I realize some of this is repetitious, but there keeps on being new info on this subject….even an article on Worldnet Daily from a Constitutional lawyer saying the electors need to investigate this matter before voting on Dec. 15…………..Still a lot of unanswered questions and apparant forgeries. Like Steve has said, the people are going to get “change” alright, but now what they think it will be…….This is an excellent article by Janet Porter:
Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery
Posted: November 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” has been posted online.
Not so.
What was posted was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. You see, in Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital.
It’s Rathergate all over again with more amiss than a 1970s Selectric typewriter. But before I tell you what the experts found, let me ask you a few questions:
- If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?
- If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?
- If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a “Certification of Live Birth” and tell the public it was a real “birth certificate”?
If someone were to violate the law by manufacturing a forgery in order trick the public, would that be enough evidence for members of Congress to conduct hearings and for a court to issue an order for the critical records, including the original long-form birth certificate (signed by the doctor) to ensure that the U.S. constitutional requirements for office were not violated?
Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters, has come forth with more definitive evidence than the word processor that tried to simulate a 1970s Selectric typewriter.
Polarik has submitted a signed affidavit and has now released his findings on video at www.ObamaForgery.com with his identify masked and voice altered to guard against the carrying out of threats, which he has already received.
The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama’s website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged.
- The problem of the pixels: When you have a green patterned document such as this, there should be a lot of green pixels from the background showing up between the letters that appear on the certification. But in this case, instead of green pixels, there are white and grey pixels between the letters, which result when you replace existing text with other text.
- There is no second fold line. The pictures show two folds – necessary to fit any COLB into an envelope for mailing, but the document itself shows only one fold. This is another indication of document alteration.
- There’s a blurred border. The border has a lower resolution than the rest of the document, which is another indication that it has been altered.
- The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. That is fine except for the problem that …
- The seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year!
Like with Rathergate, when you’re creating documents, make sure you use only a typewriter that was invented at the time you report the document was manufactured. When posting a “Certification of Live Birth,” make sure you “borrow” only from documents used in the same year!
But beyond the birth certificate issue, there’s the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn’t there at the time of Obama’s visit.
There’s another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn’t have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. citizens.
If he couldn’t get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.
That’s quite possible since under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son – in this case Obama – to be an Indonesian state citizen, which was also recorded by Obama’s school record.
So, if he didn’t go to Indonesia in 1981 to visit mom (who had returned to Hawaii by then), might it have something to do with the fact that Indonesian passports expire every five years and it was time for renewal?
Why does that matter?
If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state … after having attained the age of eighteen years,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Simply put, since Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship, if Obama got that passport in 1981, when he was 20 years old, he effectively renounced any U.S. citizenship he may have had.
So, if the experts are right, Obama forged a Certification of Live Birth to fool America. In addition to the automatic Indonesian citizenship granted to a child acknowledged as a “son” by an Indonesian male citizen, and the Indonesian citizenship listed in Obama’s school records, Obama then traveled to a place where Americans weren’t allowed to go, but citizens of Indonesia were. If he obtained an Indonesian passport on his trip in 1981, he effectively renounced any American citizenship he may have had and cannot serve as president (or “rule” as president, as members of his campaign have stated). These are serious questions that must have answers.
If Obama gets into office without verification that he has met the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, if you care about life, liberty or the family, you’re going to have to make hundreds of calls to try and fight an agenda that seeks to silence you.
There is a way to help prevent this. Our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. I’m asking you to do three things.
- Fast and pray for all the hidden things to come to light.
- Call the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee – in their district offices while they’re home this week for Thanksgiving. Ask them to “Please hold congressional hearings to investigate whether Barack Obama meets the basic constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land.”
- Write a letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court (names are listed below) and put them in a FedEx (or other overnight) envelope to: U.S. Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E
Washington, D.C. 20543
Our Constitution matters and defending it is going to take an outcry from the public. The electors vote on Dec. 15. The numbers are below and your immediate action is critically needed right now. Do it before defending our liberties costs a lot more than making some phone calls and writing a few letters.
The Republican House Judiciary members: Call them toll-free: 877-851-6427 or 202-225-3121, AND most importantly reach them in their district offices:
Lamar Smith (Texas), ranking member, critical in any hearings: 512-306-0439 Austin, 830-896-0154 Kerrville, and 210-821-5024 San Antonio.
James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin) 800-242-1119 or 262-784-1111 Brookfield
Howard Coble (North Carolina) 336-333-5005 Greensboro, 336-626-3060 Asheboro, 336-886-5106 High Point, 226-229-0159 Graham, 704-209-0426 Granite Quarry
Elton Gallegly (California) 800-423-0023 or 805-497-2224 Thousand Oaks, 805-686-2525 Solvang
Bob Goodlatte (Virginia) 540-432-2391 Harrisonburg, 434-845-8306 Lynchburg, 540-857-2672 Roanoke, and 540-885-3861 Staunton
Steve Chabot (Ohio) 513-684-2723 Cincinnati
Dan Lungren (California) 916-859-9906 Gold River
Chris Cannon (Utah) 800-571-2971 Provo, 801-569-5125 West Jordan
Ric Keller (Florida) 407-872-1962 Orlando, 888-642-1211 Eustis, 888-642-1211 Ocala
Darrell Issa (California) 951-693-2447 Temecula, 760-599-5000 San Diego
Mike Pence (Indiana) 765-640-2919 Anderson, 765-962-2883 Richmond, 765-747-5566 Muncie
Randy Forbes (Virginia) 757-382-0080 Chesapeake, 804-526-4969 Colonial Heights, 434-634-5575 Emporia
Steve King (Iowa) 641-782-2495 Creston, 712-580-7754 Spencer, 712-325-1404 Council Bluffs, 712-224-4692 Sioux City, 712-732-4197 Storm Lake
Tom Feeney (Florida) 386-756-9798 Port Orange, 407-208-1106 Orlando, 321-264-6113 Titusville
Trent Franks (Arizona) 623-776-7911 Glendale
Louie Gohmert (Texas) 866-535-6302 Lufkin/Marshall/Nagadoches, 903-236-8597 Longview, 903-561-6349 Tyler
Jim Jordan (Ohio) 419-522-5757 Mansfield, 419-999-6455 Lima, 419-423-3210 Findlay
Supreme Court Justices
Chief Justice John Roberts
Associate Justices:
Samuel A. Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
David H. Souter
John Paul Stevens
Stephen G. Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
How important is the Constitution to you? Forward this to all you know.
Be sure to sign the petition demanding evidence of Barack Obama’s constitutional qualifications.
Read the entire article @ Worldnetdaily.com
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike
You’re joking, right?
The certificate of live birth lists the place of birth, which in this case means Obama is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. This is the legal document that meets the Constitutional requirement.
There’s not a shred of evidence Obama did not travel on a U.S. passport. Obama’s already been investigated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the Illinois State Bar, the Rules Committee of the U.S. Senate, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, for other issues including security clearances — and has been passed as exactly what he says he is, a Hawaii-born U.S. citizen.
What do you have they didn’t?
Comment by Ed Darrell — November 27, 2008 @ 4:38 AM
No we’re not joking! All the agencies you list having investigated Obama, still doesn’t prove he was born in Hawaii and is a “natural born” US citizen..He could have become a US citizen in the past and passed all these investigations with flying colors, including security clearances.
If it’s that positive that Obama was born in a Hospital in Hawaii all he has to do is present his “Certificate of live birth” not the “registry of live birth” which doesn’t prove he was born in Hawii.
According to the Hawaii Dept. of Health,Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children).
Comment by Mike — November 27, 2008 @ 9:58 AM
Obama’s birth certificate clearly states he was born in Honolulu. There is not a shred of evidence admissible in court to the contrary — not even an affidavit from a fool.
The Honolulu newspapers, using the official birth records of the State of Hawaii, noted Obama’s birth in Honolulu, way back in August of 1961. That can’t be hoaxed up, now. It corroborates all the other evidence. Obama was not adopted at birth, and there is no reason to think the official records from 1961 are wrong. The birth certificate available on-line is the document you claim to seek. It is only “not proof” to you — it’s legal in court, it satisfies all U.S. laws on citizenship. Do you have any court admissible evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health is lying? Get to a judge, and present it.
If you don’t have that evidence, that’s a clue.
More discussion here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/6-ways-challenges-to-obamas-citizenship-fail/
FBI checks place of birth, and residencies from birth. Your allegation that they didn’t check it is wholly ungrounded in procedure or any statement from anyone.
Comment by Ed Darrell — November 27, 2008 @ 8:31 PM
The best way to answer is that we can argue all day, but if it is true or not, a candidate for President, according to the Constitution, must prove natural born citizenship. Obama is attempting to dodge all inquiries, and now the Supreme Court is going to look into it. This is what they should do, and take it out of the hands of Hawaii, or any of the arm chair quarterbacks in this country, because none play fair.
Steve
Comment by Steve Hilton — November 27, 2008 @ 10:23 PM
The Constitution does not ask any candidate to “prove” anything. That’s a key problem with much of the ranting. In past challenges — against John McCain, Barry Goldwater, and Chester Alan Arthur, to mention a few — the courts have required more than a biased suspicion. The courts have required some evidence, clear evidence, that the candidate is not a natural born citizen, before even taking the case. Consquently, the issue has never risen to a significant case for appeal anywhere, anytime.
Generally these issues fall into a realm that the Court avoids, called “political issues.” I would not be surprised to see the Court avoid this case on those grounds once again. The Court has been particularly hard on standing, and frankly, I can’t see how any of the cases pending can establish any serious injury to claim standing. Especially after 8 years of Bush, the virtual looting of our treasury, our involvement in two wars with no apparent end, the decimation of our armed services and the collapse of much of our economy — what’s left to injure? If Americans want Obama — the popular and electoral college votes both indicate that to be the case, clearly — on what grounds could the Court say different?
Obama is avoiding no inquiries. He posted his birth certificate in June, months ago. Some people refuse to recognize U.S. law and the Constitution, and they use their denial of the Constitution to claim something might be wrong with the documents already in evidence.
Courts don’t work that way. A showing of actual error must be made. This is called “fair play,” in other terms. Courts look at actual cases and controversies. Without significantly greater evidence of error somewhere, I don’t think this case rises to that level.
We should also consider that the courts may take this case, give summary judgment in favor of Obama, or dismiss it with prejudice, because these qualify very nicely as nuisance suits, which the courts and federal law hold in dim view.
Comment by Ed Darrell — November 28, 2008 @ 11:46 AM
The Constitution does not ask any candidate to “prove” anything. You must be joking? Why have qualification standards if you never have to prove them?
Obama didn’t post his birth certificate….he posted his “certification of live birth” which is different and an admitted forgery.
This is my last comment on this subject ….this is going nowhere.
Comment by Mike — November 28, 2008 @ 4:31 PM
Glad to hear you’re giving up on the issue. Go see a movie or something, and get the cobwebs out.
No, I’m not joking. The Constitution does not provide any mechanism by which a candidate must “prove” eligibility. As I noted, that’s been an issue since at least Chester Alan Arthur (but then, history doesn’t seem to be anything y’all want to be concerned with, no matter how much light it might shed on the issue). If you disbelieve me, please go to Findlaw.com or some similar site, check out the U.S. Constitution, and tell us in what article we can find the procedure by which a candidate for president proves citizenship. It’s simply not there. Congress has enacted no laws on the issue (save for that resolution y’all don’t like, which says Obama’s eligible).
The Certificate of Live Birth is, legally, sufficient. It verifies all the critical details for the Department of State. It’s legal for visas to other nations. It’s sufficient for a security clearance with the FBI, or the CIA. It’s legal for all legal purposes including establishing “natural born citizen” of the U.S. — absent a showing of other, contradicting information, of which the anti-Obamaniacs have none.
“Admitted forgery?” Don’t insult us. Obama has made no such admission. The State of Hawaii, who, I hate to tell you, has more authority than you do in the matter, says it’s legitimate. The contemporary business records of the time published in the Hawaii newspapers corroborate the document exactly.
We have the document, available on the web, verified as authentic by the State of Hawaii and every reporter who bothered to ask to see it — that’s not “admitted forgery.”
You guys are getting delerious.
Comment by Ed Darrell — November 28, 2008 @ 4:53 PM
I can’t…but I’m only going to post this. We’re called delirious because we’re defending the words of the founders? Here it is in black and white “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Now, here’s another from the same article: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That last part says they must prove it…preserve and defend. And by the way, that’s not a certified document from Hawaii, it lacks the seal, that’s why it’s being questioned. The supremes have now set a docket, so I guess they’re delirious too!
Nuff said.
Steve
Comment by Steve Hilton — December 1, 2008 @ 4:25 PM
Steve, what do you count as a seal? The document has an embossed seal on it, which under the law is more authoritative than a rubber-stamped version.
This is what I mean by “unreasonable.” Under U.S. rules of evidence — civil or criminal — the document is valid; the seal is more than adequately demonstrated. You say not– why? On what basis do you reject the Seal of the State of Hawaii? What makes you say the embossed-and-therefore-better-than-printed seal is inadequate?
Comment by Ed Darrell — December 2, 2008 @ 4:46 PM
I’m not saying either…the courts have that now, they are going to make that determination on Dec. 5th. I’m just saying that we have the right, no the obligation to question our elected leaders. That’s something we haven’t done, either side. It’s time they prove to us that they’re qualified and able to be in the positions they’re in…and it needs to be to the test of the Constitution, not Steve, not Mike, and not Ed. If the document is legal, great, he’s the President. If it isn’t, he needs to go back home, he doesn’t belong in the Oval office.
Comment by Steve Hilton — December 2, 2008 @ 9:07 PM