Friday, April 20, 2012

Obama Officially Ineligible !!

US President Barack Obama released a long form version of his birth certificate after extended criticism by those who do not believe he was born in the United States. Now his lawyers have been forced to admit it was a fake! Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images

A crushing situation is emerging for, not only Barack Obama, but also for the American people as a landmark statement has been made by the Obama administration that is going to turn the entire 2012 Presidential race and potentially much more on its head.

 Lawyers representing the current sitting President of the United States of America have been forced, under penalty of perjury, to admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House in April of 2011 is a total forgery.

In a NJ ballot access eligibility case spawned by Tea Party activists, attorneys representing Obama had to admit the document presented to the American people by Obama himself is actually knowingly faked and was used to fool the American public into believing a complete fabrication.

Continue reading at The Examiner

24 comments:

  1. Baruh Hashem , thank you Devorah for the good news, we should only hear the good news from each other, everywhere where Jews are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I checked Israelnationalnews and other news outlets only to find that this bombshell is NOT in the news. If we do not have a race war yet over the Martin/Zimmerman travesity, now people of color are going to go crazy that their man is out. Who are they going to blame?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is yet another case of broken telephone fueling conspiracy theorists.

    When evaluating statements from lawyers, put forth in court, nuance matters a lot. This fellow you are citing seems not at all skilled in nuance, and makes a serious blunder, and therefore presents a falsehood.

    He himself links to this article to prove his point that "in layman’s terms, his attorneys literally made the argument during a hearing on April 10th that because the document was so obviously faked and could not possibly be considered proof of citizenship, the document itself should not be allowed as evidence in the case."

    But that is not AT ALL what the article he is citing says. Rather, this is what the article said:

    "Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case? Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked: And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State."

    It is "irrelevant to this case" because the document in question was not produced to to the Secretary of State. Rather, it was released on the internet. Not that it is irrelevant because (they concede that) it is a forgery.

    This is a case of lawyers making things hard for opposing lawyers, by excluding evidence they want included. That way, the case won't be able to go forward.

    The fellow who wrote the article is either too dense to parse lawyer-ese, such that he came up with this false summary in layman's terms, or else he is deliberately lying to stir people up. Don't be sucked in.

    kol tuv,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So technically the author of this article is correct, Obama IS ineligible, it's just getting past the law-is-an-ass aspect of everything.
      How they can come out now and admit its a fake when Obama assured us it wasn't..... is beyond me.
      There is no shame anymore, just a matter of who has the better spindoctor - I mean lawyer.

      Delete
    2. "How they can come out now and admit its a fake..."

      No, technically the author if this article is not correct.

      Again, the author mischaracterized (either lied or blundered) what the lawyers said. The lawyers never admitted it is a fake. Rather, they said that the document presented on the web was never officially "submitted" to the secretary. Therefore, the document (which may be totally legit -- they never specify because they don't need to) is irrelevant to the case. Therefore, the case cannot proceed. Irrelevant, not a fake.

      This is a legal maneuver, just as it is a legal maneuver to say that a certain person does not have legal standing to bring a case. (See here for an example.)

      Evidence is thrown out of criminal cases all the time on technicalities, rather than for being false. That is what good lawyers do for their clients.

      (Why should Obama's lawyers do this? Isn't this a sign of dishonesty? From his perspective, no. From his perspective, there are a bunch of lunatics out there who, despite his best efforts to show the evidence, insist on their conspiracy theories. Why grant these lunatics further legitimacy?)

      kol tuv,
      josh

      Delete
    3. It's absolute geneiva'as da'as - Obama specifically told the world that the ''internet'' birth certificate was legitimate.

      Delete
    4. And who says it wasn't legitimate?? Not the lawyers!

      The **presentation** of it on the Internet is just not relevant (for some reason) to the court case. For it to have been relevant, the legitimate document would have to have presented to the secretary. That is all they said.

      (They did not say more because they don't have to say more. You don't grant your enemy on the battlefield any more than you have to.)

      Delete
    5. "Again, the author mischaracterized (either lied or blundered) what the lawyers said..."

      So in other words, Mr. Waxman, what you are saying is that all of the articles stating that "Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery," have simply taken Hill's statement out of context or just made it up? And you are contending that the statement that the document was "not submitted to the secretary" indicates to you that NO OTHER STATEMENTS as to the document being a forgery were made by Hill? We normally call that sort of logic a non sequitur.

      If the document had in fact been recently fabricated, then of course it would not have been submitted. And I can assure you, it is not just a forgery. It is an obvious forgery - even a bad forgery! And for Hill's defense, it MUST be a forgery. Why? Because the birth certificate proves that only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. That makes him ineligible. So if Hill wants to protect her client from allegations that he is ineligible, then she has no choice but to contend that it is a forgery (but one obviously made by someone other than the president for nefarious purposes) but therefore nevertheless inadmissible, otherwise the case moves forward.

      But according to the reports, Hill made use of it being a forgery to substantiate her argument. If that is true, and I'm not saying it is, because I don't have the transcript, then the only reason that Obama's attorney needed to mention that fact that "he had not actually submitted the document as proof of eligibility," was to prevent the need for defending the president from future allegations that he had committed a felony.

      Let me ask you this.... do you have a transcript of the proceeding? In other words, can you say definitively that she did not admit it was a forgery as clearly stated in the articles? Or are you hanging your hat on the non sequitur?

      Delete
    6. "So in other words, Mr. Waxman, what you are saying is that all of the articles stating that "Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery," have simply taken Hill's statement out of context or just made it up?"

      Quite likely. People are indeed idiots. And people hear things from other idiots and run with it. I've seen this countless times before.

      Here we have an 'article' from someone who linked to what looks like a pretty plainspoken and neutral article and 'summarized' 'in layman's terms' the article, injecting this rather bold and surprising statement as a summary. And the neutral article he linked to in order to "prove it" contained the section "A Surprise Admission", indicating that this is the basis for the summary in the author's mind.

      "And you are contending that the statement that the document was "not submitted to the secretary" indicates to you that NO OTHER STATEMENTS as to the document being a forgery were made by Hill? We normally call that sort of logic a non sequitur.
      Sorry. No, we don't. If I say "here is an article. It is filled with legalese, but in laymen's terms, Obama admits to being a space alien, then it is not a non-sequitur to point out that it does not.

      "Let me ask you this.... do you have a transcript of the proceeding?"
      No. Do you have a transcript, to demonstrate that he did not admit to being a space alien?

      "And I can assure you, it is not just a forgery. It is an obvious forgery - even a bad forgery!"
      An assurance from an Anonymous person on the Internet is not very assuring. How do I know your credentials to be able to evaluate such a thing? Or that the assurance does not stem from reading hundreds of articles written by conspiracy theorists who don't know what they are talking about?

      kol tuv,
      Josh

      Delete
  4. Wai wai wai wait a minute. Is this article completely legit, Devorah? If so, this is the sweeeeeetest piece of info in a lonnnnng time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. His college records are sealed because they state he is a 'foreign' student.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/postman-ayers-family-put-foreigner-obama-through-school/print/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you the same Anonymous as above? This is why it is nice to choose a pseudonym.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll add that while I am not aware of a written transcript, a video of the proceedings are available at the bottom of that website:

    http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/10/constitution/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/

    Why not watch it and point out where an Obama lawyer made the shocking statement? I eagerly await your reply.

    kol tuv,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction Mr. Waxman. There were many articles. Each was worded differently and offered varying opinions and comments. No re-posting was involved. It was the original information (and the quote) that apparently emanated from a single source. That's what happens when people misunderstand the English language.

      Delete
    2. Why do you keep calling me "Mr. Waxman"? Is it an attempt at being obnoxious?

      (There WAS plenty of reposting involved, but perhaps separate from that, not in the several "articles" -- meaning blogposts -- you apparently read but did not link to.)

      Are you persisting in your mistaken belief about what the lawyer says? I gave a link to the video. Why not tell me precisely where she said this purported statement?

      Delete
    3. Part 2

      I'll also add that whenever I see an edited tape I get suspicious and I'll give you an example. The tape uploaded to YouTube that has swept the internet in recent days, showing Lt. Col. Eisner shoving his rifle butt in the face of an anarchist is a prime example, It did NOT show the provocation by hundreds of the Dane's co-conspirators or the fact the Eisner was defending himself. The reason is obvious. There was intent to deceive.

      And that being the case...

      If the video of the hearing is cut off. We need to be asking ourselves why. I'm not saying that she admitted anything about the BC being a forgery. I'm just saying its interesting that the tape of an important hearing was cut off.

      I've known and had personal experience with judges who have "edited" the transcripts of their own cases, rather than make public their sophistry or other egregious behavior in court. Unless things have changed (and they are changing rapidly - not for the better) the video was not made by private individuals. It had to come from the court. Is it possible the court itself cut the video and only released part of the tape? And if so why?

      At any rate, I know I'm beating a dead horse but, I'll ask you again. Do you have a transcript or are you hanging your hat on the non sequitur? It's a simple question. If you're determined to ignore it, or side-step it, I won't bother asking again. I'm not trying to bang heads with you. I'm just trying to understand your logic, in the face of the obvious BS continually pouring out of the white house.

      In the meantime, sorry if the "Mr. Waxman" irritated you. It was either that or Ms. Waxman, but the last time I checked Josh was a man's name. You'll notice I made no mention of your name this time except here as an explanation.

      One last thing, you stated "[Am I] persisting in my mistaken belief about what the lawyer said." If you re-read my post, you will see that I said "If that is true, and I'm not saying it is." So as you can see I have no mistaken belief. In fact I have no "belief" about Hill's statement at all. I'm merely trying to ascertain why you are so certain she did not make such a statement when you do not have the balance of the tape.

      Delete
    4. Part 1

      With all due respect....

      The video is incomplete. It is cut off. The second tape ends prior to the completion of the hearing. I asked you if you had a transcript, or whether you were hanging your hat on the non-sequitur. You did not answer that question. Instead you side-stepped it with some comment about space aliens.

      The purpose of my question was to determine why you came to the conclusion that she did NOT admit that the BC was a forgery. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But either way, you ducked the question, much like the government and its minions are ducking the issue of the implications concerning a forged birth certificate and their obligations in that regard (and I'm referring to their respective oaths of office to uphold the constitution).

      The TeaPartyTribune web site says she admitted it was a forgery. It was not quoting some other web site. The Tea Party brought the case. They should know. It was also the most authoritative web-article in terms of details. Moreover, because of the legal implications and the nature of the material, it was evident that the text had been reviewed perhaps even edited by legal counsel. Under the circumstances I have reasonable grounds to accept what it says, and at the same time question the validity of your conclusions (that are based apparently on an edited tape).

      So I ask you again, do you have a (complete) transcript or are you hanging your hat on the non-sequitur? And don't come back and suggest I watch some video, especially if its edited or incomplete. I'm asking YOU why/how you came to your conclusion. I've not yet received an answer and this is fast becoming an exercise in futility.

      Also, when you asked me "why not watch [the video] and point out where she made the statement" you were asking me to prove a negative. That's a lawyerly thing to do. So I'll return the favor. If you insist on ducking the question, and you want me to watch another video, then "why not provide me with a link to one that isn't cut off?" The argument was just getting lively when it was cut. I would really liked to have seen the balance of the hearing.

      Delete
    5. Sorry these comments are not in order... for some reason Google is deleting comments before they have been moderated, and I'm receiving them in my email, but when I log onto the page to moderate them..... some are missing. So my apologies, but blame Google not me.

      Delete
    6. See also Snopes:
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ineligible.asp

      all the best,
      Josh

      Delete
  8. devorah, i admit i dont understand US laws. we follow more the british system where if a case is in the courts one cannot discuss it in the media or elsehwere. whereas in US, the trial takes place immediately in the media as in trayon and other cases. however, if the author is misrepresenting, and of all people against the pres, wont he be sued.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also,

    "So in other words, Mr. Waxman, what you are saying is that all of the articles stating that "Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted"

    All of the articles?? It is a single article that has been reposted on a billion websites. This is what happens when people misunderstand Google.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really hate this is happening ... but I'm sure this is not the only piece of document fooling the American people floating around the White House ... the constitution for one has fooled the people for over a hundred years ... it seems documents are signed nearly every day by governing officials to fool the mainstream people ... such as vaccinations are not harmful, genetically modified seeds are not harmful ... radiation level in California are not harmful ...employment situations are getting better ... economy is on the rebound ... the homeless situation is not as bad as it seems ...

    To me there is just so many other pressing issues that should take front seat on headlines and in the minds of a failing economy than a fake birth certificate ... citizen ship should have been established before the very first election ... if something like his (if true) can slip by security ... then the state of security in America is deplorable ...

    I'm sure there is some law he would fall under to claim his citizenship ... if nothing more than having married a U.S. Citizen ...

    To me this is a sign that the negative elite could not win him over so now they are in attack mode ... he shows opinions different than congress so they have turned the dogs a loose ... the wolves hounds and feral dogs are loose for a reason other than this birth certificate .... but it seems to have everybody looking in that direction ....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let me just say this. Obama is deceiving the American people.. Tell me another president who sealed every record on his life and education? His behavior does not favor the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diana West marvels at judges who decide BHO's 'natural born,' despite lack of evidence
    See: IS OBAMA DISOWNING ONLINE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    ReplyDelete

Please be respectful, otherwise your comment will not be published.