Obama birth doc 'not scan of an original'

Of all of Frank Marshall Davis five children with Helen Canfield, this little photo of Mark Davis (Obama's blog czar) is the only one I could find.

I wonder why?

“I guess you aren’t getting it. The DOCUMENT which CREATED the COURTS is not SUBSERVIENT to the POLICIES of the COURTS.

The answer that “This is how we USUALLY do it, and this is “self authenticating” is just utter nonsense when it deals with a constitutional requirement of compliance. If it is REAL PROOF, then it is acceptable. If it is NOT REAL PROOF, than we don’t care how many people say “it’s just as good as real proof.” it’s still not the same thing.

The public statements by Hawaiian officials are at odds with what their official signed statements say. For this reason, no attention should be paid to the public pronouncements of Hawaiian officials unless they are swearing to them in a court of law. Even then, there might be the possibility that they don’t know what the H*ll they are talking about.”

It isn’t the state of Hawaii that would assert that their birth certificate is self-authenticating, it would be any defense attorney, such as Obama’s Department of Justice Attorneys who would make that claim.

No original jurisdiction judicial proceeding on this issue has gone beyond pre-trial motions to dismiss and no criminal legal action has been initiated.

The U.S. Constitution gives the power to the states to determine the validity of all state records (Article IV, Section 1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence state that birth records are self-authenticating. The Federal Rules of Evidence were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1975 (Public Law 93-595).

“Not really, for all we know that isn’t even Barry Hussein Soetoro and I doubt the authenticity of any of those photos.”

If you doubt the photos authenticity, why did you post one of these photos to support your argument?

My biggest beef with the electronic version of the "Long Form BC" document is mainly with respect to the typewritten character alignments. I am referring to the .pdf that I downloaded from the WH the day after it was originally posted, with the filename: 042711obamabirthwsj.pdf

a. In Box 5a and 5b, look at the difference in the baselines between "August 4" and ", 1961 7:24 P." (I used the Object Data Tool in Acrobat to create horizontal and vertical reference lines). This could only happen if the typist unlocked the platen (roller) and, either scrolled it down a smidge (much less than a full CR) and continued typing, or completely removed the form and later re-installed it. I suppose this is possible, but still, it is an anomaly.

b. In Box 5a, there is definitely something wrong with the spacing between the "4" and the ",". If there is no space, it should appear like the commas after Kenya and Wichita, but it doesn't. If there is a single space between the "4" and "," it should have the same distance, e.g., as the two "A's" in "OBAMA", but it doesn't. Since the comma correctly aligns with the "U" in University, I suggest it is the "4" that has "a problem".

b. The "X's" in all the check boxes are oddly aligned both horizontally and vertically with respect to the rest of the typing. Vertical placement can be incrementally shifted by unlocking the platen (roller), but shifting the horizontal positioning can only be done by removing the paper from the typewriter, or diddling with the backspace key (only if it was a manual). Still, e.g., the "X's" in 6d and 7e align perfectly horizontally with each other, but not with the "s" in "August", nor vertically with "Hospital" or "Highway. The logical answer for this is that the checked boxes were computer "cut and pasted".

c. The characters in Box 2 and Box 17a (words: "Male" and "None" are not horizontally aligned with the rest of the typed document.

Also,

d. Going vertically down the leftmost margin, the first letters of the printed form boxes all align except for the ones in Box 6c, 20 and 23. Of course, this could just be sloppy form creation by the DOH.

e. Look at the bottom horizontal line of the form and compare it with the green background pattern. Perfect alignment. For a Xerox copy of the form, someone spent some real time making the two line up, Further, note that the green pattern itself doesn't quite line up with the bottom of the page margin.

There are just too many small problems with this document for me to accept that it didn't have modern computer intervention wrt its creation.

Anyone want to legitimately discuss these items? Trolls are welcome, too.

“And yet it says right on the document that they did not. So were they lying in their public statement, or were they lying in their statement on the document?”

No, they’re not the ones lying. You don’t like the truth, so you smear people for answering your questions.

The previous Republican state administration had also confirmed Barack Obama’s birth there, as you can see linked on the same page.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

My biggest beef is that some of the check boxes are exact duplicates, cut and paste objects.

You points are good.

I spread the word now (that it's an obvious fraud) at all friend and family get togethers. If we all do that, one year from now it should be common knowledge.

Passing this piece of garbage off as a real BC... takes brass balls.

It was phoned in Blade.

Stanly Ann was in Washington, a few miles from the Canadian border, two weeks after the birth, stepping out with the new baby.

I have had several children with several women. Getting a woman to travel thousands of miles, on their own, less than two weeks after giving birth is like getting an elephant to do a back flip. He was born in Canada or Washington.

“It was phoned in Blade.

Stanly Ann was in Washington, a few miles from the Canadian border, two weeks after the birth, stepping out with the new baby.

I have had several children with several women. Getting a woman to travel thousands of miles, on their own, less than two weeks after giving birth is like getting an elephant to do a back flip. He was born in Canada or Washington.”

Someone’s going to have to produce a Canadian or Washington state birth certificate to counter the Hawaii Certificate.

How did the mother’s signature get on the original birth certificate if she was in Washington state or Canada?

Vertical placement can be incrementally shifted by unlocking the platen (roller), but shifting the horizontal positioning can only be done by removing the paper from the typewriter, or diddling with the backspace key (only if it was a manual).

Not necessarily. The manual typewriter I had in the late '60s had a button that released the platen and let me move it freely from left to right.

Still, e.g., the "X's" in 6d and 7e align perfectly horizontally with each other, but not with the "s" in "August", nor vertically with "Hospital" or "Highway. The logical answer for this is that the checked boxes were computer "cut and pasted".

But they're not the same as each other. Are you arguing that someone copied and pasted two different checked boxes, rather than just using the same one twice?

How did the mother’s signature get on the original birth certificate...

Cut and paste.

According to the johnny come lately post election definition; McCain had his own problems with eligibility.

Your "johnny come lately post election definition" claim is a falsehood. The issue was debated throughout McCain's candidacy and before he was nominated as a candidate. All of this discussion culminated with the Congress passing a resolution acknowledging, rightly or wrongly, McCain's eligibility to the Office of the President.

Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.

Nonetheless, the issue and the debate resurfaced with every war. It required a special act of Congress to bring the children of U.S. soldiers from Korea to the United States when their mother was Korean. Likewise with WWII and the children of those veterans. The complexities of the immigration and naturalization laws are being made ever more complex and sometimes conflict. This all stems from contradictory decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the efforts to the Democrats to enable illegal immigration along with legal immigration.

But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.

Given that the parties to the debates often vigorously disputed each other over the "in country" attributes, no credence can be given to your false notion that the issue was somehow "completely ignored" when in fact is strongly disputed.

So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.

The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.

Since the definition was vigorously debated, those are false statements.

That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.

Given the false statements and false accusations you make and the attempts to ridicule and defame anyone who defends the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, it is clearly evident from your own statements that it is yourself who is engaging in "historic revisionism" and other commentary inconsistent with Conservative principles. It is quite possible to disagree on certain issues of certain points without subverting the Constitution, the principles of the Constitution, and its defenders. Unfortunately, you have chosen to attack the defenders of the Constitution in a manner like the trolls who seek to defame Conservatives and subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law fundamental to a Republic of sovereign individuals.

That's what I'm asking. How many layers are there? When somebody online says there's fifty layers visible in the birth certificate PDF, is that the right answer or is he just another kook?

The number of layers you see depends in part on how you go about handling the file and count the layers and sub-layers. Short of doing it yourself or before you do it yourself, it would be useful to first study the many YouTube videos in which other people arguing both sides of the controversy have demonstrated onscreen what happens as you open and manipulate the file. One search term you could use when searching for the YouTube videos is: Obama Birth Certificate layers.

Pay close attention to the differences between a sacn to PDF OCR file which creates the many layers as the scan optimizes elements in the scanned image. Some of the videos note how there are many critical differences between a genuine test PDF OCR file and the Obama PDF. One or more of the videos helpfully point to how some of the layers in the Obama PDF still contain the information detailing how the element was imported from an external scan, and transformed by rotation, scaling, and other manipulations within the Obama PDF. No such manipulations can presumably exist in an unmodified PDF OCR file from optimization by the OCR processing. These are just a few of the dozens of anomalies which belie the alleged authenticity of the Obama PDF. Study the videos, and do your own tests and evaluations.

With all the resources at his disposal is that the best a President of the United States can do?

Never underestimate the ability of dishonest people to deceive themselves and make mistakes. Also, the Obama birth certificate forgery had to be handled within only a small circle of trusted supporters, who were unlikely to be skilled enough to avoid fundamental errors in concealing their digital forgery. It's difficult enough to accomplish when highly skilled, and much easier to make innumerable mistakes when not highly skilled and experienced.

The odd thing is someone barking into the wind with no effect. The issue is settled - no one is touching this issue with a ten foot pole - there is nothing that can be done. That is all I am saying. Spend your time where it can make a difference.

Do you really think Obama can be brought down over this issue with no assist from the mainstream media? Everyone gave it their best shot and it is now over and done. Don't live in the past - so I think the answer is no.

The Roman Republic had a law and tradition which forbade a Roman commander to bring a Roman legion south of the Rubicon River or to enter the City of Rome with a host of soldiers without the permission of the Republic's Senate. Julius Caesar and his supporters violated the prohibitions, usurped the power of the Roman Senate, and initiated the Roman Empire as it destroyed the Republic. Two thousand years later the usurpation by Julius Caesar and its consequences to the Roman Republic have never been forgotten and are unlikely ever to be forgotten while civilization continues to exist.

A thousand years hence and the Obama Administration's unlawful usurpation of the U.S. Government and subversion of the Republic and its Constitution will never be forgotten. It makes no difference whether or not the usurpation succeeds or fails, the fact of the usurpation and its consequences will be the beginning of a precedent haunting and threatening the Republic and successors to the Republic for the rest of time. From now on the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world's societies will know the United States of America and its succesor governments are not immune to usurpation of the Rule of Law and cannot be trusted to maintain a Republic and its Constitution free of corruption. The Democratic Party and its accomplices in the Republican Party have stained the nation and its reputation in the worst way seen since their previous attempt to forcibly secede from the Union at the greatest cost in human life in the history of the nation.

Far from being a settled issue, the natural born citizen clause is now just the beginning of an open door to conflict. The Republican Party is poised to offer candidates for the Office of the President who are not natural born citizens either. They too are subverting the U.S. Constitution by even suggesting such candidacies may be constitutional. The only thing that is settled is the fact that this matter can never be settled until there is compliance with and respect for the Constitution, the natural born citizen clause, and the Citizens of the United States of America who rely upon the protections of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing no Executive Order will be issued except by a natural born citizen of the United States and one of their peers.

Defenders of the Constitution are living in the present, looking to protect the future generations, and heeding and honoring the past sacrifices made to make this present and the future possible.

The U.S. Constitution gives the power to the states to determine the validity of all state records (Article IV, Section 1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence state that birth records are self-authenticating. The Federal Rules of Evidence were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1975 (Public Law 93-595).

The Hawaii Health Code states the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth serves as "prima facie" evidence of the birth, if and when certain other conditions are met.

Nevertheless, prima facie evidence or self-authenticating official documents are subject to rebuttal and impeachment in an administrative hearing, a court of law, or legislative impeachment in the event such a document and its authentication can be evidenced to be a forgery and fraudulent.

Millions of Puerto Rican birth certificates were recently invalidated due to the high incidence of fraud and identity theft connected with their insecure issuance and usage. Consequently, it is a well known fact of life that the birth certificates authenticated by a state government or territorial government are subject to a very high incidence of forgery and fraud, making their authentication unreliable as a true determination of the facts of birth.

Puerto Rico Birth Certificates Law 191 of 2009 (As Amended)

Fact Sheet

The government of Puerto Rico has enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009, amended June 2010) to strengthen the issuance and usage of birth certificates, to combat fraud and to protect the identity and credit of all people born in Puerto Rico. The new law was based on collaboration with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services.

In the past, many common official and unofficial transactions in Puerto Rico unnecessarily required the submission, retention, and storage of birth certificates. As a result, hundreds of thousands of original birth certificates were stored without adequate protection, making them easy targets for theft. Subsequently, many birth certificates have been stolen from schools and other institutions, sold on the black market for prices up to $10,000 each, and used to illegally obtain passports, licenses, and other government and private sector documentation and benefits. The common Hispanic names of most individuals born in Puerto Rico made the birth certificates highly desirable on the black market. This left Puerto Rico-born citizens vulnerable to identity theft, ruined credit, stolen Social Security benefits, and increased “random” security checks at airports, among others.

Understanding the enormous risks to all individuals as well as the very significant homeland and national security concerns, the government of Puerto Rico took action to improve the security of all birth certificates and to better protect the public from fraud and identity theft. Law 191 (as Amended) implements the following changes: 1) Starting July 1, 2010, the Puerto Rico Department of Health will begin issuing new, more secure birth certificates through the Vital Statistics Record Office. 2) On September 30, 2010, the law will invalidate all birth certificates issued before July 1, 2010. Until September 30, 2010, all birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 will remain valid. The purpose of this three-month overlap in the validity of the old and the new birth certificates is to provide those Puerto Rico-born -- who may need a birth certificate for an upcoming transaction -- a three-month window to apply for and receive the new document during which time their current birth certificate will still be valid.

In order to upgrade service for those seeking the new, more secure birth certificates, the government of Puerto Rico has launched a new on-line application process on the E-Government website: www.pr.gov. Instructions on how to apply on-line or by mail, as well as information on Puerto Rico’s birth certificate law, can be found at:

www.prfaa.com/birthcertificates/ and

www.prfaa.com/certificadosdenacimiento/.

The U.S. Constitution gives the power to the states to determine the validity of all state records (Article IV, Section 1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence state that birth records are self-authenticating. The Federal Rules of Evidence were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1975 (Public Law 93-595).

The Hawaii Health Code states the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth serves as "prima facie" evidence of the birth, if and when certain other conditions are met.

Nevertheless, prima facie evidence or self-authenticating official documents are subject to rebuttal and impeachment in an administrative hearing, a court of law, or legislative impeachment in the event such a document and its authentication can be evidenced to be a forgery and fraudulent.

Millions of Puerto Rican birth certificates were recently invalidated due to the high incidence of fraud and identity theft connected with their insecure issuance and usage. Consequently, it is a well known fact of life that the birth certificates authenticated by a state government or territorial government are subject to a very high incidence of forgery and fraud, making their authentication unreliable as a true determination of the facts of birth.

Puerto Rico Birth Certificates Law 191 of 2009 (As Amended)

Fact Sheet

The government of Puerto Rico has enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009, amended June 2010) to strengthen the issuance and usage of birth certificates, to combat fraud and to protect the identity and credit of all people born in Puerto Rico. The new law was based on collaboration with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services.

In the past, many common official and unofficial transactions in Puerto Rico unnecessarily required the submission, retention, and storage of birth certificates. As a result, hundreds of thousands of original birth certificates were stored without adequate protection, making them easy targets for theft. Subsequently, many birth certificates have been stolen from schools and other institutions, sold on the black market for prices up to $10,000 each, and used to illegally obtain passports, licenses, and other government and private sector documentation and benefits. The common Hispanic names of most individuals born in Puerto Rico made the birth certificates highly desirable on the black market. This left Puerto Rico-born citizens vulnerable to identity theft, ruined credit, stolen Social Security benefits, and increased “random” security checks at airports, among others.

Understanding the enormous risks to all individuals as well as the very significant homeland and national security concerns, the government of Puerto Rico took action to improve the security of all birth certificates and to better protect the public from fraud and identity theft. Law 191 (as Amended) implements the following changes: 1) Starting July 1, 2010, the Puerto Rico Department of Health will begin issuing new, more secure birth certificates through the Vital Statistics Record Office. 2) On September 30, 2010, the law will invalidate all birth certificates issued before July 1, 2010. Until September 30, 2010, all birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 will remain valid. The purpose of this three-month overlap in the validity of the old and the new birth certificates is to provide those Puerto Rico-born -- who may need a birth certificate for an upcoming transaction -- a three-month window to apply for and receive the new document during which time their current birth certificate will still be valid.

In order to upgrade service for those seeking the new, more secure birth certificates, the government of Puerto Rico has launched a new on-line application process on the E-Government website: www.pr.gov. Instructions on how to apply on-line or by mail, as well as information on Puerto Rico’s birth certificate law, can be found at:

www.prfaa.com/birthcertificates/ and

www.prfaa.com/certificadosdenacimiento/.

No, they’re not the ones lying. You don’t like the truth, so you smear people for answering your questions.

Officials at the Hawaii Department of Health have been caught lying on multiple occasions. One of the more notable lies coming from that office was the claim that Obama could not by law request a copy of the long-form birth certificate, the Certificate of Live Birth, because the short-form, Certification of Live Birth, was the only birth certificate supplied by that office aft 2000-2001. We know those statements were baldfaced lies, because a number of people presented the long-form birth certificates they received only a few days before and after those statements were issued by the Health Department officials. In fact, the Health Department did not stop issuing the long-form certificates until people recently complained about these lies.

Governor Lingle relied upon the statements of the officials in the Department of Health, but the officials in the Department of Health evidently lied to the Governor and to the public. When it came down to Democrat Governor Abercrombie in December 2010, not even he could get anyone in the Health Department to cough up the original birth certificate, yet months later it allegedly and magically appeared upon the request of Obama after being declared missing by Governor Abercrombie. Yet, you find no reason to even suspect someone in the Hawaiian Government lied. Under such extreme circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that you choose to not question the validity of the statements and evidence of the Hawaiian Government no matter how egregious the false statements from them become.

Fine then. When was the first time you posted the “born in country of two citizen parents” definition?

There was enormous effort expended about eligibility during the election - and yet not once did I hear the Vattel definition that apparently you are a traitor to the Constitution unless you got it with your mothers milk and believed it always - even if you never heard it until after the election in 2008.

When did you become a convert to the Vattel definition and express the same here on Free Republic?

With all the resources at his disposal is that the best a President of the United States can do? - x

The POTUS cannot exactly put out an RFP for the best qualified forger. In fact the really good forgers in the govt. could not be trusted. This effort had to be done by people within a trusted circle.

So yes - there was a limited resource pool - and apparently this was exactly as good as he could do.

No, they’re not the ones lying. You don’t like the truth, so you smear people for answering your questions.

Do you not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the difference between "Record on file" and "Original record?" Do you not know that one can be changed by a process while the other cannot? What was it they said in the "Forrest Gump" movie? "Are you stupid son?"

The previous Republican state administration had also confirmed Barack Obama’s birth there, as you can see linked on the same page. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

"Are you Stupid son?" I am not disputing that Barack has a birth RECORD. I am questioning whether we have seen his ORIGINAL record. The one which PROVES something as opposed to the one that just says whatever the court ordered to be put on it. Till we see assurances from Hawaii that his birth "record" has not been subsequently modified by court order or other process, they are not proving anything in their public statements or with their little rubber stamp.

If you do not posses the mental capability to understand the distinction between the two very different things, then I feel sorry for you. You have my sympathies, and you should leave these complicated arguments for adults. If you do understand the difference, but persist in trying to make them out to be the same, then you are lying for the benefit of your argument, and I feel nothing but contempt for you.

According to the johnny come lately post election definition;

It is not a "johnny come lately" definition. It is the one which always existed, and it has only been since the election that the ignorant folk were made aware of it. They are still stuck on that 14th amendment crap.

McCain had his own problems with eligibility.

Politically, not legally. As near as I can tell, John McCain was ALWAYS a "Natural Born Citizen" under the original meaning of Article II. It is only because so many idiot Democrats get into the legal system that most people have come to regard 14the amendment citizenship as the deciding factor. Too many Americans now believe (falsely) that if you are born in this country, you are automatically a "natural born citizen."

Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.

Absolutely. It boggles the mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe that the families of those serving our nation's interests in other parts of the world would not be considered as completely loyal to this nation and deserving of every right and privilege available to our highest level of citizenship. The First Congress made this very point in the "Naturalization act of 1790." Jus Soli is completely irrelevant.

But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.

Jus Soli is the British method of Subjugation. (Making subjects out of otherwise free men.) If it was used in this country by some states, it was a lingering after effect of the originally ubiquitous British laws. Once we nationalized, existing state's doctrine on citizenship was eventually subsumed to a unified American doctrine of citizenship, and being born here was not the prime requirement.

So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.

Correct. Just like the 10th Amendment is routinely violated, as is the 14th, the 5th, and various others.

The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.

Again correct. And you are surprised for some reason? It took over twoHundred years before the Supreme court interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly and decided that it is an INDIVIDUAL right, and not a collective one. The Breakthrough landmark case was McDonald v. Chicago. So don't have a little pouting fit because they didn't get the requirements of Presidential eligibility correct the very first time it had to deal with a non-qualified applicant.

That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.

I fault no one for being ignorant before they are told. That people who were ignorant before, and insist on being ignorant AFTER (having been shown the evidence that proves conclusively to any reasonable person) indicates that they must be a dupe, a traitor, or just too stupid to be able to comprehend this issue. Their arguments in response are always "British Law This!" (false) "Precedent That!" Not a single argument from first principles, because they cannot make an argument from first principles. Even when they quote the "Naturalization act of 1790", they don't seem to understand the significance of the part that says the children of foreign fathers cannot be citizens!

We have ALWAYS been at war with EASTASIA!!!!

Some of us have always tried to re-write history by citing foreign law and precedent, but the rest of us are not falling for it. We know very well who we are at war with.