There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen," suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.
The video documentary was produced by Carl Gallups, the senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than 24 years with a long history of community and law enforcement involvement.
Gallups was a Florida law enforcement officer for 10 years, a youth minister before that and is a national and international youth evangelist with outreaches across the United States and in Canada since 1989. He's also on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.
Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
Documentation for his video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.
The video:
quote
He outlines the specifics:
•June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president."
•Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder's, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
•Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to "try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement." But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States," which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
•Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years."
•Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher's.
•Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
•Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
Gallups reports that finally, on April 10, 2008, "unable to alter or remove" the requirement, the Senate changed the focus of the issue, with Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a "natural-born citizen."
Obama's qualifications never were reviewed.
After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.
WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 07-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:04 AM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
May I humbly suggest a rocking, rousing, rallying theme song for the Tea Birthers? And this weeks favorite Presidential candidate? I think its apropos.
'The Nuge' got nutthin on this!
------------------ Drive safely!
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 07-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:18 AM
Aug 10th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims research expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.
"I made the birth certificate image that was given to the media at the White House press conference held on April 27, 2011," Polland told WND.
Jerome Corsi's book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" is available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore
"The White House said the black-and-white image is a copy of Obama's 2007 [Certification of Live Birth], but it's not. It is the forgery I created, and I can prove that is the case," he declared.
Polland said he created the image to bolster his contention that the short-form Certification of Live Birth circulated by the Obama presidential campaign was a forgery.
"You have to be able to show how an electronic document was created in order to prove it is a forgery," he explained. "I wanted to prove the [short-form certificate] was a forgery, and I wanted to show how it can be done."
Then how did the White House end up presenting the forgery as authentic?
Polland contends that all of the short-form "versions in circulation on the Internet are forgeries."
"Probably the White House just picked my forgery off Snopes.com, thinking it was the real thing," he said.
Polland said he realized various Obama supporting groups, including Snopes.com, had posted his forgery as the authentic Obama document, but he decided to say nothing until he felt the time was right.
"I didn't say anything until the White House published my forged Obama birth certificate as the real thing," he said. "Then I decided it was time to speak up. Once the White House posted the forgery, I knew I could expose both the president and a supposedly independent, fact-checking website like Snopes.com as being caught promoting a fake document as the real thing."
Polland walked WND through step-by-step documentation to show that the White House linked to his creation, not a document issued by the state of Hawaii.
The White House website documenting the April 27 press conference states:
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the president's campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the president's birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the Internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).
Clicking that link, as seen in Exhibit 1, leads to a black and white image on the White House website:
Exhibit 1: Obama short-form COLB on White house website
A close-up of the bottom of the page shows that the document was taken not from a White House or Hawaii Department of Health Web page, but from Snopes.com:
Exhibit 2: Closeup of Obama short-form COLB on White House website
Snopes.com, in an June 2008 article, posted the Obama short-form certificate after it had been first published by DailyKos.com June 12, 2008, and by the Obama campaign website FightTheSmears.com.
When Snopes.com posted Polland's fake document, he took a screen shot of the Snopes.com website, showing that the link to the Obama document was the URL at which Polland had posted his forgery. Exhibit 3 shows the Snopes.com website attempting to "debunk" what it considered the false claim that the Obama short-form birth certificate was a forgery.
Exhibit 3: Snopes page attempting to 'debunk' claim Obama COLB is a forgery
Exhibit 4 is a screen shot that shows the Snopes.com website linked to Polland's forgery:
Exhibit 4: Snopes COLB linking to Polland's forgery
Independent confirmation is readily available on the Internet that Snopes.com had linked to the forged Polland birth certificate.
It can be seen, for instance, in the following comment a reader posted on Salon.com, a strongly partisan pro-Obama website, on Nov. 3, 2008.
As seen in Exhibit 5, the reader shows that the article posted on Snopes.com, attempting to prove the authenticity of the Obama short-term birth certificate, was linked to Polland’s forgery:
Exhibit 5: Salon.com letter showing Snopes.com linked to Polland's fake
Exhibit 6 shows a closeup of the relevant section.
Exhibit 6: Closeup of Salon letter showing Snopes link to Polland's fake
Exhibit 7 shows that as recently as April 7, only 20 days before the White House press conference releasing Obama's long-form birth certificate, a reader on HuffingtonPost.com was unknowingly urging others to send Polland's fake certificate to Donald Trump as evidence Obama had been born in Hawaii.
Exhibit 7: Huffington Post reader unknowingly urges others to send Trump a copy of Polland's fake COLB
The Snopes.com link to the Polland fake document was still in place at the time of the April 27 White House press conference, as demonstrated by a reference to Polland's Photobucket website. At Polland's site, the hits to his fake document peaked April 27, as seen in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8: Polland's Photobucket account for fake COLB peaks coincident with White House April 27 news conference
"If Obama has his Certification of Live Birth and his 2008 presidential campaign had actually scanned it and posted it on their website FightTheSmears.com, then why did the White House distribute on April 27 a fake copy ... that the White House never had and never made?" Polland asked. "Instead, the White House distributed a fake [short-term certificate] image that I had and I made."
Polland takes this as proof that the document the campaign released in 2008 was a forgery.
"Because what Obama calls his birth certificate is a fabricated Photoshop forgery, and I proved it by duplicating one from scatch, in real-time, in the only way it could have been created," he said. "No scanner in the universe created the [document] Obama claimed was his."
As seen in Exhibit 9, Snopes.com has replaced the Polland fake document with a new green-background image that no longer matches the one posted on the White House website with the Snopes.com URL.
Exhibit 9: Snopes.com substitutes different COLB image to replace Polland fake
Polland, a frequent Internet poster under the username "Polarik," has published a series of videos on YouTube summarizing his three-year investigation seeking to prove the Obama short-term birth certificate was a forgery.
Polland's expertise is in computer graphics and the use of computer peripherals, such as printers and scanners to input digital images.
He earned a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from Florida State University in 1978 and a masters degree in Educational Research and Psychology from Florida State in 1972.
Polland has just published an e-book entitled "Alias Barack Obama: The Greatest Identity Fraud in History."
IP: Logged
08:21 PM
Aug 16th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
A retired U.S. military commander who brought a court challenge to Barack Obama's tenure in the Oval Office says the mounting evidence indicating the "Certificate of Live Birth" he released in April is fake should shock the American public.
"If everyone was intellectually honest, they would admit those images put on the Internet are forgeries," said CDR Charles Kerchner, whose lawsuit that alleged Congress failed in its constitutional duty to make sure the man elected president was eligible for the office, was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He cited the work released this week by longtime Adobe software book author and computer expert Mara Zebest.
Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
Her detailed report explains how the document released in April by Obama as a copy of his original birth certificate isn't even a good forgery.
"This is a 100 times worse situation in that it is not just a crime of some plumbers breaking into an opponent's office, this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the United States. Obama is not who he says he is. These are forged documents on government property. Before it was a campaign website, now these are government websites," Kerchner told WND today.
Joseph Farah, publisher of WND books, who held a news conference featuring Zebest's research this week at the National Press Club with Jerome Corsi, author of "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President," agreed.
"This is bigger than Watergate," he said after the news conference where it was announced that a lawsuit had been filed against Esquire magazine over its faked "report" that falsely claimed the Corsi book was withdrawn.
Kerchner was just one of a number of high-profile leaders who have challenged Obama's eligibility to express alarm at the idea that a sitting president would release to the public a document that is being described as a forgery.
Others include Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who is working through several outreaches to restore integrity to U.S. politics; Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has spearheaded some of the biggest legal confrontations with Obama's supporters; Philip Berg, the Pennsylvania lawyer who first brought the issue of Obama's apparent ineligibility to the U.S. court system; and Floyd Brown of the Western Journalism Center, who has campaigned for Obama's impeachment.
'He'll do anything'
Kerchner believes there's evidence Obama's placement in the White House was orchestrated, and now that the façade that was created for him is cracking, no holds are barred.
"He's desperate," Kerchner told WND. "He'll do anything to survive. He's way overconfident that the media is never going to do a thing to investigate [and] so far he's right."
However, he said, "At some point the truth is going to come out and the house of cards is going to fall."
Kerchner, even though his court case did not succeed in obtaining documentation about Obama, has continued with a campaign of ads that probe the issue with question after question.
His latest asks, "We have a criminal and forger in the White House! Why isn't Speaker John Boehner investigating? Call or write and ask him."
"This is not a fringe issue of concern by only a few Americans. In the latest poll, 50 percent of the American people said they want Obama investigated by the Congress. It is time for U.S. House Speaker Boehner to take action and call for investigations in the House of Reps of Obama's criminal activities," he said.
Kerchner was referring to a WND Wenzel poll showing that even 28 percent of Democrats want Congress to investigate, meaning, according to pollster Fritz Wenzel, "There's no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated."
Kerchner's promotion cites questions about a forged birth certificate, an "invalid" Social Security number and issues with Obama's draft registration form.
He said Obama's release of the birth document April 27 also moved the dispute to a new level.
"Not only is Obama (now that he stood at that podium on 27 April and said it was his BC) an accessory to the crime of forging a birth certificate and then placing that forged long form birth certificate onto government servers, but I also believe he is a co-conspirator in having it made," Kerchner said.
'Let's see original'
California attorney Orly Taitz continues to fight some of the biggest cases that have been brought over Obama's eligibility, including on behalf of other presidential candidates and members of the U.S. military, whose lives are dependent on the orders of a commander-in-chief who may not be qualified.
"I already have submitted a request for production of the original [Obama birth certificate] to the White House counsel," she told WND today. The action comes as part of her Freedom of Information Act quest for details about how Obama ended up with a Social Security number normally assigned to Connecticut residents when Obama never lived in the state.
Taitz said that when the White House refused to respond, she followed up with another request as part of the requirements for pursuing such a document.
"There is going to be a lawsuit," she said.
'More holes than Swiss cheese'
Berg, who filed the first legal challenge to Obama's presidency more than two months before the 2008 election, said, "I cannot believe the audacity of Obama to put forth this document. He was making a joke out of it. But it has more holes than Swiss cheese."
He continued, "This is the biggest fraud against the United States of America in our history."
Berg said records revealed that Obama was listed as a Muslim and was known as Barry Soetoro while he was a youth in Indonesia, and he believes that name never was formally changed.
"There's no evidence he legally changed his name," he said. "It's unbelievable that members of Congress who know about this [haven't acted]."
He blamed the traditional media in the U.S., who have offered Obama a great deal of support, for the situation.
"I believe if the New York Times [and others] made this the front page above the fold, Obama would be out of office."
A 'permanent political class'
Brown, of the Western Journalism Center, who also is integral to the ImpeachObamaCampaign, told WND the simple arrogance of presenting a questionable document stretches credulity.
"The notion that their hubris would be so great as to release a fraudulent document to prove the legitimacy of a president is beyond anything we've seen in American history," he said. "It's beyond Watergate. Beyond the arrogance of power shown by Bill Clinton.
"It is an absolute scandal but what I find even more scandalous, the absolute complete lack of courage by the Republican Congress to tackle any of these issues. The American people want an investigation of his eligibility."
He said his organization alone already has delivered petitions from 2.5 million people to Congress demanding impeachment proceedings.
But he said members of Congress "totally and completely are ignoring the calls to action."
That response, he said, is evidence of a "permanent political class [in Washington] committed to bigger, stronger, more invasive government. It includes the leadership inside the Republican Party."
The solution, he said, is "wholesale change."
'You don't lie, cheat or steal'
Vallely, a retired major general, national security expert and Fox News contributor, now of Stand Up America US, said all that is needed to restore the nation is "honest and upright" members of Congress pursuing the goals of the Constitution.
"When you go back to the basics, the Constitution, the rule of law, what we had at West Point, 'You don't lie, cheat or steal or tolerate anyone who does,'" he said.
"We need to have those kinds of virtues in our government more today than ever," he said. "We have a whole gang of dishonest and corrupt individuals in our government today."
"Where are the honest, upright members of the Senate and Congress. None of them will challenge this president … on the deceitful and treasonous things that they are doing: His bypassing the War Powers act, basically bypassing many other things."
He said Obama "will say what he wants to say to boost his own image and reelection campaign."
It's urgent, he said, that Obama depart the White House even before the 2012 election.
The disputed image released by Obama, which has been called a fake by numerous document, computer and imaging analysts:
IP: Logged
10:53 AM
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
Republicans should stop making themselves look petty and stupid and pathetic and just drop this birth certificate non-issue.
Obama was most likely born in Hawaii..but even if he wasn't, the GOP will not be able to prove it or run him out of office. And even if they could, do we really want to end up with President Biden?
Perhaps the Republicans would be better off addressing this guy's dangerous ineptitude (which is well known and would take way more typing to highlight than I am willing to do) and removing him from office via the election in 2012.
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Perhaps the Republicans would be better off addressing this guy's dangerous ineptitude (which is well known and would take way more typing to highlight than I am willing to do) and removing him from office via the election in 2012.
Don't worry, there are plenty of us working on that.
IP: Logged
11:22 AM
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
How does Obama's document stack up against genuine BC? Volunteer produces Kapiolani form from same time period as president's
A professional typographer with 50 years experience in the business has confirmed that the typeface in an authentic Hawaii Department of Health long-form birth certificate issued in 1961 is consistent, and concludes the documentreleased by the White House as Barack Obama's 1961 birth certificate – with its typeface anomalies – is anything but genuine.
"From the beginning, when I saw that some of the typed letters on the Obama long-form birth certificate did not match for size or style, I found evidence the document was a forgery," retired New York City typographer Paul Irey told WND. "Still, I wanted to see other birth certificates from the same era and from the same office in the state of Hawaii."
The difficulty with that, however, has been that the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu has refused to answer requests from various researchers, including WND staff, who have requested permission to see authentic birth certificates immediately preceding and immediately succeeding Obama's for comparative analysis.
Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore
And as WND has reported, the Hawaii Department of Health has gone so far as to issue regulations making it difficult for people born in Hawaii and their immediate family members to obtain anything but the short-form Certifications of Live Birth, which are computer-generated and contain no original images.
"Obtaining an authentic Obama-era birth certificate from Hawaii was also difficult because most people do not want to publicize their birth certificate on line for all to see," Irey acknowledged.
WND previously has reported on Irey's studies that demonstrated that different sized and shaped images appear on Obama's document for the exact same letter.
Irey concluded the different size and shape typefaces meant the Obama birth certificate had been composed on different typewriters – a finding that led Irey to conclude the Obama birth certificate is a forgery assembled by using more than one birth certificate as templates. He said it appears images of words and letters were taken and copied onto the forged Obama birth certificate.
"Steel-stamped letters typed by a manual typewriter do not expand to larger sizes and morph into different styles and shapes," Irey said. "They are irrefutable proofs of forgery."
For the analysis to be conclusive, however, Irey wanted to see a known-to-be-authentic birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health from the Obama era to see if the typeface on this comparison birth certificate was consistent in size and shape – a result Irey felt would demonstrate that an authentic Hawaii Department of Health document was typed by the same typewriter.
A comparison birth certificate appears
The breakthrough making comparative analysis possible came only after a WND reader born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii within about two weeks of Barack Obama's birth voluntarily submitted to WND her own known-to-be-authentic birth certificate for analysis.
As seen in Exhibit 1, the known-to-be-authentic birth certificate, shown here in redacted form so as to eliminate all personally identifying information, was issued for a baby born in Kapiolani Hospital on Aug. 23, 1961, exactly 19 days after Barack Obama was born at the same hospital, on Aug. 4, 1961.
Exhibit 1. Authentic 1961 comparison Hawaii Birth Certificate, Kapiolani Hospital, Aug. 23, 1961, redacted to conceal private identifying information, front side
Exhibit 2 is the reverse side of the birth certificate seen in Exhibit 1, the authentic comparison birth certificate that is a copy of the original that the Hawaii Department of Health issued on Aug. 8, 1995, in response to the person named in the certificate.
Exhibit 2, Authentic 1961 comparison Hawaii Birth Certificate, Kapiolani Hospital, Aug. 23, 1961, reverse side, showing registrar's date stamp, registrar's name/authentication stamp, and embossed state seal
The 1961 comparison birth certificate shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 was issued in 1995 by the Hawaii Department of Health at approximately half the size of the Obama birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, as evidenced in the PDF file and as Xerox copies handed to the press.
The 1961 comparison birth certificate has the registrar's name stamp and the registrar's authentication/name stamp on the reverse side of the document, while the registrar stamps on the Obama birth certificate appear on the front side of the document.
The state seal is obvious in the 1961 comparison birth certificate, while the state seal is virtually invisible to the naked eye in the Obama long-form birth certificate PDF and Xerox copies released by the White House on April 27.
Note also, that the 1961 comparison birth certificate shows no smiley face in the "A" of "Alvin" in the registrar's authentication/name stamp, nor is the "THE" in "THE RECORD" misspelled as "TXE RECORD," as WND has documented regarding the Obama birth certificate.
Irey's methodology
As seen in Exhibit 3, Irey has arranged the letters and characters from the two birth certificates into three groups to facilitate comparison.
Exhibit 3, Letters and characters for comparison, 1961 comparison birth certificate versus Obama birth certificate
Irey worked from a non-redacted copy of the 1961 comparison birth certificate on which all information originally typed on the certificate was available for analysis.
Still, he was careful not to reveal the identity of the person to whom the birth certificate had been issued in 1961.
"When I finally did get an authentic 1961 birth certificate to compare with the Obama birth certificate, I had to promise to mix up the letters and do my comparisons only after that, to prevent anyone from using the letters in my analysis to reconstruct information that had been redacted to protect privacy," he explained.
Irey explained how the three letter/character sections seen in Exhibit 3 were constructed:
1.The top section includes all the letters seen in the Obama birth certificate, assembled together for simplicity of viewing, such that line-over-line reflects exactly how the letters/characters appear on the Obama birth certificate.
2.The second section involves the same letters as the first section, all drawn from the Obama birth certificate, but now arranged alphabetically. First the capital letters appear, then the numbers, followed finally by the lower case letters. The last line lists letters/characters that only are shown on the Obama birth certificate once. Their value for being included here is to permit a comparison with characters/letters shown in the third section.
3.The third section is all of the type taken from the 1961 comparison birth certificate that is a compilation of the letters/characters arranged as in the second group.
Irey explained that the letters/characters in the third section are slightly bolder due to the half-size reduction of the 1961 comparison birth certificate compared to the Obama birth certificate Xerox copies from which Irey extracted the letters.
He further noted that the Obama White House to date has refused to give permission to the Hawaii Department of Health to release for independent professional forensic examination or to the public at large the original paper copies still held secretly in the agency's vault.
Thus, it is not possible at this time to determine the size of the original 1961 paper birth documents or to extract letters/characters from the original document itself.
Another necessary consequence of the Hawaii DOH refusing to allow independent forensic access to original birth certificate documents immediately preceding and following the Obama birth certificate is that letters/character comparisons are necessarily done on scans of document copies, both in the case of the 1961 comparison birth certificate and the Obama birth certificate itself.
"Working from a scanned copy does not invalidate the analysis," Irey insisted. "Anything that is done to a document in reproducing it will be done to the entire document equally at the time the document is copied or scanned."
He further pointed out that in no case can the process of duplication – even if it involves copying an original document and then scanning that document – take one letter or character on a page and selectively enlarge it, or take the next letter or character on the page and make it smaller.
Letter matching
In Exhibit 4, Irey arranged in the left column 12 sets of letters/characters his previous analyses published by WND have shown to vary in shape and size, indicating the letters came from different typewriters.
"Steel-stamped letters typed by manual typewriters do not expand to larger sizes and morph into different styles of type," he said.
"The left column shows 12 examples of typed letters found on the Obama birth certificate that do not match either for size or style," he explained.
All the letters in the right column were judged to be consistent in size and style, strongly suggesting the 1961 comparison birth certificate had been typed on one typewriter.
"I feel Exhibit 4 provides convincing proof the Obama birth certificate was mistakenly composed by typed letters borrowed from other birth certificates," he said. "I believe the forger did not notice that some of the typed letters came from different typewriters and sometimes did not match the others."
WND asked Irey why a forger would not simply scan one letter – for example, one "t" – and use that "t" over and over again, rather than go looking for a different "t" every time the forger needed a "t."
"The forger probably scanned a lot of documents and just used letters conveniently, rather than worrying that the same 't' should be used each time," he answered.
"The forger may not have realized that each typewriter has its own particular variances that make typeface from that typewriter recognizable. Someone expert only in using computer software like Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator might not realize that all typewritten type is not the same."
'There's no doubt the Obama's birth certificate is a forgery'
After analyzing the typeface on the two documents Irey felt the results of the study were conclusive: "Obama's birth certificate was typed on more than one typewriter – just what we would expect if the document was forged. The authentic 1961 birth certificate was typed on only one typewriter – just what we would expect if the document was legitimate."
To make it clear, he said, "This comparison study done with another birth certificate that authentically came from a person born at Kapiolani Hospital shortly after Obama alleges he was born there has proven to me that we have one birth certificate with many mismatching typed letters – Obama's birth certificate – and then we have another from the same hospital without any mismatched letters."
He continued: "Common sense tells us that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, precisely because the letters typed on the document don't match."
Irey was willing to stake his professional reputation on this result.
"My 50 years in typography, my 25 years composing pages with Macintosh computers, and owning and using nearly every type of reproduction equipment leave me no doubt: the Obama birth certificate is a forgery."
Irey said not only is the Obama birth certificate a forgery, but it is "a poorly done forgery that only an inexperienced [person] would ever dare claim was authentic."
See images in link.
IP: Logged
11:34 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Republicans should stop making themselves look petty and stupid and pathetic and just drop this birth certificate non-issue.
Obama was most likely born in Hawaii..but even if he wasn't, the GOP will not be able to prove it or run him out of office. And even if they could, do we really want to end up with President Biden?
Perhaps the Republicans would be better off addressing this guy's dangerous ineptitude (which is well known and would take way more typing to highlight than I am willing to do) and removing him from office via the election in 2012.
This may be the expediant thing to do but when we have the President of the United States releasing a forged birth certificate can we afford to look the other way. I mean seriously, this is a felony in the Oval Office.
IP: Logged
03:07 PM
PFF
System Bot
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I'm sure that we would be better off with the other party. They're not the ones who squandered a half trillion surplus and went the other way. Plus all the jobs they created. Oh wait. They ARE the ones and they lost a crap load of jobs. No I don't think the dems are going to rescue us. I just don't think they are QUITE as bad.
IP: Logged
03:34 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
You guys should TOTALLY stay focused on this. Like bulldogs. Like snapping turtles. NEVER let go! If you really believe, go ahead and follow through. If not, then STFU.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 09-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:02 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I'm sure that we would be better off with the other party. They're not the ones who squandered a half trillion surplus and went the other way. Plus all the jobs they created. Oh wait. They ARE the ones and they lost a crap load of jobs. No I don't think the dems are going to rescue us. I just don't think they are QUITE as bad.
The half trillion surplus that the GOP gave us when Gingrich was running the House? That surplus? And the job that were lost as a result of the housing market crash that was the fault of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Frank Reins, and the authors of the CRA? Those lost jobs? And teh 5 Trillion dollars worth of new debt that Obama and the Dems gave us in 2 years?
Uh...come again?
IP: Logged
05:08 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Republicans should stop making themselves look petty and stupid and pathetic and just drop this birth certificate non-issue.
Obama was most likely born in Hawaii..but even if he wasn't, the GOP will not be able to prove it or run him out of office. And even if they could, do we really want to end up with President Biden?
Perhaps the Republicans would be better off addressing this guy's dangerous ineptitude (which is well known and would take way more typing to highlight than I am willing to do) and removing him from office via the election in 2012.
Why should we? Issues in this issue including lying and coverups abound. Until the issue is dead, why cover or evade it?
We know he is inept, but we should also continue to investigate valid issues, including the 'birther' issue
IP: Logged
06:50 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
The half trillion surplus that the GOP gave us when Gingrich was running the House? That surplus? And the job that were lost as a result of the housing market crash that was the fault of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Frank Reins, and the authors of the CRA? Those lost jobs? And teh 5 Trillion dollars worth of new debt that Obama and the Dems gave us in 2 years?
Uh...come again?
Sorry, I see it now. Anything good comes from the republican side of the government, and everything bad comes from the democrats. How could I have been so blind?
IP: Logged
08:06 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Sorry, I see it now. Anything good comes from the republican side of the government, and everything bad comes from the democrats. How could I have been so blind?
No, just state the facts. The housing crash was the Democrats doing. They wanted to force banks, by law, to issue bad loans. What a shock...those people defaulted on those loans. Then Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were supposed to insure those loans but Frank Reins, who pocketed $90M in salary as a Clinton Appointee to oversee Fannie Mae, broke his own charter rules by keeping less money in reserve thatn the banks are required to keep in reserve and it was THEIR JOB to protect these loans! As far as I am concerned, Reins, Frank and Dodd beloing in jail!
Look, if you want to point to a Republican failing, like our unpreparedness in Iraq or Bush's failure to reform Freddie and Fannei in 2003 when he knew it was a problem then I will be happy to discuss it. But don't lay the blame at Bush's feet for things that were not his fault and expect to just walk away without being challenged.
Obama Care IS Obama's doing, The 5 Trillion in new spending IS Obama's doing, the 9.1% unemployment rate IS a result of Obama's policies. Sorry that sticks in your craw.
IP: Logged
08:21 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Unlike you I actually did my homework. I read the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 (HR 6655), the Woodstock Institute report, the Reform Act of 2005, Russell Robert's Economic White Paper on the CRA, and even idiots like Paul Krugman who made a big deal about 55% of coimmercial loans being in default in 2009...without bothering to apply brain before typing in understanding that when residential housing collapsed people stopped spending. When they stopped spending, businesses went out of business and when that happened, all those offices they USED to lease were empty, hence bringing no income to the commercial office and retail business owners...can you say DUH...and this pinhead won a Nobel Prize? In what, basket weaving?
YES, I beleive it because Economics and Finance is my hobby AND my business. I was at Santa Clara University working on my Masters degree before my own personal life forced me to quit early. I will be going back to finish however.
It was dead for a while but when the President posted a Photoshoped birth certificate on the White House web site, which is still posted by the way, then it opened a can of worms again.
Unlike you I actually did my homework. I read the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 (HR 6655), the Woodstock Institute report, the Reform Act of 2005, Russell Robert's Economic White Paper on the CRA, and even idiots like Paul Krugman who made a big deal about 55% of coimmercial loans being in default in 2009...without bothering to apply brain before typing in understanding that when residential housing collapsed people stopped spending. When they stopped spending, businesses went out of business and when that happened, all those offices they USED to lease were empty, hence bringing no income to the commercial office and retail business owners...can you say DUH...and this pinhead won a Nobel Prize? In what, basket weaving?
YES, I beleive it because Economics and Finance is my hobby AND my business. I was at Santa Clara University working on my Masters degree before my own personal life forced me to quit early. I will be going back to finish however.
Any questions?
Yup, so what effect do you feel derivatives and predatory, unethical and sometimes illegal lending practices had on the crash? Or were they Democratic inventions too?
I fail to see how anyone can blame a single party or person for it but you claim to be the expert so let 'er rip.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:45 PM
Sep 14th, 2011
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
It was dead for a while but when the President posted a Photoshoped birth certificate on the White House web site, which is still posted by the way, then it opened a can of worms again.
Now I remember you. I bought a N* set up from you a few years ago. Nice stuff! It's probably a good thing we didn't discuss politics though. I remember that I thought you were a pretty cool guy.
IP: Logged
12:05 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Now I remember you. I bought a N* set up from you a few years ago. Nice stuff! It's probably a good thing we didn't discuss politics though. I remember that I thought you were a pretty cool guy.
Thanks, I like to think so too. How is that kit working out for you? Did you ever get it installed?
Anyway, I am not one of those people who ever seriously questioned the President's birth. I looked on birthers pretty much the same way as I look at Truthers. But when the President posted a photoshoped certificate on the White House web site, I think the question of his legitimacy has legs now. If he has a reasonable explanation I am all ears but so far, nada. EVERY American should be concerned about this. We do not want out elected officials doctoring the records.
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
You guys should TOTALLY stay focused on this. Like bulldogs. Like snapping turtles. NEVER let go! If you really believe, go ahead and follow through. If not, then STFU.
Why not. They plan to do just that.
IP: Logged
11:58 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Yup, so what effect do you feel derivatives and predatory, unethical and sometimes illegal lending practices had on the crash? Or were they Democratic inventions too?
I fail to see how anyone can blame a single party or person for it but you claim to be the expert so let 'er rip.
There is NO doubt the the banks took advantage of a good thing. The government said "Hey, go give out loans to people who can't pay them back and we'll back you up if they default", This of course was like giving red meat to a hungry lion. The "IDEA" behind the CRA , like most ill conceived liberal ideas, was to stop redlining. The problem is that....redlining wasn't a problem. Banks want to lend money, they do not care what color your skin is (for the most part, there are always individuals who are racisist but the problem was CERTAINLY NOT systemic). Anyway, loans started flying out the door with Uncle Sam's OK. But Clinton noticed that people were not integrating. Clearly something was wrong. All these loans were being issued for decades and Blacks were still living in some areas and whites in others. Go figure (we live where we feel at home and grow up) So Clinton and the outgoing Democratic Congress enhanced the CRA with the now infamous NINJA (No Income, No Job, No Asset) loans. Did I say red meat before? How about entire water buffalos! When you dangle that in front of a bunch of lenders and promise to back the loans with government money the lenders are going to go for it. Let's face it, if it is legal and you do not do it, some other lender will. Now NONE of these lenders would have done ANY OF THIS if not for the promise of government banking. The problem is that the government wasn't keeping their house in order. Not only did Freddie and Fannie not have the money to back these loans, the managers of these organizations made themselves massive golden parachutes to protect themselves when the inevitable crash came. THEY KNEW...and did nothing but line their own pockets.
So what does this mean, if the banks had to compete in the natural market place, they would have given out loans more carefully because they knew that if they blew it, they were on their own. The government getting involved did not help to "integrate" society one damn bit because getting a loan and have an education and a chance to make something of yourself are two different things. Once again, liberals decided to lead from the rear and it failed. big surprise. But worse still, this effort to "help poor people" actually CREATED MORE poor people because when you pay 55% of your net income to a bank for the benefit of being able to live in a house you are in essense a slave. Welcome back to 1860 folks. The CRA was just another failed bandaid like LBJ's housing projects and Higher Education Act, etc. YOU CAN NOT help the poor by "giving" them stuff. You help them by creating opportunities for them. If they have the chance to get a good education and a good job then they won't NEED a loan they can not afford. The entire CRA was just another exmaple of shallow thinking. People do not WANT handouts. They will take them if you offer it, but they resent you for it. They just want a fair shake. That is what we owe all Americans. Nothing more, nothing less. And the way to provide that is to remove barriers to allowing them to compete. The market will determine success or failure. The government is there for one reason, protect my freedom. Stay out of my business!
IP: Logged
12:17 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Just posting this link for you all to read and digest on your own. Let's keep the topic about Obama's eligibility... because it's the most important issue facing the country.
Thanks, I like to think so too. How is that kit working out for you? Did you ever get it installed?
Anyway, I am not one of those people who ever seriously questioned the President's birth. I looked on birthers pretty much the same way as I look at Truthers. But when the President posted a photoshoped certificate on the White House web site, I think the question of his legitimacy has legs now. If he has a reasonable explanation I am all ears but so far, nada. EVERY American should be concerned about this. We do not want out elected officials doctoring the records.
Right after I got your kit I found an 86 in north Carolina with a N* installed by a cadillac mechanic and bought that one. I also just recently bought fieroaddictions turbo N* for a steal price. It is just waiting for a dyno tune. Even with a rough overnrich tune it's pretty strong.
IP: Logged
06:47 PM
PFF
System Bot
Sep 17th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona has constituted a special law enforcement posse to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the birth certificate Barack Obama released to the public April 27 might be a forgery, WND has learned.
The posse, under the authority of Arpaio's office, will consist of two former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys, headed by Michael Zullo, a retired police detective originally from Bergen County, N.J.
Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore
WND confirmed with Zullo and with Arpaio's office that the investigation into the Obama birth certificate has been sanctioned fully by Arpaio's office. The investigation, they said, will be conducted with "utmost diligence," and the investigators will be authorized to utilize subpoena power.
Arpaio spokesman Lt. Justin Griffin told WND that Arpaio's posse will consist entirely of volunteers and will avoid incurring any cost to the taxpayers of Maricopa County.
"I am very grateful that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a sincere man of his word and a fearless, patriotic American," Brian Reilly, a spokesman for the Surprise Tea Party, told WND.
The document in question, which has been described as a fraud by numerous analysts and experts in imaging, documents and computers:
Reilly had less kind words for his representatives in Washington, D.C.
"Congress should be ashamed," he said. "They didn't even have the backbone to uphold their constitutional oaths of office to initiate this investigation."
Arpaio's move is unprecedented in that WND research can find no other instance in United States history in which a county sheriff's office has undertaken an investigation of a document pertaining to a sitting United States president.
Arpaio's decision follows a meeting held in his office Aug. 17 with a group of Surprise Tea Party representatives, including Reilly. Four days later, the group presented a formal letter to Arpaio expressing concern that should Obama use a forged birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona, the voting rights of the residents of Maricopa County could be irreparably compromised.
WND reported Aug. 21 that the letter formally stated the following charge: "The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries."
From left to right, WND's Jerome Corsi, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Surprise, Ariz., tea-party leaders Julie Wise, Jim Wise and Jeff Lichter
The letter noted that to date, despite continuing legal challenges, the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to make public or to release to independent forensic examination by qualified examiners the original Obama birth records held in secret in the Hawaii Department of Health files.
"Having exhausted all available governmental and law enforcement resources at our disposal, we are turning to you as the highest law enforcement officer in Maricopa County where we reside," the Surprise Tea Party explained in the letter.
"We are asking for your assistance because you have a demonstrated history of enforcing Arizona laws in Maricopa County, even when enforcing those laws is unpopular in Arizona or out-of-favor with the wishes of a federal government that may choose to ignore the law to the detriment of the residents of Maricopa County."
The letter expressed confidence that Arpaio will take his law enforcement responsibilities seriously and "will not ignore the request or delegate the request to some other government or law enforcement agency in the state or the federal government that will choose to not respond to our requests for political reasons."
"But, quite frankly, Sheriff Arpaio, you are our last resort to see Arizona statutes enforced to preserve the integrity of Arizona election law," the letter continued.
Read the letter in its entirely here.
Reilly told WND that he and the Surprise Tea Party believed the posse constituted by Arpaio was an appropriate response to their written request.
"We picked the right man, in the right county, in the right state, at the right time to determine the truth about who Barack Obama is and whether he has presented a fraudulent or authentic birth certificate to the American public," Reilly said. "With God's help, Sheriff Arpaio will find the truth."
In addition to the letter, the Surprise Tea Party delivered to Arpaio a petition with 242 signatures that were obtained at the Aug. 17 meeting.
The group also gave to Arpaio a binder containing the published reports of 20 experts with established credentials who conducted a forensic examination of the computer PDF file published on the White House website and the photocopies of the Obama birth certificate handed out by the White House to the press during the April 27 press conference.
The Arizona State Legislature on April 15 passed a bill that would have required candidates for the presidency to prove to the Arizona secretary of state their eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Arizona Republican Gov. Janet Brewer, however, vetoed the bill.
IP: Logged
10:29 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Right after I got your kit I found an 86 in north Carolina with a N* installed by a cadillac mechanic and bought that one. I also just recently bought fieroaddictions turbo N* for a steal price. It is just waiting for a dyno tune. Even with a rough overnrich tune it's pretty strong.
Wow, going into the N* swap business? I gotta admit, If I had the coin I wouwld have bought Addictions in a minute. Sweet ride.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
Obama's forged birth certificate is STILL posted on the White House web site. And this brings up another question, how can Obama have a legitimate SSN if he doesn't have a valid Birth Certificate?
IP: Logged
11:27 AM
Sep 19th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Barack Obama has unloaded a blast of criticism at a sheriff who authorized a team of volunteer officers to investigate whether the birth documentation released by the White House as proof of Obama's eligibility to hold the office is valid or forged.
But the law enforcement officer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, simply turned Obama's words into a promotion for his own record of law enforcement for his campaign for the office of sheriff.
"I took an oath to defend the Constitution of both the United States and the state of Arizona," says a new promotion for Arpaio's campaign. "So, no 'investigation,' no president, no protesters, and no death threats will keep me from doing the job I was elected to do."
Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore
The attack from Obama came during a round-table discussion where Latino beat reporters asked him a variety of questions.
Gabriel Lerner, of AOL Latino and HuffPost Latino Voice, reading a question from a listener, asked, "What happened to the investigation of the many violations and challenges to the federal government by Sheriff Joe Arpaio."
See the exchange: Obama Singles Out Sheriff Joe During Immigration Discussion: MyFoxPHOENIX.com Obama responded that his Justice Department challenged Arizona's immigration law "backed by Arpaio," because "we thought that there was a danger that naturalized citizens – individuals with Latino surnames – potentially could be vulnerable to questioning."
He warned that, "The laws could be potentially abused in ways that were not fair to Latino citizens."
Arpaio then said, "He’s a lawyer; he is pretty sharp to avoid direct questions. … He made some comments talking about people being stopped because of their name. He didn't like the 1070 law, he connects me with 1070. And my answer is: I am just doing my job, and I arrest everyone that violates the law, and I am not going to stop.
"I'm an equal-opportunity guy," Arpaio said. "I enforce all the laws."
The 1070 argument was over a state law approved by the legislature and signed by the governor that would have opened new doors for law enforcement to investigate and deter illegal immigration into Arizona. Obama's Justice Department sued to overturn the law and the dispute remains pending.
Obama's Justice Department also targeted Arpaio for investigation on allegations of civil rights violations for allegedly discriminating against Hispanics, even though the sheriff's office confirmed it had given the federal agency thousands of pages of documentation on the topic, as well as access to its institutions.
Arpaio said he resented the president's suggestions that his office engaged in racial profiling, and promptly turned Obama's statement into a campaign ad.
"The president's new immigration policy and his comments about me, relating to the three-year-old DOJ investigation of alleged racial profiling, will not deter my stance on enforcing ALL state and federal immigration laws including crime suppression, human smuggling, identity theft investigations and raids in the work place," he said.
His emailed ad included the video of Obama comments.
According to USA Today, Arpaio followed the response from Obama with word that his deputies had conducted the 51st employer sanction/illegal immigration operation at a motel in Phoenix.
The report said 10 of the 18 workers at the hotel were found to be using false information to gain employment.
In his campaign ad, Arpaio explains, "Besides mentioning his Justice Department's politically motivated investigation against me, Obama talks about how he is challenging Arizona's law in court because it could be 'potentially abused in ways that were not fair to Latino citizens in Arizona.'
"By saying, '...the law that the sheriff supports...,' he cleverly insinuates that I am targeting Hispanics in Arizona just because of their last name. This is an outright deceptive and sleazy scare-tactic on behalf of Obama.
"I will continue to enforce the Arizona law, best known as SB1070, including other state and federal laws against illegal immigration. The president of the United States should thank me for that, not make reckless accusations."
On his website, he continued, "Because I have led the fight in Arizona against illegal immigration, I have become the target of attack by special interest groups and left-wing politicians who would rather turn a blind eye towards the crisis of illegal immigration.
"All I am doing is enforcing the laws of this state and our country.
"What these extremists really want is a sheriff who will look the other way, be silent and allow the charade to continue, while ignoring the laws of our land. That, I promise, will never happen," he said.
It was only weeks ago that Arpaio stunned most of the mainstream press reporters who have been ignoring the dispute over Obama's eligibility since before his election by announcing a "Cold Case Posse" with the authority to probe the authenticity of Obama's purported birth certificate.
The investigation was begun after citizens of Maricopa County told the sheriff they felt their "voting rights would be compromised" if a candidate was on the ballot who was not legally qualified to be there.
Sheriff Arpaio recently appeared on an Arizona television station to stand by his actions probing Obama's alleged birth certificate, which can be seen here:
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-06-2011).]
There is NO doubt the the banks took advantage of a good thing. The government said "Hey, go give out loans to people who can't pay them back and we'll back you up if they default", This of course was like giving red meat to a hungry lion. The "IDEA" behind the CRA , like most ill conceived liberal ideas, was to stop redlining. The problem is that....redlining wasn't a problem. Banks want to lend money, they do not care what color your skin is (for the most part, there are always individuals who are racisist but the problem was CERTAINLY NOT systemic). Anyway, loans started flying out the door with Uncle Sam's OK. But Clinton noticed that people were not integrating. Clearly something was wrong. All these loans were being issued for decades and Blacks were still living in some areas and whites in others. Go figure (we live where we feel at home and grow up) So Clinton and the outgoing Democratic Congress enhanced the CRA with the now infamous NINJA (No Income, No Job, No Asset) loans. Did I say red meat before? How about entire water buffalos! When you dangle that in front of a bunch of lenders and promise to back the loans with government money the lenders are going to go for it. Let's face it, if it is legal and you do not do it, some other lender will. Now NONE of these lenders would have done ANY OF THIS if not for the promise of government banking. The problem is that the government wasn't keeping their house in order. Not only did Freddie and Fannie not have the money to back these loans, the managers of these organizations made themselves massive golden parachutes to protect themselves when the inevitable crash came. THEY KNEW...and did nothing but line their own pockets.
So what does this mean, if the banks had to compete in the natural market place, they would have given out loans more carefully because they knew that if they blew it, they were on their own. The government getting involved did not help to "integrate" society one damn bit because getting a loan and have an education and a chance to make something of yourself are two different things. Once again, liberals decided to lead from the rear and it failed. big surprise. But worse still, this effort to "help poor people" actually CREATED MORE poor people because when you pay 55% of your net income to a bank for the benefit of being able to live in a house you are in essense a slave. Welcome back to 1860 folks. The CRA was just another failed bandaid like LBJ's housing projects and Higher Education Act, etc. YOU CAN NOT help the poor by "giving" them stuff. You help them by creating opportunities for them. If they have the chance to get a good education and a good job then they won't NEED a loan they can not afford. The entire CRA was just another exmaple of shallow thinking. People do not WANT handouts. They will take them if you offer it, but they resent you for it. They just want a fair shake. That is what we owe all Americans. Nothing more, nothing less. And the way to provide that is to remove barriers to allowing them to compete. The market will determine success or failure. The government is there for one reason, protect my freedom. Stay out of my business!
GOT PROOF OR JUST MORE BS about CRA aka lying for the nut-con cause
here is what wiki's said
''The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.[108] At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."[109]
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[100] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[110] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[111]
However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman[112] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[113] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[108] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[114] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[109] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[115] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[116] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[117] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[118] Daniel Gross of Slate,[119] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[120]
Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][121] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[122] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[123] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[124] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[''
IP: Logged
03:56 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
edited ? no I just posted government officials and nobel laureate's said about CRA the numbers simply do not show CRA had a major effect the whole article is too long and not on topic so I posted one part in a chunk
the lier loans were not a CRA program or mandate and were in fact used first and most by non- bank non-S&Ls the talking heads who blame CRA are not bankers or officials and HAVE NO DATA TO BACK THEIR BS ZERO ZIP NONE
