Driver Says “I Just Don’t Care” After Hitting Bicyclist with Car
Driver Says “I Just Don’t Care” After Hitting Bicycl...
Fox Business Host Melissa Francis Credits Gender Pay Gap in Women Keeping Jobs
Fox Business Host Melissa Francis Credits Gender Pay Gap in Women Keep...
Bail Set at $6 million for Megan Huntsman after Remains of Seven Babies Found in Garage
Bail Set at $6 million for Megan Huntsman after Remains of Seven Babie...
‘Harsh Interrogations’ by CIA Went Beyond Legal Authority
‘Harsh Interrogations’ by CIA Went Beyond Legal Authority
Job Listings

Proof that Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Fraud?

 

There have been plenty of arguments that our current president, Barack Hussein Obama, is either not a Christian or was not born in the United States. The rumors suggesting that his certificate was forged or is otherwise faked were upheld and popularized by no other than rich loud-mouth Donald Trump. And though the document, or a photocopy thereof, was in fact produced, don’t expect that to be the end of it. We’re past election times, but you might have gotten an email forward claiming to deconstruct the purported birth certificate. This article will summarize three points brought out in a typical example of this document, and explain where the points are mistaken.

 

1. In 1961 black people were called “Negroes,” and not “African-Americans” and hence the certificate’s anachronism proves it could not have been a legitimate 1961 document.



Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


 

Answer: the term on the certificate, “Africa” refers to the African born father, in fact, not to his race but to the continent he was born upon.

 

2. The birth certificate names Obama’s father’s birthplace as Kenya, but Kenya did not exist in 1961, but gained its independence in 1963 and changed its name from “British East Africa Protectorate.”

 

Answer: while it is true Kenya changed its name when it gained its independence in 1963, it was known as “The Kenya Colony” from 1920.

 

3. The birth certificate names “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” as Obama’s birthplace, but such an agency did not exist, being subdivided into “Kauikeolani Children’s hospital” and “Kapi-olani Maternity home” until the two fused in 1978. This anachronism suggests the document was not created in 1961.

 

Answer: the Kapi’olani Maternity home became Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in 1931, until the name was shorted in 1971 to Kapi’olani Hospital. The Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital joined later in 1978 and became Kapi-olani Medical Center for Women and Children. The changing of names over the years may not have been clearly explained on the hospital’s website, but the birth certificate is correct.

 

4. Obama states in his book or elsewhere that he is proud of his father for fighting in WW2, but his father was 9-years-old and in Kenya at the time.

 

Answer: Obama must have meant his grandfather, who did serve in WW2, who played more of a fatherly role to him growing up.

 

5. Obama mysteriously wasn’t wearing his watch or wedding ring during the month of Ramadan. Pious Muslims don’t wear jewelry during the month, but why wasn’t he? The White House claimed they were being “repaired.” Meanwhile, he hasn’t even once gone to church in his presidency.

 

Answer: Jewelry can be worn in Ramadan, and anyway, there are plenty of pictures of Obama wearing his watch as well as his wedding band during Ramadan. Also, the claims that he hasn’t gone to church during his presidency are false, as he most certainly did.

 

As with any president, there are plenty of mistaken statements brought against him, as well as some true ones. But it seems, from the evidence, that he really was born in Hawaii in 1961.

 

Did you like this? Share it:
Proof that Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Fraud? by

Tagged: , , , , ,

Daniel June Posted by on July 22, 2013. Filed under Shocking. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • CAESI

    Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal alien.

  • ObamaRelease YourRecords

    Is this satire?

  • ObamaRelease YourRecords

    By the way. Lost me after your first answer. It is quite clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Latest on the official law enforcement investigation into Obama’s purported birth certificate: http://youtu.be/002oG9lOtnQ

  • ObamaRelease YourRecords

    One more thing. The term listed on Obama’s digital forgery is “African”… Not Africa as you suggest… http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/employment-research-institutes-jd.html

  • ecinkc

    Mr. June,

    I propose that one helpful test for intellectual integrity is this: When a person advocates a particular position in an already widely explored controversy, he will strive to wage his battle in the domain of the most logically formidable arguments raised against his view. Such a person realizes that to do otherwise can only amount to frivolous trifling.

    Consider that a random manager or clerk might happen upon a group of automotive engineers engaged in a spirited lunchtime debate about which of two particular Italian sports car models would be most likely to win a race of a particular format on a specific track. How should those who favor the Bugatti respond when the layman visitor sharply interjects his appeal that “Ferraris have sleek lines and are famous for speed, while no one has even heard of a Bugatti?” If they were but mildly serious about meaningfully advancing the debate, would they now resort, as you have done, to leveling fiery attacks against their opponents over such grounds that “actually Bugatti is an automaker known to many people”?

    Congratulations, Daniel! You’ve found some lines of argument doubting Obama’s identity documents and narrative that you can readily stand up for a crowd. The people you seek to impress are undiscerning and even less rigorous in their research than you are. Thus, when the audience gathers to your tawdry booth, you ensnare them through your heroic launch of petty arguments that are even more simplistic than the weakly hinged targets at which they are hurled. In the wake of the mighty obliteration you’ve neatly conjured, you dismiss the crowd with a stern reminder that they should hereafter not busy their happy little minds with yet more more thoughts about this already well settled matter.

    But then, maybe I’m needlessly harsh. It is not true, after all, that a person would necessarily be judged a cheap swindler simply because he is observed to flaunt an inferior argument in his polemic against insubstantial and irrelevant opponents. On the contrary, such a man as Daniel June might just as likely stumble into that path merely on account of lazy presumption, shameful ignorance or possibly a tragic lack of the faculties necessary for constructing a more worthy rhetorical contribution.

    Despite these sobering realities, I will offer a few initial, nominal aids to you in hopes that they will boost your efforts to regroup and raise your standards:

    There is a logically discreet registrar’s stamp element of the White-House-published long form that is wholly isolated inexplicably to its own layer which may be moved about in the plain of the image independently and is aligned to the correct orientation for its position on the document only because, unlike other elements in the image, it has demonstrably, damningly been rotated by some 90 degrees from the orientation it naturally held when originally “introduced” to the document.

    Stand that one up in your both, and perhaps there will be some thrill in the fight. Certainly there will be cause for excitement if you yourself should prevail against it in an intellectually honest manner, for I am aware of none yet who has decidedly done so.

    If the fear of that challenge doesn’t relieve you of your interests in this matter, let me suggest that you spend considerable time weighing the precise wording and timing of all those statements from officials we are told to trust with respect to the authenticity of Obama’s documents. Did Fukino tell us she knew of a birth certificate, or was it instead multiple “vital records” she had encountered? Which one of those vital records was the item that Hawaii Governor Abercrombie stated was the moderately conclusive proof he found “written down” in the state archives? For how long and for what reasons did the Hawaii Department of Health delay granting Arizona’s secretary of State an official verification? Once he got the “verification”, just what did it verify and what did it not? And while you’re at it, when a state official from Kansas explicitly asked Hawaii for verification that the long form document (that you and the President are insisting we believe in) is “identical” to the original record they maintain on file, how satisfying to you was Registrar Alvin T. Onaka’s reply?

    Oh, and one more thing, if this really is a simple open and shut case for a fella like you to so handily wrap-up in your brief article here, why would a court-certified document forensics expert impugn the long form in harshest terms, despite the fact that he personally has a strong appearance of political and ideological allegiances with the President’s party–and despite the fact that his expertise has previously be relied upon by the very law firm that represents Obama’s Campaign and private interests?

    Come demonstrate your prowess again for us once you’ve set up a line of targets that mean something. Only then will your barrage of missiles have the potential to render results that are truly satisfying. But alas, I’m concerned you might not be quite up to the challenge.

  • Applebobber

    Jesus… condense that mess!

  • Applebobber

    Not that it matters since Zullo can’t point to any law or rule that would have prevented “African” from being accepted by the Hawaii DOH.

  • Applebobber

    “Latest on the purported law enforcement investigation into Obama’s official birth certificate”

    FIFY

  • ecinkc

    I don’t deny that of my many shortcomings as a writer, the lack of brevity is likely direst. Many apologies. You are right to criticize me, and I know I must improve.

    In the meantime, I hope your efforts to simply look past my relatively few entries, will not inflict too great a burden upon you. :-)

  • John Van Pelt

    No, your direst shortcoming is lack of integrity — by your own definition.

    “I propose that one helpful test for intellectual integrity is this: When a person advocates a particular position in an already widely explored controversy, he will strive to wage his battle in the domain of the most logically formidable arguments raised against his view. Such a person realizes that to do otherwise can only amount to frivolous trifling.”

    Do you deny that the most formidable argument raised against the birther view is the verifications issued by Hawaii? In over two years, neither Zullo nor any other person has so much as HINTED at single datum on either the LFBC or COLB which is suspected to be false. And the issuing authority — whose supervisor Onaka is an awarded and widely recognized expert in vital records practices — has confirmed all the data.

    You “attack” this line of argument simply by asking questions. “How satisfying?” Completely satisfying. Since you value integrity so highly, why don’t you indicate which part of the statement “The information contained in the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’…matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health” indicates that any of the information contained on the Certificate of Live Birth does not match the information maintained by Hawaii?

    I’m positive you’re up to the challenge.

  • susanlou

    this article doesn’t even address the layers or cut and paste information, the different dpi of the layers, the fact that the layers were rotated, the fact that there are link to the layers from being taken from a different source. The fact that there are monochrome layers and a colored layer with Bitmap text (shades of gray) it doesn’t address that fact that the supposed typewriter used to fill it out just so happened to use several different fonts. That some of the text is the same down to the pixel (which does not happen with typwriter documents that have been scanned.) Look into it your self. Download Adobe Illustrator free trial and step through the tests you can do yourself.

  • Judge Roy Bean

    Just note that the document expert found the Obama alleged BC to be fraudulent. Also, the typewriter letters indicate multiple typewriters. Why? Who did you vote for?

  • Fogbow Foggy

    Keep crying, birther scum. It’s great fun to watch. I think you should donate all your money to Zullo the Klown or Orly the Worst Lawyer in History. Then you sit home and eat cat food. You don’t deserve to eat decent food like decent, patriotic, honest Americans do. There’s a reason you’re the World’s Biggest Epic Fail, and it’s that you’re unpatriotic, unAmerican, lying, racist birther SCUM.

  • NeilBJ

    These are some points that can be made without any sophisticated document analysis.

    1. Why does the Adobe file on the White House website have 9 layers? A scan of any document results in a single layer image. I have scanned my birth certificate and saved it as a PDF file. There are no layers. There is absolutely no reason that the image on the White House web site should have 9 layers. The only thing I can think of is that the forger was so incompetent that he forgot to flatten the file before posting it.

    2. I was able to do the following with the White House birth certificate just with Adobe Reader. I outlined the text area of the birth certificate, right clicked to copy the image and saved it to a Microsoft Word document. What I got was the background layer (the green patterned layer) with virtually all the text areas blank. It’s as if someone painted over the text with white typewriter correction fluid. My conclusion is this is what someone would have to do if he was creating an image from scratch.

    3. Why is the upper case “M” in the time of birth box 5b in the upper right hand corner a different size font? Typewriters have only one size font.

    4. Mike Zullo has examined other Hawaiian birth certificates around the time Obama was born and discovered that the race designation for African-Americans at the time was “Negro”. Listing Obama’s father’s race as “African” should raise suspicions.

    I don’t claim that these observations are definitive proof of a forgery, but
    these are observations that should cause one to become suspicious and investigate further. And of course, document experts have and they have concluded that the White House Adobe file is a forgery.

  • Jose Jimenez

    So let’s see, if his father was an African then mom was from Caucas right. Of course reasonable people have to conclude that country of origin is the same thing as race. Of course it is!

  • jondos

    Well, of course they always made laws against using terminology that would be popular 40 years in the FUTURE. Isn’t that when they used their crystal balls?

  • jondos

    I don’t know what people are fighting about. Jeffrey Zucker, from CNN mind you, stated once that all 4 birth certificates proffered by Obama were burned in a massive fire in Hawaii. Everything was destroyed, so none of these are legitimate Birth Certificates, they can’t be!

  • NeilBJ

    MIke Zullo did obtain contemporaneous birth certificates that contain the race designation of Negro. In fact, he talked about the checking that takes place to make sure no errors occur in the birth certificates. One clerk had entered “colored” for the race. The second clerk that checks for accuracy crossed out “colored” and wrote in Negro.

  • Eric Meckes

    JD Journal “Nothing But The Truth”??? Really??? I guess that’s why they conveniently left out the most important fact. I’ve been doing digital graphics for many years, I work with Adobe products routinely. A close friend asked me to please look at the Birth Certificate Obama presented to the American public and posted on the Whitehouse Website back in April of 2011. I had NEVER been a so-called Birther nor had I even weighed in on my opinion of the matter, At the time I thought this whole thing about Obama’s brith place was as ridiculous as Obama and his operative’s had said it was. But my friend wouldn’t quit, he kept asking me to look at it and finally, to shut him up, I agreed to take a look at it. I wanted to show him first-hand that it was the real deal and hopefully get him to quit talking about it as I had called him a “Birther” many times. Then, the minute I downloaded and opened the BC directly from the Whitehouse website, I could immediately see that there were multiple layers of installed or manipulated electronic data. The Signature stamp and the Seal which are meant to authenticate the document could be lifted and removed from the document as separate digital files.

    I could take a photo of you and put you on water ski’s making a 100 ft jump and make it look perfectly real, but first I have to take photo’s of both you, the ski’s and the boat, then develop layers of the data, merge and overlay them and then flatten the document at the very end so that nobody else who looks at it can see the layers or detect that it’s fake. That’s how graphics works. But whoever created this document never flattened it, leaving all the digital layers exposed. If this were a certified copy of an original 1961 document, the Seal and the Signature Stamp would be ink embedded into the original 1961 paper, There is NO WAY you would be able to remove them as separate digital files as they would be part of the paper. They didn’t even use computers or have graphics programs in 1961. Back then all they used were typewriters. A typewriter is very distinctive, because each key is metal and has it’s own fingerprint. Each letter “a” for example would be EXACTLY the same throughout the document, yet on this supposed document, there were multiple keys that didn’t match throughout the document, meaning that if this document were real, it would have to have been typed on as many as 15 different typewriters. Why would ANYBODY at the hospital or the State have used 15 different typewriters to type out this one single BC??? It’s not believable.

    The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, that’s not the million dollar question, WHO CARES WHERE HE WAS BORN??? The real question is WHY DID HE FORGE THIS BIRTH DOCUMENT??? He could have been born in NYC with 1000 witnesses it doesn’t matter, this document was forged in order to mislead the American people which is a FELONY. You can call me a Birther if that makes you feel better, but the facts are the facts and I’m not the only person who has confirmed it. It has now been confirmed by many experts including Reed Hayes, a very well respected court certified forensic document examiner who recently wrote a 40 page summery on this supposed document. At the end of his summery he states that “In All My Years Of Examine Document’s, I Have Never Seen One So Fatally Flawed As This One” he went on to say in his conclusion that “In My Opinion, This Was Never A Copy Of A Document, But A 100% Digitally Created Forgery” Again, you all can call everyone names that you don’t agree with but that does change the fact that what Obama presented as proof positive of his HI birth is nothing more than proof positive that he created this forgery. Make of it what you will, if you are OK with our President forging documents to prove who he is, well then you don’t care and that’s your choice, but you can’t refute the facts. this was forgery plain and simple.

  • CAESI
  • Dave Monat

    Now THAT’s an intelligent argument!! LOL

  • Dave Monat

    Why would I want to “subscribe” to a rag site like this, if they have NO journalistic integrity!

    Why don”t you report the truth about the purported pResident? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=002oG9lOtnQ

  • Applebobber

    Excuse me? “African,” a word that has been used for over 500 years, didn’t become popular until the 21st century?!?! Are you confusing “African” with “African-American?” That phrase dates back to the 19th century… and isn’t anywhere on Obama’s birth certificate anyway.

    Of course, if Hawaii didn’t accept certain races on vital records, they probably wouldn’t have a list of prohibited races. They would have a list of authorized races. And Zullo has found no proof that Hawaii would have rejected any vital record because of the race identified on it.

  • Applebobber

    Seems to me that if Hawaii wouldn’t have accepted certain races on their vital records, there’d be documentation of that somewhere.

    Don’t you think?

  • Applebobber

    1. And those “layers” look nothing like the layers a human would use. Separate letters of a single word on different layers?

    And in your waterski example, what if you didn’t flatten the picture? What would you see underneath the waterski layer if you turned it off? The background or white space? Because you see white space when you turn off the “layers” in Obama’s birth certificate. Even Zullo’s Cold Case Posse got “layers” in their test optimized PDF scans. In fact, they got MORE “layers” than Obama’s birth certificate PDF has.

    2. The seal and stamp are on the certified copy; not on the original. If you don’t understand that, why should anyone take you seriously?

    3. Typewriters don’t make identical impressions each time a letter is typed, and considering the original was, at the very least, copied and then scanned, expecting identical impressions is even more ridiculous.

    4. How do you know Reed Hayes is “very well respected?” Because a birther said so? Selective skepticism at its finest!

  • NeilBJ

    I would think so. The clerk that corrected the one birth certificate that had “colored” as the race must have based her actions on policies in effect at the time.

  • Billy Rawle

    Were either of those parents born in Africa?

    The 1961 Federal Coding Instructions says that they code the race of Parent as “Negro” if the parent was born in the United States otherwise they code it as “Other Non-White”.

  • Eric Meckes

    You can keep on lying to yourself if it makes you feel better, I don’t care, I do know for absolute certainty that his was never a real document of any kind. And by the way, the Signature Stamp and Seal would have to have been on an Original PAPER document or it wouldn’t authenticate ANYTHING, use your head

  • Applebobber

    I’m very much usin my head. The stamp and seal were placed on a 2011 copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. Like I said, your inability to understand this gives you zero credibility.

  • Billy Rawle

    To: Eric,

    It has recently been shown that simply scanning a document into a computer can create those kind of layers.

    Here is what they did:

    1.) Print copy of the LFBC PDF.

    2.) Scan the printed copy of the LFBC PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre 7655.

    3.) Open the Xerox created pdf in Illustrator.

    4.) View the layers created (in this case 5 layers were created).

    One of the layers is the registrar stamp which can be moved around the document.
    Other layers include the three date stamps (2 layers for Aug. 8, 1961 and one layer for April 25th 2011).
    This contradicts the Cold Case Posse experts who said it was not possible.
    Another person has duplicated the same experiment but using a Xerox WorkCentre 7535. But this time got 17 layers.
    Also if you go to the White House website and download the President’s 2010 tax return pdf, you can see that it was made on Xerox WorkCentre 7655 and if you open it in Illustrator it will have layers.

  • dag43

    really? why didn’t you just piss on a piece of paper, it would have been a better article

  • Applebobber

    Funny that Zullo hasn’t found any documentation proving their was such a policy and has to rely on pretending that a federal coding manual for federal employees somehow also prevented certain races from being accepted by state vital records offices.

    And in the real world, all the “colored” birth certificates can prove is that two birth certificates had their races modified. My grandmother’s first name is crossed out and changed on her birth certificate. That doesn’t mean her original name was prohibited. Anyway, by birther logic, don’t you need to find one with “African” crossed out?

  • Billy Rawle

    To: Neil,

    1) Please read my post above to Eric Meckes. A recent experiment shows that scanners create these layers.

    2) The background layer has text from the BC labels for example box 6c. why would a forger put some of the letters on the background layer and others on a text layer?
    3) The letter “M” in box 5b is preprinted on the form. There were only to options A.M. or P.M. so the “M” was preprinted.
    4) President Obama’s father was not African-American. Negro was a term used for those born in the US said it is not a forgery.

  • Billy Rawle

    In this June 1st, 2013 presentation Zullo said that the President’s BC had a left margin that was not justified perfectly. And that no other Hawaiian BCs are like that. But the Nordyke sisters’ BCs are also not left justified.
    Do Zullo lie?

  • Billy Rawle

    Please provide a link to the document expert’s report.

  • Billy Rawle

    The layers are created by the scanner.
    It has now been shown that certain scanners like the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 and 7535 will produce layers with the same qualities as those seen in the White House PDF.
    Those scanners all employ software based on the Mixed Raster Content compression standard.
    The pixel for pixel duplicates are also produced by the scanners.
    The typeface of the letters has been shown not to be significantly different over the entire document.

  • Fogbow Foggy

    Yeah, it’s no good unless you address every single stinking birther lie since the dawn of birtherism. Imagine thinking you could show that only 10 or so birther claims are lies. The birthers have DOZENS of lies they spread around. Nail down one — or ten — and they just change the subject to the next one.

  • Fogbow Foggy

    Nobody’s investigating his official birth certificate. They’re investigating a PDF on a computer server. A real, official birth certificate is on PAPER. Paper doesn’t have layers, it has rag content. Paper doesn’t have pixels, it has ink. Not one birther has ever seen the official birth certificate. So they’re investigating nothing but a lot of binary 0s and 1s on the Internet. It’s laughable.

  • susanlou

    OH Yeah, when faced with the truth you point the finger at me and call me a liar. What have i said that was a lie. I have done the tests myself. Have you?

  • susanlou

    This is bull (you know what.) Who have you been listening to? Pixel per pixel would not be the same of a scan of a typed document, Never, ever, ever. Even if it looks the same with the nacked eye. What about the Monochrome vs bitmap layers of text? There is no way in H.E. double toothpics you can duplicate this crap with a scan of a document. If you don’t want to feel really stupid later, you had better look at the real evidence and take your blinders off.

  • susanlou

    you are showing your ignorance of computer documents and how you get them. One thing you are right about. None of us have seen the original birth certificate. It doesn’t exist or it doesn’t look like the one on the white house website. (information is different)

  • Billy Rawle

    Sorry, but you don’t understand how scanners work or how PDFs are created.

    Here is what they did:

    1.) Print copy of the LFBC PDF.

    2.) Scan the printed copy of the LFBC PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre 7655.

    3.) Open the Xerox created pdf in Illustrator.

    4.) View the layers created (in this case 5 layers were created).

    The layers consist of one 8-bit color layer and four 1-bit monochrome layers.

    They got examples of pixel for pixel identical elements.

    Study up on Mixed Raster Content compression. It’s what some scanner’s employ to reduce file.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-proof-forgery-done-by-xerox-workcentre-7655/

  • NeilBJ

    Re Answer 1:

    Do those scanners also selectively blank out text areas as if white typewriter correction fluid were used? The white areas are also very irregular in shape as if somebody was using a mouse to white out those areas.

    Re Answer 4:

    Actually Obama’s father was Kenyan. The designation of African (not African-American) was the designation used on Obama’s birth certificate. Do you know how a white person who was born in an African country would be designated on a Hawaiian birth certificate?

  • CAESI
  • Billy Rawle

    Assuming you mean the white outlines of text that remain on the green background when a text layer is moved. Yes, the scanner does that. If you have any questions here is the website that ran the tests with the Xerox scanners.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-proof-forgery-done-by-xerox-workcentre-7655/

    According to the 1962 Kenya census, the race of whites was European and the race of blacks was African.

  • susanlou

    OK first of all you know how likely it is that I would have the Xerox workCentre 7655 So I can’t argue that point. What about links, do you show links where the complete registrar stamp and signature are in one complete layer came from another source on your computer? How about the date stamp? No I think not. Your example would at have odd layers, making no sense to a human mind. Not key elements. What about the clipping mask? Why is the background a fake. It was never a copy of a birth certificate of microfilm printed onto green safety paper. There is no sign of a raised stamp either. It’s fake, why else do you think the president will not allow anyone to view the microfilm or original certificate. Since he said he already showed us his birth certificate, why hide it now? Explain away the fake postal stamp on the civil service registration card. Explain why he allowed people and himself say he was born in Kenya for years. When did he lie?, then or now because it’s one or the other.

  • Billy Rawle

    The Xerox WorkCentre PDF shows layers. On the White House PDF the “april25, 2011″ and the registrar stamp are on different layers. they are on different layers in the Xerox WorkCentre PDF.

    Here’s the link to their work ask them any question you want:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-proof-forgery-done-by-xerox-workcentre-7655/

    “Your example would at have odd layers, making no sense to a human mind.”

    The White House PDF has odd layers that make no sense to the human mind. The “NON” layer, the fact that the box 6c label (Hospital name) has some letters on one layer and other letters on another layer. No forger would do it that way.

    “Explain away the fake postal stamp on the civil service registration card.”

    The Selective Service card was publically released in 2008. Who was President in 2008? Why would the Bush Administration verify President Obama’s selective Service registration?

    “Explain why he allowed people and himself say he was born in Kenya for years.”
    How do you know he allowed anyone to do anything? in the 1990′s he was interviewed by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and various magazines. He said in every case he was born in Hawaii. in fact, he wrote a book in 1995 in which he said he was born in Hawaii.

  • ecinkc

    As to your claim that I, myself, have demonstrated a lack of intellectual integrity:

    First, know that I in no way regard myself as immune to falling short of my own high standard for intellectual integrity, at times. I try to catch those mistakes and correct them as best I can.

    Second, I agree with you that some of my opposition’s strongest arguments are founded upon the verification letters and public statements made by Hawaiian officials.

    Third, I will concede that my post did not contain any vigorous or thoroughly fleshed out argument focused on undermining the trustworthiness of the verification letters and attesting statements–although I did allude to the fact there are a variety of numerously recounted indicators the author might have explored which arguably cast doubt on both forthrightness and the validity of Hawaii’s apparent efforts to lend the birth certificate credence.

    BUT I find NO reasonable grounds to support your charge that I have abandoned integrity in my writing by not bringing the full force of my arguments to bear respecting the verifications.

    I interpreted the focus of Mr. June’s article to be principally concerned with persuading his audience that there are generally no sufficiently supported elements of so-called birther evidence to justify any noteworthy doubt about Obama’s identity documents and background claims. And yes, I do realize that Mr. June’s view is by far the majority opinion on this question, and I welcome him to share it. Nevertheless, given that this blog site provides a facility for user comments I decided it was worth my time to strike against the method and evidence the author employs to arrive at his conclusion. My evaluation of the article leads me to regard his position as woefully under-supported, based on the superficial content upon which his arguments rely.

    My argument, which you implicate as intellectually dishonest was principally concerned with calling into question why a person might write such an article that in my opinion highlights, isolates and clumsily ploughs through some rather trivial whipping boys hand-picked from a broad array of counter arguments including some which I find considerably more sophisticated and persuasive. Did the author intentionally relegate to silence these more formidable positions of his opponents, and if so, for what reason?

    Now, I suppose you would be right to call into question my commitment to principled debate, were my arguments chiefly intended to make a “birther” of the author–for surely then it would make sense for me to dig more deeply in to what has publically been contended by the Health department, et al, and what might be the gravity of those claims.

    Nevertheless, that was not my specific goal here. I understand, you may have good reason to be unpersuaded by my rhetoric, but do the requirements of ethical debate bar me from restricting my approach to the narrow matter of whether and, if so, for what reason the author called fallaciously upon a type of straw man to make his point? Surely you can see that Mr. June makes a broader appeal pointed toward a sweeping conclusion. My attack against his argument was specifically designed to show that or such a lofty goal, had insufferably steered clear of the weightier issues in preference for attacking some periodically eligibility arguments that I find rather minor and extraneous.

    My comment was a response attempting to make more narrow and specific appeal, namely that the author and readers would do well to consider that this article significantly side steps some of the more important contra-positional reasoning. Do you insist that my integrity is compromised merely in that I have raised those objections unaccompanied by a lengthy disquisition of how we might parse the words and motives of the HDOH? Must I not make my point unless I regurgitate along side it a great long discussion elucidating how idiosyncratic and mixed are the HDOH’s messages presumably meant to verify that the long form pdf is a thoroughly authentic representation of whatever Alvin Onaka keeps secreted away in a vault? Have these points not been debated all over the Internet? Are there not readily accessible forum threads which serve as repositories replete with the very arguments whose existence you seem to doubt?

    In that I have attempted to cast doubt upon the Daniel June’s motives, I, of course, hold you as likewise free to question my character to the extent you deem appropriate, but I humbly submit that your specific allegation questioning my scruples here falls amiss.

    Further, I remain optimistic that in our nation there remain enough thoughtful, analytically adept folks to ensure that arguments like this will find the eyes of people who will skillfully and rightly discern the stronger of the arguments. Should such people actually mange to wade through all this messy gobledygook of mine, I suspect they will grant me my point after all: that it is my lack of brevity and not the alleged lack of integrity (even if they are inclined to see this latter as a close second) which stands as the direst, gravest illness afflicting my pen. :-)

    As to your claim that no one has hinted of a single datum that should be doubted in light of the verification letters:

    First, I’ll briefly call your attention to the absent date of birth. The excerpt you prepared from the HDOH verification letter did not include the list of 12 discreet bits of specific information relayed from Hawaii, 11 of which they imply can indeed be found among the claims of “a” birth certificate on file indicating Obama was born in Honolulu. Curiously absent from among those 11 points sent to AZ Secy of State Ken Bennett is Obama’s date of birth. Furthermore, Mike Zullo is on record asserting that the verification letter was a ploy by Hawaii to dupe Bennett and that it doesn’t legally verify anything of much significance.

    Also you err further by specifically claiming Zullo has not called into question any particular field of information on either the long form or computer abstract image over and against whatever Hawaii attempts to assert with the verification letters. On the contrary, not only has Zullo raised key doubts about the document’s serial record number, he has also expressly pointed out, as have several others, the potential that a stamp indicating an amended, late or altered status could have been omitted from the pdf, and that whether there was such an omission could remain tacitly unaddressed by the verification letter verbiage. Surely, if the document could in fact contain amended information while yet continuing to masquerade as all original, we are left with a gaping hole in terms of what information was amended and when and for what reasons? Was it amended from something radically different into its present form sometime in, say, the last ten years or so?

    Or do you not see the question of whether the document was amended as comprising a relevant datum?

    In fact, to say merely that the data “matches,” as HDOH claims in the verification verbiage, leaves us to wonder whether it matches wholly and precisely and visibly or instead in a manner more analogous to the sense in which a salad fork may match a soup spoon because they are both from the same silverware set. Also, don’t forget that we have been told Obama has more than one vital record on file with the HDOH (which may or may not include whatever Abercrombie perhaps flippantly described as being “written down” in the State Archives–an entity which by the way is, strictly speaking, altogether distinct from the Health Dept. and its Vital Records unit.)

    I contend that those who seek to know the truth about these documents, find themselves confronted with a cleverly concocted circumstance in which neither the White House nor the State of Hawaii regards itself as legally accountable to the public for whether or not the information they have each conveyed comes together before us as a thoroughgoing, complete picture of the true nature, disposition and content of Obama’s original birth certificate.

    As fogbowers are increasingly prone to point out, the White House feels itself legally free to distribute, well, pretty much any old image through its web site under the pretense that it is authentically copied from the original in an honest and uncomplicated manner. This they tell us is the White House’s privilege because a pdf is merely a binary computer file, which by its very nature cannot logically be evaluated in terms of being legally valid or authentic in any sense that matters. Therefore, by their thinking the long form pdf, which the Executive Branch has proudly trotted out as definitive proof that some recent version of Obama’s birth narrative is historically factual, is really only a bunch of ones and zeroes and therefore technically stands immune to any charges of forgery or fraud. All the while, the few members of a smug inner circle at the White House remain privy to the truth that what Hawaii really sent is devastatingly different from what the pdf reveals, and they brazenly sooth their guilt because they have calculated in advance that for this deception there is no vulnerability to penal retribution; there is no controlling legal authority.

    The State of Hawaii, on the other hand enjoys the privilege of being free to honestly confirm publically that in April of 2011 the DOH did indeed provide a legitimate, legal copy of a birth record held on file for Obama. Team Obama took the extraordinary step to coordinate the initially hushed transit of the document by means of a singular hand courier who happens to be an attorney in service to Obama’s law firm and by extension a person whose otherwise potentially incriminating testimony happens to be protected under the umbrella of Attorney-Client privilege. If there were truly no secrets or surprises respecting what Judith Corley was carrying, why was it necessary to send it by those means?

    Once the document copy was transferred out the hands of the HDOH and into Corley’s hands, the HDOH was finally at leisure to let go of a large share of the controversy that had been closing in around them. After that moment their role in all this has mostly been to occasionally draft sneaky and subtly misleading language here and there so it appears when necessary that they are vouching for the pdf when in fact they are actually leaving “room for interpretation” just to be ready for the unlikely event that a rough combination of authoritative subpoenas or court orders should one day pry into their protective shell. In any case the HDOH certainly has never seemed to regard itself as bound by honor or duty to come right out and say something if the White House were actually proffering a document bearing directly misleading alterations.

    If you wish to become still better acquainted with several of the reasons that prompt me to not accept the HDOH verification letter verbiage at face value, please cast an eye toward the ridiculous eight week delay preceding the release of the first verification letter and pay particular attention to the quibbling wording changes that the HDOH imposed upon Bennett to make over the course of his request iterations. Then, also please acquaint yourself with the contentions of Butterdezillion recorded both at her blog and in threads along side other eligibility freepers such as Edge919, Red Steel, Seizethecarp and a long list of others. Also consult Mario Apuzzo, perhaps Jack Cashill, and the various points Mike Zullo has made on that issue.

    Now, I don’t expect you to agree with any of these people, but what they have to say could certainly be enough to expose most of the key issues at play and could set any fair-minded person well on the path toward understanding in great detail (and maybe even sympathizing with) some of the reasons I think those verification letters are not quite all they are cracked up to be. As you conduct your research I suggest that you keep asking yourself how high a priority has been made in all the various statements for arriving at language that is as direct, forthright and unequivocal as possible in order to state the simple facts incontrovertibly and unhesitatingly and to snatch away all room for doubt. I just keep seeing obfuscating legalese, wiggle room and tortured language written by people engaged in a battle (sometimes a losing one) to navigate as safely as possible between the tension of either saying so much that they are saddled with a greater threat of being held liable for dubious statements or the tension saying so little that their mysterious silence serves to stoke too greatly the fires of doubt.

    Finally, I am, at this point in my life, far too busy with my work and my family to maintain an ongoing debate volley over this issue online, so I will bid you adieu. Thankfully there is much more argument to be found on these points by anyone who will but look, and there is a wealth of helpful exposition drafted by people whose writing is radically superior to mine (not to mention cosmically more succinct).

  • John Van Pelt

    I’m sorry. I thought for a moment you would be worth conversing with. You don’t even know what a birth certificate is.

  • susanlou

    Of course some things are anomalies from a computer. It was put together on a computer. You cannot say that all of this documents problems are because of a scan in any scanner. The white house said “they took the copy of the birth certificate that was sent to them from HI printed on green safety paper, scanned it as a PDF and simply posted it on whitehouse.gov”. There is no way all this happened from a scan on a scanner. Much less one scan. Where is the raised seal? There are lots and lots of problems and because you think you find explanations for 2 or 3 anomalies that is answers all the problems. It doesn’t take much for you to suck it up does it.