Orly Taitz Claims She Can Have President Obama "Out Of Office In 30 Days"

Media Matters Action Network ^ | September 14, 2009 2:00 pm ET | Media Matters Action

[naturalman1975]

It doesn’t take any particularly deep analysis to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bomford BC is a doctored fraud. The floating text alone would bust it hopelessly in court.

I'm sorry, but that's not the case.

Do you understand how a compression algorithm works? How they are used to take an image that might be five megabytes in size and to produce an image that is perhaps one hundred kilobytes in size?

They do this by approximating pixels. In some cases, it's done by reducing the number of colours in an image from potentially millions (16,777,216 in 24 bit image) to a much smaller number (256 colours in a 8 bit image). In other cases, the process involves reducing the differences between neighbouring pixels - there's a few different ways of doing it.

The most important thing to remember about these methods is that they mean you end up with a compressed image that to normal inspection by the naked eye should be nearly indistinguishable from the original image.

The first of these two images has 59383 colours. The second has 256. To normal inspection by the naked eye, the differences are fairly insignificant. But if we zoom in on both images at the same location.

We can see the differences pretty clearly. The second image has approximated far more colours than in the former.

You will always see artifacts based on approximation of colours if you look at online pictures close up at a higher magnification than they were meant to be viewed. That does not make them fake.

The artifacts seen in the Bomford certificate are not unusual.

Want to check that for yourself. Print a document, fold or crumple it up, straighten it out, scan it and then save it in both gif and jpg forms. Then zoom in on identical sections of the document and check out what you see yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do, if you really want to see what scanning and compression artifacts look like. And because you did it yourself, you'll know precisely how much you faked and how much you didn't - no matter what it looks like.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you - it stopped after a while. One of those things....

[El Gato]

We have enough incompetent folks in Washington already.

That's true, but the republic can survive incompetance, as it has many times in the past. But, it may not be able to survive the evil folks that have decended upon it.

[El Gato]

COLB shows Frank Marshall Davis as the REAL daddy... That might have made sense before the election. But now, it would lend more street cred to The Messiah, and would show him to be a natural born citizen.

[Tainan]

Naturalman1975 is presenting valid and substantial information in this matter. He has carried his points well and true in the face of repeated examination and questioning. This childish name-calling and useless insults are uncalled for and less than civil.
He is a good-guy, as his record attests, and while discussion and critique of his points should be SOP; the rude comments reflect an insecurity and lack of ability that really should be kept to ones self rather than trotted out for public display.
Unity is our strength.

[El Gato]

He’s a lying thief.

Yeah, but if that were a disqualification for holding the office of President, there'd have been several others thrown out on their ears... hmm, a couple of them had big ears too... just sayin. :)

[naturalman1975]

Okay, now it works.

Naturalman, since you have seen oodles and oodles of Kenyan *and* Australian birth certificates, could you show us some?

Not 'oodles and oodles', somewhere between about twenty and thirty. But no, I can't show them to you. I saw them while I was in the Navy where at times part of my job was to sight identification documents for potential recruits to the Royal Australian Navy. While we did photocopy these documents, they went into files, not into my own personal collection. The Navy would have rather frowned on me doing that.

On the Bomford threads, various AU BC’s were shown, and they weren’t all the same. Just a little snippet of info. But since your eyes have witnessed so many Kenyan BC, certainly you can find one of them or even a few, and show us!

What, you want me to break into HMAS Cerberus and go through files there (actually, they've probably been moved somewhere else) looking for birth certificates I saw twenty years ago? Sorry, I don't think that's realistic.

Otherwise, you want us to merely accept your word, just as 0bama wants us to accept his word.

Yes, in essence I am asking you to accept my word. But only because it would be of benefit to you if you did. It would stop you being taken in by a fraud. If I saw a game of three card monte going on, I'd probably tell people that's a fake as well, but not being a street magician or huckster, probably wouldn't be able to prove it. But I know based on what I've seen that the alleged Obama certificate modelled off the Bomford certificate is not real, and I'm going to warn people of that. Whether I can provide all the evidence that informs my belief based on what I've seen or not. I can't show you all of what I've seen - but I can tell you what I've seen.

And, also wondering how was it that you just happened to have seen with your own eyes 20 to 30 Kenyan BCs, when they are so unusual and hard to find.

They are certainly difficult to find online. Not so difficult when you're involved in admininstering an office, part of whose job it is to look at the birth certificates of potential recruits for the Australian Defence Force. I saw hundreds, probably thousands of birth certificates in this capacity - more Australian and British than any others, but not all potential recruits were Australian born. I saw birth certificates from all over the world, probably including most Commonwealth countries. I also saw some fakes at times, which I was expected to be able to identify.

[El Gato]

WND backed away from their original claims that Kenyan certificates were consistent with this alleged certificate once they started investigating in more depth.

But that was about the "South Australian Clone" birth certificate, not the one provided more recently by Lucas.

[MHGinTN]

You apparently missed the long thread where the idiocy of the Bomford fraud was exposed. Here’s a clue: when lettering is superposed over folds of the background paper but the lettering is not deformed in any way, the exhibit is a fabrication, not valid; when the signature has the printing of the form upon which the signature was supposedly written, the exhibit is a fraud. When you catch up, come back and tell us what an upfront guy the poster is, trying to peddle garbage not even about the post he addressed.

[naturalman1975]

You know, I've been on a lot of these threads. Yet I've never seen a South Australian BC, other than the Bomford one, and also not an example of a BC from the British Protectorate of Kenya (the coastal strip which includes Mombasa, other than the two alleged to be those of BHO.

I don't recall having seen any Kenyan certificate posted here besides those that are the WND page, and I can't tell you what threads they were posted in.

I have seen one other South Australian birth certificates posted online, including on Freerepublic, but again I can't tell you the threads. Sorry, but there's just too many threads and no easy way to search within them.

It's a slightly earlier version than the Bomford certificate.

BTW, I never thought the "red couch" BC was real, at least not after the Bomford one showed up, but I would like to see another Coast Province BC, or more precisely a BC from the Coast Province General Hospital (or whatever it's exact name was) from circa 1961.

So would I.

[El Gato]

Then he’s constitutionally eligible to be POTUS/CINC

Well maybe, they could be completely legit, he could have been born in Hawaii, yet still not be a natural born citizen. In fact, that is likely the case if the "in order" BC shows his father to be Barack Hussien Obama born in wherever it was, Kenya. Then the only thing left to prove, as a matter of fact rather than Constitutional meaning, would be that BHO Sr entered the US as a British and then Kenyan national, in 1959 and again around 1973 when he returned to Hawaii to give a speech, and oh yea meet his son.

[LibertarianAdam]

When I first heard about the allegations, I thought it was tin foil hat stuff, until I found out that Obama spent up to one million in lawyer fees fighting the release of his birth certificate. Now I am admittedly not a birther, but I have a question about this, and would love to see it substantiated. I have seen a lot of references to this figure (or $1.5 million), but the only links I have ever seen go to the totality of 0bama's legal defense, not specifically the birth certificate issue. Is there a good reference someone can link me to that clarifies this? No doubt any Presidential candidate has tons of legal bills, and I haven't seen anything that says that this much was specifically spent on this one issue. Of the roughly half-dozen cases that have arisen, I cannot see how $1 million could possibly be spent. #1, as a named dependent 0bama HAS to respond. #2, it seems that pretty much every case has been dismissed immediately after a motion by 0bama. How could $1 million possibly be spent on a handful of 5-10 page motions for dismissal that were likely carbon copies of each other? I'm as cynical as anyone about the legal profession, and have hired top-tier very expensive counsel myself, but I have a hard time believing this total can be real. I mean, his legal defense has pretty much won on the first filing every time...it's hard to imagine what is so expensive about that, or that it substantiates the claim he is using every resource possible. All he is doing is properly responding as a dependent and winning when he asks to dismiss the case. Can anybody help show me where the bills and/or intense effort is?

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Australian law completely split from British law in 1942

False. Australia became a Federation with its own constitution in 1901.

[naturalman1975]

False. Australia became a Federation with its own constitution in 1901.

No. Not false.

While Australia did federate in 1901 and the Australian Constitution came into effect on that date, the British Parliament retained the right to pass laws concerning. Australia under the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865. This Statute of Westminster of 1931 amended that situation by stating that the British government could no longer make laws for the Dominions (at that time, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State) but also contained provision that the Statute of Westminster would not take effect in Australia until the Australian government ratified it. The Australian government finally ratified the Statute of Westminster on the 9th October 1942.

Check out: for details.

[MHGinTN]

You could file an FOIA to see the billing records of Perkins & Coie, but you might want to use a bit of common sense also:

How much would it cost to send detectives and lawyers lterally all over the world to bury the documentation of BArry Soetoro's history, and you might want to include a 'slush fund' to bribe folks in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Kenya, because certain documents have come up missing from systems where his is the only file missing--like the entry registration for kindergarten which would have included a BC for entry. Personally, I think the more than $600,000 billed froma nd paid to Perkins & Coie in January 2009 is not half of what has been spent to hide the truth about this lying affirmative action bastard.

[El Gato]

Is Sinclair that “Internet Powerhouse” of yore?

Nah, that's Andrew Martin. Sinclair is the guy who's accused BHO of getting high and having sex with him.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

That was just a formality -- The Brits passed their own version in 1931. These statues did not affect autonomy and independence of Australia, which was granted in 1901. In 1901, Australia accepted as default legislation, the centuries of British law as legal precedent. In a way today, that still hasn't changed. In the 1970s, there was a movement to remove/repeal some of the very old - unused legislation that had been accepted in Medieval Britain. For example --it had been illegal for a woman to gossip -- there was a piece of legislation that dated back to the Plantagenet Dynasty and one of the many pieces of default legislation that was accepted with Federation. The gossiping legislation was never enforced and therefore was easy to repeal.

Other pieces of legislation date back from significant moments in British history -- the Great Fire of London in 1666, for example. After that event, the Parliament of Charles II made it illegal for any new structure to be built of wood on its first floor -- it must be brick. I'm not sure if that law is repealed today in Australia - but the habit of building brick buildings remained a large custom, even when we have sprinkler technology, fire hydrants etc.

Australian law is a very different beast. Although it does have the basis of British legal precedent, there are elements of Australian law that were only forged in Australia and that was well before 1901 -- the incident at the Eureka Stockade has left an indelible mark. No Australian to this day is required to have any papers on him/her at any time (including driver's license). But when asked for the license, has several days to produce it. In Australia, you can leave the house without your driver's license, run a red light, be pulled over and have 3 days to produce your legal right to drive at the local police station.

[GBA]

OK...well do you want to bet?

I wish I felt strong enough about Orly's case and ability to take you up on that bet. It's a bet I'd love to win.

To be honest, I find your posts on this topic to be somewhere between helpful and tedious. Tedious for many reasons, but I think you're often being realistic and that's both helpful and why I wouldn't take the bet.

Please don't misunderstand. I think obama is hiding something big and bad for him and his party, maybe more. I want the truth "out there" in the light for all to see...but I'm not confident that Orly is the one who can make that happen. I hope I'm wrong about her b/c I don't think I'm wrong about him.

[naturalman1975]

That was just a formality -- The Brits passed their own version in 1931. These statues did not affect autonomy and independence of Australia, which was granted in 1901.

Not the case.

Australia did not appoint its first overseas Ambassador (Richard Casey, later to become Baron Casey, to the United States) until 1940. Why not? Because until that time, Australia's foreign affairs were still handled from London. And Casey was then, in 1942, appointed (over Australian objections) British Minister Resident in the Middle East by Winston Churchill, exercising Britain's legal right to overrule Australian decisions on foreign affairs. That incident was a main reason why Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster - to prevent it happening again.

Britain didn't exercise its powers over Australia very often between 1901 and 1942, but they were real.

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany and her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.

That was automatic in 1939 because of these powers. In Canada where the Statute of Westminster had become active in 1931 (it didn't have to be ratified there), there was actually debate in the Canadian Parliament over the issue and Canada did not declare war automatically when the United Kingdom did, but did so a week later.

"Our King, Mister Speaker, is at war and this Parliament is sitting to decide whether we shall make his cause our own." - The Right Honourable Ernest La Pointe in the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada.

The Passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942 was not just a formality. Until it was passed by the Australian Parliament, the law had no force here at all. If it hadn't been for World War II, it is unlikely it would have been adopted as quickly as it was - it was only John Curtin's concerns that Churchill might try and overrule him on issues concerning Australian troops that lead to its adoption in 1942 with effect from the start of the war.

[LibertarianAdam]

Interesting theory, but pure conjecture.

There are enough bad things about 0bama we shouldn’t have to make such stretches, and this million dollar claim about hiding his birth certificate sounds like a big one to me.