Why Obama will never show his vault birth certificate.

People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth.

People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.

People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.

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:

Barack Hussein Obama flat-out refuses to show the one document that would confirm or deny his true identity, parentage, and birth origin -- his original, "vault" birth certificate.

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:

In my final report, "Obama's Born Conspiracy," these anomalies are explained in greater detail.

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:

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE

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.

APPENDIX A

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.

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.

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?

Because, it is not a "simple request," but a bombshell that blows Obama's entire Presidency right out of the water.

Now that you see the big picture, what are you going to do about it??

I assume that there’s no requirement for release of the breakdown of the legal bill, only the total amount paid. Therefore, we don’t know how much related to eligibility lawsuits. There was also presumably a fair amount of legal work relating to other issues. One example is the finances, including the transfer of funds to the DNC. (Navigating the complexities of campaign finance law is no joke. My guess is that it can get expensive.) Another example: The non-legal expenditures included almost a million bucks for “event staging”, so there were probably issues of permit applications, vendor contracts, and other stuff for the lawyers in connection with whatever those events were. (What events were they? I thought the Inauguration was paid for out of a separate account.)

It’s an interesting article, and I thank you for providing the link. The bottom line, though, is that we still don’t know the bottom line. We know that Obama has been represented by counsel in multiple cases in different states. We also know that Obama had lawyers other than Bauer’s firm doing some of that defense work, so the total bill is presumably more than whatever Bauer was paid for eligibility litigation. On the other hand, we know that some of the defense work was done by state attorneys general or other lawyers representing state officials, and thus was no expense to Obama. The biggest gap is that we don’t know how much of Bauer’s bill related to eligibility.

These are private expenditures, not taxpayer dollars, so my guess is that we never will know the number.

Here is Gov (commerce secretary elect)Bill Richardson saying in Spanish that Obama is an "immigrant." (So he understands understands "immigrant" issues.)The context suggests that by "immigrant" bill richardson means "illegal immigrant"

Here in plain English is the Kenyan Ambassador saying that Obama is born in Kenya.

Obama's own flacks deny that obama was born in Kenya but do acknowledge that he had a dual citizenship up until 1982

from obama's own site factcheck.org by way of fightthesmears on his dual citizenship at birth

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Someone will want to cache the above web page because it will be taken down eventually.
It is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. In a tape of his speech at this April 6, 2008 San Francisco Fundraiser, Obama discloses his trip to Pakistan (40:17) when he was in college. On what passport did he travel?

A last arguement for baraks people might be that of course the Kenyans would have an interest in claiming that obama was a "son of the soil" both as a matter of pride and as a matter of bucks coming their way. However, if Obama was not born in Kenya -- then why wouldn't Obama release his original long form birth certificate. Instead of just releasing his long form birth certificate he has paid his lawyers 1 million dollars from campaign contributions since Sept 08 to squash the suits brought on the issue. Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

The thing has become a joke in washington. dJoe Biden Joked at the Gridiron Dinner in March 09.

After mentioning one of the Republican speakers for the evening, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was born in Austria and that one of the Democratic speakers, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, was born in Canada, Biden chortled: "Folks, this is going to be Lou Dobbs' worst nightmare. "

From there, Biden transitioned to the birth certificate controversy.

Les Kinsolving asked the Presidential Press Secretary Gibbs to release the long form birth certificate. The press secretary suggested mockingly that the copy of the short form birth certificate supplied online is Obama's long form birth certificate. Not so. See the press conference out take here.

A detroit radio station called the Kenyan embassy after the election of Obama. After a a few minutes they get through to the ambassador of Kenya.

The ambassador of Kenya says that obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

Listen to the recording here

The quote is around 12:35, so if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing, you can jump ahead.
The transcript reads:

Radio Jockey: President elect Obama's birth place over in Kenya -- is that going to be a national spot where he was born

Ambassador Peter Ogego: its already an attraction. his paternal grandmother is still alive

Radio Jockey:But his birth place...they'll put up a marker there

Ambassdor Peter Ogego: It would depend on the government. Its already well known.

Here is an abridged Utube version of the the radio interview. So you can hear just the relevant parts.

It can be reasonably pointed out that the DJ was trying to entrap the Ambassador and that the Ambassador fell into his trap.
However, if you listen to the long version of the radio interview --you’ll notice he used the same strategy on two different occasions and the ambassador gently brushed him off.

First, he tried to force the ambassador to sing the Kenyan national anthem. The ambassador referred him to the kenyan website.

Second he tried to push the ambassador into saying something about maybe Kenya becoming the 51st state. Again the ambassador said that Kenya was a sovereign country. ie No.

He used the same technique on the question of Obama’s birth place. This time the ambassador did not brush him off. Rather in answer to the question as to whether Obama was born in Kenya --he says "It is well known."

Because the ambassador answered no in the two previous examples -- you can't say that the ambassdor was either a fool or ill advised.

Finally, you might ask well doesn't he know that saying Obama is born in Kenya would make trouble for Obama? The answer there is why should he be concerned? He has heard no suggestion in the mainstream media that there might be a problem there. So to say what is already well known--as he says--would be no problem.

Here is a utube video of Ambassador Peter Ogego speaking at a conference. Ambassador of Kenya H.E. Peter Ogego To verify that the voice on the radio is Ambassador Ogego-- compare the radio voice with the DJ to the voice on the Utube that goes with Ambassador Ogego. Ambassador Peter Ogego is introduced a bit after minute 18..

They are the same.

Subsequently, the Kenyan ambassador said that he meant Obama's father was born in Kenya. However, when pressed about Obama's birth place:

"I don't know," he said with a tone of irritation. "You should ask your government. I know his father is Kenyan."

However, that's not what the original transcript suggests. clear="all" /> Finally, there is a Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae which is part of the Berg case. The Bishop says pretty much the same thing as the Ambassador.

"Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout both the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda here in the United States, US Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii as falsely purported by the Obama campaign for presidency of the United States."

While you cannot impeach the ambassador's character, you can impeach McCrae's character. After all, he's just an itinerant preacher. But McCrae has been to Kenya. Still that makes two people who say that it is common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born in Kenya.
Then of course there is a video of Obama's grandmother saying that Obama is born in in her village in Kenya
There is a case to be made that Obama mother didn't mean Obama was born in her town but rather that he is a "son of this village". If taken alone, she could well be ignored. However, her take is in keeping with others both high and low.

Again here is a pdf transcript of Kenyan National Assembly on Nov 5, 2008, the day after Obama was elected. Over and over again there are references to Obama being a "son of the soil" of Kenya and a Kenyan. On page page 3275 there is this passage:

HOUSE SHOULD ADJOURN TO DISCUSS ELECTION OF MR. BARRACK OBAMA

Ms. Odhiambo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is not on this issue. I stand on a point of order under Standing Order No.20 to seek leave for adjournment of the House to discuss the American presidential election results.

(Applause)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour.

Again. It is not the one thing. Rather it is the tide.

The American Thinker explains here why the short form that Obama released is not sufficient for Hawaii. The Obama administration could put this to rest by releasing his long form birth certificate. But he doesn't. Instead of just releasing his long form birth certificate he has paid his lawyers over 1 million dollars from campaign contributions since Sept 08 to squash the suits brought on the issue. Why bother. The Arnold would have run for president long ago and likely won if he were a "natural born" american. He's not. He's naturalized. So he can't run. And he knows it. (though there were some trial balloons sent up a couple years back about changing the law--that went nowhere.)

Like the Arnold, Obama looks to be a naturalized citizen--but maybe he's not even that.

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.

Q: What do these four things have in common?
Aliens from Outer Space	Abominable Snowman	Boogeyman in the Closet	Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth

A: All of them are imaginary!

Barack Hussein Obama flat-out refuses to show the one document that would confirm or deny his true identity, parentage, and birth origin -- his original, "vault" birth certificate.

In my final report, "Obama's Born Conspiracy," these anomalies are explained in greater detail.

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE

APPENDIX A

Because, it is not a "simple request," but a bombshell that blows Obama's entire Presidency right out of the water. Now that you see the big picture, what are you going to do about it??

Because, it is not a "simple request," but a bombshell that blows Obama's entire Presidency right out of the water.

Now that you see the big picture, what are you going to do about it??