Posted on 04/13/2009 9:04:32 PM PDT by Polarik
|
Q: What do these four things have in common?
|
||||
|
Aliens from |
Abominable |
Boogeyman |
Barack Obama's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: All of them are imaginary! | ||||
People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth. He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Factcheck was complicit in falsifying this image and passing it off as a genuine scan.
Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate.
It's been more than two years since Obama announced his candidacy for President, and five months since he was elected President, yet Obama has repeatedly refused to provide any proof that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Despite what you may have heard, Obama's eligibility issue has never been settled. If you are looking for reasons why, there is only one reason that you should know:
In March 2008, a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain, the GOP candidate, from the ballot because his natural-born status was also in doubt. John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to Congress.
On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth." HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known. What makes it a forgery?
Many people who also saw this image (see Appendix A) had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently. Here is an annotated list of them:
The consensus among all of us was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored. What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it. They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way. Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama. The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery.". Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus. We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud. So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website. Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus. For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides. Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported my conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images. A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
Does anyone see a pattern here?
From the first day he ran for President, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become President. But, he ran anyway. Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
Well, it's a lot more than that. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our Government, our Judiciary, our Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is Constitutionally qualified to become President.
Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution. Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
There is no question that Obama fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen. But, what about the question of document fraud? Has a crime been committed? Who's responsible? What if a President was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
Conspiracies in Presidential elections do happen. Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat. It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?" Where, indeed.
At the same time that I saw Obama's alleged COLB, a discussion of that image was taking place among the registered readers of a popular blog (HotAir.com) that is a repository of top stories from other blogs and websites. I had not seen these comments until now, ten months after they were published. Although the Hot Air community is mostly pro-Obama, a number of members had identified the very same anomalies as I had while working independently. The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated as it serves to validate the work that I've done in proving this image, and ones to follow, to be false, forged, and fabricated. Here, in their own words, is what they said on June 12:
From JM Hanes:
it really bothers me when something like this simply makes no sense. I couldn't begin to guess who would have fiddled with the document — or the when & why either — but I also can't think of a single logical reason (including filters, sharpening, or conversions) that a scan of an original document could result in the kind of selective pixelization/artifacting in evidence here. Pasting from one image into another, however, would produce precisely that effect.
"The pixilation around the text is...completely inconsistent with the background, which is discontinuous behind the text. Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse “JUN 6 2007? in the lower middle of the doc for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted. That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone Photoshopped it. The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text. Nice try with the “Photoshop filter” theory though! In any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
From Spolitics:
The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it. So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties. According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh. That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no “date acquired” listed which would have indicated this was scanned.
From LimeyGeek:
Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them. I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text. Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering. Contrast the artifacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars - that’s original text. The text in the body of the document has been doctored. Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy. I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
As somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artifacts are nothing of the sort. This is not a case of lossy artefacts due to image encoding (jpeg). Such artifacts would be consistent, these are not. In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts.
The point is that an original document would have consistent artifacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artifacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression) Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
From RightWired:
It’s a 100% forgery. There are numerous reasons, but the #1 reason: Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts. Zoom in to 600% or greater in Photoshop or Corel. Look at an “A”. Notice how it’s smoothed a bit? You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green gov’t background. There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character. When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision. It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
I work in advertising. I have studied this..as well as our department’s graphic artist—it’s fraudulent. Also file properties say Adobe CS3, black copy is much darker than the rest. The official seal is blurry and pixilated.
From Just A Grunt:
Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well. While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped. The integrity of the typcial 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot. I may not be using the right techno terms here — alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomolies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
From WoosterOh:
I find it odd that every word is pixilated around it, yet the black box is not. Those words are not on the document. To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates. Select a background image, select text to put on the background image. I guess that {the Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated printout) could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it. You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate. Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image. FAKE
From G Charles:
A word of caution. I use photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text. I agree that this is not a scan of an original document “AS IS”. Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a photoshop filter once or twice. And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo. And as support for my “photoshop filter” theory, the seal carries the same pixelation artifacts. Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed–whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixelation.
From Sue:
I was able to see what you are explaining. If this is obviously doctored, and I am going with you on this one, why would they do it?
From iurockhead:
Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background. I call fake. I don’t doubt his citenzenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
From wise_man:
And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.
From SilverStar830:
Looks ‘chopped. It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake.
From Buford:
When blown up it is clearly a fake. At 2000% it is clear that the pixilation of the text is much finer than the pixilation of the background. It is an extremly low quality fake. If this served any purpose but to drive traffic to the KoS site I would be surprised.
From infidel65:
After repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, a copy shows up on the Daily Kos. This stinks to high heaven. The Obama campaign may have thought they’d put this issue to bed, but they have only succeeded in fuelling the suspicions.
To date, the suspicions have not subsided, yet people are talking about Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as if it really exists. Why? Because they know that foreign-born children are also issued a COLB by Hawaii, and therefore, the COLB cannot confirm one's natural-born status. Only the actual, "vault" original birth certificate can, and Obama knows that better than anyone. What other reason could there be for a sitting President to refuse such a simple request?
Whatayawant?
He’s the Great ShamWow OK?
How long before he has the Hawaii record doctored in
such a fashion that suits ‘em?
You said — I wrote numerous letters to the US Supreme Court imploring them to make sure he was a natural citizen before the inauguration, to no avail of course. I read that half a million letters like mine arrived there. They don’t care, are afraid to know, or are in on it. I no longer hold any of the Justices in any high regard, not even Justice Thomas. None of them cared. I wrote to every conservative justice several times. No one there loves the Constitution like we do. They did not do their sworn duty to uphold our Constitution. I hope those ballot initiatives go through. We all need them in every state. My state WI, state of cheating democrats, will never go for that though.
—
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily criticize the U.S. Supreme Court, because they’re only going to handle the case that is before them. They’re not going to create a different case from the one that has been brought before them. And so far, there has not been a case brought before the US Supreme Court where they have had the issue of the birth certificate as the issue to decide. It’s been other issues that have been brought before them (like “standing” or stopping the election or cancelling the Electoral College vote, stuff like that...).
And also, the US Supreme Court is not going to take evidence for something that has not been through a lower court first and been decided there. You’re not going to introduce new evidence and expect the US Supreme Court to vet the evidence at that level. They don’t do that.
What someone has to do is “bring a case before them” where they can decide the very issue that you’re asking to be decided. And that means it has to have been through the lower courts first, and have stepped through the appeals, first and all the evidence has to have been presented at those lower levels first.
When that happens — then you’ll get the Supreme Court to look at what you want. Until then, there’s nothing they can do for you, no matter how many letters you write or anyone else writes...
The Keyes v. Bowen case is being appealed in CA, and most certainly still has the potential to do everything you say.
The case is being handled by Gary Kreep of the US Justice Foundation, who is very capable.
And, maybe a few fewer font changes. It seems that when people change fonts to make more emphasis, they cascade somewhat, while trying to make ever more emphasis. This one starts in caps, goes bold, bolder, changes colors, even bolder, starts underlining, and then goes into italics. It makes the writer look amateurish. I would start by typing all the pertinant facts in a single document, and format it consistently, then add emphasis to a few very salient portions.
I know that there are a lot of posters here who keep looking for “the case” that will do it. I personally don’t hold out hope for that, since it has not worked up to this time.
Now, you say that this case has the right elements to do what I was talking about. *That* would be very interesting for me to see, because I’ve never seen that happen, up to this point in time. That would *definitely* be a *first* ... LOL..
—
Now, on the other hand, I’ve been working with my own state legislature on something that I figure *will work* for the issue of the birth certificate. Several states are putting through laws that require candidates to prove that they are qualified for office and show the proper documentation. That’s going through in Oklahoma (although I have to check on the status as of late, because I haven’t heard recently what’s going on there...).
If and when that gets passed, Obama won’t be able to be on the ballot here, if he doesn’t have the documentation. From my viewpoint — that seems to have the most potential of “doing something”...
and we wont even get into his bogus Selective Service card with bogus supporting documentation.
Speculation on my part, but I believe it will also be proven in the future with BO. I don't know just how it will come about, or what the political ramifications will be.
Most people (myself included) did not know Arthur wasn't natural-born, until Donofrio pointed it out on his Web site. Most Americans of my generation were very likely taught in school that natural-born citizens, those uniquely eligible for the Presidency, had to be born on U.S. soil of American citizen parents. I do not believe this is being taught in schools today.
We have never in our nation's history succeeded in legally removing a President from office.
That’s the end game, you bet.
“The Keyes v. Bowen case is being appealed in CA, and most certainly still has the potential to do everything you say.”
Do you have a link to the appeal?
Has it been filed yet?
STE=Q
There are questions about his Selective Service Registration as well.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
hello sir,
sent you freepmail with a question (which you may have already answered earlier this/last year regarding this natural born status).
aside from that, just a quick note of thanks for your efforts.
God Bless
JG
I think the appeal is still being prepared.
(1) What is "FP"? (2) What is "FP"?
“Might have grabbed the attention of FP participations if you had introduced your information a little bit at a time.”
That, doc, is a cheap shot!
I can vouch for Richard Polarik’s activities over the past ten months, not only here at Free Republic but at texasdarlin.wordpress.
Another person, Textdude, was also working on proving the COLB a forgery until dead mutilated rabbits were hung on his doorknob along with a note, “Stop what you’re doing or this will be your children.” Textdude’s wife made him stop working on it, but I think you get my drift.
We have criminals leading our government, people who will commit high crimes to stay in power.
We all ought to be thankful that people like Richard Polarik are out there working for the side of Constitutional government.
I believe his grandmother before I believe him.
He has a total of three law firms working to prevent any documentation concerning his past from ever seeing the light of day. This seems silly. Why hide your admission records to a college, Occidental College, you attended at age eighteen? What horrifying scandal could have existed at that time?
But researchers are clever people, by and large, and some information has come to light despite the best efforts of lawyers.
A group of anti-Obama researchers in Hawaii used personal networking to establish inside contacts at ALL hospitals in the state of Hawaii. Those insiders went through hospital records and discovered that the President’s mother, Stanley Anne (Dunham) Obama, had never been in any of those hospitals during 1961. Barak H. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii during August 4, 1961.
Something you may not know: Certification of Live Birth documents are for people who don’t have Hawaiian birth certificates. Maya Soetoro, Barak Obama’s half-sister born in Djakarta, Indonesia, has a COLB courtesy of her grandmother Madelaine Dunham. Chiang kai-shek, a Chinese General and opponent of Mao tse-tung, also had a COLB courtesey of his Chinese relatives residing in Hawaii.
The COLB, according to internet bloggers, was originally set up during the years when the big pineapple and fruit companies controlled the territorial government there, so as to protect them from charges of bringing in slave labor from Asia. Don’t know it this last is true, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Obama's sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro-Ng; born August 15, 1970 in Jakarta, Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth because she doesn't have a real Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
This isn't rocket science. The man is a fraud, an impostor, and a usurper, and everything he signs, appoints, negotiates, and commits will be null and void because a remnant of the American people have never acquiesced to this impersonation as a "natural born citizen".
I am also very very disappointed in our justices. I know some are sold out commies but I also know that some are not. We have good judges sprinkled all over the country. Why doesn’t one pick up on this? I do not understand.
If they find he really is a citizen, so be it. I can accept that. I’m not asking for anyone to build a bizarre case against him. Just have a look at the birth certificate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
