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.
Probably an amateur who had no idea it could be picked apart so quickly like this.
It's been sold to us as a genuine copy of an original document. Addition or not, it's a deception. Its fraud.
The form “approved by the department” is referring to a form for a certified abstract of an adoption decree. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate. It only has to do with how the HDOH knows they are authorized to create a supplemental BC.
And you still don’t seem to grasp the fact that anything the HDOH would create after an adoption would be on a genuine piece of paper. Obama’s forgery was not created by scanning a complete certified copy of ANYTHING. What was posted online did NOT come from the HDOH. Period. The HDOH would not have to reveal anything about adoption whatsoever - or reveal anything that is on Obama’s BC either, for that matter - in order to say, “What was posted on the White House website was not a scan of the certified copy we sent him.”
And unless Fuddy was the attorney for Obama there was no attorney-client privilege to shield her from the responsibility to set the record straight AT LEAST based on the Federal General False Statement Act, if not also federal and state misprision laws.
You’re desperately trying to get adoption to be able to explain the problems, but as you’ve acknowledged yourself from the fact that your own supplemental BC doesn’t act like Obama’s scan, adoption cannot explain the fact of this forgery nor the HDOH’s refusal to clarify that what Obama posted was not what they have in their office for him.
If the HDOH is so interested in following the laws, as you seem so ready to believe of them - then why will they not even allow Duncan Sunahara to see his sister’s original birth certificate - as REQUIRED by both HRS 338-18 and UIPA? What is your explanation for that?
I have dealt with these people. I could talk until your ears can’t listen any more regarding the laws and rules they have broken with reckless abandon. To believe they are acting lawfully and honestly because of an adoption - when it’s been pointed out repeatedly that adoption cannot explain what is observed, and in spite of the lawlessness they’ve already been caught in - makes no sense to me. Why are you clinging to faith in them, when they’ve already shown such bad faith?
Just as an example, you mention that the HDOH can’t disclose anything about adoptions. Then why did they disclose on their 1960-64 birth index the BIRTH names for Norman and Nathan Asing, when they had both been adopted, their legally-valid BC’s are under different names, and the BC’s having those birth names are supposed to be sealed so that the public can have no knowledge about the adoptions? That’s an example where the HDOH has been caught acting in bad faith/illegally in the case of 2 adoptions. Actually caught manipulating what they call an official record (the birth index).
If they would illegally do that, what WOULDN’T they illegally do?
There is nothing in it to be proud about. Textual font mismatches, halos around the letters, differing bit depths and resolutions between text characters, and layers?
It is obviously not the work of an expert, but it makes perfect sense (to me at least) that it is easily the quality of work you might expect of a state government bureaucrat.
Probably an amateur who had no idea it could be picked apart so quickly like this.
Or a not particularly picky professional, such as might make these sort of documents routinely as part of their job. :)
It's been sold to us as a genuine copy of an original document. Addition or not, it's a deception. Its fraud.
I agree, but I suggest that it is a "legal" fraud. There are a 120,000 of these sorts of fraud documents produced every year. In this particular case, I think it was created by the nullification or Amendment of a previous adoption.
I understand that the end product is a piece of paper, but the intermediate product will be an editable file, most likely a photoshop or PDF sort of file. I will also point out that my own birth certificate appears to be entirely printed, and contains no separate hand stamp.
And unless Fuddy was the attorney for Obama there was no attorney-client privilege to shield her from the responsibility to set the record straight AT LEAST based on the Federal General False Statement Act, if not also federal and state misprision laws.
Within the normal application of Hawaiian state law, I believe she can claim she has not made any false statements. I would expect that she would be very careful about this.
You’re desperately trying to get adoption to be able to explain the problems, but as you’ve acknowledged yourself from the fact that your own supplemental BC doesn’t act like Obama’s scan,
I did not say that. I said I had no means of testing this idea. I did point out that the Cold Case posse did test this idea, and their results were different from the Obama birth certificate file.
adoption cannot explain the fact of this forgery nor the HDOH’s refusal to clarify that what Obama posted was not what they have in their office for him.
I may be completely wrong about this, but it is my understanding that it is ILLEGAL for the DOH to confirm or deny anything without permission regarding the private records of it's citizens. (Private by Hawaiian law, anyway.) They are under no legal obligation to disclose anything, and they are under legal penalties if they do.
If the HDOH is so interested in following the laws, as you seem so ready to believe of them - then why will they not even allow Duncan Sunahara to see his sister’s original birth certificate - as REQUIRED by both HRS 338-18 and UIPA? What is your explanation for that?
My explanation for that is that they are obviously not worried about their violation of the law in this case because they do not regard this issue as a threat to themselves, but the prospect of them being held to account for any breaking of the law regarding the President's documents is a far greater probability.
Rest assured, if we, (or the Obama supporters on the opposite side) can find sufficient evidence that they have obviously broken a law in such a way that it cannot be ignored, we will hold them to account. If they leaked some derogatory information off of Obama's real birth certificate and it could be traced back to them, the Democrats on the other side would eat them for breakfast.
They must walk tightrope of the law to avoid retaliation from either side, and I am suggesting that is exactly what they are doing. For the Sunahara case, they look at him as a schmoe who can't really do anything to them. It sucks, but that's what I think is happening to him.
I have dealt with these people. I could talk until your ears can’t listen any more regarding the laws and rules they have broken with reckless abandon. To believe they are acting lawfully and honestly because of an adoption - when it’s been pointed out repeatedly that adoption cannot explain what is observed, and in spite of the lawlessness they’ve already been caught in - makes no sense to me. Why are you clinging to faith in them, when they’ve already shown such bad faith?
I don't have any faith in them. I have faith in their fear of punishment and their disinclination to do anything that will leave their neck sticking out. They are more afraid of the Democrats than they are of us. It's that simple.
Just as an example, you mention that the HDOH can’t disclose anything about adoptions. Then why did they disclose on their 1960-64 birth index the BIRTH names for Norman and Nathan Asing, when they had both been adopted, their legally-valid BC’s are under different names, and the BC’s having those birth names are supposed to be sealed so that the public can have no knowledge about the adoptions? That’s an example where the HDOH has been caught acting in bad faith/illegally in the case of 2 adoptions. Actually caught manipulating what they call an official record (the birth index).
I call it bureaucratic incompetence. Divulging information regarding adoptions is illegal. Hawaii has a LARGE section of law on the secrecy of adoptions. If they divulged information, then they screwed up, and the individual could sue them in civil court. (I am certain that no prosecutor would bring charges against them in criminal court.)
If they would illegally do that, what WOULDN’T they illegally do?
I have no doubt that they will commit unintentional illegalities, or make mistakes that result in an illegality being committed, and I am inclined to believe that they will in fact commit ACTUAL illegalities, with knowledgeable aforethought providing that they believe they won't be caught at it.
There are allegations out there that claim Hawaiian officials are running a American Citizenship scam for profit by registering foreign born children with Hawaiian birth certificates. It is alleged that this has been going on for a long time, and there seems to be circumstantial evidence to support this allegation.
However, most of these events happen without close scrutiny, and so are therefore low risk to them. Committing illegalities regarding the President's birth records is a different matter entirely. In this case, there is a real chance of being discovered to have committed an illegality, and a real chance of getting a prison sentence out of it.
I believe that the fear of such a thing happening will keep them on the technically lawful side of the equation. Morally wrong, but legally correct.
Reporting a forgery divulges nothing about the genuine record. There is no LEGAL reason for them to commit misprision of forgery and fraud.
And if Fuddy said in the letter that she gave to Obama’s representative a certified copy of the birth certificate - copied directly from the bound volume where birth certificates are stored - when in fact she gave him some intermediate step in the process to create his records back in either 1961, 1968, or whenever the adoption or unadoption took place (either one before there was such a thing as PDF or photoshop so any intermediate step would be scraps of paper taped to other scraps of paper - you seriously believe they kept those scraps of paper for 40 years?), then she is directly guilty of fraud at the least and possibly perjury, herself, for deliberately lying in an official communication.
If they want to claim that they did it in self-defense, then let them come forward and say who threatened them and with what.
I suggested to Janice Okubo at one point that she enroll in a witness protection program and get out of this before she became criminally liable. It shook her up to the point that she responded to that e-mail as if it was a different e-mail and the embedded history of the communications got all screwed up.
What you’ve said for why they are doing what they’re doing may very well be accurate. But I don’t see any way that it is legal.
Now this is indeed a hole in my theory. I do recall the mention of a bound volume. If Fuddy did indeed say that the document we are seeing comes from the bound volume, then it seemingly does not allow any wiggle room. If the document was created by photoshop, yet she says it came from that bound volume, then both things cannot be true. Either she is lying, or the document wasn't photoshopped.
I find it hard to believe (What with all the errors and oddities in it) that the document wasn't photoshopped, so therefore it leaves the conclusion that she must be lying.
One of the two outs I can think of is the possibility that the newly created document was PLACED into the bound Volume, and she let people THINK it has always been there. The Other possibility is that she LIED about it, but doesn't believe that any consequence can befall her for having lied about it.
I suggested to Janice Okubo at one point that she enroll in a witness protection program and get out of this before she became criminally liable. It shook her up to the point that she responded to that e-mail as if it was a different e-mail and the embedded history of the communications got all screwed up.
If the stories about Hawaii industrially selling birth certificates to foreign children are true, then she may well have more than one aspect of this issue to worry about.
What you’ve said for why they are doing what they’re doing may very well be accurate. But I don’t see any way that it is legal.
It is just my best guess in an attempt to understand what is going on. When faced with multiple possibilities, it is sometimes difficult to make sense of them. My theory may be completely wrong, but it should at least be kept in mind as one of the possible alternatives. Your point about the bound volume is a good one. It frames the question as "either/or".
I guess we just need to wait for more evidence, or perhaps some insight into interpreting the evidence we already have. I find the information about the missing flight records VERY INTERESTING.
I am not quite sure the best way to put this... that can be true in certain cases where the pdf is based on vector graphics and optically recognized characters. It is not true in the case of the document we have been discussing. Obamas "birth certificate" is a rasterized image which when enlarged shows many inconsistencies that cannot be seen at normal print or viewing resolutions.
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.
I work for a government agency and it is "illegal" for me to comment on the details of medical calls that I go on if doing so will release protected personal information. However there would be nothing illegal about me discussing the department's policies and procedures.
I do not have any problems with you brainstorming and coming up with possible explanations. Nothing would really suprise me in this situation. However, I normally consider someone using large sized all caps and bolded characters in their response... is intended to indicate that they are having some sort of tantrum when others do not agree with them. If this is the case... I am not sure that your passion is helping convince others of the validity of your theory.
Yes, in the case of the "Precedent's" document this is not true. However, in the context of our previous discussion, the point was made that your mortgage company would only accept PDFs and not JPGs. I offered the above reason as a possible explanation for why this is so. I am surprised that you are aware of vector graphics. Most people are not. (A fact which illustrates one of my other points. Most bureaucrats are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of their computer's operation, hence they can send a document to someone while being unaware that it contains the information used to construct it. )
I work for a government agency and it is "illegal" for me to comment on the details of medical calls that I go on if doing so will release protected personal information. However there would be nothing illegal about me discussing the department's policies and procedures.
Mentioning that a specific person (i.e. Barack Obama) may have been adopted is NOT a discussion of policies and procedures. It is a discussion of a specific person's legal and private records. State officials are not permitted to discuss such things because it is a violation of Hawaiian law.
I do not have any problems with you brainstorming and coming up with possible explanations. Nothing would really suprise me in this situation. However, I normally consider someone using large sized all caps and bolded characters in their response... is intended to indicate that they are having some sort of tantrum when others do not agree with them. If this is the case... I am not sure that your passion is helping convince others of the validity of your theory.
You have not had to repeat the same arguments and point out what you believed to be obvious, umpteen zillion times. :)
At this point, I am weary of the discussion and am perfectly willing to let people overlook this possibility, though I think it is a disservice to our efforts to accurately deal with this man.
To me the evidence points to Barack being adopted in 1965 by Lolo Soetoro, and either adopted again or having the previous adoption annulled in 1971 by Grandma Dunham.
If adoptions or annulment occurred, (which the evidence seems to indicate) then it is reasonable to conclude He was given a fake but legal replacement birth certificate at some point in his life. The rest of my theory begins with these premises.
My siblings and I were all adopted at different ages. Although not in Hawaii, each of us has birth certificates that look exactly the same as those of others in the State who were not adopted. The only telltale signs that our BC's are different is the "Hospital" is blank and the issue date on the bottom next to the raised seal is at least a year after the birth. Now, I realize that Obama's would have included the hospital (but his has the incorrect name) and would have been updated after Soetero's adoption but again, it should reflect a date appropriate to the time it takes the court to approve the adoption and if "readopted" by Obama Sr., the same dateline would apply. He would have needed it to go to school in Hawaii, after all.
It is good to discover other freepers who were also adopted and can confirm my point about the state's issuing documents (replacement birth certificates) which are in fact fake, but legally valid. Myself and two of my sisters were also adopted, and one of my sisters possesses both her original birth certificate and her replacement birth certificate.
Now, I realize that Obama's would have included the hospital (but his has the incorrect name) and would have been updated after Soetero's adoption but again, it should reflect a date appropriate to the time it takes the court to approve the adoption and if "readopted" by Obama Sr., the same dateline would apply. He would have needed it to go to school in Hawaii, after all.
Yes. A lot of people speculate that his school records are sealed, unavailable or missing because they contain a copy of his original birth certificate. (Same thing with his passport file.)
As for the notation of the date of the adoption event, one would think such information ought to be on a birth certificate, but one would also think that a state would not issue birth certificates to people not actually born in the state.
Since it has been established that Hawaii doesn't follow what would be considered the "normal" rules regarding birth certificates, I am willing to accept the notion that they may not follow what would seemingly be obvious requirements regarding adoptions either. I realize that this is entirely speculation, but I think it is plausible that a Hawaiian judge could order the creation of a replacement document with the stipulation that no information on it can be allowed to reveal the occurrence of a previous adoption or the nullification of such.
I think that if an attorney argues that it will be detrimental to the privacy needs of his client, a judge might order that any information divulging previous personal information be kept off the document. I do not KNOW that this is true, but I surmise that it could be. Especially in Hawaii.
Let me take it a step further......if Obama had misplaced his childhood birth certificate, why would Hawaii not be able to pull the last issued certificate from microfiche and stamp it? It is my understanding that most microfiche/microfilm systems were replaced with imaging systems. Why not pull it from there? Since the contention is that the alleged forgery is a culmination of information Hawaii has on file, cut out the laborious process and push the print button from the image file; there wouldn’t be a need to “recreate” it on current stock.
That would indeed make sense, but as the document appears to have been forged, we must conclude that they did not do this, and we can only speculate as to the reasons why.
My own personal belief is that they did not do this because it doesn't suit their needs, and they had legal alternatives to doing it. I can assume that previous documents are sealed under court order, and while an attorney can ask that the seal be lifted (thereby allowing a print to be made) I believe an attorney can ask that an existing (via adoption) document be modified, nullified, or amended.
That is what I am assuming has happened. They could have asked that all previous adoptions be nullified, but rather than unsealing the original birth certificate, they asked the court to create a replacement using information available off of the original.
Yeah, it's silly, but it would hide the fact that the "Original" was actually a "certificate of home birth" or some such document which will not actually PROVE Obama was born in Hawaii. I have long contended that is exactly what Obama's "Original" birth certificate is; An affidavit of "at home" birth, filled out by his Grandmother with the names of his Mother and alleged father provided by her. (Madelyn Dunham.)
I suspect Barry was actually born in Canada, and grandmother fixed his citizenship problem for him.
I recently saw something regarding this while looking through Hawaiian adoption law during a discussion. I seem to recall reading that the Father absolutely has the right to allow or deny an attempt to adopt his child by someone else. I wish I had saved it at the time, but I think I can find it again.
For me it was a sort of Eureka moment which helped to explain why Barack Sr. came back to Hawaii in 1971 on "family business." I don't have time to look it up right now, but I will try to do so in the next few days.
If you find it, please let me know. I’d be interested in reading it.
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.