BREAKING: White House releases Obama's birth certificate

Via DRUDGE: CNN Politics ^ | April 27th, 2011 | CNN Political Unit

[Marine_Uncle]

Good night. Do have a great upcoming day.

[Hotlanta Mike]

At long last, are you going to give it up on this and admit Obama was born in Honolulu?

...........................

At long last are you ever going to answer why Brian Schatz (CEO of the Democratic Party of Hawaii) refused to certify Obama as meeting the constitutional requirements as was legally required by state election law?

Got answers???

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html

Also, are you going to finally admit that those short form COLBS were all forgeries?

...”Concerning the actual image of what is claimed to be the president’s original long-form birth certificate, Adams said, “If this document is indeed valid – and I’m not going into the questions of validity – it proves what I said before, that the so-called COLBs (Certifications of Live Birth) that were posted online over the last three years are in fact forgeries and not State of Hawaii issued documents.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/hawaii-elections-clerk-these-people.html

[WOSG]

The latest birth cert release further debunks all the bogus ‘forgery’ claims about the COLB. It’s been valid the whole time. 100% checks out legit. Claiming otherwise is nuts.

Democrat election antics are nothing new, and speaks not at all to Obama’s birthplace, which we now can confirm as not only Honolulu but Kapiolani hospital in particular.

But then, you know this already.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Wake up and smell the coffee.

For years, people have asked for the long-form BC. Now they’ve got it, the same form the Nordyke twins got in 1966.

Now you know the hospital he was born in and the Doctor who delivered him. And you also know everything on the COLB matches up with it.

---

You better get a double dose of 5 Hour Energy drink then...

“What is it about twin girls born day after Obama?”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292457

“In the final analysis, proof that the document is an authentic Obama birth record will await forensic examination.”

On the other hand you are just too anxious to declare victory for the Fraudster and move on...

[Texas Fossil]

You were right about the “Cs1 cs” and “Cs2 cs” coding. I had seen it before and thought I understood what it was.

That does not change my opinion that the data is stored as images and fragments assembled from a database. There is no other way to produce the signatures blocks. It is an image .pdf as opposed to a text type .pdf.

[Polybius]

It’s not my job to convince people who refuse to look objectively at evidence and listen to reason. ....

Again, I am not a birther. But, unlike you, but I am not trying to help Obama ridicule them. Whether you like it or not, they make up 25% of all voters. Regards of whether they are kooks or not, they happen to be OUR kooks.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am pointing out that, to defeat Obama, it is better to try to find ways to turn this on him .

I have shown you how but you would rather play the "I was right and the birthers were wrong" game. That only helps Obama.

The outcome of the election depends on having good, reasonable responses to the Democrat attacks that most certainly will come.

You, instead, have chosen to help Obama paint anyone who questions him as kooks even though a large chunk of our base does question him.

I’m just saying to stop drinking the birther koolaid is all. It’s very easy to believe just about anything you want if you pretend there is a massive conspiracy afoot to twist reality.

There you go again. Totally obssesed with the birthers. You simply cannot let it go. You would rather fight with them than try to find a way to turn things against Obama.

“The fact remains that you still have alleged 1961 typing and writing on a fake, green 21st Century background.”

I hate to be this blunt, but you are making a fool of yourself. crying ‘fake’ over something that has ‘modern’ elements, when in fact this is a modern copy, made this Monday, of the long form BC information, dated and signed by Hawaii’s DOH Registrar.

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

BY DEFINITION, THAT IS NOT AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND THESE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR, AT LEAST, AN UNDOCTORED PHOTO OF ONE.

Once you start mixing modern and original elements you automatically lose credibility with them. They know that that green background is "fake" in regards to an original 1961 document just like the fonts in the Dan Rather forgeries were fake because they were incongruent with the time period.

Yes, yes, I know there is a technical explanation. But, guess what? Most people are not tech geeks and you totally lose them.

"O.K., everybody gather around and WOSG is going to explain things to you."

"Hello. I'm WOSG. Well, first of all you not allowed to see the original document because I said so or even a photo but this is how it is done:

1.) First you scan the original document that you are not allowed to see

2.) Then you use the Optical Character Recognition software to capture the writing and signatures

3.) You then layer the Optical Character Recognition capture with the chosen backround which, in this case, is a 21st Century security paper pattern. Then …….

By this time, WOSG you have completely lost your audience and you have accomplished absolutely nothing.

As I said, you are violatting the K.I.S.S. Principle.

Considering that our base is what it is and considering that the Birthers constitute 25% of all voters, I will concentrate on trying to turn the argument back on Obama.

You, however, would rather spend your time attacking the Birthers rather than to say something as simple as this:

"Mr. President, I believe you. I truly do. However, 25% of America does not because they are "Show Me" kind of people and documents can be played with. Wouldn't it be soooooooo much easier, Mr. President, to allow the press to simply photograph the original?"

[Hotlanta Mike]

“Election official Tim Adams was there and has stated for the record that he could not find any trace of Obama’s long form birth certificate”

Just cause he says he couldnt find it, doesnt mean its not there. Either Tim Adams didn’t look hard enough, didnt have authority to look in the right place, or was not telling the truth. His statements have now been contradicted with this latest BC release.

We now have a certified copy of the real original Birth Certificate. It confirms many particulars already known about Obama’s birth. And it confirms what the DOH head had said prior, which was that Obama’s original birth cert was on file with the State of Hawaii.

....................................................

Concerning the actual image of what is claimed to be the president’s original long-form birth certificate, Adams said, “If this document is indeed valid – and I’m not going into the questions of validity – it proves what I said before, that the so-called COLBs (Certifications of Live Birth) that were posted online over the last three years are in fact forgeries and not State of Hawaii issued documents.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/hawaii-elections-clerk-these-people.html

[Hotlanta Mike]

The latest birth cert release further debunks all the bogus ‘forgery’ claims about the COLB. It’s been valid the whole time. 100% checks out legit. Claiming otherwise is nuts.

Democrat election antics are nothing new, and speaks not at all to Obama’s birthplace, which we now can confirm as not only Honolulu but Kapiolani hospital in particular.

But then, you know this already.

......................................

No one has had an opportunity to examine the physical document for authenticity yet. Secondly, how about some corraborating evidence that SAD was attended to at Kapiolani Hospital (medical record, billing records, etc)?

You are just too quick to declare victory for a fraud!!!

[WOSG]

You claimed, falsely, that it contradicts the COLB, when in fact it corroborates it.

“Secondly, how about some corraborating evidence that SAD was attended to at Kapiolani Hospital”

We know the attending physician, Dr Sinclair.

[Hotlanta Mike]

“We know the attending physician, Dr Sinclair.”

Dead men tell no tales...

Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c

[jda]

My point was that there is no clear-cut precedent, as stated in Minor v. Happersett:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

However, there is a significant amount of evidence that the Framers defined "natural born citizen" as having parents who were themselves citizens: Vattel's 1758 "The Law of Nations," a document used widely by the American Founders, states in Vol. 1, Ch. 19, Section 212: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

And, this may help, in case you care:

[GourmetDan]

Makes me think someone left a clue that we are being played ‘like a fiddle’ (ukulele).

[Diamond]

See discussion here (post 87) of what I think is that video author's oversight of the obvious possibility that the lack of chromatic aberration in the White House version can be accounted for simply by the clerk photocopying the original on a copy machine printing from a paper tray with security paper.

I still have a problem is with the blurry security paper, though. If you have any ideas I'm all ears.

Cordially,

[old curmudgeon]

Odd that you think of that because there are so many instances of criminals doing exactly that; leaving a signature with a hidden meaning.

To me, the most glaring evidence of fraud is the fact that the number and the date are out of sequence.

The hospital sets neither. The health department in Honolulu receives the paperwork from the hospital and issues the birth certificate. They date it and stamp it with the number.

According to the several stories I have read, the stamp automatically indexes up one number each time it is used.

If that description of the process is correct, it is impossible for a birth certificate dated 3 or 4 days earlier than another to have a higher number.

The answer to whether this is in fact a correct description of the process is probably going to determine whether forensic examination of the original is required.

[Polybius]

Well, WOSG, …… “They’re baaack.”

On Drudge today:

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery ….. when the government released PDF is taken into the image editing program Adobe Illustrator, we discover a number of separate elements that reveal the document is not a single scan on paper, as one might surmise. Elements are place in layers or editing boxes over the scan and green textured paper, which is to say the least unusual …..

(And, no, I am not saying that it is a "forgery" nor have I EVER said that, so don't go putting words in my mouth again.)

Exactly as I predicted, as soon as the “Birthers” saw that the PDF image was a layered, composite, computer generated (i.e. “manipulated”) image, all trust in the document went flying out the window.

From your previous posts, it seems that you are not very well informed on the mechanics of “layering” and the creative possibilities it offers. So, it might benefit you to learn a little bit about the layering process.

Lesson 1: Introduction to Photoshop Layer Masks

In medicine, when you are being given a lecture by the attorneys of your malpractice insurance company in regards to handling paper medical records, one point that is drilled into your head, again and again and again, is that you leave absolutely NO DOUBT about what the original document contained.

1.) If you make a mistake, you cross out that mistake with a single, thin line leaving the original writing perfectly legible and you initial the cross-out.
2.) You NEVER erase ANYTHING on the original document.
3.) You NEVER cross out ANYTHING on the original document completely so that it is illegible.
4.) You NEVER tear out a piece of the paper of the original document.
5.) You MUST ensure that the jury is 100% certain that absolutely NO changes have been made to the original document.

“But, I like my medical records to have a crisp, professional appearance and a single-line cross-out of one or several words looks sloppy. I like to erase to keep that that crisp appearance.”

“If the jury suspects that ANYTHING was changed, the jury will crucify, Doctor.”

“I will simply vouch for the correction and tell them that I made the correction at the time of writing.”

“The jury will crucify you, Doctor.”

“Excuse me! I am an extremely well respected member of this community. My integrity is beyond reproach!”

“What part of ‘the jury will crucify you’ do you still fail to understand, Doctor?”

The PDF image that was released is a layered, composite image. There is no doubt about that (unless you have no clue what “layering” means or how it functions and believe that “layering” is a conspiracy theory).

Layered documents can be manipulated every which way but loose and there is absolutely no doubt about that.

As I stated before, when a certain group of people is skeptical, THEY NEED TO SEE THE ORIGINAL, UNALTERED AND UNMANIPULATED DOCUMENT.

That applies to 12 people on a jury at a medical malpractice trial and it also applies to 25% of all voters that you insist on helping Obama to ridicule.

Just so you don’t call me a “Birther”, yet again, I am NOT saying that this document is a “forgery”. The term “forgery” would imply that the content of the document was altered.

What I am saying is that, once an original document is scanned and then manipulated through imaging software, there is absolutely no way that either you or I can vouch for whether the original content has or has not been changed with the click of a mouse.

Neither you nor I nor can be “certain” that the text captured by the Optical Character Recognition algorithm for the text layer of the layered, composite image was altered or not after it’s capture by the click of a mouse. We just have to take it on faith.

So, that leaves the Faith & Trust argument:

”I, Alvin Onaka, a life-long Democrat in the very liberal State of Hawaii, vouch for the authenticity of this document ……. which I refuse to allow anybody else to see or to photograph. Trust me.”

”I, Dan Rather, a life-long Democrat and anchorman at the very liberal CBS News Division, vouch for the authenticity of this document. Trust me.”

"Trust but verify." ..... Ronald Reagan

Now, in order to cram that Faith & Trust argument down the throat of 25% of all America voters, ...... (OUR base whether you and I agree with them or not) ...... you are willing to join Obama in ridiculing them.

I am not willing to do that. (Whether I agree with you that the text captured by Optical Character Recognition software was left unaltered or not.)

I will turn the tables against Obama by holding him to the same standards that a Doctor Obama would be held to in a medical malpractice trial:

SHOW THE JURY THE UNALTERED, ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

All it takes is news media photographers with digital cameras and the original document on a table.