How On Earth Was Kavanaugh Accuser’s Crediblity Not Destroyed When She Obviously Lied About Her Fear Of Flying She Tied To Her Assault?

How many blatant, obvious lies can an accuser who has ZERO corroborating evidence and who was literally refuted by all of her own witnesses tell and still be believed?

The answer should be one lie is way too many to believe such an accuser, especially when someone’s entire life and entire career is hanging on that accuser’s credibility alone.

I found it easiest to just take a screenshot of the takedown that ought to be completely damning of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford:

One tweet simply referred tot he transcript of the interview between the prosecutor Mitchell and Blasey Ford:

Mitchell: How did you get to Washington, D.C., today?
Ford: On an airplane.
Mitchell: When were here in August, how did you get here?
Ford: On an airplane.
Mitchell: You’ve been to Hawaii and Tahiti?
Ford: Yes.
Mitchell: How’d you get there?
Ford: On an airplane.

It is a testimony to how truly bad our news media is that this isn’t front-page and leading news in newspapers and news programs across the nation, but here is the gist:

During her public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford admitted that she has flown often for business and pleasure in recent years despite citing her fear of flight in requesting that the hearing regarding her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh be delayed.

In explaining why their client could not grant Committee chairman Chuck Grassley’s request that she travel to Washington, D.C. to testify on September 17, Ford’s lawyers cited her unwillingness to fly, which they claimed stemmed from her fear of enclosed spaces. Ford’s attorney’s further alleged her claustrophobia was brought on by the alleged assault.

Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor retained by the Committee to ask questions of Ford and Kavanaugh, established during the hearing that Ford traveled by plane to Washington, D.C. to testify regarding her claim that Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to remove her clothes when they were in high school.
“May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?,” Mitchell asked.

“By airplane,” Ford responded.

“I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the Committee because of your fear of flying, is that true?” Mitchell asked.

“Well I was hoping that they would come to me but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford responded.

Mitchell went on to establish that Ford flies frequently as part of her work for an Australian consulting firm, to visit family on the East coast, and to pursue her interests in Hawaiian culture, oceanography, and surfing.

“In fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you’ve had to fly for your work, is that true?” Mitchell asked.

“Correct, unfortunately,” Ford answered.

So citing this “fear of flying” which her attorneys represented as being directly due to her alleged sexual assault by high-school kid Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford claims she can’t possibly fly to Washington to testify for any hearing because flying reminds her of the tight, enclosed space reminiscent to her sexual assault.  And, of course, as much turmoil as it is going to cause an entire nation and as much personal pain as a week-plus delay going to cause Brett Kavenaugh, Blasey Ford cannot possibly fly.  It’s just too traumatic.

Unless she’s going on vacation, of course.  Then she can fly for hours no problem.

I mean, Christine Blasey Ford is saying I don’t give a flying damn about the rest of the United States, I’m not flying, I’m just to afraid of flying because I’m the victim of a sexual assault.  But, you know, if it’s my vacation, or if there is pretty much ANY other reason to fly, I’m fine with it.

“Easier for me to travel going that direction, when it’s for a vacation.”

But of course impossible when the entire United States of America is breathlessly waiting for you to show up and spew your spewage if the rabidly and vindictively partisan Democratic Party wants you to use every cheap and dishonest trick in the book to stall.

You liar.  You lying liar.

Democrats got ten days of stall and delay out of that dishonest bit of credibility destruction.  And because Blasey Ford calls herself the most pathetic of all victims who ever endured victimhood, the fact that she’s a personally dishonest liar who lied out of sheer political partisan expediency isn’t being reported.

Rather, the focus of most mainline media reports – otherwise known as “propaganda” – is that “fear of flying doesn’t mean that Ford can’t fly.”  And very intentionally skipping the part that goes, “Really?  Then why couldn’t she fly to Washington and testified ten days earlier???”

If she can fly for all of these other reasons,, surely the woman was capable of sucking it up to prevent the nation from twisting in the wind in this debacle for over a week, right?

Judge Kavanaugh in his highly emotional hearing testified that this fraud perpetuated by his bogus accuser literally tortured him, his wife, his daughters and his mother as all kinds of the most disgusting hell imaginable was unleashed on him and on his family during these days while Ford was lying about why she couldn’t be there.

And again, her lie is tied directly to her testimony about her alleged sexual assault.

And then, on top of that, Blasey Ford either tells another galling lie, or else reveals that her team of Dianne Feinstein selected lawyers were so rabidly partisan, so viciously disinterested in Christine Blasey Ford as a person, that they never bothered to inform her that Sen. Grassley and the Judiciary Committee were offering to meet with her in California at her home or in any other setting she wanted.

On Sept. 21, the Judiciary Committee published the text of a proposal sent to Ford’s lawyers offering to fly committee members to California to speak with Ford:

“The Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”

In the hearing, when Ford was asked if anyone, including her lawyers, had relayed to her the committee’s offer to visit her in California, Ford refused to answer when her lawyer objected:

Question: “Okay. Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

Counsel: “I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversation between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

Question: “Could you validate that the offer was made, without her saying a word? Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

Ford: “Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly? I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it was not clear to me that that was the case.”

If Blasey Ford is telling the truth here and not lying – just as she also lied and destroyed her personal credibility when she lied about her fear of flying as an excuse to do PRECISELY what the most partisan Democrats have been demanding from the moment Kavanaugh was nominated and delay, delay, delay some more – then her attorneys chosen by Sen Diane Feinstein are THE nastiest species of cockroaches ever identified under any disgusting fecal matter on planet earth.

This just goes to the narrative that, whatever the hell this woman’s issues are, the Democratic Party has been professing to care so deeply about her, only to cynically leak her letter at the most cynical possible Democrat-favorable moment when she supposedly begged for privacy and confidentiality, and then refused to inform her that she could spare herself not to mention her country a world of pain by having her testimony conducted in her private residence.

What you see clearly revealed here – if Christine Blasey Ford isn’t simply telling another credibility shattering lie – is the genuinely evil and depraved soul of the Democratic Party machine.

Which all further goes to utterly discredit her sexual assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh as nothing more than the very ugliest and very most cynical stunt by the most hateful people who ever lived, I’m not so sorry to say.

This is all so damn wrong in so many damn ways.

Christine Blasey Ford sent her letter to Dianne Feinstein on July 30.

President Trump had nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on July 9.

“Until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy,” Ford testified.

“Outside of therapy” is an interesting way for Blasey Ford to put it, given that she has refused to allow her therapist notes to be released which means we have zero idea why this documented very partisan liberal Democrat who attended anti-Trump rallies first actually “remembered” her attacker was Kavanaugh.

The Weekly Standard has this:

The 2012 notes, even in redacted form, are relevant because they are the first time Ford says she described the alleged assault in any detail. According to the Washington Post, the notes say that there were four male attackers–a discrepancy Ford attributes to the therapist–and did not mention Kavanaugh by name. Ford’s husband told the Post that she mentioned Kavanaugh at the time in 2012 and expressed concern Kavanaugh might be nominated to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh had been profiled in the New Yorker that year, when Ford was piecing together memories of the alleged assault, as the most likely next Supreme Court justice if a Republican won the 2012 presidential election.

So the reason the notes haven’t been revealed is because, apparently, Blasey Ford did NOT reveal Kavanaugh by name.  The ONLY person we have saying she had EVER said Brett Kavanaugh had attacked her is her husband, who I am frankly not inclined to trust as a non-biased source for very obvious reasons.

But, let’s go with the husband’s story just for the sake of argument: why the hell didn’t Blasey Ford write this letter the day Trump was elected????  Think about it: if Christine Blasey Ford actually did NOT want Brett Kavanaugh to actually ever be confirmed, don’t you think the time for her to write her stupid letter would have been BEFORE Trump actually nominated her alleged attacker???  If the Trump team had had any kind of heads-up whatsoever that this accusation was coming, do ya think they might have nominated somebody the hell ELSE????

This is a woman who named four witnesses to her alleged attack, one her closest friend.  All four say they frankly don’t know what the hell Blasey Ford is talking about, that they never attended such a party; one says there is no possible way that Kavanaugh ever did anything like this, and her best friend says she doesn’t even remember ever even MEETING Kavanaugh.

From point three of an article entitled, “Eight Big Problems For Christine Blasey  Ford’s Story”:

3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week.

There very simply comes a point where YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE SOMEBODY.  And Christine Blasey Ford crosses that line and then some.

Now, I can’t not fail to point out just how slanderingly dishonest the mainstream media is when it professes to “fact check” something.  The AP has such a piece that professes to fact check Kavanaugh and says this highly respected jurist “misrepresented the record” when he said Blasey Ford’s three witnesses refuted her allegation.  Which is to say they manage to use rhetorical ju jitsu to switch the story from what it actually is – that Ford states that these people were at the party where she was assaulted and in fact all four unequivocally state that they were not at such a party and did not see any such assault as Ford describes – into a highly technical word-game.  Because, given the fact that Ford refuses to ever actually say WHAT party or WHERE the party was located, it is therefore impossible for any honest witness to say “no attack ever happened.”  I mean, how the hell could they possibly say such a thing unless they knew precisely which party was the party in question which they don’t know because Ford didn’t specify???

Let’s just say for the categorical record that Ford says witnesses saw something that not one of them saw.  And it is amazing how dishonest the AP was in their rhetorical quibble piece.

The last of the so-called “allegations” against Kavanaugh released by Creepy Porn Lawyer of Kavanaugh having a “gang rape ring” and having a minimum of ten gang rape parties is so shockingly and so transparently false that it ought to forever end the bogus narrative that no woman would ever falsely make a charge of sexual assault.  I mean, think about it: the FBI did six separate background checks on this guy and asked all the people in his inner circle, all of his friends and acquaintainces about him, all of his neighbors, over and over, and you’d kind of think the “Well, he DID have that gang rape ring” would have come out.  I mean, this woman claims she herself went to TEN of Kavanaugh’s “gang rape ring” parties.  And you’ve kind of got to ask, “Just how many gang rape ring parties do you think YOU would have gone to – you know, especially after you yourself had been gang raped – before realizing that this wasn’t your scene???  And this wouldn’t just be a testimony to Brett Kavanaugh’s criminality; his whole TOWN, hell his whole STATE of Maryland, would have been revealed in shocking criminality.  This is the kind of thing you send in the United Nations forces to stop because all legitimate law and order has broken down.

In other words, this is so laughably false it’s beyond unreal.

And when we stop and think about all the ways – apparently at least eight of them from that story I cite above – Blasey Ford’s story collapses, so is hers.

We come to what the Democrats demanded over and over again: an FBI investigation.  Because I’m sure the Democrats are hoping this honest, unbiased FBI agent investigates Kavanaugh:

Joe Biden didn’t think much of the last time Democrats tried to smear an honest GOP appointed judge named Clarence Thomas.  After that smear was unveiled, President Bush allowed an FBI investigation.  And were Democrats satisfied with that?  Well, read the transcript of Joe Biden’s angry denunciation of the pure worthlessness of any FBI investigation into such a matter as a Supreme Court-nominated Judge being accused over sex:

“The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this case or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period.”

To be a Democrat is to be a hypocrite.  One cannot BE a Democrat and not be a hypocrite.

What do the Democrats want?  Well, Diane Feinstein sat on the Blasey Ford allegation and even repeatedly talked to Kavanaugh and never once mentioned Blasey Ford in any of her questions.  There was a bipartisan investigative process within the Judiciary Committee that would have kept the matter confidential, but that wasn’t in Feinstein’s naked partisan interest.

Democrats refused to listen to anything Judge Kavanaugh had to say on the grounds that they demand what they claimed was utterly pointless the last time the FBI got involved.

They didn’t want an investigation two months ago when there could have and maybe even should have been one because they KNOW FULL DAMN WELL an FBI investigation won’t turn up anything that would disqualify Judge Kavanaugh.  I mean, again, Joe Biden said it himself.  Again, think about it: Maryland does not have a statute of limitations on sexual assault, so Christine Blasey Ford could walk in – you know, because she claimed she was so dang terrified of flying in, I mean, right? – to the police department and file a complaint.  But do you know what would happen if she did that?  Absolutely NOTHING.  Because Blasey Ford doesn’t provide enough detail of a specific crime to even justify an arrest warrant, let alone a successful prosecution.

They want time.  They want time because they believe they can take enough of the Senate 38 days from now on November 6 to make a Kavanaugh confirmation impossible.  And these cynical, professional liars know that if they have that extra time, more and more liars like Creepy Porn Lawyer’s client will crawl out of the woodwork.

I think the FBI ought to investigate why Christine Blasey Ford said she couldn’t fly to testify in Washington because she was so afraid of flying when she is obviously not very afraid of flying given how many other times in FAR less important situations she has flown.  I think the FBI ought to investigate how the hell that doesn’t destroy this accuser’s credibility and render her story moot.  I think the FBI ought to investigate whether Blasey Ford is lying or if her highly partisan Democrat Party activist legal team was demonically exploiting her by not telling her that the Judiciary Committee would have traveled to her house.  On Blasey Ford’s own characterization, this was a betrayal of her, but it was just what the rabidly partisan Democrats wanted.  I think the FBI ought to be investigating precisely who leaked Blasey Ford’s letter and why the letter was leaked when it was in a manner that, again, just happens to correspond to THE most cynical partisan Democrat goal.

So if you’re going to actually “investigate,” FBI, PLEASE INVESTIGATE.

On the demonically insane belief of the Democratic Party, they need a new FBI investigation because of course the last SIX FBI investigations into Judge Kavanaugh were so incompetent that they missed a gang rape ring that was operating right under their noses and gang raped scores of young girls.  And so the Democrats are putting their bets on the FBI that missed this godawful gang rape ring to finally get an investigation right this time.

Either that, or every single Democrat is insane and evil.

 

Obama Can’t Hide In Hawaii: Even In The Farthest Stretches Of His Realm, The ObamaCare Debacle Haunts King Obama

Personal note to King Obama: Notre Dame business law professor Laura Hollis nailed it: you really aint a king, and I certainly am NOT one of your “subjects.”

I say knowing I say it in vain.  Malignant narcissist that you have been diagnosed to be by the leading psychologist authority on the subject of narcissism, no one will ever be able to tell you ANYTHING that doesn’t suit your incredibly vain ego, President Selfie.

It also, tragically, doesn’t matter how much of a costly, colossal and catastrophic failure your signature legislative accomplishment a.k.a. ObamaCare truly is, in your arrogance and in your self-centered wickedness you will NEVER allow it to be overturned until you’re either out of office or rightly impeached.

But you can go to the farthest reaches of your realm, Hussein, and you STILL can’t run from your “signature legislative debacle,” can you???

Obama fled to Hawaii, where (even according to the liberally-biased New York Slimes:

The executive director of Hawaii’s state health care exchange announced her resignation on Friday amid delays in getting the insurance marketplace off the ground.

The director, Coral Andrews, who has led Hawaii Health Connector for two years as the state worked to build the exchange, will step down on Dec. 6. Tom Matsuda, the Affordable Care Act’s implementation manager in the governor’s office, will take over as interim director. […]

From its outset, Hawaii’s exchange has faced many of the same problems that have plagued the federal health care website and other state exchanges around the country.

The (very slightly less) liberally-biased AP said slightly more:

HONOLULU (AP) — The director of Hawaii’s health insurance marketplace under President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul has resigned after delays in getting the exchange running and low signups in the first month. […]

The exchange had a two-week delay in starting open enrollment, then signed up only 257 people in its first month of allowing people to buy coverage.

The delay led to complaints from consumers, including some turning directly to health insurance companies to buy plans. Those who bought plans directly from insurance companies are unable to qualify for tax credits and other rebates.

Hawaii is the place where numerous healthcare industry leaders have actually been stepping forward and saying “we’re not going to have any health care.”

The pattern of debacle is going on even in many of the bluest states, such as Maryland and Washington.  Liberals point to California as a shining example of ObamaCare’s wonderfulness, but not so damn fast, you reality-denying idiots: not when the figures released by the executive director of the California Exchange (for ObamaCare) indicate that premiums are going to increase, on average, by between 64% to 146%.  Because if THAT’S “going well,” if THAT’S “succeeding,” then we can claim that as the Titanic plunged stern-first into the ocean and sank toward the bottom, it made really good time aaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllll the way down.

In California, more than ONE MILLION Americans have had their insurance policies CANCELLED because of ObamaCare.  THAT’S “going well”????  Seriously????

Similarly, liberals point to New York state and say, “See how well ObamaCare is working?  Praise messiah!  Praise him!  Worship him!  Adore him!”  But consider that:

A headline about the health care law driving down premiums, by this level of magnitude, is a rarity. But it shouldn’t be shocking: New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country.

Do you get this?  Your health premiums may actually go down, provided that you live in the state with the very highest premiums on planet earth.  But that’s a “success.”  Praise Obama!  Worship him!”

In the similar industry of auto insurance, the justification for some of the highest rates in America is that:

“the higher rates are justified by the high costs of doing business in New York.”

How about Oregon?  Surely things must be going well there.  I mean, after all, Obama gave Oregon more money to build a website than he gave to ANY other state with the exceptions of New York and California (notice how all the bucks somehow ended up in the blue states???).  But hold on a moment:

The Orgeon website STILL isn’t working, so if you want your ObamaCare fix, you have to fill out a 19 page form to get it.  It’s a shock that it isn’t working, because the same “pros” that built the federal ObamaCare site were brought in.  Nothing but the best for Hussein and his libturds, you know.  And yet in spite of all those millions of dollars to create a “success story” (you know how Democrats are blaming the red states that didn’t want ObamaCare for all the problems, I’m sure), the situation in Oregon is so fouled up that Oregonians are now getting robocalls advising them that if they think they’ve got health insurance, they probably DON’T.

There aint NOWHERE where ObamaCare doesn’t suck the life out of the universe.  Liberalism is by its nature a parasite that just sucks and sucks until the host is dead.

There is nowhere Obama can hide.  He can be the emperor strutting out in his tighty-whiteys, but he is still a very naked scrawny pencil-necked little weasel wherever he goes.

At this point the only possible way to save America from implosion is if the people rise up as one and, with pitchforks and torches if necessary, storm Castle Obamastein and drag the monster-in-chief out with their bare hands.

Obama Admits Birthers Were Right All Along

Factor this in along with Obama not knowing how many states there are in America and his talking about “my Muslim faith.”

At some point, you know, given that the guy can’t produce a birth certificate and all, someone ought to seriously wonder where this chump was born.

Obama Admits to Being Born in Asia?
By John Hull | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Wed, Nov 16, 2011

During a news conference for the 19th annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leader’s summit on Sunday, the president gave birthers the answer they have been waiting for, that Obama was not born in America.

The media seemingly focused on the “magic beans” statement Obama made during the speech but completely glossed over the part where the president said of his birth state of Hawaii, “Here in Asia.”

If Hawaii is in Asia, then the president was not born in the U.S. You win, birthers.

This is not the first gaffe the president has made regarding his birth state and the U.S. in general. During his campaign, Obama claimed to have visited 57 states, not including Alaska and Hawaii.

Compounding these gaffes with others such as when he stated his approval ratings were dropping but are still “very high in the country of my birth,” one can almost hear the wheels grinding back to life in the birther movement.

 Obviously, this is not the first presidential gaffe of the Obama administration. It’s not even the first gaffe this month.

On Nov. 9, Reuters reported Obama complaining of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G-20 summit earlier this month. The president complained, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” not realizing that his microphone was still turned on, according to the report.

What the president’s record is beginning to reveal, in addition to his anti-Israel sentiment is the likely reason he will not release his school records, he is not educated on U.S. nor world history, geography or ethics.

In 2009, Obama advised that the Constitution was written more than 20 centuries ago during his news conference on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

During the 2008 presidential debates, then-Sen. Obama stated, “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Illinois, Obama’s home state, shares a border with Kentucky. To get to Kentucky from Arkansas one would have to travel through Missouri or Tennessee. 

Add to this his disparaging comment about the Special Olympics on the “Tonight Show” that his health care reform would bring greater inefficiencies to health care and many others, it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is not the amazing orator he is made out to be.

Speech is not the only area where Obama is clumsy. A video from Fox News show “Redeye” shows Obama attempting to enter the White House through a window he thought was a door. Another video, this time from CNN, shows Obama bouncing his face off of Marine 1, the presidential helicopter in 2009.

Didn’t they make fun of the last guy for stuff like this?

If you’re willing to assume that Obama actually is a native-born American, you still have to deal with the fact that he’s an abject moron.

Birth Certificate Ball In Barry Hussein’s Court

The way the following ABC article depicts this, it is a huge Donald Trump screw-up in which he demands Obama’s birth certificate only to fail to be able to produce his own until the media correctly pointed out his error.

I actually think it was a stroke of genius: Donald Trump was confronted by a media which couldn’t wait to buy whatever Obama produced.  They pointed out, “That’s not legitimate!”  And then Donald Trump was able to produce his official certificate of birth.

Now it’s your turn to do the same, Barry H.  Do what Trump did: show us your actual long form birth certificate like the media demanded that Donald Trump do.  And which Donald Trump DID.

It’s no big deal at all – if you’ve actually got one.

Take Two: Donald Trump Releases Official Birth Certificate
March 29, 2011 1:11 PM

ABC News Michael Falcone reports:

Donald Trump learned the hard way this week that if you’re going to call on the president to release his official birth certificate, you’d better do the same.

Trump, who has been putting pressure on Obama lately to make public his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, decided to set a good example and release his own on Monday. Only problem was, the document that Trump provided to the conservative Website Newsmax wasn’t his actual birth certificate, but rather a  “hospital certificate of birth.”

On Tuesday, Trump, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2012, sought to correct the oversight, providing a copy of his official birth certificate issued by the New York City Department of Health to ABC News.

See a larger version HERE.

It shows that “Donald John Trump” was born June 14, 1946 in Jamaica Hospital in Queens.It lists his father as Fred C. Trump and his mother as Mary Mac Leod. The date of the report is listed as June 14, 1946.

The image came with an accompanying memo from a member of Trump’s staff. 

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. “One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

(Click Here to see a photo of Donald Trump’s hospital certificate of birth, obtained by the Newsmax on Monday.)

Trump has been turning up the volume on his calls for Obama, who has been the target of allegations that he was not born in the United States by so-called “birthers,” to release his official birth certificate.

“This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News on Monday. “I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it’s turning out to be a very big deal because people now are calling me from all over saying please don’t give up on this issue.”

The Obama campaign released a “certification of live birth,” which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one, in 2008.

Let’s take that last paragraph first: “The Obama campaign released a ‘certification of live birth,’ which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one…”

Read the following and tell me:

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time.^{[citation needed]} Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration.”

In other words, the short form is NOT an actual birth certificate; it is rather just a piece of paper that says that somebody somewhere says that an actual birth certificate exists.  That is a rather major difference when the existence of said actual birth certificate is in doubt.

Pardon my metaphors, but there is a joke that bears repeating here:

Q: How do you say “f**k you” in Bureaucratese?

A: “Trust me.”

Now add to the fact that the short form is nothing more than a statement that the long form surely exists somewhere this fact:

Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president’s re-election chances
Posted: January 18, 2011
8:05 pm Eastern

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.

“If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama’s birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president,” he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby’s birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama’s birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

Abercrombie is a liberal Democrat.  He has every interest – and he admits he has that interest – in finding that record if it exists.

The problem is that it doesn’t seem to exist.  And Abercrombie officially gave up on his windmill-tilting knight’s errand.

Here’s documented proof from Puerto Rico that birth certificates are relatively easy to falsify.  The difference amounts to the fact that at least these Puerto Ricans like Sonia Aguilera actually HAD birth certificates, bogus as many of them were.  Obama’s got squat.

Liberals have pointed to a birth announcement in a newspaper as proof that Obama had to be born in the United States.  But that is beyond easy to falsify.  Here it is: “Obama’s mother called her grandparents from Kenya to announce that she has just given birth to a son named Barack Hussein Obama.  Her parents, in turn, call the newspaper and place a birth announcement in the Hawaii paper.  Bingo, proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

We don’t have any actual record that Obama’s birth certificate existed in 1961.  But there is reliable evidence that telephones existed back then.

What is funny is that the Nigerian millionaire email scammers have more documentation backing up their scams than Obama does backing up his:

Quite often, the Nigerian Scam email will contain legitimate information concerning a real political dissident’s death or imprisonment. This may be enough verification for a skeptical recipient. The second part of the classic Nigerian Scam begins when a recipient agrees to send confidential financial information to the sender in order to receive the money. From this point on, the Nigerian Scam artist will either use this private information to clean out the victim’s entire bank account or send a fake cashier‘s check as a partial payment.

But that is no longer the only question.  There is the separate but clearly related matter of Obama’s Social Security Number:

Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation
Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

“Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

“It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

And all you need to pass of a massive hoax like this is two liberal states – and these are two of the most liberal states in the nation – and a press that flew thousands of miles to Anchorage to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage but which utterly refused to go next door to look at Obama in Chicago.  And that is precisely what we have.

For the record, Democrats argued that John McCain did not qualify for the presidency of the United States because he had not been born in the United States.  That was set to rest when John McCain produced his birth certificate.  John McCain was born in a US military hospital (US territory) in the Panama Canal Zone area in 1936 to an American father (a US Navy officer) and to an American mother.

I am doing nothing more than Democrats did in demanding Obama’s birth certificate.  The differences are significant: we KNOW that Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen, and we further KNOW that Obama has not produced a birth certificate.

At this point, I do not believe that Obama is qualified to be president either in regard to his complete lack of experience, or in regard to his dangerous un-American socialist agenda, OR IN REGARD TO HIS BIRTH.

Abercrombie put it well:

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

I agree with the liberal Democrat Governor of Hawaii who had every interest and all the necessary power to find Obama’s actual birth certificate if it existed.  Yet we DO have these “political implications.”  Because Obama won’t – or more likely CAN’T – produce his birth certificate.

At this time, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Barack Obama as the lawful president of the United States until he resolve these very legitimate questions.

Produce or resign.

Somebody, somewhere, please get this Post Turtle out of the American people’s White House.

Obama Demagoguery Outraging The Citizen Class

A good article on Townhall underscores the building anger that is going to overtake Obama and the Democrat regime in November.

Sunday, May 23, 2010
by Austin Hill: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Has Enraged the “Citizen Class”

The “citizen class” is horrified.

We’re speaking here of those Americans who, while they may disagree on a variety of social and public policy issues, nonetheless agree on a few, crucial matters.

Those of us among the citizen class generally agree that the United States is a good country. While far from perfect, we see our nation as being a place of tremendous opportunity, and a force for goodness around the world.

We also agree that being a U.S. citizen is a significant and distinct thing. While we respect the notion that all human beings are worthy of their “basic human rights,” we see the rights imparted to citizens of the United States as being something different, something “over and above” the category of “basic human rights.”

This is not to say that we are superior people, because we are U.S. citizens. This is, however, the greatest blessing of being a U.S. citizen. It is why so many of us in the citizen class think of our status as a “naturally born citizen” as being a God-given gift, and we celebrate those who legally earn American citizenship as well.

But along with the distinctiveness of being an American citizen, those of us among the citizen class also regard our nation’s sovereignty as something that must be safeguarded as well. Political philosophies, governmental structures, and economic systems are not morally neutral – some work far better than others. And the structures and institutions and governing philosophies of the United States have produced a far higher level of human flourishing and freedom than any others. For this reason, if for no other, our nation must always be regarded as separate and distinct.

Our nation is good, U.S. citizenship is distinct, and national sovereignty is non-negotiable. In a nutshell, this is the mindset, the worldview, of the citizen class. It has nothing to do with one’s ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation, or gender. It has everything to do with one’s most deeply held beliefs.

Not every U.S. citizen possesses the “citizen class” view (clearly some Americans don’t understand the blessing of their status), yet a majority of us still do. And no matter how much we may disagree on other matters, those of us in the citizen class won’t budge on these three items.

And this why President Obama has enraged the citizen class. He has planted the seeds of doubt regarding our nation’s goodness, and has implied that U.S. citizenship, and national sovereignty, are irrelevant.

While an overwhelming majority of the citizen class supports Arizona’s effort to uphold the significance of citizenship and sovereignty, President Barack Hussein Obama has sided with the United Nations, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, China, and the President of Mexico in opposing the state of Arizona. One would hope that the President of the United States – any President of the United States – would seek to protect all fifty of the states that he governs from international criticism, even if he didn’t happen to like the behavior of one of his states. But our current President stands united with some of the most thuggish regimes in the world, in opposing his fellow Americans of Arizona.

Worse yet, our President not only allowed, but enabled Mexican President Felipe Calderon to publicly humiliate our fellow Americans of Arizona, while standing on the sacred grounds of the White House. And President Obama’s party – the ruling party in Congress – couldn’t rise to their feet quickly enough and offer thunderous applause, when Mr. Calderon publicly humiliated Arizona during an address to both the Senate and House last week.

It’s nothing short of disgraceful to see the President of the United States undermine us, while the entire world is watching. His behavior has, in no small part, called in to question just how “united” the United States of America is right now.

Yet in the midst of the disgrace, there are hopeful signs. The citizen class has whole-heartedly rejected the agenda (such that it is) of Barack Obama. It began last November with statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where gubernatorial candidates endorsed by Barack Obama both lost. It moved on to Massachusetts where Obama’s choice for U.S. Senate lost to Republican Scott Brown.

And now, evidence of the rejection of Obama’s agenda has radiated from Utah, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. And we haven’t even seen yet how the President’s trashing of Arizona will impact elections yet to occur.

The louder President Obama and his party cheer, the greater the rage of the citizen class. And the citizen class won’t be ignored much longer.

Democrats are claiming that the victory of Democrat Mark Critz over his Republican challenger in a heavily Democrat district, proves that the Democrats are as popular as ever.  Let’s forget the fact that Pennsylvania’s 12 district has been gerrymandered to give Democrats a 2-1 registration advantage over Republicans.  Let’s forget the fact that the special election occurred on the same day as the Democrat primary – whereas Republicans had already voted, and essentially had to vote twice.

Republicans could point out that they just won the election in Barack Obama’s hometown in Hawaii – another state that is heavily Democrat as proof of the fact they they are going to destroy Democrats in November.  But the Republicans only won that because two Democrats were in the race, splitting the Democrat vote.  Sometimes those little details matter.

The fact is that the Democrat victory in Pennsylvania and the Republican victory in Hawaii are for the most part anomalous. Both races will be fought all over again in six months – and the results of both may very likely change.

But the fact is also that the American people have largely turned against Barack Obama.  As of today, he has an approval rating of minus seventeen (- 17), with only 45% of Americans approving of his performance versus 54% who disapprove.  And the fact that a pissed off and frightened people are going to vote in huge majorities against Barack Obama in states and districts across the country in November.

What is particularly interesting is that Mark Critz – and many Democrats – are actively running against Barack Obama and the Obama agenda.  Crizt ran against ObamaCare, and against Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, among other things.  Democrats are literally saying that the American people should elect Democrats in order to oppose the Democrat agenda.  Does that really sound like a narrative that’s going to work in November?

Add to that the fact that unemployment and a host of other measurements of the U.S. economy are bad, with not a whole lot of evidence that they are going to improve.

The Democrats demagogued and demonized Republicans about the Republican record as they assured the American people that they would make everything better.  And now the same anger and outrage that Democrats rode last year will fittingly come back to wash them away over their failures.

I see a reckoning coming.

Update May 24: Oops.  Did I say 45% of Americans approved of Obama, versus 54% who disapproved?  That was yesterday.  Today only 44% of Americans approve of Obama, against 55% who disapprove.  And the President Approval Rating is at a negative eighteen.

Update May 25: Oops again.  Did I say 44% of Americans approve of Obama?  That’s no longer correct.  I’m sorry, but Obama is tanking so fast that it’s just hard to keep up with it.  Today, only 42% of Americans approve of this turd which is stinking up the White House.

From Rasmussen, May 25:

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

And oh my, a whopping 20% more voters utterly despise Obama now than like him.

And that overwhelming majority of voters is going to want to come out and hurt somebody in November.