Tweet
Why hasn't Lucas yet publicly released copies of documents, such as his passport or purchase receipts for food, lodging, etc. to PROVE HE TRAVELED TO KENYA in February 2009?
First and importantly, readers of this forum should be aware that Lucas MAY already have released this type of documentation PRIVATELY to a few selected individuals. Regardless, as in 'seven card stud poker', Lucas has wisely chosen to keep a few of his 'cards' in the 'hole' or 'pocket' and not publicly visible to all the other players in this dangerous, high stakes 'game' that started with Obama's illegal POTUS election in 2008.
The extensive, ruthless, unprincipled, 'Obama Subterranean Support Team' (obots) would LOVE to have Lucas publicly release these documents so they could start employing their customary 'gotcha' tactics, or worse. That is why, of course, they incessantly keep demanding to view these documents.
If Lucas releases a copy of his passport, for example, the 'obots' might falsely claim that the the "ink shade on the passport stamp was wrong" for his entry into Kenya in 2009. Therefore, according to them, the document is a 'forgery' and they will quickly and effectively distribute this false claim throughout the blogosphere.
They may somehow locate or even forge a passport having a 'different' (though not necessary uniquely correct) shade of ink on the Kenyan-entry stamp to substantiate their claim. However, it makes no difference if their false claim is supported with facts or not, the information gets distributed anyway. That's just the way the obots operate.
Then, if Lucas at some future date is called to testify in support of the Obama CPGH-BC, the opposition lawyers will boldly state - "Smith never even went to Kenya in 2009 and the stamped passport he is now presenting to this court has been broadly discredited on the internet!"
As another example, if Lucas releases a copy of a receipt to a small restaurant in Mombasa he stopped by for lunch in February 2009, orders may be given to have that quaint little place conveniently burned to the ground.
Then, if Lucas at some future date is called to testify in support of the Obama CPGH-BC, the opposition lawyers will boldly state - "Smith never even went to Kenya in 2009 and that Kenyan restaurant identified on the receipt he is now presenting to this court does not even exist. The address shown is for a gas station (for example)! That receipt is obviously a forgery!"
Yes, the obots are indeed capable of even this type of violent action! Lives have already been lost in this fight!
I am glad that Lucas has chosen to keep a few cards face down in this high stakes, critically important game that directly impacts our country's security and future!
If a skeptic is going to question the LDS Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate's authenticity, then they are also likely to question the authenticity of the LDS passport.
WHERE DOES THE SKEPTICISM STOP? Answer - Only after a thorough, PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION of the document, associated with a hearing in a competent, unbiased court of law or by a specifically designated Congressional Committee.
It is universally accepted in the USA that most LEGAL EVIDENCE involving a crime investigation is withheld from the public prior to the official investigation and trial of the case.
First and importantly, readers of this forum should be aware that Lucas MAY already have released this type of documentation PRIVATELY to a few selected individuals. Regardless, as in 'seven card stud poker', Lucas has wisely chosen to keep a few of his 'cards' in the 'hole' or 'pocket' and not publicly visible to all the other players in this dangerous, high stakes 'game' that started with Obama's illegal POTUS election in 2008.
The extensive, ruthless, unprincipled, 'Obama Subterranean Support Team' (obots) would LOVE to have Lucas publicly release these documents so they could start employing their customary 'gotcha' tactics, or worse. That is why, of course, they incessantly keep demanding to view these documents.
If Lucas releases a copy of his passport, for example, the 'obots' might falsely claim that the the "ink shade on the passport stamp was wrong" for his entry into Kenya in 2009. Therefore, according to them, the document is a 'forgery' and they will quickly and effectively distribute this false claim throughout the blogosphere.
They may somehow locate or even forge a passport having a 'different' (though not necessary uniquely correct) shade of ink on the Kenyan-entry stamp to substantiate their claim. However, it makes no difference if their false claim is supported with facts or not, the information gets distributed anyway. That's just the way the obots operate.
Then, if Lucas at some future date is called to testify in support of the Obama CPGH-BC, the opposition lawyers will boldly state - "Smith never even went to Kenya in 2009 and the stamped passport he is now presenting to this court has been broadly discredited on the internet!"
As another example, if Lucas releases a copy of a receipt to a small restaurant in Mombasa he stopped by for lunch in February 2009, orders may be given to have that quaint little place conveniently burned to the ground.
Then, if Lucas at some future date is called to testify in support of the Obama CPGH-BC, the opposition lawyers will boldly state - "Smith never even went to Kenya in 2009 and that Kenyan restaurant identified on the receipt he is now presenting to this court does not even exist. The address shown is for a gas station (for example)! That receipt is obviously a forgery!"
Yes, the obots are indeed capable of even this type of violent action! Lives have already been lost in this fight!
I am glad that Lucas has chosen to keep a few cards face down in this high stakes, critically important game that directly impacts our country's security and future!
If a skeptic is going to question the LDS Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate's authenticity, then they are also likely to question the authenticity of the LDS passport.
WHERE DOES THE SKEPTICISM STOP? Answer - Only after a thorough, PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION of the document, associated with a hearing in a competent, unbiased court of law or by a specifically designated Congressional Committee.
It is universally accepted in the USA that most LEGAL EVIDENCE involving a crime investigation is withheld from the public prior to the official investigation and trial of the case.
Comment