New Obama Birth Certificate proved Fake with Photoshop (Short Version)

youtube.com ^ | 04/28/2011 | ObamaNewCertIsFake

[steadcom]

I took the exact pdf from the White House website and opened it in Photoshop. I then took a copy of the "Obama" name on one line and put it over the "Obama" in another line. The "B"s match exactly !! This is a statistical impossibility unless the document is a fake. No typewritter from 1961 will produce the exact letter on the pixel level.... The person who made the fake document forgot to make a different "B" on the pixel level. If you don't believe it, try it yourself in Photoshop.

[jh4freedom]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a birth certificate is a “self-authenticating document.” (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902). If a birth record introduced as evidence has the state seal and the signature of the authorizing official, it’s good to go in any American court of law.
Birth certificates are hearsay evidence but fall under an exception to the hearsay rule.
If there were ever to be a legal proceeding regarding Zero’s birth certificate, depositions can be taken from Dr. Fukino, Dr. Onaka, and Loretta Fuddy, the new DOH director.
Hawaii law allows the release of a certified COPY of a birth record for inspection or possession under a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

[DiogenesLamp]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a birth certificate is a “self-authenticating document.” (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902). If a birth record introduced as evidence has the state seal and the signature of the authorizing official, it’s good to go in any American court of law.

Federal Rules are Post Constitution. The REQUIREMENTS of the constitution are not subject to subsequent "rules." If the Constitution requires proof, while federal rules only require a stamp from the state, it is the federal rules that must go begging because they do not meet the requirements of Constitutional law.

A court cannot set it's policies as superior to the document which created the court.

[muawiyah]

Lest you get carried away with yourself, office typewriters in the US government were probably among the first to be replaced with electric typewriters. It was actually difficult to ACQUIRE an official government owned manual typewriter in the Washington DC area (the very heart-throb of the US federal bureaucracy) as early as 1970.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with manufacturing ~ just availability and general usage levels.

We are talking primarily about a government office in Hawaii just 2 years after statehood. No doubt they got some handmedowns from the territorial government, and no doubt the territorial government before them got handmedowns from the Department of Navy.

My personal knowledge regarding Navy is that their headquarters offices in DC at least as early as 1942 had electric typewriters throughout. Young ladies who had training or experience with electric typewriters had an edge in the typing test using electrics.

Department of Army might have been scratching characters on wooden spoons for all I know of what they were up to, but the Army Air Corps also had electric typewriters ~ even in the hangers at Bolling AFB.

There were some manuals around but most of the build up for the war that took place around here was "new" with "new stuff" and even "new buildings" (SEE: Pentagon), and plenty of rehabs for the older barracks type buildings that were finally disposed of by Richard Nixon.

I have no doubt there were hunting lodges in the Rockies without electricity and they might have had manual typewriters ~

What you must try to do is keep in mind that just about every issue has been discussed earlier with all appropriate caveats and conditions established.

Now what is it exactly you were so concerned about regarding typewriters ~ regarding electric versus manual, and manual versus electric.

[muawiyah]

You would appear to be unable to differentiate between "written" and "typed". It's exceedingly obvious that the COLB and the Long Form are BOTH partially in handwriting (the signatures and the rubber stamps), and "typed" ~

When you deny the obvious it becomes quite clear you have been sent here to obfuscate and disrupt.

[jh4freedom]

Federal Rules are Post Constitution. The REQUIREMENTS of the constitution are not subject to subsequent “rules.” If the Constitution requires proof, while federal rules only require a stamp from the state, it is the federal rules that must go begging because they do not meet the requirements of Constitutional law.

A court cannot set it’s policies as superior to the document which created the court.

---

Obviously the Constitution says nothing about “proof.” If it did, Zero would not be in the Oval office today.
Zero, having studied constitutional law at Harvard found a constitutional loophole and walked right through it. It’s what liberals do.
The Federal Rules of Evidence have been the law of the land as passed by Congress and signed by the President since 1975 (Gerald Ford). They have been upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court. They were written by a committee appointed by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Implementation of the self-authentification rule can be challenged in any particular legal action but that rarely happens.
What the state of Hawaii confirms as a certified copy of an original birth record is highly likely to be stipulated as an authentic birth record in any court of law under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Article II Section 1 does not take precedence over Article IV, Section 1. They are co-equal elements of the Constitution.
Article IV Section 1 is the way of implementing Article II, Section 1.

[muawiyah]

Rules of evidence are one thing. Congress acted in 1996 to replace those rules (regarding birth certificates) with a statute.

Now you can store a record electronically and that's as real as carbon smears on a piece of paper ~ as far as the law is concerned.

So, let's look at federal law (which sets a performance standard for birth certificates, et al) ~ ".....(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and ``(B) that-- ``(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or ``(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.

You can find that in:

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title5/5usc301.html

Carefully notice the phrase above "from birth records maintained by such custodian of record". That allows them to maintain a totally digital or microfiche library of "records" ~ and just dispense with the paper produced on the date of birth.

Whatever Federal Rules of Evidence said before 1996, this law is the current standard.

[DiogenesLamp]

You would appear to be unable to differentiate between "written" and "typed". It's exceedingly obvious that the COLB and the Long Form are BOTH partially in handwriting (the signatures and the rubber stamps), and "typed" ~

I would suggest that a birth certificate which looks like any other birth certificate, would not draw sufficient distinction between what she saw and what is usual enough to warrant commentary. Had she seen a birth certificate that looks EXACTLY like any other, she would not have described it as "Half written, Half typed." Couple that with what Governor Abercrombie said "There is actually something written down in the record." And it implies that what we are seeing is NOT what they have seen.

When you deny the obvious it becomes quite clear you have been sent here to obfuscate and disrupt.

Ooohhh... Looks like I struck a nerve with THAT comment. I assume you are aware that during an adoption, original birth certificates are sealed? Even those that were based on "born at home" affidavits from grandmothers. The Judge orders the creation of the new birth certificate, and somehow they put all the amended data in the correct fields, (including the Doctor's signature. I know, because I have a Doctor's signature on mine, even though it was created 5 years after I was born.) All evidence of the original is kept sealed, and yes, the state officials WILL LIE (actually mislead) about the veracity of the data contained on the new birth certificate.

That is why they won't say it is a "true and correct copy of the original..." but instead say "a copy or abstract of the record on file."

Weasel words that prevent them from perjuring themselves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obviously the Constitution says nothing about “proof.” If it did, Zero would not be in the Oval office today.

It is axiomatic, just as Police force powers are axiomatic. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention Police powers for the executive branch. They are understood to be there none the less.

The very act of making a requirement implies the necessity to verify that it is met. Axiomatic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever Federal Rules of Evidence said before 1996, this law is the current standard.

I know i'm beating a dead horse, but no subsequent act of congress can modify the meaning of an Article of the U.S. Constitution. THAT requires an amendment. The DUTY of Governmental officials per constitutional requirement is not to play legal "let's believe and make pretend" but to verify ACTUAL and TRUE FACTS. Actual and true facts are not subject to this or that body "Declaring or Proclaiming" the one thing to be equal to the other.

[muawiyah]

Weasel words, of course, but accurate when talking about a data base from which information is drawn to gen up a "copy" for distribution ~ just like the law says they can do.

Don't you think it's remarkable that they speak of their birth certificate system in language that's totally compatible with an information system rather than a hard copy paper original?

I don't think that's a KOINKYDINK. It's because it is what it is and they were all advised by technically savy legal counsel to talk that way ~ even though most of them probably think there really is a paper document somewhere!.

BTW, Oregon does not seal birth records. Everybody else does (with some minor differences).

Interesting that you bring up birth records (real ones) on this thread. You know Obama's mother attended school in Washington with Ted Bundy. He was born as Theodore Robert Cowell and raised by his grandparents as his mother's younger brother.

Do you think this might have brought them together at one time or the other at the University?

[muawiyah]

Actually "true facts" are certainly covered in that statute that includes data base systems as valid record repositories.

I'm sure that somewhere in the bowels of the government we have something about the admissability of DVDs, CDs, hard disk drives, video tape, film, holographic copies (and maybe even Jefferson's device that allows a writer to produce 2 copies at one time), sound recordings, photographs, color slides, negatives, positives, etc.

Looking through the Constitution I didn't see the word "paper"? Did you?

[muawiyah]

Are you referring to this part of the Constitution: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

It clearly says that Congress can write laws to prescribe the way the "records" can be proved. Clearly that is a Constitutional provision, and clearly it states Congress can pass laws about this question.

So, what is your complaint? Is it that you don't agree that this provision should be in the Constitution? Or do you have something else in mind.

[DiogenesLamp]

Weasel words, of course, but accurate when talking about a data base from which information is drawn to gen up a "copy" for distribution ~ just like the law says they can do.

I believe there is a microfiche copy. There may even be a book copy. The numbers of birth certificates in Hawaii since it's existence cannot be so high, nor storage space so dear, that the state would have a necessity to get rid of the originals. That's not saying a bone head bureaucracy didn't do it.

Don't you think it's remarkable that they speak of their birth certificate system in language that's totally compatible with an information system rather than a hard copy paper original?

I don't understand what you mean. All I want to see is real proof that is attested by officials to be a "true and correct copy of the original record."

I don't think that's a KOINKYDINK. It's because it is what it is and they were all advised by technically savy legal counsel to talk that way ~ even though most of them probably think there really is a paper document somewhere!.

BTW, Oregon does not seal birth records. Everybody else does (with some minor differences).

I wonder if they seal birth certificates subsequent to adoptions as do most states?

Interesting that you bring up birth records (real ones) on this thread. You know Obama's mother attended school in Washington with Ted Bundy. He was born as Theodore Robert Cowell and raised by his grandparents as his mother's younger brother.

I did not know that. Another interesting tid bit that I will likely remember. Would it be ridiculous to suggest that an essence of evil could transfer or infect other people in contact with it? Or it could just be synchronicity.

Do you think this might have brought them together at one time or the other at the University?

Possibly. Ted Bundy could have changed history had he taken a shine to Stanley Ann. Interesting plot for a story.

[DiogenesLamp]

Looking through the Constitution I didn't see the word "paper"? Did you?

There are a lot of words/terms not defined in the Constitution, but were understood in terms of the vernacular of the day. It is only with the current zeitgeist that people are confused.

[muawiyah]

It bothers me that Ted and Stanley could have sat in the same classroom. We may be up against intergalactic alien lifeforms in this battle (just one theory among millions).

Ted admitted to 38 murders, the cops proved 30 of them, they still think there were many more that Ted didn't tell them about, or that he just couldn't remember.

It must have been Hell being Ted Bundy. There was, at one time, a human being under that shell ~ a Republican campaign worker in fact!

You couldn't write "Stanley and Ted Take Washington University" as fiction! It would sound so psychologically imbalanced.

[muawiyah]

It bothers me that Ted and Stanley could have sat in the same classroom. We may be up against intergalactic alien lifeforms in this battle (just one theory among millions).

Ted admitted to 38 murders, the cops proved 30 of them, they still think there were many more that Ted didn't tell them about, or that he just couldn't remember.

It must have been Hell being Ted Bundy. There was, at one time, a human being under that shell ~ a Republican campaign worker in fact!

You couldn't write "Stanley and Ted Take Washington University" as fiction! It would sound so psychologically imbalanced.

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you referring to this part of the Constitution: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

I have covered the "full faith and credit" argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.

It clearly says that Congress can write laws to prescribe the way the "records" can be proved. Clearly that is a Constitutional provision, and clearly it states Congress can pass laws about this question.

A provision of an Article cannot be amended by Congress. If proof is an implied requirement of the Article, Legal obfuscation cannot trump the document that created the Legal system.

So, what is your complaint? Is it that you don't agree that this provision should be in the Constitution? Or do you have something else in mind.

My complaint is that we have no manner of verifying what is the ACTUAL truth, rather we are told to rely on Hawaiian Bureaucrats opinions of a document they won't let anyone see, and they won't declare to be a true copy of the original.

For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was born in Canada. (White Rock B.C.) Let's further say that upon his grandmother finding out he was born in Canada, she decided to go to the Department of Health and tell them he was born at home in Hawaii, but the mother is too sick to bring him in, and by the way she is the Vice President of the Bank of Honolulu. (Her intent being to secure US citizenship for her grandson.)

Let's say that the DOH official had her write a statement to the effect that he was born at home, and that the DOH official then typed it out on the same page. They both sign it and it gets filed.

Suppose now some years later when Soetoro Marries Stanley Ann, that he adopts Barry. The Judge orders the creation of a new birth certificate under the name Barry Soetoro, and seals the original.

Suppose now that later, Barry Soetoro, who has been going as Barack Obama because he thinks it makes him sound more African, and more exotic, decides to get his birth certificate amended for political reasons, and gets a Judge to agree to do it.

At what point will anyone in Hawaii let us know that his official legal documents are covering up the fact of his ineligibility, but due to the privacy requirements of Hawaii law (and their lack of understanding regarding "natural born citizen" meaning) they refuse to "OUT" him as a fraud?

They won't even sign a piece of paper saying that we are seeing the ORIGINAL document. They won't even acknowledge that it hasn't been tampered with by a judge.

How can anyone accept something as proof that cannot actually be verified?

[DiogenesLamp]

You couldn't write "Stanley and Ted Take Washington University" as fiction! It would sound so psychologically imbalanced.

Unlike the current known story of Stanley Ann Dunham, which makes perfect sense.

:)

[jh4freedom]

I have covered the “full faith and credit” argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.

---

The law of the state is not a “subjective bureaucratic rule.” It’s the law (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b)(9).
The laws of the state of Hawaii say that a certified copy of a birth record can be produced for inspection or for the possession of: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
No judge has issued a court order for the state of Hawaii to produce a certified copy of the Obama birth record.
If such a court order were to be issued, Hawaii would produce a certified copy of the record.

[muawiyah]

Then your problem is "original document". It probably doesn't exist anymore. Now I demonstrated that the file cabinet area in the records section of the building could actually hold original documents to the number suggested by the number of folks born in Hawaii since it became a US possession.

However, the conversion to a data base probably took place recently so they still have the space, the cabinets, the drawers, the folders............ but federal law passed in 1996, in conformance with the full faith and credit section does not care. They could have taken all the paper documents and put them in the landfill.

More recently they've taken action out there to delay a new landfill! Obviously no one in Hawaii's Democrat dominated government wants anybody to just walk off and abandon that landfill ~ and allow "looters" to despoil it. (My shovel is ready, btw).