:

            Re: "First, you cite sources that have holes in them…"

            Answer: No, there is nothing whatever wrong with these sources:

            Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

            Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

            John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

            Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

            Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Continuing:

            IN CONTRAST, birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has insisted that Obama did not attend Columbia College (despite Columbian University having said repeatedly that Obama graduated from Columbia College). I wonder how fair and impartial Irey is. And they include Dough Vogt (who claims to have found "the original Altar of Abraham"—but has never shown it. (I wonder why?) Would you like to see his site? And the latest is Reed Hayes, who is a specialist in signatures and not a digital document expert at all, and whose 40-page report was never published by the Cold Case Posse (I wonder why?)

            Re: " The very fact that you use those, suggests to me that you know deep down you're on the wrong end of the argument.."

            Not only am I on the right end of the argument but Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and the National Review agree with me, and so does Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and MIchelle Bachmann and Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee.

            Obama won 356 electoral votes in 2008 and 332 in 2012, and he received the votes of 356 electors from the US Electoral College in 2008 and 332 electors in 2012. In short, not one of those 690 or so electors believed that Obama was born outside the USA or that it requires two citizen parents in order for a child born on US soil to be a Natural Born US Citizen. Not one of them changed their vote.

            So, I think I am on solid ground. And, guess what, Birthers have not even shown that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961 (and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days), and yet they would like the world to believe that there is a realistic chance that she had a passport, and traveled using it during the last two months of pregnancy (which would have been even more rare due to the rate of stillbirths at the time) and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying when they have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the birth certificates (short form and long form) to Obama and that ALL the facts on the image that the White House has put online are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him.

            Birthers have not even shown the date on which Obama's mother's passport file was created (and if it was created after 1961, she did not have a passport in 1961). The date on which Obama's mother's passport file was created is unlikely to have been lost, evaporated, or scratched off of the file (and if it were, they could tell us if that had indeed happened). But birther sites have not even told us this date. And they LIED by saying that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (She actually said repeatedly that he was born in HAWAII, but they just cut off the tape just before she was asked "Where was he born?")

            Yet, the birther sites that have not shown that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961 and do not show the date on which Obama's mother's passport file was created still want us to assume that she had a passport, and that she traveled to a foreign country despite the risk of stillbirth, and that the Hawaii birth certificate and the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying about his place of birth.

            Not very likely is it?

            And, you are in bad company. Birther sites LIED when they said that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that he was born IN Hawaii, but birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording just BEFORE she was asked "where was he born?" and she answered "in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time." So, obviously, birther zealots who have lied about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said, are perfectly capable of lying about the birth certificate being forged.

            Their not showing you all the experts who say that it is not forged is one sign of it. Their not discussing the Xerox WorkCentre evidence in detail is another. Their willingness to attempt to deceive their readers by not telling them that there is no evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961 or how rare it would be for a woman to travel abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 are still other signs.

            Re your not liking the video. Others, who have a sense of humor, may enjoy it:
            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/08/hidden-cam

          • More copy-pasta with a dash of your own little sentences. No, it's okay. I get it. You think by spamming me with the same stuff over and over again, you're somehow going to convince me you're right.
            You know, it's funny you keep on mentioning how Ann Dunham never had a US passport in 1961. I did check up on that and I did find that indeed, she did not apply for a passport until 1965. But, I also discovered she was no where near the state of Hawaii in 1961. Obama Sr. was. But, last I checked, men aren't the ones that have the baby. The whereabouts of Ann Dunham during 1961 put her in the University of Washington, attending classes. Furthermore, people claim Obama Sr. and Dunham were never even seen together at the time. They recall Obama Sr. to some detail, but no young white lady friend of any description. "So?", you'll probably reply. So, two people in two separate states, haven't even met yet, both attending classes, and somehow a baby is born? Now, either little Barry was magicked out of thin air or he wasn't born until much later. I'm thinking somewhere after or during 1965 when Ann Dunham and BO Sr. were in the same place at the same time to have an affair (he was already married with children). Oh, where was that? Hawaii. Nah, I'm just kidding. It was Kenya. He was called there to finish his schooling not long into 1961 and she caught up with him four years later. Go ahead. You can look it up for yourself (no freebees from me) like I did. Believe me, I put your sources to the test to see just how much of what you say is true and how much of it is full of crap. I found a lot that said the latter. You don't stand on solid ground. Looks more like sinking sand to me.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: "You think by spamming me with the same stuff over and over again, you're somehow going to convince me you're right. "

            Answer: I'm not trying to convince YOU. I am posting the facts for the benefit of rational people who may visit this site and seek the facts. Here is a link to some of the facts:
            http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/xerox

            And here is a general discussion of the birther notion:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthers

          • smrstrauss says:

            Glad you admit that Obama's mother did not have a passport in 1961. The University of Washington date that you have is incorrect. She did not start attending until classes started in late August or early September of 1961, which was about a month after Obama was born. BOTH Obama's father and his mother were attending the University of Hawaii in late 1960 (when a child born in August 1961 would have been conceived) and throughout the 1961 school year.

          • You're forgetting something, the reports from Hawaii are that she left the island in 1960. Quite the gap between traveling from Hawaii to Seattle between 1960 and registering for classes in 1961-1962. That gap of leaving Hawaii and registering for classes in Seattle make it look like she disappeared between '60 and '61. The only time she does resurface in Hawaii is in 1963 and she's no longer married to Obama Sr. There's something else you missed. The application for a passport in 1965 are for a renewal. Research indicates that passports were only good for five years, which would imply she had one issued in 1960 or 1961. But, records for any passports issued in 1960 are strangely (and conveniently) missing. If she was applying for a passport for the first time, why did she apply for a renewal? I also find it interesting that when asked if she has ever been turned down for a passport, she replies "NO", also implying that she had one before. Why would she have that written down if she didn't have a passport prior to 1965? That's quite an inconsistency. You'd think she'd leave the space for renewal blank if it was her first passport. Ah, but I'm sure that the INS made a mistake…

          • It's funny how I said you cite sources not counting on people to look it up…and then do the same thing again. I looked all over for your sources and only found two that match up, but they were both very vague on their findings. Nathan Goulding for example, makes it sound like he glanced over the document and simply "dismissed it", like it wasn't worth his time. John Woodman only mentions checking things over, but doesn't go into detail about it. Neil Krawetz turned out to be a phony with credentials that would make him over 80 years old.
            I even tried to find where Ivan Zatkovich testified in a court of law and turned up nothing of the sort. All I could find were links about his findings on the Long form document being a forgery and why. He even detailed those findings and I've read them.
            As for Jean-Claude Tremblay, the quote you found has been taken out of context and clipped together. He even says he never said that and he was outraged by it.
            But, nice try in stacking the deck. You do that a lot, I see. That and simple contradiction. It's like I was saying before, but I'll simplify: it's like you're a troll but you're trying to be sophisticated about it. Trying, but not succeeding.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: "Neil Krawetz turned out to be a phony with credentials that would make him over 80 years old. "

            It is possible to have experience in doing two things at the same time, you know. So your count that he must be over 80 is flawed.

            And Woodman's site shows considerable detail, as does his book. For example:

            Here is his home page: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/

            And here is ONE of his many articles:
            http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirt

            And, by the way, Woodman says that he is a member of the Tea Party, and that he dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but that he thinks that the birther claims that the birth certifiate is forged are nutty.

            Rational people will read this analysis and that discussing the Xerox WorkCenter, and compare them with the birther "experts" quoted on the birther sites that have lied so many times in the past (such as about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said. She NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that he was born in HAWAII, but birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape just before she said "in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time").

          • Oooh. Nice try. Try a person with a neutral perspective. Not someone clearly picking sides (I read the comments. Don't tell me he isn't)…and doesn't proofread his own material. They also say it is POSSIBLE for a Xerox machine to cause some of the anomalies, but doesn't account for all of them. The type-setting, the different type-faces, the different fonts for certain letters, blurry letters, pixelated letters, indications that parts of the documents were taken from another (which I have seen and compared between) and STILL doesn't explain how it looks like only half of the document was scanned from a book and the other half conforms with the border. I've scanned in pages from math books, that fold should be consistent throughout. The article still doesn't explain the kerning used in parts of the document. Typewriters don't do do that. I don't know what kind of magic typewriter you're familiar with, but they certainly didn't use them in the 1960's. Sorry, I still call bull crap.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Well, let's start with the "kerning."

            That shows that you have bought the birther crap. Rational people will look again at the long form birth certificate and look at the letters that are said to be "kerning" and recognize that they are just the normal SKIPPING of a manual typewriter.

            The Xerox machine caused most of the anomalies, the rest were caused by the skipping (which you called "kerning") and the light and dark striking of the manual typewriter on the page, which caused some of the letters not to be recognized in the scan (for example TXE, which is what the scan showed for the word "THE", with the "H" being faint.) Oh, and by the way, according to your theory, the forger of the document would have had to have been brilliant enough to have put in TXE and not THE.

            And she or he would have had to have been brilliant enough to have deliberately put in the following anomaly as well:
            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/ame-o-ospi

            Re: "The type-setting, the different type-faces, the different fonts for certain letters, blurry letters, pixelated letters,"

            Answer: Yes accounted for by the Xerox WorkCentre—and by the fact that the letters were typed on a manual typewriter, some faintly, and that the document is on SECURITY PAPER, which is designed to cause anomalies.

            Re: "indications that parts of the documents were taken from another (which I have seen and compared between…"

            Answer: Sure you have. Sure. Rational people will believe you without your SHOWING it, which you haven't.

            And the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that ALL the facts on the copy of the BC that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. Are you saying that Obama had a forgery made in which ALL the facts are the same? If so, why should a rational person believe you?

            And, get this, birther sites have not even shown that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and very few 18-year-olds did, and yet they want rational people to assume that she had a passport, and that she traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy (which would have been even more rare in 1961), and that the birth certificate (actually BOTH the short form and the long form BC) is forged, and that the officials of Hawaii of both parties are lying.

          • Re: "The type-setting, the different type-faces, the different fonts for certain letters, blurry letters, pixelated letters,"

            "Answer: Yes accounted for by the Xerox WorkCentre—and by the fact that the letters were typed on a manual typewriter, some faintly, and that the document is on SECURITY PAPER, which is designed to cause anomalies."
            Really? Let's look at that a moment, shall we? http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obamas

            For a little more comparison: http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06

            Huh. No kerning evident in that document. No white "halo" around the characters. No fuzzy letters. No difference in fonts. The document cuts off toward the bottom and stays that way. Where are the anomalies? Shouldn't they be present in this document too?

            "And the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that ALL the facts on the copy of the BC that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him."

            Of course they did. They're not covering for some senator from Illinois. They're covering for the President. Refusing to comply could mean some serious consequences for them. They love their family members, I assume. But, why did they wait so long to send him the PDF file while investigators were hounding them? Shouldn't they have cooperated and released it right away say, in 2009? When Obama was a community organizer and later a senator of Illinois for two years, why did he consistently claim to be born in Kenya (supposedly to gain sympathy from black neighborhoods) as far back as the early 1990's? Even this shows up in 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastand

            "Are you saying that Obama had a forgery made in which ALL the facts are the same? If so, why should a rational person believe you?"

            A rational person would only believe me if my statements coincide with their rationalization. That would depend entirely on what they want to rationalize as well. I believe I told you what it meant to rationalize. Essentially it means to make excuses.

            "Rational people will believe you without your SHOWING it,"
            That's what you're doing. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same? Why do I need to convince rational people, anyway? They believe what they want to believe and make excuses for it. What's the point?

          • smrstrauss says:

            A few gullible people might believe that, but smart ones won’t.

            They know that the claim that the birth certificate is forged and the claims that the anomalies are unusual are BOTH made up by birthers, just the same way birthers LIED when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she actually said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly. Birther sites simply did not quote her.) The motive for them lying about what the Kenyan grandmother said, and about not telling people that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, is exactly the same motive that is causing them to LIE about alleged “anomalies.”

            Such things as “it was kerning” are lies. It was not kerning. It was the normal skipping of a manual typewriter.

            Moreover, the claim that the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital did not exist in 1961 is simply stupid. It did exist, and the Nordyke Twins were born there one day hater than Obama, as shown by their birth certificates on WND’s site, and by:
            http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/yes-there

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/bir

            People who claim that hospitals did not exist, when they did exist, are not to be trusted in their claims about “kerning” (it was the normal skipping of a manual typewriter) or for that matter in their claims that pixilation is not normal.

            Scanners are imperfect and pick up faintly typed letters differently, and that is particularly true when the scan is put into pdf, and the other anomalies are accounted for by the photocopy of the original in the book onto security paper and the compression software of the Xerox WorkCentre scanner.

            The facts that counts is that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii stated that they sent both the short form and long form BCs to Obama. And they also said that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. Re the claim that they are lying because they need to protect the president of the USA. Republican officials in Hawaii confirmed that they had Obama’s birth certificate on file and that they sent copies to Obama way back when he was NOT president of the USA, when he was just running for president the first time.

            Rational people will believe the statements of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (and the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961)———not the highly motivated claims of birthers, who have shown their willingness to lie and to not tell people such essential facts as there not being any evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 (and very few 18-year-olds did). Their motives in not telling that simple fact and in LYING about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said (and to lie about what Governor Abercrombie said. He never said that he could not find Obama’s BC. Birthers simply said that he did) are the same motives behind their lies that Obama’s birth certificate is forged.

          • "A few gullible people might believe that, but smart ones won’t."
            Oh, because everybody that's not with you is dumb. Oh yeah. Real gullible, dumb people got this whole investigation started. Uh-huh. Yeah. You really got 'em. The whole charade is up because you're so uber-super-duper smart. You've got all the answers, you should be number one source for all the information relating to the case and it is 100% infallible, water tight, proof. You should be all over the news as the one person to bring down the entire investigation. You'll be a national hero. You should be in Obama's place, because he didn't think to come up with that magic bullet. Just think, if you had come forward with this information earlier, it would be a done deal. Why, you're so smart, you obviously submitted this information in affidavit form and presented it to the Department of Justice. You would have presented it to Mike Zullo and stopped him dead in his tracks. Wait…you didn't? You mean to tell me you never took the legal steps to make your findings known to the right people? Did the news media just miss that one and forget to report how the birther issue was officially laid to rest and that all their questions were answered? Where was your information when it would have counted? Come on. You're the smart one. You should know. You should be suspect number one in this case. You should be able to attest to your findings in the court of law under penalty of perjury. If you and your side were truly convinced, they would have the conviction to step up and go through the proper channels.
            No? You just want to rattle sabres all day? If you really have the knock out punch, put it out there. Come on.
            You said before you weren't out to convince me. Well, there's a problem with that. There are millions more like me and that number is growing exponentially. You're friends will agree with you without question, but if you can't convince even your toughest critics, you can't convince people you allege to be dumb. So, come on. You want to stop the freight train? It's going to take more than copy-pasta to do it.

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re Zullo, Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse:
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/con

            If there was a shred of evidence that Obama's birth certificate was forged OR that he was born in a foreign country, the National Review and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck would support Sheriff Joe, not laugh at him. And the same goes for Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee.

            Re: "There are millions more like me and that number is growing exponentially."

            Answer: So YOU claim, but then birthers have also lied about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said (she never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in HAWAII). And birthers have not told their readers that there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961. The claim that "There are millions more like me and that number is growing exponentially" come from the same source. (Oh, and such birther sites as WND have their own "pollsters"—who have not shown that they are following established polling methodology.)

            IF birthers could not convince even one member of the Electoral College to change her or his vote in either the 2008 or 2012 elections and cannot convince Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and Rand Paul and Ron Paul, then they cannot convince anyone, and over time there will be fewer and fewer birthers.

          • There is a 300 page "shred of evidence". Three hundred pages. That's a lot of not proof to go around, don't you think? And what do you have? A lot of copy-pasta isn't going to stand up in the court of law. Why did you ignore my challenge? Where's your legal 300 page affidavit that stops Zullo in his tracks? Hmm? According to YOU, you have all the answers…or so you claim. But, hey. You clearly do want to rattle sabres all day. Fine, you don't want to put your knock out punch out there. I can understand. You want to dish it out, but you don't want to take it back. That's understandable. I get you. You're not serious and I shouldn't take you seriously. But, I've been going about testing your convictions all wrong. Birthers have put their reputations and their very lives on the line (really, some of them have been found dead) because they were certain Obama was a fake. I should be asking you just how far you're willing to go to make sure you're right. So, how about it? Are you all in? Are you willing to stake your reputation and put your life on the line for the things you believe? Are you willing to die? In the off chance you should encounter a super fanatical, crazy, psychotic, violent birther, are you willing to die over your claims? Or, since that's an unlikely encounter and the administration has no reason to silence you, are you willing to kill for Obama? Come on. There are clearly two sides here. How serious are you?

          • smrstrauss says:

            Re: Zullo Affidavit

            That is 300 pages of crap filed in an appeals cocurt case that will not take a look at it at all.

            You can file any lie you want in a case when you know that the judge will not take a look at it. And in appeals court cases, judges do not look at facts; they determine the law. The 300-page affidavit you are referring to is in an appeals court case.

            It will have NO effect on the case whatever. Birthers are likely to lose this case, as they lost all the other cases. The issue in the appeals court case is not even whether or not Obama's BC is forged; it is whether or not under Alabama law the secretary of state has to determine the eligibility of candidates for president of the USA, and the secretary of state of Alabama, a Republican, says that the law does not require it.

            So the 300-page appeal is meaningless, and all that it does, BTW, is repeat the well-known crap about 'kerning"—which is the skipping of manual typewriter, and "PDF would not do this" (but PDF WOULD do that, and in fact that is how PDF works.) In a month or so, the birther side will lose that case in Alabama, as it lost all the others.

            Re: "Birthers have put their reputations and their very lives on the line (really, some of them have been found dead)"

            If you are referring to Breitbart, he was an anti-birther; he laughed at birthers, and he died of natural causes.

            If you are saying that birthers are truly zealous, that is true. They are zealous enough to LIE about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said, and some of them are zealous enough to forge "Kenyan birth certificates," and some of them are zealous enough to LIE in affidavits.

            Re: "Are you willing to stake your reputation and put your life on the line for the things you believe?"

            Would you bet your life, or $5 (whichever you consider worth more), on whether or not birthers will win or lose the case with the 300-page affidavit in Alabama?

            Yes, I know that there is a prominent CONSERVATIVE on the Alabama Supreme Court. But even he will, and in fact, must, throw out the birther case because the Alabama law simply does not say that the the Secretary of State has to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates, and that being the case, the court will say that it does not have to take a look at the 300-page affidavit, and it won't.

            So, since the court will not determine whether or not the BC is forged, and that is the last court that the case is before, and all other courts either threw out the case for lack of standing or, as in the Georgia case, because the judge DID NOT BELIEVE THE BIRTHER EXPERTS, it is up to ordinary people to decide for themselves whether Obama's BC is forged or not.

            And 300-pages from people who hate him and are willing to lie to hurt him, is not evidence to rational people. Especially since the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have stated that ALL the facts on the BC that the White House has put online are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him.

            When you can convince Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review, you can start trying to convince rational readers of this site that Obama's birth certificate is forged.

            Something along these lines: "Yes, the birther side did lie about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said. And, yes, Zullo and Sheriff Joe did lie about the meaning of the penciled number "9" on Obama's BC (it means "other non-white, not that the section was left blank.) And yes, we did say that Kapiolani Hospital did not exist at the time (when it did and the Nordyke Twins were born there one day after Obama). And, yes, we did say there is a "smiley face" on the BC, where the gif image shows it is a print-through from the other side of the paper. And, yes, we did claim that Indonesian law required all children to be Indonesian citizens to attend Indonesian school (where a simple telephone call to the Indonesian embassy shows that it didn't). And, yes, we did say that Governor Abernathy said that he could not find the BC (when he never said anything like it). And yes, we did claim that Obama's lawyer "admitted" that Obama's BC is forged (when she did not say anything like it either). And yes, it is extremely difficult to explain the fact that Xerox WorkCenters make similar "anomalies" normally. But. heck we have put it all together here and swear to it, and we think that we are risking our lives–so please believe us, pretty please, pretty please on toast?"

          • smrstrauss says:
          • Wrong. Judges do NOT determine law. You bought that lie hook, line, and sinker. Their job is to make a fair and impartial ruling based on evidences presented by both sides. They're supposed to dismiss a case if neither side can make theirs. They're supposed to hear both sides before they can make a ruling. If they throw out a case before seeing any evidence, they're not doing their job. Also, how do you know what the 300 page affidavit contains? Have you read it? How do you know in advance what the judge in Alabama is going to do? How can you be so certain they're going to lose before the case is even heard? Sure, I have my doubts because of the level of influence the Obama administration has, but I'm not going to claim to know what's going to become of the case before it's even heard.
            You still don't know what kerning is, do you? I'll give you a hint: it isn't something typewriters can do and scanning equipment wont do it automatically. Anti-aliasing should affect an entire document to enhance it, not select letters.
            I wasn't referring to Brietbart. I do however, find it convenient (for Obama) that the man died before he could uncover something that allegedly could have ruined Obama, but we won't ever know. I also find it strange that the medical examiner also died before he could put out his report on the autopsy.
            "And 300-pages from people who hate him and are willing to lie to hurt him, is not evidence to rational people."
            No, not to rational people. A rational person says, "Oh, my decision to chain smoke every day isn't hurting anybody else, so it's okay." for example. You're appealing to people that lie to themselves to make something right in their mind. Oh, you think "birthers" did all this because they hate Obama and want to hurt him? Are you sure? Sounds quite petty when you put it that way. You'd think they'd attempt to assassinate him years ago. But, I digress. You sidestepped my question, therefore, I have no reason to take you seriously. You think this is all a game. You even form your comments like Nazi propaganda, "We're winning the war on all fronts and you don't have a chance no matter what." Then you proceed to mock your opponent, suggesting to me you're actually afraid of them. What are you, nine? In the mean time, I'm going to be reasonable enough to reserve my judgement and see what happens. If you're right, Ted Cruz can run and you just have a double standard with a heavy slant toward Democrats (which is an unconstitutional party). Additionally, if you're right, it doesn't matter. It still stands that he's a traitor to the American people, including you (unless you consider yourself exempt), and should be dealt with.
            Something like this: "I've stolen two elections, and the election to senator of Illinois. I've changed stances on so many issues, I've lost track and had to lie to cover that up. I've used Government agencies to smear and destroy my opponents. I've pitted Americans against one another by using my skin color as a tool. I've sued states that didn't see things my way and had my Attorney General ignore laws that the people voted on. I've covered up for and protected people in my administration when they broke the law under my orders. I've orchestrated weapons deals to foreign countries that lead to the deaths of countless Americans, not counting the Ambassador and the three men that attempted to protect him under my watch. I've written executive orders against the will of Congress and the American people when things weren't going my way. I sued to suppress military vote because it could have sunk my chances for reelection. I moved to strip the military of Generals, Admirals and soldiers that would refuse to fire on American citizens, aren't homosexual or oppose the views thereof, and are Christian. I give comfort, arms, and funds to people that declare us as their enemies. But, heck. I'm the first half-black President–so please let me off the hook and let me continue? Pretty please, pretty please, on toast with jelly?"

          • smrstrauss says:

            Seven months have passed since this article was posted, and Obama is still president of the USA. Not a single member of Congress has even called for an investigation of Obama's place of birth or the birther claim that Obama's birth certificate is forged. Sheriff Joe, who was supposed to have revealed "universe-shattering" revelations in March, did not reveal anything–much less something "universe-shattering." In fact, there have been revelations from inside the Cold Case Posse indicating that Sheriff Joe was never very serious about the investigation, and that members of the CCP lied in their claims.

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/03/banned-bir
            http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2014/03/10

  2. They may as well post what they have to the world now…since getting a MEANINGFUL Congressional investigation is NEVER gonna happen…
    Too many OBomination lapdogs, on both sides of the aisle…
    Besides, releasing the information they have compiled will make murdering them a moot point…once the 'cat is out of the bag'…

  3. I hope there will be SOME action before Obama starts WW III!

  4. smrstrauss says:

    Re: "So now I must ask you, who is your boss and how much are you being paid? "

    Answer: YOU first, are you being paid? If you are, well good for you, but does it change anything. If you write for free does it change the facts? If you were paid, would it change the facts? Answer: Obviously not. Well, I'm not paid, and it does not change the FACTS, which are that the Xerox scanner caused most, but not all of the anomalies, and that, duh, YOU should be bloody well aware that a scan of a document on security paper IS SUPPOSED to show anomalies, that is what security paper does. And YOU should be aware that PDF uses layers—that is how it works.

  5. smrstrauss says:

    And birther sites have not shown you all the real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate:

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

  6. smrstrauss says:

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

  7. smrstrauss says:

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

    Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

  8. smrstrauss says:

    One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

    Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

  9. smrstrauss says:

    And, guess what, birther sites have not even shown that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961—-and very few 18-year-olds did in that year. Nor have they told you how EXTREMELY few women traveled in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirth. And yet they would like you to assume that she had a passport and that she was one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy and that Obama's short form and long form BCs are both forged, and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying, and so is the public Index Data file, and so is the birth notices sent to the "Health Bureau Statistics" section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).

    Don't like the spoof video? Too bad for you. Those with a sense of humor may want to see it again.

Speak Your Mind

*