LOL you gonna git it now.
I was willing to give fact check a pass, but after reading this, fact check’s article is something like a science report by Nancy Pelosi, whilst this one is like an article by Dr Einstein. Big difference. Methinks something is rotten in Obamaland. (So what else is new?)
Many are following this VERY closely. It is probably one of the most important issues of this election. For obvious reasons, including probable fraud by a U.S. presidential candidate and the upholding of Constitutional law. Nothing heard yet on any date for the hearing of the Berg law suit.
I added the certifiGate keyword
Very good article!
(Though I haven’t finished parts 1-10)
Leftists claim it’s a good thing to (for example) allow the government to take samples of DNA, ballistic fingerprints (signatures) of firearms, and fingerprints of citizens, to “aid in solving of crimes”, because (in their words) “if you have nothing to hide, why not” (disregarding those pesky Fourth and Fifth Amendments).
I say to them ,of they have nothing to hide, why not show definitive proof of Barry Hussein Obamamamama’s birth?
More of the same is all that can be said.
Even if the birth certificate were genuine, which it obviously is not, it still would fail to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. Only the hospital live birth document could do that.
All it takes is one feature that both the scan and the photo have in common but are represented differently
And that is, "The top fold on the FactCheck photo runs diagonal (left side of fold is 20 pixels further down than the right side of fold) while top fold on the FactCheck image runs perfectly horizontal with the top border."
Bye-bye, FactCheck
Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:30:50 PM by Polarik
I revisited the "Born in the U.S.A." story that FactCheck produced which shows digital photos of OBama's alleged genuine paper birth certificate, or COLB, taken in a number of angles.
I found something new: A note that the story had been "updated August 26."
Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.
According to the Director of Vital Records, with whom I spoke about 10 weeks ago, said that they replaced "NEGRO" with "BLACK," even if NEGRO was on the original birth certificate and the person requesting the COLB put down NEGRO on the application form. So, either this Kurt guy doesn't know what Vital Records do, or doesn't want to disclose this information, or FactCheck is misrepresenting what he said.
OHSM does not simply "accept what the parents self identify themselves to be."If the father (or the mother) said that the father's race was NEGRO, Vital Statistics would not list it as NEGRO, but BLACK. They report a person's current birth record in the context of the today's laws and practices.
Unfortunately, he declined to answer my specific question about "AFRICAN," because then he knew I was searching for answers to Obama's COLB, and said that he cannot give out personal information on someone's birth record.
Dozens of people were calling them daily and asking the same question, and maybe, Kurt was simply following departmental directives regarding BHO's COLB.
Now, it's the second part of Kurt's statement, as reported by FactCheck, that raised my eyebrows:
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised.
Was this OHSM's version of "Name, Rank, and Serial Number?" or FactCheck's imagination talking? Yes, we all know that the borders are generated each time a NOT-YET-CERTIFIED copy is printed along with everything else printed inside the borders. We also know that there has been only one form in use for almost seven years.
Now, why didn't Kurt simply say that the security borders were periodically changed since November 2001 until now? Why not confirm what FactCheck already knows (or should know?)
Kurt continues:
" He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
Trust me. "Reasonable" is not part of the vocabulary for the most screwed-up federal agency in America, namely USCIS, or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS demands a whole list of documents to determine citizenship, of which proof of birth is but one of them.
Why is it that, when someone like you or me, applies for work in a federal agency who work with sensitive data, are required to have extensive and thorough background checks performed even before being considered to be qualified to work there. Do how is it that someone, like Obama, whose background has not subjected to the same and even more extensive levels of investigation, can become an applicant for the highest federal position in the Country?
It boogles the mind.
One final note:
Now,"What's up with FactCheck's comment that they did not learn anything about the paper the COLB is printed on?"
That strikes me as odd, seeing as how they allegedly had the same paper in their hot, little hands?