Posted on 12/13/2008 7:31:52 AM PST by Polarik
One day before the six-month anniversary of Obama's forged birth certificate posting, Factcheck.org packed up its tent, hopped back on its high horse, and rode out of Dodge. In the wake of their run for cover, Factcheck left behind a cutesy video titled, the "Circus is Still in Town," likening what's left of the 2008 election cycle to a three-ring circus -- and who knows more about a circus than a bunch of clowns pretending to be a nonpartisan research group?
Here is a link to the video: "Good-bye for Now"
In "Ring Number One," as the smarmy-mouthed commentator babbled on, and as the title header changed,
"We have the repeatedly answered but persistent question of the President-Elect citizenship. {The new header now reads Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen: Supreme Court rejects birth certificate challenge} Pay particular attention to her body language and the positioning of her head to her body-- she appears as if she is either hard-of-hearing or needs to talk out of the left side of her mouth. I might opt for the latter explanation if Factcheck had not been been talking out of both sides all year long.
The commentator begins by scolding Factcheck's critics as if they were children, "We received several e-mails questioning Obama's status as a US-born natural citizen, even after we published multiple reports on the subject, that Obama has furnished the documentation necessary to prove that he is, indeed, a US citizen."
Notice how coyly Factcheck states a bald-faced lie in that last sentence. First, they claim that they have received several "emails questioning Obama's status as a US-born natural citizen," as if three emails are the most important challenges to their "Natural-born" lie. But, then they end it saying that Obama "furnished documentation to prove that he is a US citizen," which is also a lie in addition to not providing any documentation on his alleged "natural-born status."
The next sequence shows a background graphic of an email form, like Windows Mail, followed by heavy, black letters appearing one letter at a time, as if they were being typed by a real person creating a real email. Both the choices and content of the emails are bogus as well. They are carefully crafted "straw men" deliberately written and worded to make the viewer believe that stupid people who cannot spell wrote these, thus making it child's play for the condescending commentator to either trash them or ignore them with ease.
The first "email" writes that the birth certificate (COLB) is questionable because it came from a "tainted source," the Obama campaign. However, no comment from the commentator. The second "email" says that Factcheck never looked at the original birth certificate because it lacked footprints or hand prints, "You never had a baby or you would know that they print his foot prints on 3 or 4 blank birth certificate documents." No comment again.
But, then the commentator continues, "And yet we others claim that because "Obama held US and Kenyan citizenship as a child...he lost his Kenyan citizenship after he turned 21." However, the actual text on their email graphic reads that "If he [Obama] held U.K. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship when he was born, then he cannot be a natural born citizen of the US." Notice that the question specifically states that Obama held dual citizenship when he was born, but Factcheck changed "born" to "child," thinking it has avoided the problem of "When did Obama acquire Kenyan citizenship?" and, most importantly, was Obama born in Kenya?"
Well, wouldn't you know that the last "email" they posted completely changed the subject as it was written as if it came from an anti-Obama Troll," You lowlife anti constitutional dirtbags. You didn;t fool everyone!"
The title header changes once again, with the tag line reading, "Creative insults don't change the facts." Insults may not change the truth, but the truth is of no concern to Factcheck. Factcheck The commentator continues, "But regardless of what some people may think of our reporting, the Supreme Court has rejected a challenge by..." and then launches into a bastardized description of Leo Donofrio's case. She then says that, "There is at least one other case.." referring, of course, to Phil Berg's lawsuit, focusing only on the part that claims Obama was born in Kenya, and not Hawaii. Then, with her eyebrows raised and her eyelids shut, and in a demeaning tone of voice, she conveys that quintessential air of superiority so typical of the Leftist media, the commentator rebuffs Berg's notion by stating,"Berg has produced no proof to support his claim."
This would have been a good time to switch the header graphic to read, "Condescending blow-offs don't change the facts."
This piece ends with a complete misquote from Hawaii's Vital Statistics rules that, "Birth certificates may not be seen by persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." So much for "checking facts." The correct wording of the rule is that, "A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record." NOTE: there is a huge difference between "seeing" someone's certified birth certificate, and "being issued" someone's birth certificate. America has been asking Obama to SHOW HIS REAL, CERTIFIED PAPER DOCUMENT, and not for 300 million of us to receive our own certified copy of it.
Keep in mind, also, the big difference between asking for and receiving a "certified copy" of a birth record, and one that is not certified -- which is called a "Letter of Verification," and is one that an agency can request and receive.
Finally, Factcheck throws in the oft-misquoted statement made by Directors Fukino and Onaka of Hawaii's health Department. Although the commentator read it verbatim, the timing and placement of it (at the end) was done to makle the viewer think that the brass at the Health Department verified Obama's Hawaiian birth -- which has never been done, and is the only thing that we ask. Factcheck's fraud, however, is intended to keep us from even asking the question.
So, why did Factcheck make such a hasty exit? I've heard a rumor that they are laying low for legal reasons, but I do not know why. After all, what do they have to hide? {chuckle-chuckle}
Or, "What Factcheck's image scan might have been if it were not bogus."
I made a video, dedicated to FReepers everywhere, that demonstrates the proper scan a real, paper Certification of Live Birth so that ALL of its critical features are visible, such as the Seal, upper fold, lower fold, and the texture of the paper. I also show how to use
As soon as I get the file uploaded, I'll post it.
I'm a Computer Scientist, should be as good as anyone to Judge something like this
No, but there's enough corroborating evidence that he was born in Hawaii to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. At least 2 media outlets examined the paper copy of his COLB and confirmed in was not a fraud. One was factcheck. The other was the rabid anti-obama WorldNutDaily.
Ok, we all know Factcheck is run and operated by Annenberg - the same Annenberg that Obama and Ayers started. Factcheck has a more than obvious affinity for Obama. The site is rediculous at best. Worldnetdaily? Since when .. they did not evaluate any paper-copy of COLB? Provide this information please.
Hawaii officials confirmed he was born in Hawaii.
Says who? Are you talking about the statement from the director of the health department? She said they evaluated COLB, but stopped short and DID NOT say he was born in Hawaii. If you disagree, please provide the statement and by whom that said he was indeed born in Hawaii, and not just that they evaluated a COLB.
Anyone can write a blog claiming this or that. Show us some real proof here.
There's the birth announcement in the Holonlulu advertiser.
Yeahp, only an announcement. You can be born somewhere else and have the local newspaper of your hometown put an announcement in that paper that you had a baby etc., so the friends back home can read about it. Again, that does not show any proof what-so-ever.
Someone is still using Ann Dunham’s SS# as Ann Soetoro.
Do you have further information concerning those statements?
Yeah, in the video below around 2:17, discusses the research and info.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081212
Yep, tell the annoying troll that this "fake Phd" with the "fake name" and "fake academic disciple" make a fool out of Krawetz and proved that he's totally clueless about analyzing graphics.
I don't suppose that the gutless troll would put any money where his big mouth is, do you?
That was Jay McKinnon/OpenDNA who claimed he did, to screw with the Kos, but he never was connectefd with them.
The blank templates that people created were worthless as no one could ever duplicate the Kos image...except yours truly.
I have a copy of mine. Years ago I had a girl (friend) who insisted that I get it. She wanted to know exactly when I was born, (I mean exactly what time), where I was born, and other details.
The astrology thing has never been a big interest of mine, but I am glad that I have my copy.
It was quite interesting to see what information is on the actual copy as opposed to what is on the draft provided by the city of Boston.
The city & state BCs are quite different from each other.
Bullsh*t. The Certification of Live Birth doesn't even provide adequate proof actual Hawaiian birth among state agencies like Hawaii's Department of Home Lands. They want to see an actual certified copy of your Certificate of Live Birth.
Furthermore, Dave Tesla provided a manual showing a list of Federal agencies at places such as the Department of Defense where they would not actually accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of birth within the U.S..
I doubt he has his original BC. I don't have mine. Why should he bother trying to get a copy, if the COLB is sufficient to prove his eligibility?
That's an incredibly disingenuous statement. Even if Obama does not personally possess a copy of his long form Birth Certificate, a certified copy could be easily be obtained from the Department of Health.
And he should "bother" to do so rather than allowing the DNC to spend ridiculous sums of money on attorneys and court fees in an attempt to put out all these fires. We have a right to see a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of a Presidential candidate born in the State of Hawaii.
Didn't an aunt of Obama in Kenya say that she was there in Kenya when her nephew Barak was born?
I suppose that personal testimonies are not considered "reason" to believe anything after all.
It was a warning issued to all Westerners and especially US citizens in 1981 to NOT travel to Pakistan, so technically, it was not a "ban" in the strict sense of the word. Neither the US nor UK, France, Spain, Portugal, or Italy were issuing travel visas to Pakistan, whereas all of the Muslim countries were. So, you can take it to the bank that anyone who went to Pakistan in 1981 from the US took an alternate route to get there, like by way of a Mualim country.
Anyway, it's pointless to argue with someone who's less than zero and who's only intention is to make trouble. My dad once said to me, "Never argue with an idiot."
Sage advice.
Lol, i’ve been around. Yeah, that was me. It was just bugging me to much that he tried acting like an expert and clearly wasn’t the case at all.
The other e-mail he got stuck it to him too.
Good advice, it only gives them more to be rediculous about when you argue with them.
Good job with the interview and keep up the good work.
I’ve read Polarik’s latest report on the forgery, and I’ve also read the essay you refer to. I still find Polarik’s work persuasive.
Of course he uses a pseudonymn. I would, too, if I was that prominent in making trouble for The One. In fact, it’s also why I use a screenname here, and in fact did not post for several months back in the Whitewater days, until I was persuaded that we can trust Jim Robinson to preserve this site’s confidentiality.
It’s not healthy to cause trouble for Democrat politicians who are in good odor with the Chicago Machine, also known as the Mob.
“Are you saying the State of Hawaii systematically lies on its official documents?”
They provide the information you give. They do not verify that information. The document itself says it is valid for proof of the birth, as in the fact a person exists, but it does not serve as the birth certificate.
That is completely false, and is not supported by any law. Show me a single legal reference to a citizen that is neither natural nor naturalized. Just cause someone made a chart on a website, doesn’t mean there is any merit to the claims.
Huh? Have you ever traveled outside the U.S.? That's not how visas work. Visas are issued by the host nation (i.e. Pakistan) and not the State Department.
There is still a travel warning covering Pakistan but this currently doesn't prevent U.S. residents from obtaining a Pakistani-issued visa to visit, just as it didn't prevent U.S. residents from doing so in 1981.
People have been spreading this misinformation so often now that nobody has bothered to check to see if it is even true. It isn't true and has never been true.
Basically, what the State Department did in 1981 is similar to what they are doing now with Iran
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
So, where is your evidence to the contrary? You cannot make a blanket statement like yours without a reference.
You know what’s interesting about Hawaii though ..
The cancer institute in Hawaii that Obama’s Mom supposedly died at .. they have no record of her being there.
For both Obama’s Grandma and his Mom, there were only memorial services with no body in each case.
Hawaii Grandma hasn’t been seen on video, interview, or even a picture for several years before Obama ran for President.
Someone is still using Ann Dunham’s SS# as Ann Soetoro.
How do you know these things? what proof do you have?
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.