Birth Certificate Page 2

Dr. Chiyome Fukino,  ( the former director of Hawaii’s Department of Health) said she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.  She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. [the validity of its existence is different from the validity of its information.]
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records. [Duh…they don’t give out their originals??]

“What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”

Note; that last statement is very well crafted since it does not proclaim
that Obama’s certification image represents a scan of an officially
certified print of a short-form Certification of Live Birth.
Rather it implies that what he put out looks exactly like what everyone
gets, which would be also true of a forgery, just as counterfeit
money looks exactly like real money.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody.  Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. [what a stupid statement! If there is no law authorizing it, then there is no law barring it either]

“If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record,” Wisch said.

“But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”  [false, the long form remained available by law, though in 2009 they claimed it no long was because they needed to help disallow the release of the long form birth certificate which may not even exist, and would not exist if Obama was not born in a hospital] [so now it’s four years ago, not three?  The Obama campaign stated they requested his birth certificate in 2008, and obtained it, but there is a faint date stamp that shows through from the back side with the date of June 6, 2007, explain that!]

It is false to call it “computer-generated” since it is actually clerk generated via word-processor data entry by copying the info from the digital image of the original hospital birth record form.  Computers could be created to do that but would cost 10’s of millions of dollars because of the cost of the artificial intelligence software needed.

“When DOH Director Chiyome Fukino announced to the press, on October 31, 2008, that “Hawaii has Obama’s original birth certificate on record,” this should have been the time for Hawaii to also confirm the existence of the COLB posted online [and claimed to be proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth], since that is what prompted hundreds of phone calls to Ukubo and company in the first place.

The fact that she didn’t only reinforces the fact that Obama’s genuine COLB contains something he doesn’t want viewed by the American people.
If the birth information on that COLB matched the birth information in his birth record, then why not say so?  It would have stopped them from being bombarded with phone calls, and may have ended the quest for his long-form birth certificate.
Conversely, if the birth information on that COLB did not match the info on his birth record, then they would be dancing around the issue and dodging all questions about it — which is exactly what they did — and what they are still doing.”

© 2010  Reprints
The actual law of Hawaii:
Welcome to the Department of Health’s Online
Vital Records Ordering System
Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health (DOH). In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).
Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver’s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor’s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs.
This is only an ordering system for certified copies of vital records. The certified copies being ordered WILL NOT be issued online as a part of your transaction. You will receive the ordered certified copies via first-class postal mail.

Perkins Coie reportedly dispatched one of its attorneys, Judith Corley, to retrieve the two certified copies of Obama’s birth record from the Hawaii Department of Health
Loretta Fuddy was Interim Director for the Health Department and now permanent Director.  Fuddy wrote that she made a special exception for Obama to obtain certified copies of his original birth record rather than a “computer-generated” copy.  [It is stated in the Registrar’s stamp that the copy is a True copy or an Abstract.  The PDF is an Abstract, not a true copy, meaning it has been digitally altered via the document digitization program applied to all vital records.  Digital copies can be easily altered since they contain nothing but the imagery of the text only, not the paper they were typed on.]


My current guess is that contrary to what I’ve assumed and proclaimed previously, the PDF is the product of the digitizing of the Hawaiian birth records [making it possible to print them on a security background in place of the white-paper of the original form, thereby saving an enormous amount of memory in their digital file system.  I think that they shared their PDF file with a representative of the White House, the one used to print the two purported certified copies, but I suspect that it was altered.  Or worse.

It is unproven that the two certified copies even exist and are not nothing more than a cover explanation for why the White House suddenly produced yet another digital image pretending to be something certified from Hawaii.  No one has seen or inspected the purported two certified copies, and if Hawaiian officials were willing to provide the Obama people with digital copies of Hawaiian birth records, including Obama’s, then they would also be willing to be party to a pretense to protect their President and fellow socialist.  If Obama’s lawyer really flew to Hawaii from Seattle, and then to Washington at great expense, (plus lawyer clock time) then it was probably to pick-up digital files that could be used to produce a credible counterfeit, leaving no internet record between them and Hawaii and thus no web records that could be subpenaed.


We know from the FOIA released Documents from the Hawaiian DoH.. that in or about 1966 his BC was amended. We also know that in most all occasions such amendment is the result of adoption and subsequent name change.
That time frame correlates with his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.
Here’s the problem… any time such amendment is made… the ‘new’ amendment is documented at the bottom of the original BC with dates, official stamps and witnesses. There are none on this BC.

On August 31, 1961 Obama senior filled out his annual request for an extension to his stay in the US. In this form he wrote in his own hand that his birth date was 6/18/1934. ALL records in the FOIA show this to the be the correct date and date used up until and past this time.

Obama did not record Obama II as his child until his desperate filing in April of 1964. He never acknowledged Obama II in his annual update of this document until then. One year listed nothing (1963) and in 1962 he list he was married but did not list the spouse and did list a child – Roy. So Obama Senior never got his story consistent while he was in the US.

Also of note in this FOIA – The INS letter indicating Stanley Ann Dunham is in the Philippines in 1964. So she had a passport before 1965…and was using it! The State Department cover-up is exposed with this finding.

“He said he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, but on what kind of passport? He said he didn’t have a U.S. passport until he was senator in 2004,” Kreep said.

1.    In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
c.    If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
2.    In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii.  HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
A report from USA Today claimed that the original birth certificate was two pages, not one.

The alleged document has not been shown in paper form, nor does it resemble a long-form birth certificate released on March 15, 2011 to another requester.  Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy stated that the form is a copy of Obama’s original document rather than a computer-generated composite.


by Sharon Rondeau

The Hawaii Great Seal contains elements of the former Kingdom of Hawaii Coat of Arms

(Apr. 29, 2011) — In July 2009, CNN President Jon Klein stated that the vital records belonging to Barack Hussein Obama could not be obtained because the Hawaii Department of Health had discarded original paper birth records in 2001.

Klein told some members of the staff of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that no one should have a “legitimate beef” over Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate because it was no longer available.

Other members of the media continued for more than two years to insist that the short-form image posted in 2008 was Obama’s complete birth certificate.  There were several different versions of the Certification of Live Birth, and the certificate number was originally blacked out.

However, the website for the Hawaii Department of Health mentions releasing “certified copies” of paper documents to eligible requesters, not electronic documents which would occur in a paperless environment.

If the Hawaii Department of Health had “gone paperless” in 2001, as claimed by CNN President Jon Klein, where did the image come from which was produced by the White House on Wednesday?

Where did the Certification of Live Birth come from which former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed was Obama’s “birth certificate?”

The HDOH also maintains that a person must have a “direct and tangible interest in the record” to obtain a certified copy of it.  The law firm of Perkins & Coie reportedly made arrangements for Obama to obtain his long-form birth certificate from the Health Department on Obama’s behalf.  But why did it take an attorney to obtain the alleged document?  Why couldn’t Obama have done it himself using the simple request form from the Hawaii Department of Health’s website?

The application instructions for requesting a certified copy of a record online state clearly that electronic copies are not issued.  Why, then, did CNN’s president imply that since 2001, that was the procedure?  Where did he obtain his information?
Why did Corley have to personally travel to Hawaii to obtain the alleged documents?  Was it because release of certified copies normally takes 4-6 weeks?

There is no evidence that an official change in “administrative rules” at the Hawaii Department of Health has been enacted which would deny an eligible requester access to his or her government-maintained record.  Even if there had been, administrative rules would not take precedence over the law passed by the Hawaii legislature in 1988 requiring disclosure of government records.  Therefore, the Department of Health’s recent denial of certified copies, as promised on its website, is illegal.

The claim made by Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy that the issuance of only “computer copies” to a requester was established “departmental policy” is not found anywhere in Hawaii law.  Fuddy claimed that she was making an exception due to Obama’s “status.”

“Fukino, who left office in December, said that during her term as health director, Obama’s birth certificate was moved from a file vault, where bound books containing vital records line the shelves in handwritten, leather-bound ledgers, in colors chosen over the course of decades — and placed inside the vault’s five-foot-tall, grey, metal combination and key lock safe that holds money and other valuables.

** ** **

Obama’s original certificate of live birth is bound with one ledger containing 499 other certificates of people born in Hawaii in 1961, according to Fukino. There are 500 sheets per book, and 35 volumes of 1961 birth records. The last series of digits in the registration number found on Hawaiian long form and current computerized-format birth certificates indicate which number volume the original document can be found inside the health department first-floor vault.”   Now I’m not sure why this was published in late April, but they say they talked to her in Feb.

“The more I look at Obama’s latest birth certificate, the more I am inclined to think it retains items from a Standard Long Form Certificate of Live Birth signed by his mother at the time of his birth. In other words, it’s partially abstracted from an original source document. But since it is stamped with the  “this is a true copy or an abstract” stamp, it probably means –IT IS AN ABSTRACT. Plain and simple, pieces taken from one original source document married to bits and pieces from another original source document to create a hybrid document. ”

The PDF is an altered image of a digitized document.
The statements of the Hawaiian officials reveals one of two possibilities.  Either the original unaltered birth document states Hawaii as the birth location, or it has been altered in its digitally form to state that. That would either have been done in Hawaii or by someone connected to the White House.  Assuming that their statements that Obama was born in Hawaii are false, then it would follow that if they were willing to lie for him, then they would also be willing to  to facilitate the falsification of the PDF, while leaving the originals untouched.  Since he has never shown his copies to the public, or the one he inherited from his mother, one must assume they show something different from his PDF.


Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator expert Mara Zebest has released an elaborate analysis of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth PDF online “document”.  It’s good to have another expert voice contributing to the expose of the fake document released by Obama on April 27th 2011, but not a lot of new light has been cast by her work.  She brings out everything conceivable that is wrong with the thing, outside her realm of expertise, and draws more than one erroneous conclusion.  But the important thing that she nails is the fact that it was not produced by a scan, but by a computer program, and no Optical Character Recognition was used.

Unfortunately she had no explanation for the anomalies she points out, and even fails to notice things that could be suspected of being signs of manipulation. She over-confidently shares her illogical conclusions regarding things like believing that one of the Nordyke twins’ online birth certificate was used as a template.  For numerous reasons, that isn’t possible. Such as the fact that the quality is awful, the paper is stained in a way that is not removable, and the filled-in information is almost completely different.  Also, a big miss is not realizing that the most prominent feature of the variation in the text was not bitmap vs antialiasing but solid black vs gray-scale text (which is not computer text but just text imagery.

She has a section called “Applying Common Sense” but wasn’t able to do so in regard to explaining the widespread random appearance of gray-scale text on a form that is otherwise 90% solid black text.  Also, she makes common sense assumptions that don’t hold up to further thought, such as assuming the letter “H” in “THE” in the registrar’s stamp is ‘misspelled’ using “X” in its place.  But that makes no sense.  What does is that a distortion occurred at some stage of manipulation or reproduction in which the H got pinched a bit, squeezing it at the center.

ADDED: The letter X is nowhere near the letter H on a keyboard, so it wasn’t a typo, nor a stupid misspelling. There has to be a reasonable explanation and I believe it is that some pointed object fell on a print of the background paper which had the Registrar’s stamp printed on it.  The object, fairly heavy, impacted directly in the center of the H and indented it into the paper, pinching the paper toward the center of the letter.

She also failed to notice the indication that the Obama form was not the result of a scan but of a camera lens located at the bottom of the form, resulting in greater horizontal curvature the higher up on the document that lines appear (left margin).

Greater explanations than hers will be needed to illuminate how the Frankenstein document was created, along with the “why?”.  AN


I don’t say that Obama presented a forged birth certificate because what he presented is not a birth certificate at all but merely a computer created digital image of something that looks like one.  Putting official government stamps and signatures on false documents is legally defined as forgery.  But since he never presented a hard-copy print-out of it to any official vetting board or agency (since none exist) he can’t be charged with legal misrepresentation. But it is truly misrepresentation and the public is the gullible dupe.

The artificiality of his PDF has been pointed out in many writings, and no expert or semi-expert has yet to claim that it is legitimate.  He can’t release it for forensic examination because he doesn’t have an actual hard-copy document that the PDF is an image off.  That’s why there is no photo nor scan of an original birth certificate.  That fact argues for the assumption that none exists.  AN


To TIME magazine
John Greeley wrote to you (July 4th magazine) that Bill Buckley would be turning over in his grave if he knew what conservatives believe these days about Obama “with no facts to support their ideas”.  But he is the one with no facts whatsoever when he claims that Obama has released his long form birth certificate.  The truth is that what he released was not a birth certificate, nor a scan of one, nor a photograph of one, but a multi-layered digital Frankenstein concoction created on a computer.  It looks like a birth certificate but it lacks something that all birth certificates have in common, namely the form in which they exist, which is universally paper, not sheep-skin, papyrus, clay, or linen, nor a digital image of something that was not, will not, and cannot be shown to anyone because it does not exist.  A mere image on a computer screen is not a real “thing”, -only an actual hard-copy is.  There is no hard-copy except in Obama’s personal safe which contains the certificate that his mother obtained from Hawaii nearly half a century ago.  No one knows what is on it and he is unwilling to show it.  There is an unknown reason for that fact and he will not ever reveal what it is   yours,  AN

Yes, there is no explanation for why the digital Frankenstein COLB was “created” -which is the correct word since it is not a scan of an actual paper document but something that was cobbled together in a computer program.  Its easy to conclude that it was fashioned as a substitute for whatever Hawaii had on file -which was not acceptable for public release (politically speaking).  But it’s a compounded mystery after examining the thing and being left confounded for lack of an explanation as to HOW it was concocted -with so many purposeless anomalies. So far I haven’t heard of a better explanation than the use of a random encryption algorithm, since the gray-scale text anomalies all appear to be random.   A State Seal is a physical alteration to a paper document, but since the “document” is purely digital, and not paper, it’s natural that it lacks one.  One can’t physically alter a digital creation.  Also, remember, it’s not made by the government of Hawaii, so it shouldn’t have their state seal replicated on it.  AN


Kevin Davidson wrote:

“The White House scanned the certified copy using Preview on a MAC and created a PDF from it using Quartz PDFContext,  which automatically does optimizations that the birthers imagine are  signs of tampering.”

I replied: “Optimizations are one thing, but random appearances of the original gray-scale text here and there doesn’t seem to me to be optimization.  Can you think of an explanation for what can be seen when viewed greatly enlarged?  So far, only the explanation that I’ve given has provided any explanation for that.  I welcome you to try to imagine-deduce a more plausible one.  Perhaps one would have to be an expert in the processes and procedures of the software that gave us the PDF in its mysterious form. But perhaps it isn’t really mysterious.  I can’t say definitely since I’ve never examined any other scan or PDF  up super-close by way of comparison.  [after reading this Dr. Conspiracy scanned his own birth certificate and saved it as a PDF, which contained the pure black text with some gray-scale text anomalies just like Obama’s. He based a new page of his blog on the results, using it to debunk the suspicions of the Obama PDF.  The Doc got layers | Obama Conspiracy Theories
But even if my theory is incorrect, there still remains unanswered the questions of why the people in the White House who supposedly scanned a real COLB didn’t know what they were doing.  And lastly, why, why, why not release an unoptimized simple scan or photo that contains all the usual appearance of an actual old original paper hard-copy?  The PDF, even if legit, is a Frankenstein of an image that appears way too perfect (no folds or creases)and at the same time, way too imperfect.  It’s pretty convincing that someone screwed up because they were in too big of a hurry.  That, of course, begs the question of why?   More questions than answers.   yours, AN

2nd letter:

-So then it would seem you imply that the White House created the PDF, yet what was posted online wasn’t a scan or photo of an actual hard-copy, rather it was a totally manufactured image of text over a security background with all the image of the original paper gone.  Your scan of your BC wouldn’t have produced such an image.
I’m questioning your objectivity since you are not questioning why in the world the Obama PDF is not an image of a real document.  If he had one, why would he not want it to be seen as he received it?  Why would it not have the appearance of a document of its age?  Why aren’t you asking the obvious questions also?
“Director Fuddy…attested to the authenticity of the two copies”  This claim exists only in a vacuum since attesting to a truth requires a setting or format for formal attestation.  There was never any such setting nor format.  Attested to the sky?
“Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies”.  What copies?  The ones that no one has ever been shown?  If something is be to assumed to be certified, it first has to be known to exist.  Then when examined, the certification can be seen in the form of a signature and stamp.  But they can’t be seen since no hard-copy is known or shown to exist.  So nothing has been attested to nor certified so far.  Just statements made that it is so, but that don’t make it so.

Your birth certificate PDF is far from identical, but it shows the most important similarity to the WH PDF, and that’s the appearance of some text elements that remained in gray-scale instead of being converted to pure black.  That is further proof that the Obama PDF anomalies are not the result of human manipulation but of a software program that doesn’t produce a perfectly uniform result.  When people point  to things in the PDF that seem like they shouldn’t exist or can’t be the result of anything other than deliberate alteration, they never point to a reason for making the meaningless alteration that they perceive.  Of course there are no reasons and other explanations have to be the truth of why odd things are seen, rather than deliberate but meaningless fakery.  Common sense was the first victim of the COLB being released as a PDF instead of a JPG.  Of course no one has an answer as to why the heck that was done.     AN

…If so, that would indicate that ALL PDFs are formed in a way that makes them uncounterfeitable in a way that would be undetectable.  Altering a PDF and re-saving it as a PDF would result in a different pattern of anomalies which wouldn’t match the original.
But there is still the problem of why it does not appear to be a scan of a real document but instead looks like a digitally created image since it’s too perfect, meaning no fold lines, (nor a State Seal).  If a real document was scanned then it would have to have been an unfolded copy sent or handed-over in a document size envelope.  That’s a possibility in this case, but probably not in any other.
Anything  NOT created by the Hawaiian records office would lack an embossed State Seal, and the WH PDF has no sign of having been stamped with any seal.  So questions remain. But there is much about it that appears genuine, like the mother’s signature.
The problem with Davidson’s view is that he thinks it’s a scan of a real document because he claims that Hawaii does not have any digitized documents/records so they can only send out scans of the original birth certificates.  But that flies in the face of a PDF that is NOT a scan of an original document but a computer program creation.  It isn’t a capture of a real, old, discolored original typed on a white paper form.  A scan of a real document wouldn’t have the security paper background, so most of what I’ve written about how it was created has to be true with the exception of special alteration (to prevent counterfeiting) via a random process of creating anomalies.  Instead, the explanation for that may be that that process is innate to the creation of all government document PDFs.
Conclusion: if Hawaii didn’t send the PDF to the White House, then someone working for Obama created it, but created it from what?  If Hawaii still sends out prints of photographed originals, and Obama received one (two is the number Hawaii claims) then it (the PDF) would look like an original but it doesn’t look anything like one.   How is any replication of an official government identity document not classified as forgery when it is presented as something obtained from a government Department?   AN


My scenario of the origin of the PDF is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove with what is currently publicly known.  While the Certification of Live Birth is a total Photoshopped fraud which is easily demonstrated, and imitated (which I did here: the April PDF is a very different creature. There is no aspect of it that has yet to be demonstrated to be humanly manipulated for the purpose of deceiving the American people.  But that doesn’t mean the information it displays can’t be fraudulent.  But if my scenario is essentially accurate, it still leaves open the possibility that the PDF was a digitized version of an “original” document that was counterfeited and forged and placed in the Hawaiian records, while the PDF was just the result of standard procedure. What is not standard procedure is to release a digital document in such a non-public form.


If Barack Obama has seen, as he says he has, his mother’s birth certificate for him when he was younger, and it stated a place of birth outside the US, then that would give him a very strong reason to never show it to anyone, which is the case.  It also would explain why he refused for such a long time to authorize the release of his original birth certificate.  He eventually got around that by capitalizing on the fact that Hawaii digitized their original birth records and by obtaining a digital file of the “abstract” version, it could be altered easily to change vital information, which would be much less difficult than altering a photo or scan of an original paper document.

2 Responses to Birth Certificate Page 2

  1. arnash says:

    I assume that you left out the fact that the petitioner was not born to two American parents, but was born to only one who was like Obama’s mother, too young to have imparted citizenship to him if he had been born outside the US. The hiding of his original birth document which he inherited from his mother, along with the one that Hawaii claims was prepared for him, raises strong suspicions that he doesn’t want the country to know that there is no original validation as to where he was born, only the affirmation of his mother. Perhaps he’s aware that his mother did her parental duty to secure him U.S. citizenship and moved heaven and earth (i.e. fibbed) about where and when he was actually born, and convinced some government records official that he was born at home and didn’t have a birth certificate. If one was never filled out, it’s hard to produce it.

    If the Hawaiian officials aren’t lying outright about providing him two hard-copy COLB copies, then he received something in the form of a hard-copy, yet he posted online a computer-manufactured image and presented it as what he received from Hawaii. That can only be considered to be a lie. The need to show something other than an original embossed and signed hard-copy implies that he has something very serious to hide. And understand this, if Hawaii actually sent him a certified copy identical to the one he posted online, then how is it that the printed copies given out to the WH reporters had no green security background, but were printed on ordinary white paper? (Did he wave a magic wand over the original and make the green background disappear? I don’t think so.) That is evidence that the handed-out hard-copies were printed not from a scan of a real document, but from the computer-manufactured forgery. AN

    Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful misrepresentations. Forging money or currency is more often called counterfeiting. When the object forged is a record or document it is often called a false document.

  2. arnash says:

    “the HI DOH…has consistently stood behind the document,”
    Can you please tell me what document you are referring to. The PDF is not a document and they have not, in any legal sense, stood behind it. So you must be referring to the two certified copies that they claim they produced, but which the public has not been allowed to see. I too will stand behind them, now show them to me.

    “NOTHING points to ANY other origin for his birth other than Honolulu, HI.” That is absolutely…TRUE.

    “…well funded political operatives or reporters wouldn’t be able to dig it up (a different original BC) “? So you believe that the Hawaiian officiials charged with the serious legal responsibility to guard the privacy of the Hawaiian vital records would be open to being bribed? I don’t think so. But ideology might lead them to bend their rules just a little bit, (like passing the PDF to the White House and not issuing any contrary statement about the posted PDF version) but doing anything beyond that in their official capacity would probably be a felony. But if someone altered the PDF original file, then someone had to provide the counterfeiter with one or more alternate documents from which alternate text could be extracted. Such a someone would have to have access to those documents in the Hawaiian vital records files

    “ALL real evidence that has turned up all supports every bit of data that we already were exposed to when his campaign released his COLB and all matches what he wrote about in his autobiographies.” Don’t confuse statements with “data”. Statements need corroboration, data is generally assumed to be cold hard facts. I’m unaware of any cold hard facts that exist and prove anything relevant to the suspicions that exist.

    “ALL of them would have to be “in on it” if there was any “conspiracy” involved here at all.” That claim is illogical. How can you be “in” on something that you are ignorant about? If there is any conspiracy it is a conspiracy of silence and avoidance about something they don’t want to even think about. And why should they? What’s the “up” side? There is none since calling for an investigate would be viewed as having fallen down the rabbit hole. The President can’t be shown to have committed election fraud, there’s no crime in not being a natural born citizen and being President, so there is no impeachable offense to charge him with. Worse case scenario would be document tapering, but even if that was suspected, Congress wouldn’t have the appetite to act against him.

    “if there was any traction to this story, at least one Congressman would introduce an impeachment motion. If there was a real fact or two, there might even be a subcommittee hearing. There is nothing”
    So true. There is no traction, there is no evidence, there’s is only the tiniest amount of smoke, so small it’s barely visible. There is certainly no fire. But at the end of the day, there remain the questions that reason can find no answers for. What it mostly amounts to is analogous to the murder mystery in which the entire case pivoted on the dog that didn’t bark. It wasn’t a matter of evidence that existed, but evidence that didn’t, but should have.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: