Posted on 03/28/2012 7:35:29 PM PDT by Kukai
The tough economic times of late 2008 produced an once-in-a-generation leadership opportunity that a talented, attractive and multi-ethnic young president might have exploited to achieve good things for all Americans.
Unfortunately, President Obama has shown over three-plus years that he’s not that leader – unless killing Osama bin Laden is somehow all that matters. Indeed, in light of a record replete with domestic and international fumbles, including a budget deficit driven to unimagined levels and persistently high rates of unemployment/underemployment, Obama ought to be soundly defeated in November.
However, with so many Americans now feeding at the government trough, his defeat is far from a sure thing.
But still lurking in the media shadows is a compelling constitutional question that won’t leave Barack Obama alone. Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House amid great fanfare last spring, was recently and very publicly derided by a the nationally known Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (Phoenix) Arizona.
Finally, after four years of media-abetted obfuscation of Obama's ever-changing documents, someone in authority is finally willing put his reputation on the line and publicly ask raise questions that should have been unambiguously answered years ago.
Ironically, a revival of this political sideshow may be what derails the Obama re-election effort in November. Here’s why: Obama’s self-touted long-form birth certificate, forced into the public arena by then-candidate Donald Trump last spring, was almost immediately exposed as a simplistic cut-and-paste construct -- yet this story has gone ignored for almost a year.
Indeed, an Adobe Illustrator pro and video game writer in Atlanta, who goes by the YouTube handle orangegold1, downloaded the document from whitehouse.gov and quickly exposed it as fraudulent. Orangegold1's initial 7-minute YouTube video depicts a step-by-step forensic deconstruction of the document. This video has had nearly 1.3 million hits thus far and its detractors' criticisms have been thoroughly answered in Orangegold1's follow-up videos.
So will legitimate concerns regarding the latest versions Obama's latest birth documentation continue to go unknown to most Americans? Unfortunately, it's hard to count on reporters and editors in the so-called elite American media to do the right thing in lieu baseless of cheer lead for Obama.
Indeed, the Arpaio investigation has been widely reported in other countries, but so far the story has been covered domestically only by the Washington Times and World Net Daily.
But should the story behind Arpaio’s investigation eventually gain media traction in the U.S., Barack Obama's re-election campaign could be in serious trouble.
Thank you SO MUCH for the detailed report. I had a feeling that no reporters were going to be there. Makes me sick to think our elected officials feel it’s a lost cause to follow the constitution. How many times have we heard that B0 was elected and we can’t overturn an election followed by the tired drivel of *beating him at the ballot box*?
Someone is responsible for this fiasco of having a kenyan (maybe, who knows WHAT he is) and MUST be held accountable.
btt
As for me, even though I expect this to go down the rabbit hole because no one on either side of the aisle will touch it, it gives me a dang good feeling to actually be DOING SOMETHING!
Having about 1200 TEA Partiers there today, it would be my wish that all TEA Parties connect across this blessed Nation of ours and go to D.C. and rally at the Capitol. We need desparately to show a huge mass of Americans to those elected by us that we mean business!
Of course he will. That's why he's disliked. He says what he means and means what he says. Might sound silly but Sheriff Joe doesn't mess around. Maybe in my lifetime it'll be proven that we were right all along and the powers-to-be chose not to listen.
Thank you very very much!
My pleasure GregNH! :o)
I’d like to see that come about also, azishot!
I’d like to see that come about also, azishot!
I’d give a lot to be able to speak honestly with Dr Neal Palafox. And I do wonder if that’s the kind of person who could eventually break this open - if he knew he had protection.
After Breitbart anybody who is gonna talk will need to have protection, and that’s something a state investigation can’t do. That’s why we HAVE to have a federal law enforcement system with integrity. It doesn’t work to have the Chicago mob in charge of the federal law enforcement system.
This is why our Congress-critters NEED to come face to face with the lawlessness - because it was THEY who confirmed Eric Holder, a man of total lawlessness put there as the fox to guard the henhouse. And as a result the entire nation has been hostage. We are hostage because they poo-poohed the significance of Senate oversight. It was THEY who trampled the checks and balances because they favored “bi-partisanship” over accountability.
They need to see the victims so they can repent of what they’ve done and promise that it will never - never - happen again.
I would be very interested in hearing them.
My father told me many years ago that simple stupidity rules the world. The most likely explanation for the most powerful man in the world releasing such an easily exposed forgery is simple stupidity.
My theory incorporates stupidity. I am virtually certain that had Obama or his Lawyer, or any member of his staff been aware that a PDF contains the information used to construct it, they would certainly have not posted it in it's existent form.
Obama being elected to the presidency is the pinnacle achievement of approximately 80 years of subversive communist activity in this country. This simply stupid forgery is threatening to wash this giant turd back down the toilet that he came from along with a whole lot of the other crap that pushed him to the top of the pile.
Consider what you say for a moment. What kind of forger would know how to paste this document together, yet be so foolish as to leave the evidence of it's creation in the same document?
Par for the course for a government bureaucrat.
And this is exactly what I cannot seemingly get through to anybody. If ANYONE ELSE created that document, it *IS* a criminal offense, and the DOH officials CAN be accused of misprision of a felony.
Again, It's Sherlock Holmes all over again.
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
- “Silver Blaze”
So why aren't the Dogs in Hawaii barking? Because they know there *IS* no crime in the way this forged document was produced.
If this was a document created to replace an original BC after an adoption it would have been on a piece of paper that was created whenever Obama was adopted.
Do you acknowledge that? Do you acknowledge that if Obama was adopted in 1968, for instance, there would be a paper BC created in 1968 that had all the information on it? Do you acknowledge that that paper would be inserted into the HDOH file and from then on would be copied and copies certified just like any other and thus any scan of a copy actually made by the HDOH would thus act just like any other original or supplemental BC in their office?
If a paper BC was created whenever Obama was adopted and it was photocopied, stamped, and certified in 2011, and then somebody took a scan of that certified copy and posted it online, how and why would that scan act any different than a scan of any other certified BC put out by the HDOH?
If you take a certified copy of your BC - which was created after an adoption - and scan it and post it online do you get a registrar’s stamp that you can move to different spots on the page? Can you do anything to that scanned document to get the registrar’s stamp to act that way?
Yes, but that is NOT what I am saying it is. It is a document created after an ANNULMENT (Probably in 2011) of a previous Adoption using information which was already in the file.
Do you acknowledge that? Do you acknowledge that if Obama was adopted in 1968, for instance, there would be a paper BC created in 1968 that had all the information on it? Do you acknowledge that that paper would be inserted into the HDOH file and from then on would be copied and copies certified just like any other and thus any scan of a copy actually made by the HDOH would thus act just like any other original or supplemental BC in their office?
Sure. But do you acknowledge that an Adopted child can petition the court to have their adoption annulled and to ask that a new birth certificate be created which contains information already in their file? Sure, they could ask that the ORIGINAL be unsealed, but if it serves there purpose better to get a new one created which is designed to look like an original, why would they not do such a thing?
If a paper BC was created whenever Obama was adopted and it was photocopied, stamped, and certified in 2011, and then somebody took a scan of that certified copy and posted it online, how and why would that scan act any different than a scan of any other certified BC put out by the HDOH?
It would look exactly the same. The Cold Case posse did exactly that, and their scan had something like 40 layers in it. They regarded this as evidence that the PDF was not produced by scanning a document because it had TOO FEW layers in it.
If you take a certified copy of your BC - which was created after an adoption - and scan it and post it online do you get a registrar’s stamp that you can move to different spots on the page? Can you do anything to that scanned document to get the registrar’s stamp to act that way?
I don't have any adobe software product with which to do this, but I can tell you the cold case posse DID in fact, do this, and it did NOT come out like Obama's PDF "birth certificate."
HI law provides that when an unadoption takes place the original BC takes the place of the supplemental BC. Either one would be a paper document.
Since a real scan of a paper document doesn’t act like Obama’s “scan”, what he showed is not from a paper document. It can’t be from either the original or the supplemental BC at the HDOH. And in fact, it can’t be from ANYTHING certified that Fuddy might have sent him - which to be certified has to be on paper.
There is no way that what Obama posted was a scan of what Fuddy sent him, and that means that Fuddy is deceiving the entire nation - which is misprision of forgery and/or fraud and is a federal felony.
So we already know that AT LEAST Fuddy is engaging in crime to cover for Obama.
And actually, because the fraud perpetrated by Obama was against the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, the misprision of that fraud was also against the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, and Sheriff Joe would presumably be within his jurisdiction to charge her with it...
I wonder how soon they could arrest her.
What section of Hawaiian law? The Section on adoptions is pretty extensive.
Apart from that, when you have a State Judge involved, It has been my experience that the law means whatever THEY say it means. I have little doubt that an Attorney working with a judge can produce results that can only be described as a "legal miracle."
Of only one thing am I certain regarding What can and cannot be done legally in Hawaii; That nothing is "certain."
If the truth eventually comes out, I think it is very likely that nobody in Hawaii will have been found to have broken any laws. I believe they will all have legal excuses for what they did.
There are numerous theories that have been proposed on these forums repeatedly... some are more believable than others. All one needs to do is review the threads if they want a sampling. I do not think your theory is plausible mostly because if a bureaucrat created this forgery “legally” why wouldn't the person(s) responsible just step forward and say so? In addition the official narrative on this was that a courier was sent on a commercial airliner to pick up two official copies of the document, and that what was published on the Internet was a simple scanned pdf of one of these documents.
My theory incorporates stupidity. I am virtually certain that had Obama or his Lawyer, or any member of his staff been aware that a PDF contains the information used to construct it, they would certainly have not posted it in it's existent form.
We seem to be in agreement on this... I have dabbled for many years with photoshop and illustrator; the first copy of Photoshop I purchased was 2.5x that was bundled with my first scanner 20+ years ago. Soon afterwards I upgraded to 3.x and Adobe has managed to get a lot more money from me over the years. I am very familiar with layers, but I would guess that 99% of the people I work with, even those who dabble with the software have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the program and could easily forget to flatten their image.
The funny thing is if they had saved it as a jpg instead of a pdf the software would have told them that they needed to flatten the image. When I refinanced recently the Mortgage company insisted that all of my documents needed to be either in pdf format or faxed to them. Apparently pdf files are considered more acceptable than jpgs.
Consider what you say for a moment. What kind of forger would know how to paste this document together, yet be so foolish as to leave the evidence of it's creation in the same document?
I know many people who feel that they are very capable of working with both Photoshop and Illustrator who have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the programs. People tend to learn only the features that they feel they need. Before this learning experience I would guess that a high percentage of people who felt that they were capable of producing this kind of forgery were not aware of the proper way to work with layers. This kinde of mediocrity is certainly not reserved for government bureaucrats.
I do not believe that there will ever be a “legal” way to produce a forgery such as this. It sort of boggles my mind that you think that it could ever be considered legal to use scanned copies of stamps and signatures on a document manufactured after the fact.
In any event, anything the HDOH would have following an adoption or unadoption would be on a PIECE OF PAPER. When scanned it would not have parts that could be moved around. What Obama posted was not from any one piece of paper and could thus not be what Fuddy sent. For her to hide that fact from the public is misprision of fraud. There’s just no way to get around that.
I have no doubts they would CLAIM they had legal reasons. Janice Okubo, for instance, has already claimed that the law PROHIBITS their office from reporting known forgeries to law enforcement. But the forgery and misprision laws REQUIRE that crimes be reported. As far as I know the only people who are exempt are attorneys for whom the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.
The law in question regarding BC’s concerning adoption is HRS 338-20, at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
It says:
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.
(c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.
(d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.
(e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]
This is another example of how I just can't seem to get through to people. Why wouldn't the person(s) responsible just step forward and say so? Are you Kidding me? BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SO! Adoption proceedings are SECRET. By Hawaiian law (and the law in every state as far as I know) it is ILLEGAL to divulge information to any party who does not have a legal interest in the information.
If anyone steps forward and says they created a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child, they will be breaking Hawaiian privacy laws and they can be prosecuted and sentenced for it. It is like divulging medical records, or sealed court documents. It. Is. Illegal. I really thought everyone knew this.
In addition the official narrative on this was that a courier was sent on a commercial airliner to pick up two official copies of the document, and that what was published on the Internet was a simple scanned pdf of one of these documents.
Yes, I know that is the official narrative, and we can believe it is the truth because Obama has never lied to us before, right? *IF* the PDF was a proof file sent to Obama's attorney for approval (or to make sure there were not mistakes with the court order) then it could have easily gotten sent to the White House Web Staff when they asked for a copy to post on the Web site. The Way Obama's attorney guarded the document during his press conference leads me to believe that the actual document wasn't going to be entrusted to anyone else.
We seem to be in agreement on this... I have dabbled for many years with photoshop and illustrator; the first copy of Photoshop I purchased was 2.5x that was bundled with my first scanner 20+ years ago. Soon afterwards I upgraded to 3.x and Adobe has managed to get a lot more money from me over the years. I am very familiar with layers, but I would guess that 99% of the people I work with, even those who dabble with the software have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the program and could easily forget to flatten their image.
Exactly my point. MOST people didn't know about layers, and it was an inadvertent mistake on their part due to their ignorance that allowed us to see this information.
The funny thing is if they had saved it as a jpg instead of a pdf the software would have told them that they needed to flatten the image. When I refinanced recently the Mortgage company insisted that all of my documents needed to be either in pdf format or faxed to them. Apparently pdf files are considered more acceptable than jpgs.
PDF's can be resized to any size and maintain their detail. Jpgs will only show the resolution which they were saved at originally.
I know many people who feel that they are very capable of working with both Photoshop and Illustrator who have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the programs. People tend to learn only the features that they feel they need. Before this learning experience I would guess that a high percentage of people who felt that they were capable of producing this kind of forgery were not aware of the proper way to work with layers. This kinde of mediocrity is certainly not reserved for government bureaucrats.
But is certainly inconsistent with the pool of forger talent available to Chicago Democrat operatives. For THIS job, they wouldn't get a mediocre bureaucrat level of competence to knock them up a fake, they would hire a professional who's work could not possibly be challenged. The fact that the forgery is so poorly done argues greatly on behalf of it being the work of a Hawaiian DOH bureaucrat normally tasked with making replacement birth certificates for adopted children. (Or modifications/annulments, as I suspect this is.)
I do not believe that there will ever be a “legal” way to produce a forgery such as this.
Nobody seems to grasp that the States produce 120,000 forgeries like this every year. (There are 120,000 adoptions every year in the United States.)
It sort of boggles my mind that you think that it could ever be considered legal to use scanned copies of stamps and signatures on a document manufactured after the fact.
I have my own (current) birth certificate sitting on the desk in front of me. It does not have a "Stamp" on it, it is entirely printed. I obtained my current copy in 2000, and if it was entirely printed in my state in 2000, how do you know that other states (such as Hawaii) don't also print the entire document? I propose we ask Danae who has a Hawaiian birth certificate which she obtained in the last year or so, if her birth certificate is completely printed or if it has a section which was stamped after it was printed.
If *HER'S* is completely printed, that proves the stamp was put on electronically. If it is printed then stamped, that does not necessarily prove Hawaii doesn't do it the other way, but it certainly puts a crack in the theory.
How about it Danae, is you birth certificate completely printed, or was it printed then stamped with a hand stamp? (or can you tell? Sometimes printing is so good that it might not be possible to tell for sure.)
Exactly my point. They are not ALLOWED to divulge any activity regarding the birth certificate of adopted children, or those who have had their adoptions modified or annulled. They will cheerfully follow whatever the Judge orders them to do.
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
And there is the Wiggle room right there. As "approved by the Department" Who decides what's approved? The Director, no doubt. That means they have discretionary ability. Further wiggle room is that statement "as fixed or changed by the decree" which pretty much means anything a lawyer can get a judge to agree to, which is exactly what I said before.
It is my belief that both the DOH Director, AND a Friendly Judge, will bend over backwards interpreting the rules in whatever manner is necessary to allow Obama's attorney to get what he wants from them, including a proof copy of their initial work.
What keeps everyone so intimidated is the East Coast Avengers and their ilk and the FEC threatening to investigate and fire the reporters who cover Certifigate, otherwise the impeachment trials would have started a long time ago. Sheriff Joe has tangible facts that he can prove, and he gets ignored. It’s the things nobody can prove, like the birth certificate from Vancouver, BC, with the Dudley Doright printed on it, like the name change a lawyer named Pidgeon found at the Consulate in British Columbia, just over the US-Canada border, from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in 1982—these things demonstrate that the whole Hawaiian birth certificate is an elaborate lie. There is no Hawaiian birth certificate. The birth certificate is hiding up there in Canada, because nobody would think to look there. All the copious research with Obama’s relatives doesn’t mean I believe ‘em.
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.