Barry’s Buried Past & Counterfeit Birth Certificate

White Lies vs Obama Lies

The arc of Barry Obama’s entire adult life has been one of deception.  He deceived his progressive benefactors, the parents of  terrorist Bill Ayers, by portraying himself as a needy socialist foreign student.
He deceived the universities he attended in ways we are not able to ascertain because he has sealed every academic record that exists.  He deceived his minister, irReverend Wright, into believing that he was of the same mind-set, -a mind-set of prejudice against Jews, white America, the American government, and America’s founders, even though Obama was not similarly prejudiced.

He deceived his publicist and would-be publisher that advanced him a whole lot of money in anticipation of a autobiography by a Kenyan born American.

And worse of all, he deceived the American electorate in every way possible when he ran for President.  After passing himself off as having been born in Kenya for perhaps two decades, he is all of a sudden a native-born son of Hawaii.  He then leveraged that probable lie to deceive every ignorant fellow citizen into thinking that that alone qualified him as being a constitutionally eligible candidate to be President.

When someone of authority in the Hawaiian Democratic Party refused to certify him as constitutionally eligible, he and the DNC leadership altered their party’s candidate-certification form to exclude any mention of being constitutionally eligible, and thus deceived all the gullible state officials in every other state in the union, thereby guaranteeing that his name would not be barred from their state ballots.
He surfed on top of the wave of the electorate’s and the media’s constitutional ignorance and their willingness to believe anything, and thereby left everyone self-deceived by the misconception that native-born citizens are the same as natural born citizens, and therefore fulfill the presidential eligibility requirement of the Constitution.

But the American voters were not the only ones he deceived.  He also deceived himself into believing he could accomplish things that were in fact impossible and even preposterous.  There’s no deceiver like a self-deceived deceiver.
Then he finally topped off all of his deceptions with a counterfeit image of an official Hawaiian birth certificate.  Almost everything about its release is soaked in deception and falsehood, -from the concocted story of how it was acquired, to the story of why it wasn’t previously shared,  to it’s non-connection to any actual physical paper original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth.  -To its lack of any certification or authentication, including the absence of the actual signature of the state registrar, and lack of the state seal, along with the truth that it was not an image of an actual birth record but was merely a digital abstract lacking the imagery of the paper it supposedly was typed on.

And worst of all, it being claimed by the HDoD director Fuddy to have been copied under her supervision from the original when in fact no document issued by the department for nearly two decades originates from a scan of an original since all records before the scanning digital age were on microfilm, and then digitized from the microfilm image, without resource to the original paper copies.

They are all, the entirely of their archive, stored on their computer servers and simply printed from a clerk’s workstation.  So she lied to cover-up the fabrication of a counterfeit document which she facilitated after being hired for that very purpose, after the Director just appointed three weeks earlier was told that he had for some reason “resigned for personal reasons” unbeknownst to him.

Falsehood and deception have been the hallmark characteristic of his entire adult life, centered on the lie that he was born in Kenya, or the lie that he was born in Hawaii.  He knows one is false but he won’t let the American people know for certain if either is true because he won’t allow anyone to see the original paper record filed with the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, nor the micro-film image of it.  He won’t allow that because it would show something that he does not want anyone to see, something that would ruin the public perception of his presidential eligibility.

If the public thinks that anyone born in the U.S. can be President, but he was born outside of the U.S., then he would be in big trouble.   Everyone knows that John McCain was born in Panama and not America, but by being the son of American parents, he is eligible to be President, but if Obama had been born in Panama, who would think that he would also be eligible?  No one.  He would doubly be a foreigner, -by paternity and birth location.  He can’t allow anyone to suspect that that was the actual circumstance of his birth.  In his case, the somewhere else wouldn’t have been Panama, but would have been Kenya or Vancouver, Canada, -just a two hour drive from Seattle, Ann Dunham’s home turf.

Deception is not accomplished solely by lies that are told, but by truth that is withheld, -truth that is hidden or unavailable, such as a marriage certificate for his parents,

-some record of testimony as to where his mother was living between February and August of 1961,

-or photos of his pregnant mother, photos of himself as a newborn in her arms, any photos taken in the hospital or at home after delivery,

-or witnesses to her pregnancy, witnesses to a relationship between her and his father, witnesses to his birth or his mother’s stay in the maternity ward where he was supposedly born, including the other women who delivered babies at the same time in the same hospital named on his birth certificate image, -women who would never have forgotten a negro baby with an African father born to a white teenage.  The mother of the twins born on Aug 5th in the hospital where Obama was supposedly delivered the day before never saw him nor his mother there, (and she’s one of his fans).

The chief characteristic of his origin is a total absence of any records or witnesses.

If he were just another white baby born to just another white female then who would remember his birth?  But he was as different from the mundane as is possible without being fathered by an alien species.  Consider; a father from a different country, a different continent, a different nationality, and above all, a different race, an opposite race which many States forbid whites to marry, (and with a most unusual name).
Human memory is not so pathetic that such a birth would have been forgotten, ever.  Yet no witnesses exist.  How is that possible if his fake birth certificate’s narrative is true?  One or the other of two possibilities has to be true and one has to be false.  Either human memory is crap, or his birth certificate “facts” are crap.  It can’t possibly be neither.

in response to:
Were Ann Dunham & Barack Obama Really Married?  by Nick Chase  July 2012  American Thinker  (exerpt)

Producing a “birth-certificate” forgery is a big scam to cover up a minor fact — that the Dunham/Obama marriage was not a real marriage.  Is it really worth the political risk of having the scam exposed?

Perhaps not to you or me — but we’re normal people.  The supposedly storybook nature of the first two years of this marriage was central to the Obama 2008 presidential campaign; it appears in Dreams from My Father; and the president occasionally repeats the myth, as in this speech (excerpted here) to students at Wakefield High School, Arlington, Virginia, on September 8, 2009:

Now, I know it’s not always easy to do well in school.  I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.  I get it.  I know what it’s like.  My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us the things that other kids had.  There were times when I missed having a father in my life.  There were times when I was lonely and I felt like I didn’t fit in.
So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been on school, and I did some things I’m not proud of, and I got in more trouble than I should have.  And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. ~

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married.html

~    ~    ~    ~    ~

replies:
ac287149
So this is how we should learn to think of it? Why protect a grown man capable of standing on his own two feet, Nick? There is evidence of forgery on the certificate he presented. That’s a crime he has committed and even more embarrassing and damning than finding out his mother was deceived by his father. Even if he is embarrassed, he still had to provide it to government agencies issuing driver’s licenses and passports, as well as Occidental, Harvard, and Columbia, didn’t he? Furthermore, there’s no reason for any local, state, or federal official in America to perjure himself or nullify his oath of office to protect Obama’s pride by covering up the truth when it is required to be transparent by law.

My list of news agencies, journalists, and opinion writers that I will trust let alone bother to read has lost another. The moral of this article and many others: It’s much better to be thought of as stupid rather than admit to being evil, as we know from both Eric Holder and Barack Obama. And it’s much better to get us all to think of his missing birth information as merely embarrassing, rather than treasonous, deceptive, fraud, evil, and perhaps even identity theft.
~     ~     ~     ~     ~

The grandfather took young Ozero to Davis’s house in Hawaii three times a week for indoctrination. Davis is gone but there are witnesses to these visits, Davis’s former next door neighbors. All the people in this bizarre “family,” including the grandparents, were communists or communist sympathizers. And former Weather Undergrounder Bill Ayers very likely ghost wrote Ozero’s two
~     ~     ~     ~     ~

You exposed the truth of the matter.  Nick wrote: “Producing a “birth-certificate” forgery is a big scam to cover up a minor fact — that the Dunham/Obama marriage was not a real marriage.  Is it really worth the political risk of having the scam exposed?”
How is his claim that the forgery is a “minor fact” to avoid some perfectly legal but embarrassing “fact” any less of an Obama defending apologist stealth-defense than one openly slanted in Obuma’s favor???

Everything he wrote (after doing his “research”) points to Obama’s legitimacy under the Constitution and in the eyes of the American people.  How is that helping in exposing his illegitimacy?  If he is so well informed and insightful about the nature of Obama’s birth certificate (and presumably  his citizenship as well), then why was there zero mention of the fact that his election was anti-Constitutional due to his citizenship not being natural citizenship?

His whole approach to the BC image is bogus.  He starts and proceeds from the assumption that nearly all of it except maybe one fact is legitimate.  Who ever proved the legitimacy of any of it?  Who has proven that Ann Dunham was even in the United States when he was born?  How is it that Nick conveniently neglected to address the issue of no proof existing that he was born in Hawaii, much less in a Hawaiian hospital?

If that information can’t be verified then how can one ignore the possibility that he was not even born in the United States?  If no one has been able to prove where Ann Dunham was in late July-early August, then how can one conclude that she was not already living in Seattle, and without finding any adoptive parents there, gave birth in Vancouver, as a last ditch effort, where there may have been a chance that the Canadian Salvation Army might find a couple willing to adopted a mixed-race baby?

No one can know anything important as fact, including just how much of the BC is bogus (one item or many items; hospital, Dr. signature, location, etc.) so to leap to a conclusion that all that was faked was something embarrassing is simple illogical and baseless.

It’s like some superficial tea-time idle conversation turned into expressed script without having been submitted to the scrutiny that it deserves and is requisite for a subject of such enormous national importance.

If Obuma will lie about the little things, it’s sure as hell that he will lie about the big things.  But he would love it if everyone would consume this article’s premise of innocent white-lies as being the basis for the most important forgery since an Allied body washed up on the Normandy coast with top secret plans for the D-Day invasion, -plans that were fakes planted by the disinformation experts working for the Allied Command.  AR Nash

ac287149

We only have his word for anything about his life. Not even his ideological and political opposition wants to expose too much. The new Moraniss bio contradicts many things Obama wrote about himself and his past in both of his autobiographies (imagine his state of mind thinking that he is important enough to write two autobiographies before he either turned 50 or become president).

~    ~    ~     ~     ~

The Moraniss Obama bio serves to make the author a tidy sum of cash but not really wound the subject of it when it comes to the election.  It’s bottom line is that Obuma has not been perfectly frank with you, American people, -he’s been a little loose with the facts, but there is nothing nefarious here, nothing related to a conspiracy to groom his image for an eventual run for the presidency, -nothing of a fraudulent manufacturing of a history that as written serves to make a whole lot of people sympathize with him and pity the poor lost boy who eventually found his way (thanks to communists, terrorists, and puppet-masters) and became a quintessential American success story.

Errors, bad memory, confusion of facts, and white lies can all be forgiven.  But we won’t get into deliberate fraudulent ghost-writing, a fraudulent birth certificate, and a fraudulent eligibility that violates the Constitution.  ARNash

karen
He would . . .(have a reason he’s hiding behind a mountain of lies) if a communist, like FMD, was his father. If a communist was Obama’s father, and that fact was disclosed to the American people, then Obama would know he’d have zero chance of ever becoming POTUS.

Interesting that you admit that Obama is hiding a mountain of lies. He certainly is. I’m curious about why everyone — everyone — is letting him get away with it?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz204HzD5Or

Mr. Chase, your article is well researched and well reasoned. I would like to suggest one additional possibility that would explain Mr. Obama’s failure to provide a valid birth certificate, namely, he cannot provide one with the last name Obama because he was later adopted by Lolo Soetoro. After the adoption, Hawaiian officials would be prohibited from issuing a certified copy of his birth certificate in his birth name. This scenario would explain why Hawaiian officials have claimed they have seen his original birth records, but Obama has only produced an apparently fraudulent copy. Mr. Obama would be understandably reluctant to admit his adoption by an Indonesian citizen because Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship with Americans at the time. In order to be adopted by an Indonesian and become an Indonesian citizen as his Indonesian school records indicate, the child’s American citizenship would have to be renounced. So, even if he was native-born, Mr. Obama would as an adult be at this point either an Indonesian citizen or, if he followed the necessary procedures, possibly a naturalized American citizen.

[Children cannot renounce their citizenship, and their parents can't do it for them. Indonesia couldn't care less about the foreign nationality of immigrant children, but they would care a whole heap about the nationality of the parents. Having been adopted by an Indonesian father would have conferred provisional Indonesian citizenship upon the boy.]

“After the adoption, Hawaiian officials would be prohibited from issuing a certified copy of his birth certificate in his birth name.”

Without quoting an actual Hawaiian statute, that claim can’t be assumed to be true.  It would certainly be true if he were adopted from birth and his true parentage was to be kept secret from him and everyone else.  Then his original birth record would be under court seal.  But a later adoption, following divorce and remarriage, would not be treated the same way since there would be no need for secrecy.  Then after divorce from the adoptive father, the adoption may have been expunged from the record.  So the reason for the forgery must lie somewhere else.  AN

bizysignal
I occasionally wonder why, we know much of past Presidents’ family members. The media especially delighted in exposing the most embarrassing, the skeletons in the closets. Obama gets a pass. (No doubt, at least initially due to fear of charges of racism.) Obama’s grandmother passed before he took office. Seems to me, she passed with no journalistic interest shown prior, no interviews or comments to add to the historical content of Obama’s past. Grandfather is left alone still, no comment. Half brother in China, and his Jewish mother in Africa; another brother living in a shanty in Kenya; the illegal immigrant aunt living here in the US on welfare…isn’t she a White House guest now? None have anything to add to the story? No journalistic interest? Silence bought off? Or have all decided they’d be handily dismissed, deemed mistaken or liars, so why bother?

Betty

As far as I am concerned, you, Mr. Chase, and a whole lot of others got dazzled by a shiny distraction and have been fumbling and fondling it ever since – while America burns to the ground I might add.
The father Obama acknowledges was not an American citizen, he was a British citizen – The conversation the American people should have been allowed to have is how that fact impacts Obama’s eligibility to be president. All the evidence for that discussion is in the public domain – no need to force it into the open or forge it.

You and others have effectively prevented that conversation. Question is – did you do it on purpose or are you just fascinated by shiny things?

Georgiaboy61

This is the crux of the matter – where Obama was born is a sideshow, a distraction, a red herring. What matters right now is where his parents were born. Barack Obama himself has said that his father was of Kenyan birth; if this is untrue, it means that Obama ran for the presidency and won the White House on a fraudulent basis.

On the other hand, if Obama’s father was really Barack Obama senior who was in 1961 a subject of the British empire, then Mr. Obama is in office in violation of the natural-born citizen clause and is thus an illegal and illegitimate chief executive. No matter how this breaks, it does not end well for Obama. He has been trapped in the web of his own lies.

Georgiaboy61

Re: “I’ve never in my life seen a group of disparate personalities so in lock step, it doesn’t compute.” Yes, my observation exactly. A cone of silence, as one commentator put it, has descended around the issue of Obama’s eligibility and provenance. IMHO, only one thing can explain this near-total blackout; namely someone or something very powerful is leaning very hard on people not to touch the issue. I cannot think of any individual in the private sector powerful-enough to have that kind of clout and raw muscle, not even someone like George Soros or Warren Buffett. That leaves the federal government itself as the entity providing the pressure, probably either Obama himself or via surrogates someplace within the government.

Even former president Bill Clinton was muzzled; more than once he has hinted that he and HRC have damning information on Obama. When is the last time you saw anyone intimidate Bill Clinton politically? He is not an easy man to silence. There are rumors going around that the Clinton’s personal safety was threatened if/when they disclosed embarrassing or damaging information on BHO. This would be consistent with how the Chicago gang works – play ball or your body gets found floating face-down in the river. Maybe you’ll be lucky and only get audited by the IRS, on command from the White House.

In short, all of those celebrity commentators, journalists, and big-name GOP pols who refuse to touch this are being intimidated into silence. Remember Rick Santorum, who was questioned in a press conference about Obama’s bona fides? Santorum not only stated the std. talking points, i.e., that BHO was born in Hawaii and is a NB citizen, but he actively defended Obama and attacked those who questioned his story. Only someone or something with a whole lotta juice can force a former Senator and major political figure to clam up like that.  [like the fact that he himself is also not a natural born citizen since his parents were not Americans when he was born, as naturalization records have revealed.]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz204Yeiw37

TieDye

As far as Barry’s paternity is concerned, his LEGAL father is whoever is named on his birth certificate – whether that birth certificate was issued by Hawaii, Kenya, Washington State, or Canada. If Lolo Soetoro did indeed [as is indicated by the Indonesian school registration record and by the Dunham/Soetoro 1980 divorce papers] adopt the child Barry, then an amended birth certificate stating Soetoro as the father would have been issued by Hawaii. That would necessitate the present forging of a birth certificate showing Obama, Sr. [replacing Soetoro] as father – in order to promulgate the lies of “Dreams From My Father”.

There is also another possible scenario which would necessitate a forged birth certificate IF Obama, Sr. was on the original [and only] birth certificate.

In the summer of 1971 Barry was shipped from Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. In November of 1971 Barry’s mother arrived from Indonesia for an approximate 6-weeks’ visit – but leaving her 15-month old daughter behind in Jakarta. At the same time, the totally absent father Obama landed in Hawaii for a 6-weeks’ visit to the son he’d basically never seen.

A likely explanation for those visits is that the grandparents’ Dunham – having taken on the responsibility for the care of their absent daughter’s child – insisted on being made his legal guardians. That would be a logical and prudent requirement on their part. A mother tromping around in the wilds of various third world countries is hardly going to be immediately available to give written consent for, say, an emergency appendectomy – or for something as mundane as permission to go on a school field trip.

For legal guardianship to be given to the caretaker grandparents, both the mother and the father would have to be physically present in family court for the required proceeding. This legal procedure would not result in a new, or amended, birth certificate. BUT – if the grandparents were actually ADOPTING their daughter’s child, there would be a new birth certificate issued, and it would contain the “amendment” notation.

The indicators are that the grandparents did go the adoption route rather than guardianship. The procedure would have been for the grandparents to file a petition with family court. The court would then send to the mother and father of record [names on birth certificate] a “Notice of Hearing”, with a court/hearing date of appx. 30 days hence. Either parent could waive appearing, which would amount to default: giving up their rights, without dispute or recourse, to the child. Being a “no-show” for the hearing would also constitute “loss” by default.

Considering all the fawning and idolizing of “Senior” in “Dreams” – by Barry, and via Barry by his mother and Grandparents – the circumstances cited of the pending 1971 “fatherly” visit are shocking. The grandparents learn via telegram that “Senior” will be arriving to “visit”, and they are gob-smacked, dumbfounded, stunned – and very unhappy – at this news. Why would they not be thrilled? Because they never dreamed in a 1000 years that the ten-years’ totally absent “father” would actually respond to a Notice of Hearing, let alone decide to travel to the U.S to personally appear. His appearance out of the past, when they’d have assumed he would have simply ignored the Court Notice, likely meant he would not give up his parental rights.

IF that scenario did happen, it is possible that “Senior” allowed the adoption, on condition of the boy retaining the ‘Barack Hussein Obama the Second’ name – and likely for an additional financial consideration as well. Whatever the case – whether a status change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barry Dunham’, or ‘Barry Soetoro’ back to ‘Barack Obama’ – there would have been an AMENDED birth certificate issued/filed, necessitating a forged certificate for Barry’s response to our clammering. Because he was known as ‘Barry Obama” at Punahou School, it’s most likely ‘Senior’ gave up his rights on condition of the boy retaining the name. Clearly, he didn’t care a whit about the boy – but just as clearly cared excessively about his own ego satisfaction – and most probably a greased bank account.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz204oDGsrJ

~a most illuminating response, thanks.  One point, it’s worth remembering that Hawaii, the jewel of the Pacific, was first and foremost a tourist dream vacation spot, so Sr.’s willingness to return can’t be seen as requiring much additional motivation beyond that and the desire for a nostalgic visit -along with meeting a son whose destiny he may have wished to be great.  A responsible father can’t simply ignore his son all throughout his entire youth.  He was kind of obligated to meet him and show his parental approval to a son who would have wanted and needed it.  His father’s motivations can’t be simply written off as purely selfish.  That’s not how most parents think and feel.

As for adoption, it is not a course one can assume they took if it entails no benefit to anyone.  It’s not as if he were a very young child whom they wished to raise as their own, -giving their only-child daughter a sibling in effect.  I assume they could claim him as a dependent on income tax without adoption so financial consideration wouldn’t be present.

But most important of all, is the Vancouver scenario that I’ve laid out in “Why baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver”.  By its facts and conclusions, Jr. had no birth certificate to amend.  Hawaii never issued him one because his mother never supplied the DoHealth with legal evidence of having been in compliance with the law that allowed the issuance of a Certificate of Live Birth for a child not born in the presence of medical witnesses, (a hospital setting) or non-family witnesses in a home setting.

She did not corroborate the statement of her affidavit to them (which she probably made without knowing what evidence was needed or figuring she could somehow fake it; i.e., proof of one year residency and sworn notarized statements of witnesses. Her affidavit still remains in their archive, -”half hand-written, and half typed” and was the source material for the imagery of text seen in the counterfeit.)

Thus, with no birth certificate, Jr. got by in life with only his Indonesian passport, and perhaps a Green Card allowing him permanent residency.  Eventually he might have procured a real or a fake Driver’s License in Hawaii or California, -or Illinois.  He was always all about criminally skirting the law, -as a criminal drug user, and buyer.  Maybe even an occasional seller.  AN

TieDye

To karen, Countryman, and AuntieMadder – I don’t profess to know it as fact, but think it could be possible that the fact of an Indonesian adoption might not have been recorded anywhere but within Indonesia. [nash: my guess is that it was first established in an unofficial manner at the Indonesian Consulate in Hawaii, before the trip to join Lolo in Indonesia, -he having had to return without her and she needing a travel document for her son for their later trip.]

Lolo was employed by the government, and Stanley Ann was employed by the US embassy [according to "Dreams", she taught English there]. Who knows what adoption “arrangements” might have been made to accommodate the Indonesian requirement that a child had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend the local government school? The INS Hawaii file [years appx 1964-80] on Lolo notes, without going into detail other than naming the Code, that the legal requirement for Soetoro to be considered Barry’s step-son had been met; Perhaps THAT requirement/status would have been enough for the Indonesian government to consider Barry as having been adopted by Lolo. [the primary reason that Lolo adopted Barry was that he was the only son of the women that he asked to marry him.  Such a commitment naturally includes not just becoming one in every way with one's bride who is also a young mother but embracing her young child as one's own so that he would not be fatherless, and his mother would not feel a kind of rejection of her own flesh & blood, -as if he were not officially a member of their new family.  Adoption was a totally human, psychologically unavoidable response.]

In “Dreams”, Barry says he had been enrolled in the Indonesian school prior to his 1967 arrival in the country. That would indicate Lolo had produced for the government proof that the boy to be attending was his son Barry Soetoro. As with everything about his life, Obama skirts the issue – all hints, nothing of substance, HUGE omissions.

Stanley Ann was a resident of Hawaii when she divorced Lolo, in 1980. Those divorce papers make reference to there being TWO children of the marriage: one over age 18, but a student, so needing support; one under 18, so a dependent child. The two children aren’t named in the papers, but obviously are Barry, age 19 and in college, and Maya, age 10. That Barry was considered a “child of the marriage” surely indicated he had been adopted by Lolo. BUT – indicators are that upon his 1971 move to live with his grandparents in Hawaii, he ceased being known as “Barry Soetoro”…
Because…
There definitely are many confirming sources that all through his schooling at Punahou he was “Barry Obama”. ‘Googling’ “Revealed: Obama thanked Drug Dealer, not Mother, in High School Yearbook”, and then clicking to the listing at freerepublic (dot) com, will take you to an article which includes a photo of a page from the 1979 Punahou yearbook. The photo is of our boy Obie, the high school senior: “Barry Obama”. In David Maraniss’ new book about Obama there are several photos which include Barry. Nothing within the photos id’s Barry – just Maraniss’ captions. However, there are so many others in the photos it seems impossible that if he wasn’t really there [ie, was photoshopped in] SOMEONE would have hollered about it.  [plus, there's a photo of a cement patch from the school which has the inscription; "King Obama".  The work of a narcissist dreamer who told his classmates he was a foreign prince destined to rule one day.]

As to the NBC status: it’s my understanding that any amendment to a birth certificate, such as adoption, is an automatic disqualification for a claim to natural born status. [-that's incorrect.  A natural born American could be adopted by Canadian parents and that would alter nothing established by birth alone.]

So adoption by the grandparents would not give him that status. The punch behind this is the Constitution itself, and the meaning of natural born. Any adoption is an ACTION OF LAW; it is a status APPLIED TO a person. An ACTION OF THE LAW and an APPLIED STATUS are contrived and carried out by men – they are NOT NATURAL OCCURRENCES. That which is not “natural” cannot be made natural by an action of law.

This is the difference between Article II Section 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The 14th amendment provides for persons to become citizens as a result of an action of law. Citizenship status is applied to them as the result of the legal action of men: the 14th MAKES a citizen out of words. an existing person is made into something they previously weren’t.
The “natural born” citizen of Article II, Section 1 exists in only one circumstance – literally, at the moment of a conception brought about by a man and woman who are United States citizens.  [-yes, at conception, not birth, making them predestined to be natural born citizens.  That is not the case with common law children of aliens.  They absolutely  must be born in the U.S., but not so for the predestined.]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz204rcLLT1

TieDye

To Auntie Madder – He was registered in Indonesian schools as ‘Barry Soetoro/Indonesian citizen/Muslim’. That info is documented. He was apparently known as Barry Obama from the time of his 1971 Punahou enrollment through his 1979 graduation. There’s no official documentation of that as far as I know; there are a few photos professed to be from Punahou yearbooks which show Barry, and identify him as “Barry Obama”. There is a classmate’s photo of himself with Barry [3rd grade]. The problem with that is the photo is Barry and the classmate [boy], at a school [unidentified] – but IN HAWAII. Supposedly, Barry was living in and attending school in Indonesia when a 3rd grader.  [that picture was taken before the Christmas break, with Christmas drawings on the wall behind.  Apparently, he and mom returned to Hawaii for a visit at Christmas, after having missed the holidays with mom & dad the year before.]

There is Occidental College documentation about the student Barry Obama, however, it’s an article about the alum Barry Obama being elected U.S. president ["Remembering Barry Obama..."]; it’s not from the time he was a student there. There also have been anecdotal evidences that he was “Barry Obama” while at Occidental. I’ve not seen anything but rumors and/or unverified statements that he was enrolled/known as “Barry Soetoro” while at Occidental.  [but he most likely enrolled using his Indonesian passport and his Punahou transcripts.]

So there is a lot of confusion – and unknowns – about what his name was, and when, but it does seem that from his 1971 start at Punahou School [age 10, in fifth grade] he was “Barry Obama”, and continued to be known by that name until approximately the time of his sophomore year Christmas visit home in Hawaii – the end of that school year, which would have been late spring of 1981. He apparently was settled in as Barack Obama by the time he moved to New York City in the summer of 1981. That move was ostensibly for him to attend Columbia starting that fall semester.

However, there is a document which shows his enrollment at Columbia was for the 1982-83 school year only. That leaves blank his whereabouts from the summer of 1981 through the summer of 1982. A full year. All that is known of that year is what he accidentally let slip during an April 2008 small-group fund-raiser in California: that he had made a trip to Pakistan in 1981. I say “accidentally” because there had been no previous mention ANYWHERE, or at ANY TIME of that trip.

The secrecy of it raises red flags galore, because at Occidental he had been close – “very close” – friends with some, and one in particular, Pakistani students, [one was his roommate as I recall] and his departure for the Pakistan trip came immediately after his arrival in New York, about which time he professes to have been penniless. The red flag flutters all the more because in New York City – just 4 blocks from Obama’s apartment lived none other than Bill Ayers. It was in October 1981 that Ayers’ Weather Underground committed one of their most horrific acts – the Brinks’ attack – just a WEE bit to the north of New York city proper.

So many things to ponder…

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz204t83lgL

mediazorba

The question of whether his parents were married or not never entered Barry’s mind as far as running for the presidency only in that it might make his book seem more like a fairy tale. As far as the bogus Hawaiian birth certificate, that was merely for the republicans’ benefit. Obama knew they would require that he, at least, be born in this country. Being an “African American”, they were not going to push the “natural born” citizen angle because to do so would have been considered racist. Since Obama’s constituency could care less whether he was born in the United States or Timbucktoo, this was all that was required.

Georgiaboy61

Mr. Chase, your detective work is indeed fascinating and even thought-provoking, but changes nothing in the sense that Obama’s birth and life story are still a fraud. We the people cannot allow candidates to seek – and possibly win – the highest office in the land based upon intentionally misleading, false to fraudulent bases.

Too much is at stake to forgive such deception, regardless of its cause. The American people will forgive much, but they do not appreciate being told lies when they deserve and want the truth. After almost four years of listening to every rationalization under the sun for Obama’s dishonesty, I have come to wonder whether or not I ought not to “invent” a more-compelling life story in service of advancing my agenda and life goals.

Obama’s biographies were ghost-written and are full of fabrications. His personal documents are bogus. Almost nothing about Obama’s contrived and invented life story holds up under scrutiny – yet this grifter is praised and rewarded for his deception at every turn. I honestly don’t get it – but then again I was born with that peculiar handicap of having a functioning moral compass and a conscience.

Jayhawk

0bama’s life story, at least the one we are supposed to believe, is like an onion. When you start peeling it away, there is yet another layer and another layer and another layer. In between is NOTHING THERE. 0bama is a MASTER CRIMINAL in every right. He and his Liberal Socialist (Democrat) Thugs, Hacks and Stooges have perpetrated the ultimate CRIME against the people of this nation. The bottom line is that NOTHING the Kenyan Usurper says, writes, initiates or supports is legitimate in any sense of the word. 0bama and FRAUD are synonymous. That he is as phony as a “57 State Atlas of the USA” is as obvious as his EARS!

Spaulding

Obama, on his “Fightthesmears (dot) com” website, told us “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” While it takes a bit of reading, and the term “native-born” is confusingly close to “natural-born”, native-born citizens are those, like the slaves for whose status as non-citizens, the 14th Amendment was intended to correct. A native-born citizen is a 14th Amendment Citizen, which is, by definition, a naturalized citizen. The 14th Amendment was an exercise of Article 1 Section 8, creating “an uniform rule for naturalization”.

The author of the 14th Amendment, congressman John Bingham of Ohio, an ardent abolitionist and judge, carefully repeated the Marshall definition, albeit using terms to emphasize the intent: ” I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” Those words are in the Congressional record for 1866.

The Justice who wrote the Wong Kim Ark decision, making the native-born Wong Kim, a citizen, and not a natural born citizen, though he was born and raised in San Francisco, cited the precedent, confirming the Marshall citation of common law, in Minor v. Happersett. The facts are clear but inconvenient to too many whose behavior, including Roberts, demonstrate complicity with the coverup.

There is no document in which Obama has claimed to be a natural born citizen. He knows better. He does not accept the validity of Article II Section 1. He was elected and sworn in by Roberts. Only one Congressman contested his eligibility, Nathan Deal of Georgia. Deal was immediately faced with ethics violations from income tax records of a decade earlier, and his published letter to the White House ignored. Deal resigned and is now Governor of Georgia.

The facts are incontestable. The ruling class has overruled the Constitution. Four years ago they cited Minor v. Happersett, which echoed the description mentioned as dictum in dozens of Supreme Court cases.

Spaulding

The accomplices are fascinating Schmutzli. They have helped to bury whatever documented truth there is, bringing suit to quiet Edu. Testing Service Employees who might have seen Obama/Soetoro’s applications and records, “cauterizing” (according to Sec. of State Rice) Obama’s passport file in main State Dept. Archives and then assassinating the man who executed the deed, and who happened to be working at the time for John Brennan, Obama’s Counterespionage expert, fluent Arab speaker, and former Deputy CIA Director.

The most fascinating accomplices are Obama’s Campaign Chair in 2008 who, with Obama, submitted Senate Bill 2678 in Feb. 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It did not pass so McCaskill, Obama, Leahy, Menendez, Webb, and several other senators submitted a Senate Resolution, an opinion of the Senate, since most senators knew they couldn’t amend the Constitution with a “Bill”, a law. April 2008 Resolution 511 contained a statement which they all agreed to: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

Both parties were accomplices to permitting Obama, born to an Alien father, to run because the Senate is a family that protects its own, lives by rules for which ordinary citizens would be prosecuted (read Peter Schweiker’s “Throw Them All Out” to see where much of their real income is derived). Who were they protecting? Had anyone paid attention, and there was little reason to do so, to John McCain’s 2000 run for the presidency he would have read of two law suits a half dozen congressional hearings, and dozens of law professors opining upon natural born citizenship. There were also eight attempts to amend Article II Section 1 by various congressmen, including two by John Conyers. The lawyer defending McCain was a senior partner, Christopher Landau, from Kirkland and Ellis, a large Chicago firm. Landau’s Junior Associate, Sarah Herilihy published “AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE”, in the Kent law Review in 2006. Obama/McCain probably began long ago.

No legal action succeeded in amending the Constitution so clever progressives appear to have executed a brilliant strategy – make the ineligible former prisoner of war, their partner in McCain Feingold, the man they protected from the “Keating Five” Savings and Loan scandal, Obama’s opponent. This writer agrees with the principle of the Obama/McCaskill SB2678, but Obama and McCaskill didn’t proposed it as an amendment. Democrat law professor, Smith Chair at U. of Arizona, Gabriel Chin wrote the clearest legal essay about why McCain was not eligible in Spring 2008, published with approval in WaPo and NYT. Then the media went silent.

John Roberts, for whom Chief Justice John Marshall was a model, knowing that definitions are not included in the Constitution by design, chose to ignore Marshall’s crystalline clarification of the US common-law upon which the Constitution is based when administering the oath of office to Obama. “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenous are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”  E. de Vattel: The Law of Nations, sec. 212

Both parties conspired with the press to suppress the unquestioned fact that Barack Obama declared himself to be a naturalized citizen. [?? -that isn't correct.  He characterized himself as native-born]  He told the truth. We must hold him to account for the unquestioned truth that the Constitution does not permit naturalized citizens to be our president. Every Senator knew. Orrin Hatch submitted an amendment to change that so that Schwarzenegger might run for president. It failed badly. Obama’s is a history of the complicity of both parties and now, a weak chief justice concerned more about perceptions than our Constitution.  [one could speculate that Roberts was extorted to pass Obamacare with the fact that he knew that Obama was not eligible but swore him in anyway, an impeachable offense for any judge, especially a chief justice.]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz2056XpIVG

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

27 Responses to Barry’s Buried Past & Counterfeit Birth Certificate

  1. ehancock says:

    Re Obama “sealing” his academic records. That is not true. They simply are private, just like Mitt Romney’s academic records.

    Neither are “sealed.” Both are private. Neither has to show them.

    • arnash says:

      What he is guilty of is keeping then all universally sealed instead of unsealing them. He has no business making a claim of privacy and also making a claim of being President of 315 million Americans. Will everything in his future presidential library be kept private also? It will have to be because it will still be embarrassing for him, whether in or out of office.

  2. ehancock says:

    Re: “He deceived his publicist and would-be publisher that advanced him a whole lot of money in anticipation of a autobiography by a Kenyan born American.”

    The publicity writer who wrote the blurb admitted making that mistake and said that Obama did not write it.

    • arnash says:

      It’s impossible to admit to having done something that you didn’t do and never did for anyone else, -which is to invent a bio for someone who is required to submit their own since no one knows one better than one’s self. Plus, any fool knows that who wrote what over twenty years ago is impossible to recall and would not be retained in anyone’s memory. And “mistakes” don’t get perpetuated for nearly two decades without “correction” unless they are not mistakes. He lied to everyone in order to appear more interesting, just as he sought out friends and mentors who were more interesting than white, capitalist suburban academics and mentors, -instead he sought out the more exotic radicals, revolutionaries, terrorists, and marxist professors, which you already know.

  3. ehancock says:

    It was not “ridiculously easy” to get a birth certificate in Hawaii saying “Kapiolani Hospital” on it (as Obama’s does) unless you were actually born in Kapiolani Hospital. It was not “ridiculously easy” to get a birth certificate in Hawaii that had the signature of a Kapiolani Hospital doctor on it unless you actually were born there and delivered by that doctor. Oh, and for the children who were not born in hospitals, the DOH in Hawaii at the time demanded a witness statement before issuing a birth certificate with a Hawaii place of birth on it.

    • arnash says:

      You are right. A decent forgery isn’t made overnight. It isn’t ridiculously easy to make one. That’s why it took a lot of time to get the materials together from various sources, find a trusted counterfeiter, and wait for his end result. which would have been foolproof if only he hadn’t forgotten to flatten the 9 layers into one.
      As for the witness statement, who do you think you are writing to? People as clueless or self-deluded as yourself? The “witness” (so hard to find) was the mother or grandmother. Is that fact really beyond your ability to grasp? She can swear to whatever is needed to procure her child a U.S. birth certificate because it is the magical key to U.S. citizenship, even though they were never intended for that purpose.

      • ehancock says:

        Obama has shown both the images of his birth certificate on the Web and the actual physical copies with the seal on the back.
        [YOU'RE CONFLATING TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE CAN VIEW A FEW HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOS OF THE CERTIFICATION SHORT-FORM BC AND SEE THAT IT IS A REAL DOCUMENT, BUT THERE IS NO SUCH SIMILAR THING FOR THE LONG FORM. THE REASON IS THAT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE AND NOTHING MORE, NAMELY A PURELY DIGITALLY, PERFECT, NON-PHYSICAL IMAGE WITHOUT A SINGLE BLEMISH, CREASE OR FOLD OR EMBOSSED STATE SEAL. AND IT WAS NEVER CERTIFIED BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SIGNED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR. A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE IS NOT A REAL SIGNATURE ANYMORE THAN COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS REAL MONEY. BY I SHOULD LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT A RUBBER STAMPED SIGNATURE WAS PLACED ON A PHYSICAL DOCUMENT. INSTEAD IT IS JUST ONE OF THE SEVERAL LAYERS ADDED TO THE TEXT AND BACKGROUND LAYERS OF THE PDF.]

        The officials in Hawaii have in two legal documents stated that the facts on Obama’s published birth certificate are exactly the same as on the original in the files.
        [THE TWO "LEGAL DOCUMENTS" ARE NOT LEGAL IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD. NO ONE HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO SWEAR UNDER OATH TO ANYTHING, AND THAT ISN'T LIKELY TO EVER CHANGE. THEY WILL PROBABLY GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING BECAUSE EVERYONE IN GOVERNMENT IS A COWARD OR UNINTERESTED IN CONSTITUTIONAL FIDELITY. IF NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT CARES WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT, THEN WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO GET PULLED INTO THE VORTEX OF INVESTIGATING OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE? THE DOWNSIDE TO THEIR REPUTATION IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN THE CONSTITUTION.]

        The fact that there was a birth certificate issued in 1961 is confirmed by the Index Data (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html)
        [WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE BIRTH THAT WAS REGISTERED WAS NOT THAT OF VIRGINIA SUNAHARA? (BORN AUGUST 5TH AND DIED SHORTLY AFTER)]

        And it is also confirmed by the witness (who by the way was not a relative at all) whose father’s name happens really to have been Stanley, and she said that she wrote home to him about a woman named Stanley giving birth (http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece).
        [THE "WITNESS" WAS A WITNESS TO NOTHING. NEITHER WAS THE DOCTOR WHO TOLD HER THAT HE HAD HEARD THAT STANLEY HAD A BABY. REMEMBER THAT TELEPHONES EXISTED BACK THEN ALSO. PEOPLE COULD GET NEWS OF MAJOR EVENTS SUCH AS A FIRST BORN BIRTH EVEN THOUGH THEY HAPPENED FAR AWAY.]

        Moreover, Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and tens of thousands of miles from Kenya. Yet birthers believe [CORRECTION; SOME BIRTHERS BELIEVE, SOME BIRTHERS SPECULATE] that Obama’s mother went to Kenya (such a trip would have been terribly expensive and risky) and gave birth there. Well, she didn’t. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and Obama’s Kenyan grandmother certainly did not say that Obama was born in Kenya. [SHE DID SAY THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA BUT OBAMA MEANS OBAMA SR., HE WAS THE FIRST ONE WITH THAT NAME. SHE MIGHT HAVE CONFUSED THE TWO AND THEN CORRECTED HERSELF AFTER PLENTY OF PRODDING BY HER RELATIVE WHO WAS DOING THE PHONE TRANSLATING.
        She said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

  4. ehancock says:

    Re Social Security number:

    The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

    Millions of people have errors in their SS numbers and millions have multiple social security numbers, which were caused mainly by data entry errors:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

    http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

    You might well ask why, if there is evidence that Obama has multiple SS numbers and that one of them came from Connecticut that NO committee in Congress wants to investigate? Why not?

    Because it is not illegal to have mistakes in your SS files, and lots of people do. And there is no evidence that this is other than a mistake, or a lot of mistakes. Republicans would be GLAD to hold a hearing to show that there was a crime involved with Obama’s SS number. But they KNOW that there is no evidence, and if they looked into their own files (I did to mine), they are likely to find multiple numbers in them.

  5. yo says:

    @ehancock

    your excuses ring hollow

    do you know how you look with excuse number two about his publicist?

    that excuse about the publicist is a bald faced lie and everyone knows it and you are only too happy to perpetuate it

    i just keep wondering what motivates people like you

  6. ehancock says:

    Re: “that excuse about the publicist is a bald faced lie and everyone knows it and you are only too happy to perpetuate it.”

    Answer. The publicist really did say that she made the mistake.

      • yo says:

        We know she said it. duh
        We also know it is a bald faced lie.
        We know the publicist gets their info directly from the authors.
        Even a tiny bit of common sense would tell the dullest of persons that a publicist would not concoct a story for an obit about the author being born in kenya out of thin air. Somebody told the publicist. The only person who would have told the publicist is ….guess who?

        Every person on earth knows the story concocted about how the obit came to be is a bald faced lie. Authors give publicists their bios. Publicists don’t make up bios. Every person in publishing knows this. Yet another obvious bald faced lie is allowed by the media to stand.

      • ehancock says:

        Re: “We know the publicist gets their info directly from the authors..”

        It would be nice to think that that was always the case. Unfortunately, it is not always the case. Publicity writers write often write quickly under deadline, and they send the thing off later to the source and ask for it to be checked. But, there can be mistakes in the process. Say that the writer did this and thought that she sent it off to be checked, but forgot to do so and never did.

        In any case, a mistake of that kind is possible, and the publicist said that she was responsible for it.

        And, of course, the mistake of a publicist does not mean that Obama was actually born in Kenya. That would be a stupid idea since only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and Hawaii is ten thousand miles from Kenya, and women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in 1961, and Obama’s Kenya grandmother said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii, and so does the birth certificate, and so do the birth announcements in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers.

  7. yo says:

    I finally figured out something and i feel like a moron for not realizing it sooner.

    The reason Obama, a Harvard law review guy, went to work for some obscure nothingness company and then a community organizer is because he COULDN’T work anywhere that would do an actual background check on him. He would have been found out within a heartbeat of his various frauds if he would’ve tried to get a job at some prestigious law firm. Or he did apply to them and they told the fraud they weren’t interested when they saw things that stood out like a sore thumb in a background check. So, he winds up working for the kinds of jobs at first that won’t even do a background check, and then into politics where libtard journalists will lie through the teeth to cover for him.

    ehancock, you can peddle your bs all you want, but there are a lot of people who believe what they see, (massive fraud), and not what they are told by liberal spinners.

    ie sheriff arpaio’s video’s show in detail why the docs are a fraud.
    Obama’s crowd tells you everything is legit while they hide the underlying info.

    The long form bc is proved to not be a photocopy as we were told. It is computer generated. That’s fraud. The selective service card has a fraudulent gov’t stamp. And it is obvious in the video.

    But, we are told it is all legit. While they HIDE the underlying docs with more security than fort knox.

    Anybody that can’t see the truth here is either willfuly ignorant or they are just a liar.

  8. ehancock says:

    Re: “The reason Obama, a Harvard law review guy, went to work for some obscure nothingness company and then a community organizer is because he COULDN’T…”

    Obama worked for that company (Business International) and as a community organizer BEFORE he went to Harvard Law School.

    Re Sheriff Joe’s video.

    IF you believe Sheriff Joe. But Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review don’t. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors)

    Nathan Goulding, chief technology officer of the National Review magazine, dismissed the matter of “layered components” found in the White House PDF by suggesting “that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner.” and adding “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
    [WHO DIED AND MADE A TECHNOLOGY OFFICER A MASTER OF REPRODUCTION SOFTWARE? HE HAS NO EXPERTISE AND HIS OPINION IS SUPERFICIAL AT BEST AND FOOLISHLY IGNORANT AT WORST. HE GOT IT WRONG RIGHT FROM THE START WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS SCANNED INSTEAD OF FABRICATED. THE PDF IS AN IMAGE OF A DIGITAL CREATION, NOT A PHYSICAL PAPER DOCUMENT. TO SEE A REAL PAPER CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH FROM MARCH 2011 LOOK AT THIS IMAGE: http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/long-form-bc-from-hawaii-hicon.jpg

    THE HE PROCEEDED TO PROVE THAT HE IS A TOTAL IDIOT OR IS WORKING FOR THE OBAMA MACHINE WHEN HE IGNORANTLY MENTIONS OCR (OPTICAL CHARACTER RECOGNITION) THERE IS NO OCR SETTING THAT NEEDS TO BE “TURNED OFF” IT IS TURNED OFF BY DEFAULT, ONE HAS TO DELIBERATELY TURN IT ON, AND THAT WAS NOT DONE, AND THE PDF IMAGE CONTAINS NO DIGITAL FONT TEXT WHATSOEVER, IT’S ALL 100% TEXT IMAGERY, UNALTERABLE OR SWITCHABLE. THEN HE FLAT OUT LIES BY CLAIMING THAT SCANNING TO A PDF FORMAT CREATES OVER A HALF DOZEN LAYERS RATHER THAN SIMPLY TWO, WHICH ARE ONE FOR THE BACKGROUND AND GRAY-SCALE IMAGERY, AND ONE FOR THE ISOLATED PURE BLACK TEXT.]
    And:

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
    [WHAT THE HECK IS A "QUESTIONED IMAGE"? THAT COULD MEAN A PLETHORA THINGS, MOST OF WHICH HE WOULD HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN ANALYZING. HIS DEVIOUSLY WORDED DISCLAIMER IS KIND OF ACCURATE IN THAT THE PDF SHOWS NO SIGNS OF ALTERATION, IF...ONE LOOKS AT IT AS A FLAT IMAGE AND DOES NOT EXAMINATION AT HIGH RESOLUTION OF ITS MANY INDIVIDUAL LAYERS, -SOMETHING HE CLEARLY DID NOT DO. HE DID A CURSORY SUPERFICIAL LOOK AT IT AND THEN LEAPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HIS GREAT EXPERT BACKGROUND SURELY MUST HAVE COME UP WITH THE FINAL SETTLED TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IF SHERLOCK HOLMES HAD RELIED ON SUCH INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE HE WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED ANYTHING. AS FOR SEEING NOTHING SUSPICIOUS, SUSPICION IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. IF ONE FAILS TO ENGAGE THEIR FULL ANALYTICAL ABILITY, ONE CAN EASILY OVERLOOK WHAT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE WITH A CLOSE ENOUGH LOOK. APPARENTLY HE DID A WHOLE LOT OF OVERLOOKING. BUT NO ONE NEEDS TO TAKE ANYONE'S WORD ON THE SUBJECT BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE THE EVIDENCE OF MANUFACTURE WITH ONE'S OWN EYES ON A COMPUTER WITH A DECENT WORD PROCESSOR. ]
    And:

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”
    [HIS OWN WORDS REVEAL HIM TO BE A QUACK USING QUACK LOGIC. NOTHING ABOUT THE PDF IS "ENHANCED", NOTHING RELATED TO THE LAYERS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH LEGIBILITY. EVERYTHING IS ALREADY FULLY LEGIBLE AND IN NO NEED OF ANY ENHANCEMENT. AND THE CLAIM THAT ENHANCEMENT WAS DONE BY "SOMEONE" SCREAMS MANIPULATION BECAUSE NO SCANNER IS EVER DESCRIBED AS "SOMEONE", NOR DO SCANNERS MAKE DELIBERATE "MODIFICATIONS" TO DOCUMENT IMAGES. AND NOTICE THAT HE FAILS TO USE THE WORD "LAYERS", NOR DESCRIBE OR MENTION A SINGLE ONE OF THEM NOR HOW THEY CAN BE INNOCENTLY EXPLAINED. THEY CAN'T BE BECAUSE NO SCANNER COULD CREATE THEM.]

    In contrast to the claims by birther zealots, three Republican and several Democrat officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file for Obama and that it shows that the long-form birth certificate published by the White House is accurate. Their confirmation is further confirmed by the Index Data–a list of the birth certificates on file by year, showing one for Obama in 1961: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

    [YOU FAIL TO GRASP THAT THE HAWAIIAN VITAL RECORDS OFFICE IS ALL DIGITAL. THERE IS NO CHECKING OF ORIGINAL PAPER RECORDS NOR MICROFILM ARCHIVED IMAGES. THE ONLY METHOD OF CHECKING A RECORD IN ON THEIR COMPUTER MONITORS. THEY CALL UP A FILE WHICH IS IN THEIR DATA-BASE. IF IT IS A TAMPERED FILE THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW IT. CONSIDERING HOW MUCH IS AT STAKE (OBAMA'S ENTIRE PRESIDENCY) ONE CAN BE FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE ORIGINAL DIGITAL RECORD HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH ONE THAT CONFORMS TO THE PDF FAKE.]

    And these confirmations are still further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in 1961. As the name implies the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section only came from the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH only sent out birth notices for children born in Hawaii.

    [THAT IS AN UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM. THEY COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS WHERE THE REGISTERED NEWBORNS WERE ACTUALLY BORN. THEIR NOTIFICATION LIST WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERGONE ANY KIND OF FILTERING. WHY WOULD IT? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT TO EVERYONE. ANY NEW BIRTH THAT WAS REGISTERED WOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEWSPAPERS.]

    http://4peoplewhothink.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/the-belief-factor-by-dan-lynch/

  9. hancock says:

    When the DOH of Hawaii made the official physical copy of the original long form birth certificate, it did so by photocopying the page of the book onto security paper and affixing the seal on the back (where it is supposed to be) and then the signature of the official and giving it to Obama’s lawyer. You can see that it is a page of a book because the image of the text curves slightly, though the security paper does not curve.
    [YOU'RE PONTIFICATING ON A SUBJECT THAT YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED, NOR READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN BY THOSE WHO HAVE STUDIED IT. YOU NEED TO REREAD WHAT I WROTE, AND WHAT I'VE WRITTEN IN VARIOUS EXPOSITIONS ON IT. YOU MISCONSTRUED WHAT I WROTE SO BADLY THAT I DELETED YOUR IMMATURE MISCHARACTERIZATION RATHER THAN WASTE MY TIME ADDRESSING IT.
    THE DIGITIZED VERSION OF THE MICROFILM IMAGE WAS OVERLAID ON THE SECURITY BACKGROUND AFTER THE IMAGERY OF THE PAPER IT WAS TYPED ON WAS ERASED, LEAVING TEXT ONLY. THAT DIGITAL FILE, ALONG WITH OTHERS, WERE HANDED OVER TO OBAMA'S LAWYER WHO PROVIDED HIM WITH ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, -THUS PROTECTING HIM FROM ANY FUTURE INQUIRY AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COUNTERFEIT VERSION, -WHICH WAS CREATED USING THE DIGITAL FILES OBTAINED FROM THE SOURCE IN HAWAII.
    THERE IS NO STATE SEAL ON THE PDF BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT, IT'S JUST AN IMAGE. THERE WAS A REAL SEAL APPLIED TO THE FIRST bc, THE "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH" BUT ONLY AFTER IT WAS RELEASED ON THE INTERNET AS A MERE IMAGE FROM AN UNKNOWN AND UNATTRIBUTED SOURCE AND LACKING ANY SEAL. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO VERSIONS ON MY BC PAGE AT hppt://obamabc.wordpress.com ONE, THE ORIGINAL, HAS NO SEAL AND NO CREASES FROM FOLDING SINCE IT WAS PURELY A NON-PHYSICAL BC IMAGE. AFTER IT BECAUSE HIGHLY SUSPECT, THEN A REAL COLB WAS CREATED AND IT HAD A SEAL EMBOSSED ON THE BACK BUT IT WAS THE WRONG KIND OF SEAL, IT WAS A DEBOSSED IMPRESSION INSTEAD OF WHAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES, WHICH IS AN EMBOSSED IMPRESSION. SO IT WAS NOT MADE WITH THE DEVICE THAT STAMPS HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATES UNLESS THEY DON'T FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAW.]

    The director of health of Hawaii stated that she had seen the copying process underway, and that she gave it to Obama’s lawyer.
    [SHE ALSO SAID THAT OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, WHICH MAKES EVERYTHING SHE SAYS AND DOES A PURELY POLITICAL STATEMENT AND ACTION TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS ROYAL PRESIDENCY. HE’S HER HERO, SHE WILL BLOW SMOKE FOR HIM IF HE ASKS HER, AND HE DID. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT SHE WILL LIE FOR HIM UNDER OATH.

    Re: “THEY COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS WHERE THE REGISTERED NEWBORNS WERE ACTUALLY BORN…”

    If you claim that this could be forged, well the answer is that the officials in their two most recent confirmations (Arizona and Mississippi) say that the image of the birth certificate that the White House has shown, has exactly the same facts on it as the document in the files, meaning Kapiolani Hospital (which, btw, did exist in 1961.)
    [YOU ARE LIKE SOMEONE JOINING A COLLEGE CLASS A WEEK AFTER IT ALREADY BEGAN. I ALREADY EXPLAINED, AND DON'T NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF FOR ANYONE WITH AN INTELLECT HIGHER THAN A FOURTH GRADER, THAT THE "FACTS" CONTAINED IN THE PDF IMAGE ARE THE SAME AS THE FACTS IN THE OBAMA FILE IN THE HAWAIIAN DATABASE BECAUSE THE DATABASE, LIKE THE PDF HAS BEEN ALTERED. THE EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION SEEN IN THE PDF CAN ONLY BE ASSUMED TO BE THE VISIBLE TIP OF AN INVISIBLE ICEBERG OF ALTERATIONS. NOTHING ABOUT IT CAN BE ASSUMED TO BE UNALTERED EXCEPT FOR REASONABLE THINGS LIKE THE SIGNATURES AND THE NAMES OF THE PARENTS & CHILD.]

    Re: “THE ORIGINAL DIGITAL RECORD HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A NEW DIGITAL VERSION THAT CONFORMS TO THE PDF FAKE.] ”

    Returning to this. The original is not digital. It is a page in a book. Not only have the officials in Hawaii seen it recently, but they saw it in 2008, when they issued the first confirmation. That was before the presidential election. Are you saying that Republican-appointed officials before the presidential election lied about Obama’s birth certificate being in their files?

    [YOU ARE FAILING TO GRASP WHAT I’VE ALREADY EMPHASIZED, WHICH IS THAT THE RECORD, THE FILE, THAT THEY CONSULTED WAS THEIR DIGITAL DATABASE FILE/RECORD. NOT A PAPER OR MICROFILM ORIGINAL. WHEN THEY USE THE WORDS “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO. THEY HAVE NEVER SAID “ORIGINAL PAPER BIRTH CERTIFICATE, NOR “HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE”, SO THEY COULD BE REFERRING TO THE DIGITAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE RECORD ON RECORD ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (MEANING IN THE DIGITAL RECORDS).

    IF YOU RECALL, THE ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE IN 2008 STATED THAT NEITHER THE GOVERNOR NOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEPT HAVE EVER INSTRUCTED THAT OBAMA’S RECORD BE HANDLED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER RECORD. WELL, IT WASN’T HANDLED ANY DIFFERENTLY, WHICH MEANS THAT JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PERSON’S RECORD, IT WAS VIEWED, NOT AS AN ORIGINAL PAPER OR MICROFILM IMAGE, BUT AN IMAGE ON THEIR COMPUTER MONITOR, -WHICH IS THE SOURCE FILE FOR PRINTING A COPY FOR “CERTIFICATION”. THEY EVENTUALLY STOPPED USING MICROFILM TO STORE BACKUPS OF VITAL RECORDS WHEN PHOTOCOPYING AND DIGITAL HARD-DRIVE FILES WERE FINALLY AFFORDABLE AND EASILY AVAILABLE. COMPARE OBAMA’S BC WITH THAT OF THE PERSON WHO OBTAINED A LONG-FORM HAWAIIAN BC IN MARCH 2011. THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN LAYOUT AND NATURE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A PHOTOCOPY IMAGE AND NOT A MICROFILM IMAGE OF A LEDGER-BOUND ORIGINAL.]

    And, of course your claim that the birth certificate in the files was forged fails to account for the birth notices in the newspapers, which at the time were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH sent out notices only for births IN Hawaii.

    Re: “ANY NEW BIRTH THAT WAS REGISTERED WOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEWSPAPERS.]”

    Agreed. However, in 1961 only births IN Hawaii could be registered. The law was not changed to allow births outside of Hawaii to be registered in Hawaii until 1982.
    [SO YOU SAY BECAUSE SO YOU MISUNDERSTAND. THERE WAS NO LAW TO CHANGED IN 1982 BECAUSE PRIOR TO THEN NO LAW EXISTED, -NON-HAWAIIAN BIRTHS WERE REGISTERED NOT PER THE LAW BUT PER AGE-OLD TERRITORIAL POLICY DATING BACK SEVERAL GENERATIONS. THAT TRADITION FINALLY BECAME CODIFIED IN 1982.]

    So the DOH would not have registered Obama’s birth (or anybody’s) unless there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. [YOU FAIL TO GRASP WHAT HAWAII CONSIDERED TO BE "PROOF". IF AN ADULT SWORE TO SOMETHING IN A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT THEN IT WAS TAKEN AS PROOF, LIKE SWEARING TO TELL THE TRUTH IN COURT OR BEFORE A JUDGE.]

    The proof in Obama’s case was that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital with the signature of a doctor of Kapiolani Hospital on the birth certificate.
    [BUT WE CAN'T TRUST AN ABSTRACT ALTERED IMAGE OF A FILE THAT NO NEUTRAL PARTY HAS EVER SEEN, BEARING THE SIGNATURE OF A DOCTOR WHO HAD RETIRED HALF A DECADE EARLIER AND HAD MOVED ON TO ADMINISTRATION INSTEAD OF PRACTICE.]

    In addition to these proofs, the birth certificate and the confirmations and the Index Data and the birth notices in the newspapers, there is the fact that Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and that travel late in pregnancy was very rare in 1961. Obama’s parents and grandparents were not rich, and a trip to any foreign country would have cost thousands of dollars, so why do it? No, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Hawaii heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

    [BECAUSE OF THE REASONS YOU’VE STATED, I AGREE THAT A KENYAN BIRTH SCENARIO, WHILE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE WITH OCEAN TRAVEL AND AIR TRAVEL, WOULD BE A COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE AND VERY BORING ROUTE TO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THE GOAL OF PUTTING ONE’S UNWANTED BABY UP FOR ADOPTION. HENCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE VANCOUVER SCENARIO. SINCE ANN HAD NO ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT TO OBAMA SR., NOR ANY CONNECTION TO HIS KENYAN FAMILY, THERE’S NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT SHE WOULD HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED OFFERING HER BABY TO THEM, NOR WOULD THEY HAVE WANTED IT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING HOW POOR THEY WERE, AND ARE.

    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the-vancouver-scenario1.pdf

  10. ehancock says:

    Re: “THE PDF IS AN IMAGE OF A DIGITAL CREATION, NOT A PHYSICAL PAPER DOCUMENT. ”

    So you say, or rather you scream. But screaming it does not make it the case. It was a scanned image of a physical document. The scanned image of the long-form was the one that Hawaii’s DOH stated that she had seen being photocopied onto security paper and given to Obama’s lawyer. The two physical copies with the official seal were also passed around in the White House press room, and one reporter stated that she had felt the seal and even photographed it.

    Re your Vancouver dream. If Obama were born in Vancouver (which is very very unlikely one reason being that in those days Canadian immigration officials did not like to let pregnant women into the country), then there would be a record of the birth in Vancouver.

    • arnash says:

      No one in the Hawaiian government has ever said, nor will ever say that the 9-layer pdf IMAGE is the result of a scan. That is a lie perpetrated by the White House and not believable by anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature, especially after viewing the layers. What you are stupidly ignoring is that the pdf image is not an image of a physical document, but is merely an “Abstract”. Hawaii no longer provides photo-reproductions of microfilm records because all of those old records have been digitized and are reproduced only as abstracts, as has already been explained repeatedly.
      You’ve ignorantly stated that two physical copies were passed around in the press room. That is purely a lie. The only copies circulated were the ones given out to reporters as black & white print-outs of the pdf image. At another time Susan Guthrie was allowed to hold and photograph a color print-out. That proves not a thing whatsoever. It if was real and original and from Hawaii, where is the statement by Hawaii that that is true? Where is the attestation of a document expert to verify that it isn’t a counterfeit? Why has no one in the entire government been allowed to examine it, nor anyone in the media who is not a fan of Obama? Where was the objective examination? No where, because no document exists to examine.
      As for a Vancouver birth record, what authority has claimed that one does not exist? Who has even looked? No one. But if one exists, it is probably well hidden, -just like the week of records of entries into the U.S. during the first week of August 1961.

  11. ehancock says:

    Re: “[THAT IS AN UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM. THEY COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS WHERE THE REGISTERED NEWBORNS WERE ACTUALLY BORN. THEIR NOTIFICATION LIST WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERGONE ANY KIND OF FILTERING. WHY WOULD IT? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT TO EVERYONE. ANY NEW BIRTH THAT WAS REGISTERED WOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEWSPAPERS.]”

    Where did you get that fantasy from?

    Here is what the PUMA Lori Steinfeld said: “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. ”

    In fact you do not have any proof, not a drop, that Hawaii in 1961 issued birth certificates with the words “born in Honolulu” on them to people who were not born in Honolulu, or that the DOH sent out birth notices to the newspapers for people whose birth was not registered in Hawaii, or that the DOH registered the births in Hawaii of people who were not born in Hawaii. IN 1961–not decades before.

    • arnash says:

      What does PUMA stand for? Never heard of Lori Steinfeld. Her quote only applies to a Hawaiian birth outside of a hospital, -it does NOT apply to a birth to Hawaiian parents outside of the state. No one claims that birth certificates for out-of-state births stated a Honolulu birth location. Where did you get such a fantasy idea? No one knows what the original birth certificate showed because Obama will not show it. Do you suppose that the first birth certificate that Obama ever obtained in his entire life was the short-form released in 2008? So explain why he didn’t simply release a photocopy of the birth certificate that he used all of his life like anyone else would have done (except Romney it seems)?
      As for the newspapers, they received a copy of the only list that was compiled, which contained all the names of all the registered births -regardless of the irrelevant information of where the births took place. That was not a fact that had any importance, -the birth itself was what was important for printing.

  12. ehancock says:

    Re: “No one in the Hawaiian government has ever said, nor will ever say that the 9-layer pdf IMAGE is the result of a scan…”

    No, what they have said was that they sent him the actual physical copy. And they have said that the facts on the birth certificate that the White House published matches, meaning are just the same, as on the birth certificate in the files.

    You can dream, but you have no facts to prove your dream, that the White House did not make its Web image of the long-form birth certificate by scanning the copy that Hawaii sent, and that they created a digital image with all the facts exactly the same as on the birth certificate that Hawaii has, but that is merely your dream. It is a laughable idea.

    • ehancock says:

      PUMA (People United Means Action, is a strong opponent of Obama and a strong supporter of Hillary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action.

      Lori Starfeld showed that the officials in Hawaii went to lengths to check claims that children were born in Hawaii outside of hospitals. The reason was so as not to give a Hawaii birth certificate with a Hawaii place of birth on it to a child who was not born in Hawaii. And, BTW, the reason that Lori did the research was that she was trying to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but she found that he was born in Hawaii.)

      [SHE DID NOT FIND THAT HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. SHE ONLY FOUND THAT SHE COULD FIND NO PROOF THAT HE WASN'T. SO FAR, NONE EXISTS THAT HAS BEEN LOCATED, UNLESS THE AFRICAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS GENUINE.
      YOU'VE OVERLOOKED A CENTRAL POINT REGARDING HAWAII SEEKING PROOF OF A HAWAIIAN BIRTH LOCATION IF OUTSIDE OF A HOSPITAL. WHAT YOU OVERLOOKED IS THE PARENTAGE OF THE PERSONS MAKING THE CLAIM OF A HAWAIIAN BIRTH, -WERE THEY UNITED STATES CITIZENS, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHERE THEIR CHILD WAS BORN, OR WAS THE MOTHER AN IMMIGRANT, (IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD BECAUSE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS ABSOLUTELY MUST BE BORN IN THE U.S. IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED U.S. CITIZENS)?]

      There is a Conservative columnist named Andrew Walden who lives in Hawaii, and while he hates Obama’s policies, he said this about the Sun Yat Sen birth certificate: “Conspiracists have made much of the fact that the Territory of Hawaii gave a phony birth certificate in 1904 to Chinese republican leader Sun Yat Sen for diplomatic reasons. But the modern State of Hawaii has never supplied Certification of Live Birth indicating US birth for foreign-born children.” To repeat, “The modern State of Hawaii has never supplied Certification of Live Birth indicating US birth for foreign-born children.” (http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/04/can-we-put-the-obama-birth-certificate-crap-behind-us-now.html).
      [AGAIN WITH THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY AS TO THE NATIONALITY OF THE PARENTS. HAWAIIAN LAW ALLOWS BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO BE ISSUED TO CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE OF HAWAII IF THE PARENTS ARE AMERICANS, AND THAT WAS THE POLICY OF THE DOH EVEN BEFORE THERE WAS A LAW LEGITIMIZING THE PRACTICE. BUT A LITTLE IGNORANCE GOES A LONG WAY IN MAKING A STATUTORY CITIZEN INTO A NATURAL CITIZEN. SIMILAR TO MAKING A SOW'S EAR INTO A SILK PURSE.]

      So there are at least two sources, both of whom hated Obama, who say that you could not get a birth certificate in Hawaii indicating the place of birth was in Hawaii, unless the child was actually born in Hawaii. And, of course, the officials of the DOH say that too.

      • ehancock says:

        Re: “No one claims that birth certificates for out-of-state births stated a Honolulu birth location.”

        Precisely. Obama received a birth certificate in Hawaii saying that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. He did not receive a birth certificate saying that he was born out of Hawaii. His birth certificate, like others with the HONOLULU place of birth on it ( a fact repeatedly confirmed by the officials) shows that in fact he was born in HONOLULU.
        [THE SHORT-FORM COLB APPEARED OUT OF THE BLUE, NOT ON THE OBAMA ELECTION WEBSITE. IT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO NO ONE, INCLUDING HAWAII. IT'S ORIGIN WAS COMPLETELY LEFT UP TO THE VIEWERS IMAGINATION. LATER THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE DISPLAYED VIA A LINK TO RON POLLARD'S PHOTOBUCKET ALBUM THE SEEMINGLY REAL BUT ACTUALLY COUNTERFEIT COLB THAT DR. POLLARD HAD EDITED AND ALTERED.
        NONE OF THE INTERNET IMAGES REVEALED A STATE SEAL WHICH A REAL COLB WOULD HAVE UNMISTAKEABLY CONTAINED. THEN WHEN THAT FACT WAS CRITICIZED, PRESTO! A NEW COLB CONTAINING A SEAL APPEARED. IT HAS ALL OF THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING BEEN PRODUCED BY HAWAII. ASSUMING THAT TO BE TRUE, THEN IT WAS A FRAUD CREATED IN ORDER TO DERAIL THE UNAVOIDABLE SUSPICION THAT THE ORIGINAL IMAGES WERE FAKES MANUFACTURED TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
        NO SHORT OR LONG-FORM OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS WORTH THE COMPUTER SCREEN IT APPEARS ON, NOR THE PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON UNLESS IT PRE-DATES HIS RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY. ONCE HIS BACKERS PUT HIM ON THAT TRACK, THEN THE FIX WAS IN TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT HE WAS AN ALL-AMERICAN CANDIDATE MERELY BY BEING BORN ON US SOIL. THE FIRST THING THAT HAD TO BE DONE TO GUARANTEE THAT IMPRESSION WAS TO PRODUCE A DOCTORED BIRTH CERTIFICATION. IT WORKED BECAUSE GULLIBLE FOOLS FELL FOR IT DUE TO THEIR BIAS BLINDNESS IN FAVOR OF THEIR SAVIOR KING.
        THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS, WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE HE USED ALL OF HIS ADULT LIFE? THE ONE NEEDED TO GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE IN CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, AND MASSACHUSETTS? WAS IT NOT ALSO NEEDED TO REGISTER FOR COLLEGE AND TO BE ADMITTED TO THE BAR? HE DID NOT LOSE IT JUST BECAUSE SOME INEPT PEOPLE DO SO. WHERE HAS HE EVER CLAIMED THAT HE LOST IT OR THAT THE DOG ATE IT? WHY HAS HE NEVER ADDRESSED THE ISSUE? BECAUSE NO ONE HAS EVER RAISED IT TO HIM. THERE IS A TOTAL BLACK-OUT WHEN IT COMES TO ANY HINT THAT HE MIGHT NOT LEGITIMATELY BE ELIGIBLE TO BE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.]

        Re: “No one knows what the original birth certificate showed because Obama will not show it. ”

        So are you saying that the officials of both parties in Hawaii lying?
        [I’M SAYING THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE AMBIGUOUS DECEPTIONS WHICH I’VE ALREADY EXPLAINED AND FOR WHICH YOU HAVE OFFERED NO REBUTTAL. ALL REFERENCES MADE BY HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS WERE TO THE “FACTS” OR IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THEIR COMPUTER MONITORS, WHICH I CLAIM ARE FORGERIES PLANTED IN THEIR DATA-BASE FILE SYSTEM, OR ELSE THE OFFICIALS ARE FLAT-OUT LYING IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEIR WHITE KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR, -THE GREAT DEFENDER OF THE DEPENDENT SOCIALIST STATE WHICH IS THEIR BREAD & BUTTER.

        The reasons that Obama does not show his original birth certificate is exactly the same as why Romney does not show his original birth certificate: The official copy is the official document.
        [WHAT ROMNEY FAILS TO DO IS IRRELEVANT SINCE HE WAS NOT BORN TO A VISA CARD ALIEN. UNDER US LAW, OBAMA WAS NOT BORN AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN EVEN THOUGH FEDERAL POLICY ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED THAT HE WAS. REMOVE HAWAII AS HIS BIRTH LOCATION AND EVEN THE STUPID FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN, BUT WAS A STATUTORY CITIZEN, -UNLIKE JOHN MCCAIN.
        THE REASON THAT OBAMA DOESN'T SHOW HIS REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST, -HENCE THE NEED FOR A FAKE VERSION. IF HIS COLB SERIOUSLY PRE-DATED HIS RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY THEN IT WOULD SEEM TO BE SOMETHING THAT HAS NO HIDDEN MOTIVE BEHIND IT, OTHERWISE IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED BECAUSE HIS ELIGIBILITY RESTS DIRECTLY ON HIS BIRTH LOCATION IN THE MINDS OF THE IGNORANT ELECTORATE.]

        Re: “Do you suppose that the first birth certificate that Obama ever obtained in his entire life was the short-form released in 2008? So explain why he didn’t simply release a photocopy of the birth certificate that he used all of his life like anyone else would have done (except Romney it seems)?”

        Obama and Romney and I and thousands of people cannot show the birth certificates that were sent to our families because, duh, we lost them. That is the reason why you can get new official copies from the state.
        [NOW YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO THE MOUTHS OF BOTH OBAMA AND ROMNEY WITH NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DOING SO.]

      • ehancock says:

        And there is the witness who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth to a woman named Stanley that week
        [THERE IS NO PROOF OF WHAT WEEK SHE WROTE HOME, IT COULD HAVE BEEN WEEKS LATER, -THAT WAS 50 YEARS AGO SO CLAIMING THAT IT WAS THE WEEK FOLLOWING AUG. 4TH IS PURE IMAGINATION.]

        (yes, she thought that West was the delivery doctor, so she got that part wrong—but she remembers being told by a Kapiolani Hospital doctor that a child was born to a woman named Stanley. Oh, and by the way, Dr. West did not retire until 1977.):
        ["a woman named Stanley"? THAT FAILS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE GIVEN QUOTE, WHICH IS "STANLEY HAD A BABY" THAT QUOTE CARRIES WITH IT NO TIME REFERENCE, NOR PLACE REFERENCE. THE SAME WORDS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED IF THE DR. HAD KNOWN HER BY HAVING EXAMINED HER OR BEING INTRODUCED TO HER, AND THEN HEARING NEWS THAT SHE GAVE BIRTH. IF HE KNEW WHO SHE WAS AND RECEIVED NEWS OF HER DELIVERY, EVEN IF IT OCCURRED IN VANCOUVER, HE WOULD HAVE USED THE VERY SAME WORDS. THUS IT FAILS TO CONFIRM A HAWAIIAN BIRTH LOCATION. ALL IT CONFIRMS IS THE EXISTENCE OF THE TELEPHONE. BUT OBAMA'S BIRTH LOCATION IS IRRELEVANT TO HIM NOT BEING A NATURAL AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THUS BEING CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.]

        Also: There is an August 1961 hand-written memo from William Wood II in the State Department files for Obama Sr. states that Barack Obama II was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

        Yes, that indicates suspicion, as WND points out, but there was only one way that INS officials would say that a child was born in Honolulu; they would have had to have checked Obama’s birth certificate.
        [YOU ARE BLINDLY IGNORING THE ONLY LIKELY MEANS OF CHECKING AND THAT IS A PHONE CALL TO THE HDOP. WHATEVER THEY RECORDED FOR THE MOTHER OR GRANDMOTHER IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE QUOTED TO BILL WOODS. JUST BECAUSE THEY WRITE SOMETHING IN THE RECORD DOESN’T MAKE IT ACCURATE, ANYMORE THAN BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ADOPTED BABIES ARE ACCURATE. THEY DON’T SHOW THE REAL PARENTS’ NAMES AND YET THEY ARE THE “OFFICIAL RECORD”, EVEN THOUGH FALSE.

      • ehancock says:

        Here are the citations for the above. Which did not come out:

        The Index Data:

        http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

        The witness who wrote home:

        http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

        The memo:

        http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316265/

  13. Hal 3 says:

    Hey arnash, welcome home brother. I read this entire thread and it seems clear that “ehancock” not only has drank the Kool-Aid but I think he/she has bathed in it. It’s almost impossible to get some people to admit the truth. But of course, brain washing can do that.
    I found this which seems interesting. All flight manifest records for passengers arriving into Hawaii
    ( Aug 1, 1961 to Aug 8, 1961) were scrubbed. FAA required that all passengers flying over the ocean must be logged on a passenger manifest in case of a water ditch. Peculiar that this particular week should be scrubbed from all records. This could be a
    “Xin loi ve dieu do” situation but I thought you would find this link interesting.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/immigration-records-for-foreign-flights.html

    • arnash says:

      Ellen Hancock is a mystery. She posts at various websites adhering to a strict obamunist-defending stance that appears to be based on official authority but is in fact based on baseless opinions of ignorant men who spoke about things which they did not understand. The question is can she really be so stupid as to miss the truth that is right in front of her face, or is she fully aware of the losing-logic that she espouses, -but dispenses it anyway to defend her naked emperor?

      Thanks for the links to the “missing week” articles. I don’t find all the great posts that are out there because I’m limited by a dial-up connection. Very slooooooooow. I’ll add them to my blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers

%d bloggers like this: