Link to blogger with a window allowing scroll-through of the ScribD docs
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall
Printable View
Link to blogger with a window allowing scroll-through of the ScribD docs
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall
Wayne Madsen: Foreign Intelligence Agencies Say Obama Birth Certificate Is Fake
By Wayne Madsen – April 28, 2011
From intelligence agencies around the world, the verdict on President Obama’s newly-released certificate of live birth from Hawaii is in: the certificate is a rank forgery on the same level as the Niger “yellow cakeâ€
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]I agree with April. It is better to be called a fool than to be one. I would not call for impeachment (unlikely); I recommend an official House investigation instead. A House investigation is much easier to start, is the correct process for crimes committed before taking office, doesn't involve the Senate, and has the same result (the fraudulent impostor resigns).
Anyway, here are the links from J.B. Williams' article. The linked contact can include a personal message, such as,
"I call for a House investigation with subpoena powers, which covers misconduct before taking office, such as misrepresentation of identity and election fraud."
[quote="J.B. Williams":278xo0r7][size=7][url=http://www.patriotsunion.org]The United States Patriots Union[/url] is making its secure [url=http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index.cfm/siteid/resourcecenter/action/TakeAction.Background/LetterGroupID/29]People's Lobby[/url] software available to the public, free of charge, for the purpose of contacting your House representatives regarding the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Patriots prepared to take action can do so by contacting their House Representatives [url=http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index.cfm/siteid/resourcecenter/action/TakeAction.Background/LetterGroupID/29]here[/url].
Join a Patriots Union [url=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twanablevins/2011/04/30/patriots-union--potus-must-be-a-natural-born-citizen]discussion[/url] on this matter [url=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twanablevins/2011/04/30/patriots-union--potus-must-be-a-natural-born-citizen]Friday night at 9:00 PM ET[/url].[/size][/quote]
[size=7]This picture in the gatewaypundit article is quite convincing.
[url="http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-Form-Fake.jpg"]http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/w ... m-Fake.jpg[/url] [/size][/quote:278xo0r7]
Tim Harrington and JB Williams explained last night on patriot union blog talk that we need to take action, the impeachment investigations will not only stop Obama's agenda but might force him to step down as happened with Nixon. I did take action on their alert to send email to my rep to take action on this. I think everyone should take all action available to them to have Obama forced out of office. SO EVERYONE please take some action to alert your rep that this needs to be investigated and sending the Patriot Union free email would be good as well. The BC is obviously a fraud and he has no business being in the WH. Also for those who did not hear the blog radio talk it is still available to be heard at the originally posted link. There was lot so VERY GOOD INFORMATION. I pleasantly surprised at how knowledgeable these men were. Please everyone take some type of action. Calls followed by emails would be the best, it is up to us to take our country back.
Link to free email:
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index. ... GroupID/29
Blog talk discussion here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twanablevi ... rn-citizen
Quote:
Originally Posted by April
The extent of Mr. Williams' knowledge was no surprise to me. But it did surprise me how different is their area of expertise from what we know here on the ALIPAC Obama ineligibility thread. Their focus on some points we haven't mentioned (and lack of knowledge about some things we have discussed) lead them to different plans of action.
Whichever plan we pursue, we must stick together with the other groups that are actively supporting and defending the Constitution. You should make up your own mind about whether to press for impeachment, as Harrington and Williams recommend, and/or to call for a House investigation with subpoena powers. My personal preference for a House investigation is based on the following:
- 1. Election fraud committed before taking office is an appropriate subject for a House investigation. But it will be outside the scope of impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is for crimes committed while in office.
2. No threat of being overruled by the Senate discourages or impedes a House investigation.
Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict, which is a high hurdle to leap, psychologically, for many Representatives. They may fear being stigmatized by their constituents and by Democrats in general after a "not guilty" verdict in the Senate, which they foresee as a slam-dunk for the Democrats. Although I don't recall any such marginalization of Representatives who voted for impeachment of then-Pres. Clinton, their memory of that experience may differ.
3. House investigations are commonplace, but impeachment is a more radical action. Change is anathema to an incumbent, who tends toward inaction and away from initiative except within the "sweet spot" of positions dear to his or her constituency. Those at the top of the heap cling to the unstable equilibrium at the top. "Follow orders." "Stick with the program." "Keep in line." "Don't rock the boat." "Accentuate the positive and avoid negativity."
But nothing can stay in the middle of the road for long except traffic lines and roadkill.
4. It is wise to begin with a House investigation. Having the facts and evidence in hand will give any future impeachment proceedings a needed impetus. On the other hand, if an impeachment fails, thereafter it will be much harder to initiate a House investigation.
5. A House investigation is more likely to succeed than impeachment, and the desired end result, that the fraudulent impostor resigns, is much the same. On the other hand, if impeachment fails, only the "not guilty" verdict impacts the minds of the sheeple. Regardless of whatever action follows, a House investigation exposes the corruption and expects a conviction in the court of public opinion.
IMO, a House investigation is a better move than impeachment. Way mo bettah.
Cc: J.B. Williams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal blogger Andrew Rice
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=125351
Where's the similar material on BHO junior? As bad as he might have been, at least BHO senior left his record behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
In March 2010, The Post & Email published Mr. Sweeney’s analysis of the Certification of Live Birth image posted on the internet in June 2008 purported to be Obama’s “birth certificate.â€
Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator - Official Proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsF ... r_embedded
If you haven't seen this video; you need to watch it; this guy is good
Boy, this came as a huge surprise to me. I don't know about you, but I'm shocked... absolutely shocked, that a pathological liar can be found to have lied in many more areas than originally expected. Truly amazing.
Maybe this is a good thing if it teaches us how not to be stupid when it comes to nominating and electing politicians.
======================
Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume
Author: Anthony Martin
Source: Examiner.com
Date: April 3rd, 2010 7:15 pm ET
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... ama-resume
In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'
The claim turns out to be false.
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?
Further,
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
There is more from Ross, however:
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video.
9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal."
10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'
.
Highlander, that's why people like Obama are called "Pathological" Liars. It's systemic in a classical sense for a narcissist like obama. My intuition told me from day one to stay away from this guy. His path to the WH was paved with fraud, lies, payoffs, threats and blackmail.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Has anyone read this article??! A VERY comprehensive discussion on NBC and compilation of events leading up to Obama's election. MUST READ!!!
Was McCain Ineligible to Run for the Presidency? PDF Print E-mail
Written by John Murphy
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Why Haven’t Republicans Challenged Obama?
First, let me state up front that this is a theory of mine. I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I have no inside information that someone told me.
I'm asked all the time by Obama supporters, "Isn't there one thing that Obama has done good in your view?" After thinking long and hard, I have to admit that there is one thing that Obama has done that is good. It's providing a reason for citizens to read or reread the Constitution of the United States and try to understand its meaning.
The last Presidential election exposed a difference of opinion with regards to the eligibility requirements of candidates to that position. How could that be? Hasn't it been settled as to who can and who can't run for President? After all, we've only had a Constitution for 220 years as of 2008.
The requirements seem pretty simple to me, that is, 35 years old, 14 years a resident and a natural born citizen. 35 years old and 14 years a resident doesn't seem to be a matter of dispute as much as the natural born citizen requirement. So, the question is, just what is meant by the term, natural born citizen?
First, let's look at the requirement to be a Congressman and a Senator. For Congressman (or woman, for the politically correct), the requirement is 25 years old, a resident for 7 years and be a citizen. For Senator, it's 30 years old, 9 years a resident and be a citizen. So far, so good. I'm sure that the founders didn't write the Constitution so that only geniuses (for example) could understand it. OK, Congressman--25 years old, Senator--30 years old, President--35 years old. See the progression? Now, Congressman--7 years residency, Senator--9 years residency, President--14 years residency.
Again, progression. Last and especially not least, Congressman--citizen, Senator--citizen and President--natural born citizen. Since we've already identified 2 out of the 3 requirements as being progressive (not to be confused with liberal ideology), wouldn't it be the case that natural born citizen is a higher state of citizen than just a citizen? You would think so, but this is where the disagreement is, apparently. The majority of people in America do not understand what a natural born citizen is.
So, (and this is where Obama comes in) many people, including myself have investigated this requirement to identify just what the founders meant by natural born citizen as it is not described within the Constitution. But then again, citizen is not described either in the original Constitution. It took the 14th amendment to describe what a citizen is (and even that is a source of controversy).
The founders, it seems, were great proponents of the philosophy of Natural Law. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution contain words and ideas that come directly from a book titled: "Law of Nations" by Emmerich de Vattel. "Law of Nations" was written in 1758 and there is evidence that the founders were thoroughly familiar with it as evidenced by a letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas of the Netherlands in 1775, thanking him for 3 copies of the book in which he would distribute to the other founders. The book title was actually included in our Constitution in Art.1, Sec. 8. The term natural born citizen can be found in this book with its description. The exact description of natural born citizen is as follows: born in-country of citizen parents.
So.... this description would seem to escalate or progress the requirement versus the description of just a citizen as noted in the 14th amendment which is to be just born or naturalized within the U.S.
Let me point out also that in the discussions leading to the designation of natural born citizen, the founders were aware of the problems of government in Europe in what they called "intrigues." They sought to reduce those "intrigues" by following the natural law philosophy so that whoever was appointed as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would not have dual loyalties. The description of natural born citizen as per the book, "Law of Nations," fits perfectly with those intentions. The future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote a note to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, to consider natural born citizen as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
This leads to another proscription within the Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 8 (yes, same article---it's a long one). Congress is charged with producing a law on naturalization. This they did in 1790. The 1st Congress passed the "Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790" in which they describe (among other things), children born to citizens overseas as natural born citizens. This was primarily to be used for Ambassadors and Diplomats serving the country. As of yet (1790), America had no military bases overseas. But, in 1795, Congress passed another law called the "Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1795" in which they changed the description of children born overseas from natural born citizen to just citizen. You see, Congress realized their mistake from 5 years earlier. Natural law is natural law. You either are something or you're not. Simply put, to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the country (whatever country) of citizen parents (plural) of the same country. To be born otherwise would be ----- unnatural.
So Congress rescinded the 1790 law in favor of the 1795 law because it more reflected the principles to which our founders ascribed. Remember also that many of the founders were still present during this time as it was only 7 years since the Constitution was adopted. So far, so good. Everything fits like a glove (as opposed to O.J.). Now here's where we come to some apparent "intrigue."
During the last election in 2008,from Jan.2008 to June 2008, John McCain was accused of not being a natural born citizen because he had been born in Panama (where his Navy father was stationed). In Feb.2008, Democrats sponsored a law, S 2678, that would declare children born overseas of military personnel as natural born citizens. Now the 1st question you have to ask is why Democrats would sponsor anything in order to help their opponents? The bill was originally sponsored by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri (who just the month before in January declared her support for Obama). It was quickly co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This bill was specifically crafted as a means to declare McCain eligible for President. The bill failed and was never passed.
In April 2008, McCaskill sponsored another entity within the Senate, only this time, it was a Senate Resolution ( S.R. 511 ). Again, Clinton and Obama co-sponsored it. And again, I have to ask why these people would want to help their opponent? For sure, this was not how Obama had run ALL his previous political campaigns. Normally, Obama would work to get his opponents kicked off the ballot by exposing some qualification they failed to meet or some dalliance that they committed.
So, on April 30, 2008, S.R. 511 passed with no opposition. John McCain was deemed a natural born citizen and thus eligible to run for President of the United States.
Except for one problem. They lied in the Senate Resolution. In one instance, they refer to the 1790 Immigration Bill without noting that it was rescinded. In another instance, they refer to the founders as not indicating the plight of children born overseas of military personnel when in fact, that's exactly what the Immigration Laws of 1790 and 1795 did and yet, in another instance, the Senate Resolution states that McCain was born on a base in Panama. He wasn’t, he was born in a civilian hospital in Colon, Panama, as his long form birth certificate indicates. (Oh, yes, McCain did indeed present his long form birth certificate to this august body).
So.... why was it passed with so many inaccuracies in it? With the benefit of hindsight that only a Monday morning quarterback can have, lets attempt to answer this.
It seems that early in 2008, McCaskill was on the short list as Obama's Vice President. That would explain her support for Obama so early. At the same time, McCain was the front runner for Republicans and would continue to be the front runner into April 2008. April 2008 found Hillary in the lead for Democrats. Now all Democrats probably looked at McCain as the easiest to beat of all the Republican candidates so it would behoove them to prop him up to stay in the race. This they did with the ill-fated S 2678 and ultimately S.R. 511.
But they misrepresented the founders and McCain in the resolution. Why? As I said before, Hillary and the Democrats figured that McCain was the weakest candidate and obviously NOT what was purported in the resolution. Obama had other reasons though. He knew (as did others) that he himself was not eligible so if a lie could be voted on favorably by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, he knew that he would acquire a "get out of jail free" card. Hillary probably knew that Obama was illegal too, but she was in the lead and felt that she "had it in the bag," so she was not concerned with him. Republicans, at the time, were concerned about McCain being the front runner for them. They did not want him dropped at this late date. It would also reflect badly on the Republican party, that they did not vet their candidate better during the campaign. So, when S.R. 511 passed with no opposition, everyone was happy.
A month after the Resolution passed, Obama took the lead (for good as it turned out). Now, Hillary became worried and mad too. How could they do this to her? The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's good best buddy, Father Phleger, portrays how Hillary felt in a sermon at Reverend Wright's church. You might have seen it on you tube, it's pretty funny. Here's the problem. Hillary knew that she couldn't bring up Obama's ineligibility because she lied (along with everybody else) in S.R.511. For years, the Clintons and their people played dirty politics but they found someone who was dirtier-- Obama and his Chicago people. It was checkmate and Hillary had lost but she wasn't done yet. While she herself never brought up Obama's bona-fides, one of the first if not the first lawsuits on Obama's ineligibility, in Aug.2008, came from one Phillip Berg, assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a Hillary supporter. Hmmmm...what a coincidence!
Starting in June 2008 when Obama overtook Hillary, rumors of Obama's ineligibility began to surface. This is when the sycophant major media began using the term "birther" as a pejorative in order to deflect criticism of Obama that they suddenly started backing. Lost in all this is the fact that for the previous 6 months, the press had hounded McCain on his eligibility. This ultimately led to the Senate Resolution we talked about earlier. So in fact, the original "birthers" were Democrats but you would never know that today (thank God for the internet).
Obama would eventually display a short form "certification of live birth" of dubious quality and identification and that would be all he gives. Other information would come out from the "blogosphere" to include a vague newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii. Anything else is relegated to the new "birther" movement and thus marginalized by a majority of the press.
The official election season kicks off around the end of August and not one candidate, Republican or Democrat, would make reference to Obama's eligibility. It should come as no surprise that Obama's campaign used the race card every time they could. I wondered why McCain did not bring it up.
I thought he was just scared of being called a racist. I wasn't aware of S.R. 511 in detail yet. As it turns out, McCain didn't say anything about Obama's eligibility (along with any other Republican) because he himself was ineligible. All McCain and Republicans could do was hope for the best and hope they win. They didn't. The Republicans in the Senate had become accomplices to allowing an unqualified individual to be elected President of the United States.
As bad as this sounds, there would be one more chance to get this right. On January 8, 2009, both houses of Congress would come together to certify the Electoral College vote that took place in December, 2008. As per the 20th Amendment of the Constitution, Congress is charged with qualifying a President elect before the inauguration. What can I say? Did you hear of any challenges made during the certification? No, neither did I, so now the House became accomplices to the crime of allowing an unqualified individual into the Presidency.
Now you would think that that's a pretty bad thing to do.....challenge the electoral college vote. But in January, 2005 following the 2004 election in which George Bush won his 2nd term, an Ohio Democrat Congresswoman along with a California Democrat Senator did just that. The Congresswoman challenged the Ohio vote count of the electors and the proceedings stopped immediately. Both houses of Congress repaired to their separate buildings to debate the issue. They concluded that the count was right and got back together to formally certify the Electoral College vote and Bush was inaugurated.
No such thing happened in 2009. Not a peep from either the House or the Senate, and on the 20th of January, 2009, a usurper was sworn in as President of the United States.
Officially, no one would say anything. Two months later, in March,2009, the Congressional Research Service would send every Senator and Congressman a letter stating that there is no Federal or State law which requires a candidate for President of the United States to prove their eligibility for office. This is what Senators and Congressmen and women would take to town hall meetings, along with the short form, "certification of live birth" and Bill O'Reilly's favorite, the newspaper announcement.
Drip by drip, we find out more about Obama and his presumptive mother and father, but to this day, no Senator or Representative has challenged Obama.
What do I think? Well, just that the entire 110th and 111th Congress to include the principles of the election, Republican and Democrat, are dirty and that's why they can't and won't say anything. Shame on conservative politicians and media for allowing this to take place. It's criminal what they did. And don't think that wrapping yourself in the blanket of the tea party since then will absolve you of your culpability. The only lawmakers that can say anything are the newest members sworn in on January, 2011. If they do say anything, the previous two congresses will have to be implicated. Will someone have the courage to put the Constitution above mob rule? Who knows, but we're not armchair quarterbacks anymore, we're living it. You know what? I think I just answered all the why questions.
Postscript:
Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated Flight Surgeon to the Army Chief of Staff is now in Leavenworth prison as a result of a sham of a court martial in which he questioned Obama's eligibility before being deployed to Afghanistan. His court martial consisted of no discovery presented to him because the Judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, said that any discovery presented to Lakin about Obama might prove embarrassing to Obama and not one Senator or Congressman came to his defense.
What might prove embarrassing, though, is Congress's conduct and culpability in allowing a usurper into the White House and the fact that we are now in a Constitutional Crisis as bills, laws, appointments and treaties have been signed since his inauguration.
And here's another observation. If not for the vanity of one man, John McCain, we might not have Obama, the usurper, in the White House.
God Help America!
http://www.timesexaminer.com/political/ ... presidency
I'm not going to bet my future on it...he needs to be publicly exposed and held accountable with all the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
[size=117]It has taken two years and seven months for this thread to reach a quarter-million page views.
Is the 4/27/11 fake long form Certificate identical (except at field #23)
to the previous fake long form Certificate?
The problem with the previous Certificate was the reference in field 23 to H.R.S. § 338-17.8, a regulation which was not passed until 1972. So field 23 proves it could not possibly be an original Certificate; it must be a revision.
The 4/27/11 fake Certificate could be an AMENDED Certificate after his 1971 adoption by the Dunhams, which followed immediately upon his being reclaimed as a son by Barrack Hussain Obama, Snr., who adopted (or acknowledged) Barack Hussein Obama II from Lolo Soetoro, who adopted him in 1965 from his original father of record, BHO, Snr..
Or this could be a CORRECTION of a previously filed Certificate documenting H.R.S. § 338-17.8 as the basis for granting a Hawaii Certificate for a Kenyan birth. Before H.R.S. § 338-17.8 was passed in 1972, was there another regulation which accomplished the same thing?
Or this could be a CORRECTION in fields 6a and 6b. After Madelyn Dunham adopted Barry in 1971, if while amending the BC, she entered “Mombasaâ€
Great observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Just came across this attorney/law professor: DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA, aka Ed Rivera, Torrence, CA
http://www.edrivera.com/
Rivera has an interesting page devoted to Captives of Government. I am aware of several of the items Rivera mentions, but I have to admit, a whole lot is news to me.
http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2
he also has a page devoted to 'Presidents.'
http://www.edrivera.com/?cat=11
.
And just who is this DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA, aka Ed Rivera, Torrence, CA, it seems to me he is trying to profit from some nonsense and his name and location alone is suspicious to me...sorry...I think it is garbage..my opinion of course.
Kathyet
Dr. Edwin Vieira has been prominent in eligibility discussions since the 2008 elections and before. While his legal opinions on eligibility are not authoritative like a Supreme Court ruling, they are accurate, thorough, well-researched, and carry a certain gravitas and dignity, which notably distinguish them from the ridicule and biased, opinionated nonsense which Obots post. I for one would like to review any verified errors in Dr. Vieira's papers, 2008 or later, on nationality and eligibility.
Dr. Eduardo Rivera is not Dr. Edwin Vieira, though the names are similar.
MinuuteMan, kathyet, I agree with both of your comments. Edwin Vieira is a national treasure, Rivera is an unknown. It is hard for me to imagine some legal guru staying out of the lime light until now, and some of my initial thoughts were 'who is this guy, and why now?'
Since a picture of a purported Certificate of Live Birth with all the information therein has been posted, with Mr. Obama consenting to its release and vouching for its authenticity (though not under oath), isn't that record now in the public domain? As such, it should be open to a Hawaii UIPA request. The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified "UIPA"), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"), requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law (§92F-11). The purported record has been legitimately released, so access is no longer restricted or closed by law . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaii.gov
that is, if it were a true and genuine document. If the counterfeit 4/11/11 BC is not the real thing, then the HI DoH has cover to refuse to release a certified copy of the genuine article (whatever that is). With the release of the counterfeit 4/11/11 BC, there is no longer any other reason to refuse UIPA requests for its release.
After the 4/11/11 release, the HI DoH rejecting UIPA requests for copies of Mr. Obama's State of Hawaii long form Certificate of Live Birth constitutes proof that the 4/11/11 release was a hoax.
Or more likely, the HI DoH rejecting UIPA requests proves that it is stonewalling, violating its own rules, and just being generally stubborn, ornery, and hard to deal with. The HI DoH was permitted all along, at its own discretion, to release non-certified copies of Certificates and Certifications of Live Birth. The HI DoH has been obstructing justice, refusing to release documents it was permitted to release at its own discretion, while hiding behind non-disclosure rules which had exceptions listed elsewhere.
A "temporary coup" in the White House by the military? You decide.
Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C.
Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having
been "overruled" by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to
the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is
further clarification of Insider's insights surrounding that event.
_______
Q: You stated that President Obama was "overruled" by military/intelligence
officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the
Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told - in these exact terms, "we overruled him." (Obama) I have
since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant,
as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president's
"persistent hesitation to act." There appears NOT to have been an outright
overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there
was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was,
in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for
several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton,
Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to
this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was
enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet
with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with
Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation
continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama
and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.
She was livid over the president's failure to act, and her office began a
campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett,
her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action
could fail and harm the president's already weakened standing with both the
American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as
an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in
the Middle East .
Q: What changed the president's position and enabled the attack against
Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president's opinion - he continued to avoid
having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make
progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling
would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as
pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately
pushed Obama to finally act - sort of. Panetta was receiving significant
reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating
Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.
Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound
would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to
American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a
willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the
president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing
attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta's failed
policy. Again Obama hesitated - this time openly delaying further meetings
to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time
with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president
to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon
officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated - he was that
frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the
operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a "masterful
manipulation" by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks
regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden's location were certain to get out
sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or
the public backlash to the president's inaction would be "...significant to
the point of political debilitation." It was at that time that Obama stated
an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing
raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from
Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater
risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform
Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin
Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from
acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on
him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon
Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him -and only him,
involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically,
the whole damn operation was already ready to go - including the specific
team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being
given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault.
This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via
military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then
informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of
them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a
mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned
Panetta of the implications of that authority - namely he was possibly being
made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the
opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting,
Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating
she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by
Gates. The following day, and with Panetta's permission, Clinton met in
private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president's full and open
approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great
benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he
had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their
meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that
approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support
Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president's
indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a
successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the
CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the
President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order -
it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been
given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan
from their position in Afghanistan , Daley successfully kept Obama and
Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe
originated from Valerie Jarrett's office, and was then followed up by
President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to
weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been
acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier,
but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett,
having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had
initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym "CoC" ["Chain of
Command"] and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley
intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me
beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that
meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and
apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission.
What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley,
Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates' office, a representative
from Leon Panetta's office, and a representative from Jim Clapper's office.
I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move
to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound.
I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing
the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts
with military - both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point,
and not the President of the United States . There was not going to be
another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at
this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie
Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated.
President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted
back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival
there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and
a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from
the briefing, he was described as looking "very confused and uncertain."
The president was then placed in the situation room where several of
the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold.
Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was
already "up to speed" on the operation. A source indicated they believe
Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made
aware of that day's events before the president was. The now famous
photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its
occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the
military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding,
deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president's role
was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a
success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The
only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John
Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When
leaving this briefing, the president came out of it "...much more confident.
Much more certain of himself." He was also carrying papers in his hand that
quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the
Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior
to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this
time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations
from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded
as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military
officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty
of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had
not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive
today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority
of the president's office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact.
What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of
Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find
that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by
the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate
investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.
Read more:
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house ... z1LLRp2GTh
AS always...the best info is found right here!!!!!!!
A "temporary coup" in the White House by the military?
Minuteman, this is a very powerful and telling memo if it is true, and could very well spell doom for Obama despite the bump in the polls that he received after the raid. What it indicates to me is that there are high ranking officials that see Obama as impotent and a potential danger to the country. The web of deceit is unraveling.
And this is news to who? Not anyone in this room! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden
You are here: Home » Issues » White House Insider: Obama Hesitated –[/quote:3nhn43fe]White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin LadenQuote:
[quote:3nhn43fe]Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden
by Ulsterman in Issues, May 3, 2011"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."
Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house ... z1LoGD23YL
A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY
Hawaii detective charges: 'Birth certificate' a fraud
Claims phonies created by state in order to 'screw with birthers'
Posted: May 08, 2011
5:48 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President" is available today for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, exclusively by the WND Superstore.
HONOLULU, Hawaii – A private investigator claims employees of the state Department of Health forged three Hawaiian birth certificates for Barack Obama to "screw with birthers."
Takeyuki Irei told WND one document placed the birth at Kapiolani hospital, another at Queens Medical Center and a third in Kenya.
The 57-year-old detective, who has been a P.I. since the 1980s, said he was stunned when he discovered that the purported copy of Obama's original birth certificate released by the White House was more or less an exact image of one of the forgeries.
Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore.
Irei said he was provided a copy of the document indicating a Queens birthplace but ascribed no importance to it. He explained that he was focused on finding evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, which he thought would provide a financial windfall.
He also said a likeness of the certificate indicating a Kenyan birthplace was published more than a year ago by a website that presented itself as a Hawaiian news organization. Later, it spread virally even though it was rejected as fraudulent by investigators, because the purported signature of Obama's maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was misspelled.
pdf download link http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... g-form.pdf
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
The image released by the White House was trumpeted as "proof positive" Obama was born in Hawaii in an announcement accompanied by a rare presidential statement on the issue.
However, few other officials were talking. Hawaii authorities ordered WND not to contact the state employee identified as the source of the phony certificates. Also, WND learned the state's employees had been ordered not to respond to WND questions.
Officials at Kapiolani also refused WND permission to ask questions of anyone at the hospital. Spokesman Shawn Nakamoto told WND the hospital would not respond to anyone at "your organization."
Likewise, officials at Punahou High School, where Obama graduated, also refused WND access to information that often is available, such as copies of student newspapers.
Irei explained the state employee told him the fake records were kept in a vault in Room 303 of the Hawaii Department of Health. The room, next to the director's office, is well known and holds files such as the records of residents of the Kalaupapa leper colony on the island of Molokai.
But Irei pointed out that the obviously fraudulent Kenya-birth document published by the Aloha Reporter website contains markings that appear to coincide with markings found on the document recently released by the White House.
There is no explanation of the image, which can be seen here:
http://alohareporter.com/news/obama_...ertificate.jpg
Among other things, the "Certificate of Live Birth" on the Reporter page says the birthplace was "Kenya; Registered Honolulu HRS 338-17-8 per Grandmother."
The document lists the race for the father, "Barack Hussein Obama Sr.," as "Negro-African."
But it was the document released by the White House April 27 that stunned Irei.
He said the document indicating Obama's birth as Kapiolani looks just like the Queens Medical Center document he had previously possessed, except the hospital name and the doctor's name were different.
"When I saw the birth certificate the White House released, I realized the story had changed from Obama being born at Queens, to him being born at Kapiolani," the detective told WND. "In 2008, when I first got the birth certificate, all the news reports [were] that Obama had been born at Queens."
As WND reported, United Press International and Snopes stated at one time that Obama had been born in Queens Medical Center.
But after a WND story on the topic was published, both sites suddenly changed the birth hospital to Honolulu's Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.
At the time, Snopes sent WND a statement reading, "A number of readers have written to us to point out that Wikipedia previously updated their Obama-related entries to resolve the same discrepancy, so we included a similar clarification in our latest round of updates."
WND requested confirmation from the state Department of Health that the image released by the White House is an accurate representation of the original Hawaii records. Spokeswoman Janice Okubo referred the question to Donalyn DelaCruz in the office of Gov. Neil Abercrombie. DelaCruz did not respond to a WND request.
WND also requested comment from the White House but did not receive a response.
Two retired police officers in Honolulu, who asked not to be identified for security reasons, also told WND they believe the White House document is a forgery, and they are trying to identify who created it.
Irei said he discounted the worth of the copy of the Queens document he obtained, as he thought the "money" would be in documenting a Kenyan birth.
He said he became convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii because he believed the online "Certification of Live Birth" posted by the Obama campaign was faked, and he could not understand Obama's vehement refusal to allow his records to be released.
If there was documentation of a Hawaii birth, he reasoned, Obama would have no reason to conceal information and would have authorized the release of his records.
He said he and a partner began searching for evidence that Obama might have been born in Kenya. They approached the state employees, asking for help.
Irei said the initial documentation he obtained from the Department of Health employee was the birth certificate indicating Obama was born at Queens. The doctor was listed as John Ohtani, whom Irei remembered as the doctor who also had delivered his own son, Chad, in 1980.
WND confirmed that Ohtani practiced at Queens during the years in questions. He has since died.
Irei said he kept the copy of the Queens document on file until about two months ago when his office was being repainted. The folder holding the birth certificate was among some 20 boxes of old records that were destroyed in the cleanup.
"I thought the money would be in proving Obama was born in Kenya," he said.
"I wish I knew what I had, and I wish I kept it. We thought because the birth certificate we had was fake, it wasn't worth any money. I wish we knew what we had," he said.
"Whoever forged these birth certificates wanted to cover all angles," he said. "Even making a birth certificate that showed Obama was born in Kenya that was an obvious forgery. The grandmother's name was forged."
Irei said the question still remains, "Where was Obama born and who has his real birth certificate?"
The authenticity of the image released by the White House has also been challenged by numerous document specialists.
Moreover, there remains a long list of other unanswered questions. Former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino, according to NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff, said she had seen the original birth certificate prior to Obama's public document release and that it was "half typed and half handwritten," a statement that clearly conflicts with what the president actually released, which was typewritten.
Nevertheless, the White House has expressed confidence the document it released would answer all of the questions about Obama's presidential eligibility. But those who contend the country's founders meant to exclude dual citizens from the presidency say the document actually proves Obama's ineligibility, since it lists Barack Obama Sr. as the father, but he never was a U.S. citizen.
The president himself even affirmed parental citizenship was a constitutional issue when he co-sponsored a resolution to address Sen. John McCain's presidential eligibility that implied a "natural born Citizen" must be born of "American citizen" parents.
Hawaii says it has Obama's original long-form birth certificate in a bound volume in a secure vault. Department of Health spokeswoman Okubo explained to WND that the original was copied onto "safety paper," and copies were sent to the president.
The White House then posted at image of the copy on this website and made copies to hand out to the press corps.
The document was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management. For more than 10 years he has been an expert witness in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.
He contended that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion," his report said.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image."
Zatkovich told WND that the White House image "has specific content extracted from that base layer and enhanced."
He said, "This was done through an explicit operation to edit and/or enhance the printing in the document. There is no ambiguity here. There was an explicit action by a person to modify the document. … Mostly like to enhance the legibility, but still an explicit action none the less."
He explained the analysis he did was similar to the analysis that routinely is done on evidentiary documents for cell phones and computers in cases involving child porn, fraud and murder cases.
"The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web," he said.
Note: Media interested in interviewing Jerome Corsi beginning next Tuesday when his book is officially released should email media@wnd.com.
WND Editor Joseph Farah is available to discuss today's breaking stories on eligibility. Contact media@wnd.com.
Read more: Hawaii detective charges: 'Birth certificate' a fraud http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295369#ixzz1LoKlM8c8
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=295369
many links on this post
A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY
Obama birth certificate linked to 'Kenya forgery'?
Marks on White House image align with document claiming African birth
Posted: May 08, 2011
5:41 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
many links and photos at the original article
Editor's note: Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President" is available today for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, exclusively by the WND Superstore.
HONOLULU, Hawaii – Could it be that the document released by the White House as President Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii is linked with a well-known forgery that states Obama was born in Kenya and his Hawaiian birth was registered by his grandmother?
An analysis posted on Facebook by GoodTryBarry shows that markings on the Kenya document appear to be the same as markings on the White House release.
The image below, for example, shows a "2" penciled in on the green White House document on the left, just below the word "Plantation." The same marking appears in nearly the same location on the Kenya document on the right.
The difference in backgrounds was explained earlier by Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, who said safety paper was used to make the copy of the original birth certificate requested by Obama. The original documents in state records apparently do not have the background that appears on the copy.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/050411forg1.jpg
Similarly, on the Kenya document, there is a mark that the birth was reported by "Other," meaning not a parent. On the White House document is a series of scribblings that appear to be centered on the reference to an "M.D." reporting the birth. But they also would cover any X's that might be in the "Other" category.
Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore.
And for the race of father, an undetermined marking appears on the Kenya document in the same place where there is a "9" on the White House document. There also is a fuzzy remnant on the White House document in the corresponding place on the Kenya document where the father's race is stated as "Negro-African":
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/050411forg4.jpg
The much-discussed X's that are above the boxes to mark a "Twin" or "Triplet" birth on the White House image also are in evidence on the Kenya document.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/050411forg5.jpg
The White House released its document April 27 as "proof positive" that Obama was born in Hawaii in an announcement accompanied by a rare presidential statement on the issue:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/042711obama.jpg
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
The Kenya document was published March 18, 2010, on a website called the Aloha Reporter. It accompanies a story about how the state's House Judiciary Committee was considering a plan to allow government officials to ignore requests for state records regarding Obama. There is no explanation of the image, which can be seen here:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/050411forg3.jpg
A closeup of the document is here:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/050411forg2.jpg
Among other things, the "Certificate of Live Birth" on the Reporter page says, "Birthplace: Kenya; Registered Honolulu HRS 338-17.8 per Grandmother."
The purported signature by Obama's grandmother misspells her name, and it lists the race for the father "Barack Hussein Obama Sr." as "Negro-African."
Honolulu private investigator Takeyuki Irei and two retired police officers in the city who asked not to be named have told WND the White House document appears to be a forgery, and they are trying to identify who created it.
A WND request to Department of Health spokeswoman Okubo on whether the White House image is an accurate representation of what the state has in its files was forwarded to the office of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, whose spokeswoman declined to respond.
A WND staff analysis concluded some of the markings also appear on the birth documents released earlier by the Nordyke twins, born at Kapiolani one day after Obama's reported birth at the same hospital.
One suggestion is that when Hawaii moved to computerized records, a worker performing the data entry made similar markings on all original birth documents.
Other explanations also are possible, including that either of the documents could have been copied from the other or even based on a third document.
But it appears unlikely a random computer operator could have created the documents without inside information, because the chance of guessing the placement of the markings appears low.
John Bultrim, a tech services expert and analyst, noted several other anomalies:
* The Obama documents both contain typing with irregularly aligned text. Consistent left alignment appears in only three lines of the White House document and no lines of the Aloha Reporter document. If typed, this lack of alignment would suggest a mostly random carriage-return repositioning. On both Nordyke certificates, the same six primary lines are left-aligned, as if tabbed back each time to the typewriter's carriage-return stop, and all other lines contain significant consistent inward tabbing.
* In the Obama documents, the repositioning in boxes 10, 13 and 15 is identical, in the midst of otherwise apparent random alignment. Box 13's "Stanley" is exactly one character to the left of the other two entries.
* In the Nordyke documents, the capital letters have a constant slightly higher baseline than the lowercase letters, consistent with a slightly weakened shifting mechanism on a well-used '60s typewriter. In both Obama documents all characters have the same baseline, consistent with a newer typewriter.
* The Obama documents both contain type misalignments not present in the Nordyke certificates. In the Kenya Obama document, for example, "Student" in box 12b is more than half a character right of "Negro," and "Caucasian," below it, is almost a full character right of "Student." This is consistent with typing on a loose paper freely repositioned after every entry. Unexplained vertical misalignments such as "Barack II" and "Honolulu 1" are also prevalent. In the Obama document released by the White House, the "X" in box 3 is at least half a character right of "BARACK," and the "K" in "Kansas" is vertically misaligned and misstruck. In the Nordyke certificates, all text is granularly positioned, absent of vertical misstrikes or irrational horizontal character alignments.
WND reported earlier when a computer document expert who analyzed the online image of Barack Obama's purported Certificate of Live Birth for WND confirmed there are anomalies inconsistent with a simple scanning process, and there is evidence it has been manipulated, but there's no way to determine exactly what may have been modified.
The White House declined to comment.
While the White House was expressing confidence the document would answer all of the questions about his presidential eligibility, those who contend the country's founders excluded dual citizens from qualifying as a "natural born Citizen," as the Constitution requires, say the document actually proves Obama's ineligibility.
Barack Obama Sr. was listed as the father, but he never was a U.S. citizen.
The president himself even seemed to acknowledge the relevance of parental citizenship when he co-sponsored a resolution to address Sen. John McCain's presidential eligibility that implied a "natural born Citizen" must be born to "American citizen" parents.
Hawaii officials say they have Obama's original birth certificate and made copies for the president. One of the copies then was scanned and posted on the White House website.
The image posted online was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, Web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management. For more than 10 years, he has provided expert testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.
He concluded that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion," he said.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said. Operations that were done to the image cannot be determined at this point."
Among the various items that were separated into different layers include the main text, the mother's occupation, the dates accepted, the stamp and signature of the state registrar and the time stamp of the state registrar:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/043011report1.jpg
The document is broken into layers.
The background layer – with all of the additional layers removed – has only random portions of signatures and a white outline in places where the text appears on other layers:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/043011report2.jpg
The background, without layers of information added on top
The main layer of text shows most of the wording on the document, with exceptions such as the first part of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/043011report3.jpg
The layer with the main parts of the text
In field 17a, under "Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnancy," the typed answer "None" is separated into two layers, with "Non" in one layer and "e" in another. Box 20, indicating the date the document was accepted, shows a similar separation of words.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/043011report4.jpg
Unusual division of characters of information on different layers
The report said there are two groups of overlays, the first including the main page of text and another including the mother's occupation. The second group includes the stamps of the local registrar, the registrar general, the state registrar and the time stamp of the state registrar.
"All of the overlays were of a higher resolution than the background layer," the report said. "This suggests that the overlays [were] created to enhance that content (i.e. make the text darker and/or the edges sharper). The only two plausible explanations for this pattern of layers is: 1. Someone was changing the content of both the text and the stamps. 2. Someone was systematically enhancing the black text layers for legibility, and then enhancing the stamp overlays separately for legibility."
Zatkovich told WND that the White House image "has specific content extracted from that base layer and enhanced."
He said, "This was done through an explicit operation to edit and/or enhance the printing in the document. There is no ambiguity here. There was an explicit action by a person to modify the document. … Mostly like to enhance the legibility, but still an explicit action none the less."
He explained the analysis he did was similar to the analysis that routinely is done on evidentiary documents for cell phones and computers in cases involving child porn, fraud and murder cases.
"The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the Web," he said.
Note: Media interested in interviewing Jerome Corsi beginning next Tuesday when his book is officially released should email media@wnd.com.
WND Editor Joseph Farah is available to discuss today's breaking stories on eligibility. Contact media@wnd.com.
With research by John J. Bulten
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=295109
Web expert: Obama certificate falls short in authenticity
Cites images sharing space, anomalous for typed pages http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=295189
Scrubbed again! Obama's hospital doctor changed
Reference to Rodney West edited out of hoaxbusting Snopes.com http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=295265
If you didn't know: SNOPES is owned by Soros
The birth certificate debate – it's not over http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=296293
The "9" marks in pencil are accountant's tick marks, which signify that data has been verified or validated, or that a numerical total has been rechecked. You can find nearly identical tick marks on the margins of any bookkeeper's general ledger pages. Some prefer to make the "9" marks more like the eighth rest in sheet music.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Someone help me on what is the significance of the penciled "2" marks, which rather resemble a lower case "Γ" or Greek "gamma".
I don't think the "x" marks have any special meaning.
Campaign fraud, Illegal foreign contributions, RICO, Social Security fraud, Natural born citizen
A safe bet on Obama’s future?
- Online By Don Fredrick
Sunday, May 8, 2011
In the course of maintaining The Obama Timeline http://www.colony14.net/ I get my share of emails denouncing my efforts, most of which fall along the lines of, “You’re a Nazi and a racist and your mother should have aborted you!â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by At WorldNetDaily.com, H.P. Rifle Comp.
HPRCo, rest assured that any al Qaeda retaliation will be directed at anyone else besides Is|am's man in the White House. Mr. Obama has done more damage to the U.S. in 2½ years than Osama bin Laden did in his lifetime. The biggest difference is that Mr. Obama continues to terrorize Americans with fear for their lives, their livelihoods, their homes, their families, their finances, and their freedom.
Can any of you, even you Obots, honestly say that you have never worried over the impact on your own life from:
- Mr. Obama's anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-traditional-values radical agenda;
a radical agenda backed by the Mus|im Mafia and bankrolled by Is|amist oil money;
a radical agenda steeped in the ideology of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, Mao, Ché Guevara, and Franz Fanon, Leon Trotsky and Saul Alinsky; and
a radical agenda in which co-conspired fellow travelers Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Donald C. Rose, and Marc Canter (son of CPUSA member David S. Canter), CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn, Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browder, John Holdren, and Van Jones, ACORN, SEIU, and former members of Students for a Democratic Society who became members of the Democratic Socialists of America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295749
Is W.L. Mix or Sam Benson still alive and able to recall how Barack Obama II's birthplace was determined?
I have been on this issue way before the election. I find 2 things interesting.
1. No one can explain who or what is truly responsible for vetting? (And will it be clarified before the next election?) But one thing for sure...Pelosi lied on the DNC and should be charged.
2. In law (that I have studied) it is "known or should have known" and so on. The terms for Native Natural and Citizen defines Natural by defining all the other forms. So to me...by omission of all the others the obvious is all that is left. And of course the intent of the founders to protect from foreigners holding the high office of POTUS (like a Muslim).
Great article 7. I am sending it to my friends. Thanks.
Trumping up the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama
The unraveling of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II
- Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann
Friday, April 8, 2011
Many links on this post
To those who are now speaking out about the Obama eligibility matter, I can think of no better statement than the one uttered by a very frustrated Officer John McClane, played by Bruce Willis in the movie“Die Hard.â€
[quote="Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann"][size=117]As we have been investigating this matter for some time (see our investigative report 1 and report 2 in PDF format for important background information), it has become apparent that at some point, the individual known as Barry SOETORO began using the name Barack Hussein Obama II. Based on our investigative findings, it was at about this same time period that the Connecticut issuance of the social security number appeared and became “attachedâ€
Was just in grocery store yesterday and noticed a tabloid with the headline about Obama being ineligible. Was an eye catching article. Remember John Edwards?
It would be interesting to find out what threats the publisher received before the tabloid was released, and from whom.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office
http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/devvy.jpg
By: Devvy
May 11, 2011
many links on this post
The anti-truth "mainstream" media (newspapers, Internet and boob tube) as well as cable tv anchor hosts like shallow Sean Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly, smugly believe the issue Obama/Soetoro's dual citizenship is somehow going to go away based on the release of "the" birth certificate, April 27, 2011, by the usurper in the White House. Wishful thinking for all of them who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution and the right of the American people to know whether or not a presidential candidate is legally eligible to run.
Despite all the ballyhoo on the networks, radio and Internet about the "new" long form birth certificate being end of discussion, none of those bastions of the truth from anchors on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all the web sites and of course, the "fair and balanced" FOX News Network, has touched the issue of the latest document being an obvious forgery.
The problem with Obama/Soetoro's citizenship has now festered to the near breaking point. A boil oozing puss and a putrid stench that will have to be addressed in the near future. Had the gutless cowards in the Outlaw Congress done their solemn duty, January 9, 2009, and stopped the electoral college vote then and there, we would not be here today. No presidential candidate who was in Congress that day will ever get my vote because he/she didn't have the courage to stand up and begin the process of stopping the vote and proceeding with an investigation for a massive controversy all of them knew was burning across this country. That includes my congressman when he runs again in 2012, who sat there like a stuffed dummy.
Setting aside the issue of the birth certificate as far as where little bouncing Barry (Soetoro) was actually born, the only legal issue is his father's citizenship at the time Obama, Sr's progeny was brought into this world. Barry has now produced the "real" birth certificate listing Barack Obama, Sr., as the biological father, so he's stuck with it. Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan national visiting the U.S., he was not a U.S. citizen. In 1961, Kenya was still a British Colony making Obama, Sr. a subject of that commonwealth. Obama, Jr. was automatically a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus, he is forever ineligible to be president of these united States of America.
But, how would you remove Obama/Soetoro from office?
I am not a lawyer and I have no legal training, but I have read every court case and posting by attorney's involved in the lawsuits over Barry's ineligibility. This is by no means a simple case of impeachment because you cannot impeach a usurper. I have not and will not support any petitions or efforts to impeach Obama/Soetoro because it would set a horrible legal precedent. As Nancy Pelosi made it very clear when the Democrats took power away from the Republicans there would be no impeachment of Bush, the same applies with the Republicans and Obama/Soetoro:
"If Republicans take control of the House, there is "not a chance at this point" that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president."
Bush was worth far more political currency to the Democrats if left in office and the same applies to the Republicans regarding Barry. He's also a cash cow for talk radio and nightly gab fests on cable tv.
If we are going to adhere to the law, then as painful as it might be, you have to understand what a usurper means: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
No matter how frustrated and enraged we are about the actions of that empty suit sullying the people's house, to give legitimacy to his presidency would allow all the bills he signed into law to remain in effect.
Beware some of the groups pushing for impeachment and who is behind them. Impeaching the usurper would be the easiest route for the Outlaw Congress in that they would not have to deal with all the "laws" signed by a president who legally never occupied the office. Since the usurper had no legal authority to sign anything into law, they are all null and void.
Because Barry Soetoro (his last known legal name) lied his way into the White House he is holding a position of power without any legal authority. When you remove a usurper it is as if that individual was never in office or power, which is why you cannot impeach him:
"Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,â€