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?
And just think, the CHIEF JUSTICE of the SCOTUS helped all he could. Can you say ‘’complicit to a felony.’’
Thanks. Nice synopsis. Good to see others who did some work and conclude FORGERY.
Techdude turned out to be a fraud.
--You say that! Does the misnamed Fight the smears website say the same thing?
I'm not sure, but I believe Texas darlin discovered this, and Polarik found out also. Techdude claimed credentials he didn't have. No one has been able to substatiate that Maya Soetero had a COLB.
It does not do the argument any good to use discredited information. There's enough real issues out there.
You said that Obama had spent over a million dollars on legal fees on this issue. When I asked for a citation in support of that assertion, you responded that he had hired three different law firms.
I’m prepared to believe that he had three different firms. With suits pending in several different states, it would be standard practice to hire local counsel, rather than trying to have one firm do everything.
That doesn’t come anywhere close to establishing the total amount of the legal bill, though. My guess is that the instructions to some of the lawyers were “Keep an eye on this case and see if the legal papers submitted by our co-defendant, the Secretary of State, omit any point that we want brought to the court’s attention.” You can do that kind of stuff for way less than a million.
This is hearsay testimony on your fellows part.
As Communists, the BHO squad is very good at subversion, lies, and infiltration.
The last number I read said there are something like fifty lawsuits in more that twenty states.
I don’t think he can do any of it for less than one million.
The problem I have in citing a source for the law firms is that I don’t keep a folder on this information I acquire about Obama. I do remember that two of the lawfirms mentioned are liberal activist law firms, one located in Chicago - big shock there! - and the other in Washington, D.C.
I’ll make some inquiries for you. Maybe we’ll get lucky. But lawyers are showing up for these lawsuits across the nation, and they are not government lawyers.
OK. I’ve come up with one law firm so far:
“Obama’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the Lawyers filing the motion was Joe Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young...” (the source follows).
Obama Is Using CAIR Lawyer to Defend Himself...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096874/posts
Nor was it even necessary to do so, because it didn't change the fact that I knew this COLB image was bogus, that I knew how it was made, and that Maya's COLB had nothing to do with it.
Now, I was the one who first discovered that Techdude was a fraud and I warned TexasDarlin, early on, not to trust him. My warnings about TechDude were ignored and she published his work anyway. She would, eventually, stop publishing his work, but not because he was a fraud -- she said that it was in response to TechDude's worries about his safety and the safety of his family. THAT story was bogus, the tale about the dead rabbit was bogus, and we now know that TechDude had stolen the identity of a real forensic document examiner, but when he couldn't do what he promised to do, he dropped out of sight using the excuses listed above.
I knew that TechDude was way off the mark when I saw his preliminary work, and that a real forensic document examiner (which he had claimed to be) would never make such dubious claims). Do you know what TechDude gave as a theory as to how Maya's name was allegedly visible on Obama's COLB??
TechDude was the one who said that Maya's COLB had been soaked in solvent to remove the laser print and then dried and typed over. His theory was patently ridiculous as the solvent would also destroy the integrity of the paper and its pattern. Not only that, there is a patent currently waiting for approval for a new chemical process to remove laser print from paper pulp in order to recycle it.
FACTCHECK had a field day with that theory and they made special mention of it as a way to trash genuine research.
If you recall, Jay McKinnon was originally credited, and also discredited, with creating the COLB image forgery, and that story was first published on Israel Insider -- it was also destined to become the longest-running thread on FR (now up to 7,584 comments):
I'll take Polarik's opinion on this over yours, thanks.
Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ ^
Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:25:21 AM by cycle of discernment
April 15, 2009
Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?
Margaret Calhoun Hemenway
After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President. (Hemenway had enjoined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton’s ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.) The entire letter, written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following:
“I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080.
For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.
Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”
Mr. Hemenway’s response to the letter was a promise to “write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to “transparency” and “openness” and honesty in governmental operations—all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter.”
Mr. Hemenway added, “The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won’t work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me.”
In his opinion, “many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: “Nada dakazat’ kulak!” (You must show them your fist!)”
Hemenway also pledged:
“…to appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called “reprimand”) by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as “frivolous” but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11. (This would have given me—and others engaged in this important battle —standing in the Court of Appeals.)
I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals. The military, as Colonel Hollister’s interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ orders originating from a ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ commander-in-chief. Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn’t seek any.
The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering’.“
For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill’s admonition: “If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up—never – never – never.”
The most important part of that quote is the “matter of principle.” It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill. Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle.
If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Last, Hemenway points out: “Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called “Anschluss”) and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria. He says his father left Austria in 1940. Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started.
In any event, if Bauer’s background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?”
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is a retired federal employee, having served fifteen years in the U.S. Congress and five years as a White House appointee at DoD and NASA.
This "son of the soil" or "son of the village" thing is how this got started (well that and the fact that Obama never released his original birth certificate).
John Kennedy was a "Son of Ireland." It doesn't mean he was born there. People say these things metaphorically.
The reason he didn't sidestep the birth controversy was that -- at the time -- Obama's birth was not controversial.
Or that Ogego wasn't paying attention to the question.
What they were asking him essentially was whether people were going to visit Obama's ancestral village, whether the government would put up a monument there. He may not even have caught the "birthplace" angle to the question.
Anyway, you have people who believe Obama was born in Mombasa, on the other side of Kenya, citing the ambassador and the "grandmother" as believing that he was born in the village. What's up with that?
Good job.
You are full of crap.
Obama has proven nothing about himself.
>>Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.<<
I’m pretty sure that’s what Hawaii said they were doing.
reasonisfaith is a good guy. He was being sarcastic to an idiot.
Sure didn’t read that way.
There is a ton of information about Obama’s background out there if one will only do the research. And it doesn’t have to be directly about him. His mother’s travels are interesting, to say the least.
I’ve been doing research on this man since February 2008. Just for the record, I always do research on presidential candidates though it is usually perfunctory with nothing extraordinary. Obama, however, had gone to drastic lengths to hide his information, a dead giveaway that he has something to hide.
Especially as my computer was hacked several times last year, most of the hacking originating from a building in Washington, D.C. that housed Senate offices. (My nephew is an adept “ethical” hacker. He located the hacker’s origin.) We’ve complained to the FBI, even supplied them with the information about the source of the hacking, but to no avail.
What Obama hasn’t been able to do is conceal all the information about his mother or her whereabouts. For example, a fellow by the name of Kenyatta, deeply involved in the Mau Mau uprising in British Colonial East Africa, was going to be released from prison in the early fall (late August or early September) of 1961. Barak Hussein Obama (Senior), an admirer of Kenyatta’s, went home for the summer of 1961 to be present for Kenyatta’s release. His wife, Stanley Anne D. Obama, went with him. She did not return to the United States until mid-August to enroll in the University of Washington, from which she graduated with a degree in Mathematics in 1963. (She went back to Hawaii and got a divorce from Obama Sr., then married Lolo Soetoro, of Indonesia).
Baby Obama was born August 4, 1961. His mother wasn’t in the U.S.A. until mid August. So, where was our President born?
P.S.: this information was found by private investigators, prior to the election of 2008, working for an individual who is a writer; don’t expect to see it published until some time in the future. If we end up with a full-blown dictatorship a la Hugo Chavez, it probably won’t see publication AT ALL!!
bttt
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.
