Festering Birth Certificate Questions…
June 20, 2012 13 Comments
The Press Will Never Answer (-nor even ask!)
~Late April, 2011,…after the White House release of a pdf image of Barack Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”:
Thank you Mr. President for finally vetting yourself. We’re glad it only took 3 years and not 7 or 8. You could have waited even longer if you wanted to, it was all up to you.
I hope we didn’t annoy you or take up too much of your valuable vacation time with the issue of your eligibility. Uhhh…forgive me for bringing this up but I think the issue of your eligibility still exists (though no one seems to even have a clue that that is so). But about the vetting…uhhh who has vetted the new document that has been “released”?
I’d just like to know the name of the Hawaiian official who has certified under oath that it was sent from the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, and also what’s the name of the document expert that has certified the thing to be genuine? What’s that? It hasn’t been vetted by anybody? Uhhhh….then we know it’s not a counterfeit how?
Trust you, you say? Well, I kind of do, the document looks totally real but then I’m no expert so forgive me if I don’t trust in my own document verification skills. I’d like to “trust but verify” by letting a real document expert have a peek at it. Would that be OK?
No? But why not? I’m sure it would be good to just get this all behind us, so won’t you just lend it to an impartial expert for an hour? Would that not be something the American people should expect of their President?
I don’t want to be disrespectful, but just for the sake of history, it would look better if you allowed someone to fully vet your birth certificate. Think of it as a teeny-weany version of the FBI background check that you were never subjected to.
Is there some reason for which you can’t allow it to be out of your sight? Come to think of it, has it ever been in your sight?
When you appeared in the press room on the occasion of its release, it was whisked away by your White House lawyer before you entered the room? Was that meant to avoid any connection between it and you?
And why did he resign the very next day and put some plausible-deniability distance between himself and you, -the President? Was he more valuable to you as your new private attorney than he was as your White House council? What would be the reason for the reversal of your relationship with the man who “obtained” the “two copies” for you just days before?
During your appearance in the Press Briefing Room, was there some reason that you failed to even mention the document that was the reason for your appearance before the cameras and the press?
Why did you avoid any contact with, proximity to, or mention of what was to be the final and preeminent proof of your identity and place of birth?
Would you please share whatever is the simple explanation for what some folks might view as strange behavior? Why not defuse their suspicions before they smolder and explode into a full blown conspiracy theory?
Can you please display it in the Press room so the nation’s reporters can see, scrutinize and photograph it?
No? We only get the pdf digital file and the B&W printout made from it?
But if we are allowed to download and examine the high resolution pdf, then what’s wrong with examining the real thing? After all, you ordered two of them according to the letters you made public.
Why can’t the American people have access to the only form of proof of who it is that they entrusted with all the power and might of the nation?
The answer is still “no”? Such a refusal might inspire one to postulate a reason for it. A reason such as “maybe the pdf is the only version that exists”.(!) “Maybe there are no “two copies” on actual State-Seal certified Hawaiian document paper.”
Of course if that were actually true, then that would mean that the facts have been misrepresented, -that the whole story of procuring them via special permission is an elaborate fiction with deception as its sole motive.
Of course that would mean that the pdf is a big question mark, leaving reasonable people to wonder; “where did it come from? Did it come from the Hawaiian government? If so, why would they issue such a thing to anybody? If not, then who the heck made it, and by whose order?
Wouldn’t you like to head these questions off at the pass? Why let them fester unanswered? That surely is in no one’s best interest, -or is it?
I know,.. more questions, -more suspicions. I apologize, but I simply can’t help myself. Curiosity just seems to be a part of my nature. For instances, I’m really, really curious to know how the pdf came to have 9 layers that no scanner in the word would have produced.
Was it supposed to be flattened before being put online? Was there some sort of rushed last-minute over-sight? That would explain the layers being visible….but, what exactly explains their existence?
I’m sure there must be an innocent explanation, like perhaps that’s how the Hawaiian software process assembles the digital abstract images that are then printed as birth certificates.
What I can’t understand is why Hawaii would allow such a proprietary file out of their office and into the hands of everyone on the planet with internet access by allowing the White House to post it unflattened online. Could you please explain the logic behind that decision, if it is something that you verify actually happened.
That word, “verify”, is one that has been troubling me. It seems that you have “verified” the circumstances of your birth, but what isn’t clear is how does one verify the veracity of the verification?
How can one verify that which no one can see or touch? And even if they could, what can an abstract version of a birth record be certified as being? An abstract can’t be certified to be a True Copy since it isn’t a copy of any document, so what is certified by an abstract with no official signature?
How can any document be “certified” by a rubber signature stamp? How can one suspect that the signature might be a forgery is it isn’t even a signature at all, but just a computer-printed or rubber-stamped facsimile? Does a Notary Public rely solely on that level of verification anywhere in the nation? What would notarized documents be worth if none of them were physically signed and embossed with a notary seal?
And speaking of an embossed seal, why did the image of your Certificate of Live Birth have no evidence of having been embossed with the Hawaiian seal as all certified state documents would be? One wouldn’t expect that to be possible unless the image was…..say….made from 9 layers cobbled together on a computer and not resulting from a scanner out-put.
But if that were the way it was made, that would mean that it was a fictional representation (-or misrepresentation) of an official state document.
Hmmmm, isn’t there a name for that? Isn’t that what they call a “counterfeit”? If so, wouldn’t that make you the Counterfeiter-in-Chief?
By A.R. Nash June 2012
http://obama–nation.com
http://wordpress.com/obama_bc
About arnash
h2ooflife 
Why doesn’t Mitt Romney have a professional document examiner confirm his birth certificate?
It looks forged, and it is only the short-form birth certificate, not the long form or the original. And it does not show the name of the doctor or the hospital.
His birth certificate is irrelevant. He was born to an American mother and an American father. He could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural American and eligible to be President.
How, after so much time has passed, can you be so ignorant about the total lack of certifiable authenticity of the Obamunist’s 9-layer pdf image of a birth certificate? How can any intelligent adult make such childish inane statements as you made? Do you enjoy thinking that you appear clever when in fact you only appear foolish? I have an idea, get serious and grow up. Your future is more on the line than you can imagine, as well as your freedom.
Romney’s father, George Romney was born in Mexico. Did you see his birth certificate? The only way someone can be a legal American citizen born out of this country is if they were born on an American military base or some American soil in a foreign country. Other then that they would not be a legal citizen. It doesn’t matter if both parents were born here or not. A friend of mine was born in London. Her parents were American Citizens. She wan’t born at a military base. Nothing to do with American soil. They were just visiting in London. She was born premature but she was born a UK citizen. I remember when she had to take the citizenship test to become an American Citizen. I do agree that BO’s certificate of birth is FAKE.
Thanks for sharing that information. It’s the first that I’ve learned that the U.S. INS practiced that policy. It shows that both the U.S. and Britain follow a bastardized citizenship policy that fails to recognize the fundamental principle on which citizenship is based.
What would be extremely tragic is if that policy was based on actual U.S. law, and not just the accepted practice of the executive branch. I assume that Congress did not pass any such law but left a hole in the administration of foreign-born citizenship jurisdiction.
CORRECTION
AFTER POSTING THE ABOVE I RECALLED THE LAW I’D READ MORE THAN ONCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE IDEA THAT CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CONVEYED TO THOSE BORN ABROAD TO AMERICAN PARENTS. HERE’S A QUOTE I JUST COPIED FROM THE U.S.CODE TITLE 8, SECTION 1401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
WHAT YOU WITNESSED MUST HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE THIS REVISION AND CORRECTION TO NATURALIZATION LAW.
The true and correct citizenship policy is that reflected by the Naturalization Act of 1790 which emphasis for the enlightenment of dunderheads in state and federal immigration offices that Americans born abroad shall be considered as natural born citizens because in fact they are. The fact that later generations were too ignorant of their roots to recognized that fact is the reason that the policy followed today has come about.
To understand the thinking of the founding fathers one needs to read what is found in my exposition titled: “Every Tom, Dick, & Harry But Not My Son?”
Romney’s look’s a whole lot more real then BO’s. Especially the first phone they released. The so called seal wasn’t raised. Even on the web you can see the dimensionals. Romney’s shows a raised state seal.
Here is the image of Romney’s birth certificate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47608339/ns/politics/t/romneys-birth-certificate-evokes-his-fathers-controversy/#.T-Qoir925Sc
As you can see, it is not even an image of the document itself. It is an image of a photocopy. You cannot see a raised seal. The two round things are not seals, they are just decorations.
AND, it clearly says VOID.
Moreover, it is merely a short form birth certificate. It does not have the name of the doctor or the hospital, nor does it list the race of the parents.
And it is only a piece of paper, not confirmed by officials in Michigan (as Obama’s was repeatedly by the officials of both parties in Hawaii) or by Index Data or by notices in the local newspapers.
The raised seal on Obama’s short form can clearly be seen:
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ (see the third photo from the top)
You started right out with a large error by stating; “Here is the image of Romney’s birth certificate:” That image cannot be called “the” image unless you posted it online yourself as received from Romney. It is merely “an” image, processed by whom no one knows. But that is all irrelevant to the two issues that are. The location of his birth is not contested by anyone because witnesses may still be alive, along with a hospital birth record. That is not true of Obama. Obama didn’t come under suspicion of not having been born in Hawaii until suspicions arose as to the legitimacy of the Certification of Live Birth. Its pathetic nature gave rise to those suspicions.
Similarly, Romney’s raises questions also, chief of which is “why did he release a short-form COLB obtained in January of 2012 when he already had a birth certificate, -the same one he’s been using all of his life? That is the question plaguing Barack Obama, and now can also be asked of Romney. The answer may be a silly one such as he doesn’t remember where he keeps it among all of his many papers. It should be easily found if stored in any competent manner, such as in a fire safe. But it’s of no real significance unless there is a higher resolution version available which raises suspicions.
As for any veracity being assured based on FactCheck.org, that’s not possible since it is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (bottom of their page) -the same Annenbergs that funded the work and salary of Obama and Bill Ayers, (1960s terrorist,) who were the heads of an Annenberg foundation project in Chicago. They are Obama fans who are willing to put a positive spin on anything that might in fact have a negative impact on his legitimacy.
Stating that they examined it and it had a seal is a total joke. If they examined good counterfeit money twenty years ago, they would have also assumed that it was real. They are experts at nothing, especially document counterfeiting. Examining the structure of the seal in close-up suggests that it is not made by a conventional stain-less steel dye but by a programmable machine that carves, as a mold, a block of wax or something by creating furrows and dimples to create a pattern, -a pattern that is undoubtedly digitally programmed. It would not be rocket science to invent such a device so there’s no good reasons to assume that one does not exist and was not used, when it appears that one was used. The alternative is an expensive exquisitely carve metal dye. A machine to do the same thing, though in a far inferior fashion, would make more economic sense. Since Hawaii ceased giving a tinker’s damn about the quality and authenticity of its registrar’s signature, why would they place any higher priority on the quality of their state seal?
FactCheck quotes a Hawaiian official “He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for “all reasonable purposes.”
That is erroneously worded. All purposes are “reasonable”, not just some, so the use of that word should have been attached to “sufficient” as in reasonably sufficient to prove…
But in fact it is not reasonably sufficient to vet an unknown for qualification for the highest elected office in the history of the world.
It’s not reasonably sufficient because almost anyone with image-editing skills can replicate such a document without any effort, so it’s certain that every spy agency in the world can do it with no effort whatsoever. So much for incontestable certainly.
The FactCheck list of things mentioned that raised suspicions included “No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.” They then gave explanations for everything except that. It simply can’t be explained. If FactCheck people were so competent at validating what they were looking at, then how could they be so stupid as to photograph it only once and then with a big fat shadow right across the middle? That demonstrates competence?
It’s a reasonable suspicion that the FactCheck people were duped by a well-made counterfeit, one that was perfected only after bloggers pointed out its short-comings. They shouldn’t be expected to have suspected that the future President of the United States was behind a clever scheme to fake his credentials and steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton by falsely pretending to be qualified, as the DNC pretended that he was. But that is exactly what he and it did.
Also missing is the creases from folding. It leads one to suspect that a counterfeit was concocted by someone inside the Hawaiian government, -someone with access to the rubber stamp signature of the Registrar, Onaka but without access to the state seal embossing device when it was first completed. Later access was obtained and it was used after complaints about it being missing.
The signature stamp reveals two things. First, just how bastardized and bankrupt is the Hawaiian substitute for true certification. A document that is required to be signed by the Registrar is now only not signed by a clerk, but is not even signed by anyone! It’s just a dumb labor-saving rubber stamp which is not an acceptable substitute for a unique real human signature. At least the President has a signature robot which actually signs documents, but a dumb rubber stamp? Who the hell calls that a signature? It’s not anything approaching a signature.
Also, it doesn’t contain the smiley face that the counterfeiter of the long form added as a personal tag as a form of self-identification for the sake of bragging rights. But at 1600 power zoom it is easily visible.
The missing creases show that the counterfeit COLB, probably produced in the office where it was examined by using elements supplied by Hawaii, was scanned before someone got the heads-up from blog examiners that it lacked any creases. It was never folded before then in order to be sent from Hawaii because it wasn’t made in Hawaii. That’s the only logical conclusion. The question remains as to whether or not the document was created on actual security paper or printed on plain paper with the image of security paper add in the computer editing phase as a background, including printing it again on the back side with a separate image which included the registrar’s stamp. There’s no way to tell if the stamp was stamped on the paper or simply printed on the paper along with the appearance of security paper but the high-resolution photo has the appearance of a real stamp having been used.
edited for repeating redundant quotes and false opinions
Hence IF Romney were born in Canada, as he probably was, he would not be eligible.
And yet Romney has only shown a short-form birth certificate, and in contrast to Obama’s birth certificate, the officials have not confirmed the facts on it.
That’s about all you’re going to get arnash. People like Ellen who are content to have Obama’s past completely hidden, but who will now demand that Romney be completely vetted.
Thanks for doing your part. The gov’t and media won’t do it, but a few folks like you will shed light on this for the few people out here who care.
Obama has shown his birth certificate, short form and long form. Romney has only shown a photocopy of his short form. Obama’s birth certificate has been confirmed. Romney’s hasn’t. Obama has shown 10 years of tax records. Romney has shown one or two. Neither have shown their school transcripts (nor did any president or presidential candidate), passport records, etc.
It is a totally false statement to say that Obama has shown anything other than digital images and print-outs made from those images. No hard-copy has ever been examined by any neutral party who was capable of discerning a fabrication. A hard copy is not being kept secret or hidden. It is not being kept at all because it does not even exist.
Obama BC has not been confirmed by anyone. It has merely been afirmed by the lying Obama-lovers working for the Hawaiian government, none of whom have been required to attest to it certitude under penalty of perjury. And none of them have ever said, nor will say that the images posted online were made by them. The SF COLB appeared out of nowhere with no explanation whatsoever, -no proclamation that it was procured by Obama from Hawaii. It was just there, believe it or don’t. The sheeple jumped at the chance to believe it.
As for the things that Romney has not released, who even cares or wants to see them released? Why would anyone care about Romney’s passport? They wouldn’t and don’t because everyone knows that it is a United States passport and not an Indonesian or British passport.
As for tax returns, that is something different. But if you want to suspect him of something you need to bear in mind you are suspecting a devoted Mormon of being a liar and a cheat. In what universe is that highly likely? That’s not to say that Mormons can’t be dishonest when it comes to taxes, but it also possible that they show things that might be embarrassing, like not giving enough to charity, or giving too much, as he could be accused of doing when he gave away his inheritance from his father.
Breaking News: John Dummett and Van Irion’s Liberty Legal Foundation Tennessee Obama Ballot Challenge Dismissed
http://birtherheadlines.blogspot.com/2012/06/dummett-obama-ballot-challenge.html