OK, people won't bet. I saw it in other birther challenges.[COLOR="Silver"]
---------- Post added at 05:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 AM ----------
Hawaii made 2 copies of the original birth certificate from the bound volume ("HC1,HC2")
to green security paper and Onada stamped and signed them.
They were brought to Washington, the whitehouse made copies from one
(about a dozen, I guesstimate) and did put them in a prepared press-package
together with other documents ("PC").
We have 5 public pictures that I'm aware of. All 5 seem to be
from the same Hawaii-copy. (HC1)
SG,SGc : 2 photographs of the sealed document from Savannah Guthrie
SG is a total, SGc is closer up, low resolution
AP : high resolution scan from the PC by Associated Press
CBS: photograph of PC shows 2 fingers holding it
WH: the .pdf at the whitehouse webpage
the main argument is, that WH can't be the original since AP contains more details http://magictour.free.fr/dennin3.JPG
(wrongly denied by Denninger,Zebest in the 2012.01.22 talkshow)),
while WH,AP,SG,SGc,CBS do all match when overlaid.
So AP,SG were not created from WH, so if WH were forged then why ?
If the content were forged then AP,SG would also have to be forged
independently.
AP and SG don't contain most of the artifacts that birthers complain about.
People are still discussing at that site and the next coldcaseposse
report is scheduled for July 17 and Gillar plans another talkshow
on July 21 with Arduini,Harrison,Papit,Zebest,Denninger
I'm surprised that this controversy wasn't resolved already.
--------------------
the Woodman book is >200 pages, I don't know what book
with 132 pages you found ?
He says that none of his "debunks" were challenged so far,
and I couldn't find any. Usually the birthers avoid talking
about that (e.g.CCP !), so are not pointing out why they think
he is wrong.
--------------
I think he only switched to the legal stuff after the book was out
no other books from him AFAIK. He has an intro in the Gillar-audio
However the claims are verifyable, when you see a math proof
you won't ask for the reputation of the prover
__________________
a chart says more than 1000 words
my links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H
There is a John Woodman who is a computer repair technician in Springfield MO. He has a website under construction and a LinkedIn account, and appears to be the John Woodman who wrote the book supporting Obama.
I looked for John Woodman of Springfield, MA (different state).
gsgs, no one is willing to bet anything. You are quoting Obama shill sites. Do some real, serious research and then we can talk.
I could say the same.
Just because they are obots or antibirthers doesn't mean they are wrong.
You'll have to check the arguments.
What about that main-argument ? (AP more detailed than WH) accepted ?
What about the Hawaii confirmation ? Nullifying your concern that they could
have put anything on the wh-webpage, "just an advertisement".
Now Hawaii would have to be involved, and not just one forgery (WH) but
at least two separate ones (WH,AP) which makes no sense
(why them publish that pdf at all ?)
__________________
a chart says more than 1000 words
my links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H
I could say the same.
Just because they are obots or antibirthers doesn't mean they are wrong.
If I looked into this issue, and they were right, then I would be one of those antibirthers.
They are not right. Their arguments are so full of wrong, their arguments are a joke.
Watch the first video by Woodman. In it, he explains how there is no text layer amongst the clipping layers. First of all, there is more than one type of layer in graphics programs. In Adobe Illustrator, a clipping layer is a mask. You can make a clipping layer OF a text layer. But you will not find a "text layer" listed in the list of clipping layers. Secondly, he claims the fact that the text does not appear to have been made by the text tool and is in fact a cut and pasted image, as an indication it is not a forgery. gsgs, modern computer fonts are different from typewritten text from a document created in 1961. It would be a very poor forger indeed who used a modern text tool to type out what he wanted on a birth certificate. A better forger would cut out letters, parts of words, or entire words or graphics from an image of an authentic original, and compile a document of those parts. That is exactly what is shown in the document - letters of different tones, different resolutions, different alignment.
Instead of proving the document was NOT a forgery, all of Woodman's claims in that youtube part 1 video of his prove it was created exactly as one would expect a forgery to look.
Quote:
You'll have to check the arguments.
I did. I have. I have been up to my neck in them for years. I also have some computer expertise, and instead of my expertise being in the area of fixing viruses on my neighbor's PC like Mr Woodman, my expertise actually happens to be in the very same computer graphic programs it appears were used to create Obama's birth certificates.
Quote:
What about that main-argument ? (AP more detailed than WH) accepted ?
Are you aware the White House put up a long form birth certificate for Obama and swore it was authentic - until Dr Ronald Polland, a PhD in instructional media and expert on printers, scanners, and graphics software, pointed out the info data on the image showed it was one he created to show just how easy it is to forge such a document. Polland's image was picked up by Snopes and used on their site AS THE ORIGINAL COLB. Then the WH picked up Snopes image for their own website - and it was Snope's info that was contained in the data file. When this was made public, many people checked those two sites and sure enough... Talk about punked! Snopes AND the White House were showing a known forgery AS authentic. Within hours both sites replaced Polland's image with their own.
Quote:
What about the Hawaii confirmation ? Nullifying your concern that they could
have put anything on the wh-webpage, "just an advertisement".
I have explained this to you numerous times.
Validate and verify have similar meanings. Both have to do with telling the truth. The difference is subtle.
If you submit your resume to a business, your potential employer may call your college to confirm your graduation date and major and they may call your past employers to confirm you actually worked there. Your potential employer VALIDATES the information you have provided. Your potential employer may task a secretary with checking all the info on your resume. While she's in process of making phone calls to past schools and employers, Human Resources calls her and says, "Can you confirm gsgs's address is blah blah?" The secretary has no idea where you live. So she cannot VALIDATE that information. What she CAN do is VERIFY the information - she looks on the form you filled out, sees that you signed it, and she says, "Yes, the form I have here says gsgs's address is blah blah."
People lie on resumes all the time.. they also lie to get their children a US birth certificate. In fact, birth certificate fraud is a major problem in the US, because a bc is one of the documents needed to register for school and government entitlement programs. Hawaii is known as a "gateway" state because their lax rules make it very easy for people to register births fraudulently.
When you read The State of Hawaii's response to Arizona, you will see they said they have a birth record, the information AZ asked for is on it, and the birth record was signed under penalty of law. They did NOT validate ANY of the information in the birth record, to the contrary, Hawaii REFUSED to validate the information on the birth certificate, REFUSED to confirm the images on the White House website were the same as the birth certificate they issued to Obama, and REFUSED to confirm the information on those images of the birth certificate match the information in Hawaii's birth records.
Under Hawaiian law, the State must CONFIRM if True, or REFUSE to validate if False. In their refusal to validate, Hawaii has said the images on the White House website do not match what is in their files, either as images of the originals or in the content contained therein.
What officials say in a NON-OFFICIAL capacity (advertisements, press releases, public relations, etc) does not have to be true.
Quote:
Now Hawaii would have to be involved, and not just one forgery (WH) but
at least two separate ones (WH,AP) which makes no sense
(why them publish that pdf at all ?)
It has all been very badly mismanaged. I believe they can no longer hold up the farce, and this is why their attorneys are now changing tactics and saying the people have a right to choose the candidate they want, even if that candidate is ineligible according to the Constitution.
__________________
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. ~ Patrick Henry
you bring up new points ... I'll check them later.
I'm not sure yet whether we are conform, that AP has more information,
and better details than WH and thus cannot be made from WH.
(my main argument, denied by (some) birthers)
I don't understand what point you make with Polland, whether it is related to that
my main argument.
---------------------------------
confirm,validate - you seem to think Hawaii is complicit in the forgery or coverup
thereof ?
I don't understand how you can say
> [Hawaii] REFUSED to confirm the information on those images of the birth certificate
> match the information in Hawaii's birth records
when they wrote:
> The information contained in the ”Certificate of Live Birth” published at
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate
> and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached
> with your request, 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.
__________________
a chart says more than 1000 words
my links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H
you bring up new points ... I'll check them later.
No new points. I've been saying the same things over, and over, and over.
Quote:
I'm not sure yet whether we are conform, that AP has more information, and better details than WH and thus cannot be made from WH.
You seem to think documents originated from multiple sources. Obama's attorneys produced a document they claim is his long form birth certificate and simultaneously posted copies of that document online. ONE source. No other.
Quote:
(my main argument, denied by (some) birthers)
A copy is a copy - same information and same level of detail. Or it is NOT a copy. That simple.
Quote:
I don't understand what point you make with Polland, whether it is related to that my main argument.
When Obama's campaign team posted Obama's COLB, Dr Polland tried to show everyone how easy it would be to forge a Hawaiian COLB by creating an exact copy of Obama's COLB in a graphics program.
Polland was not trying to fool anyone. He labeled his fake a forgery. This was well known in birther circles.
The White House posted Polland's fake COLB on their website and described it as the authentic COLB. Birthers saw it was Polland's fake right away. Anti-birthers mocked birthers for stating the WH posted the fake version. Anti-birthers believed the COLB was real because the WH said it was real.
My point is, you cannot believe something is real because a politician claims it is real.
Quote:
confirm,validate - you seem to think Hawaii is complicit in the forgery or coverup thereof ?
Yes, Hawaii is being complicit in the cover up. They are very careful in the way they word anything that makes them liable legally if they are not telling the truth, but political statements are misrepresentations designed to mislead the public.
Quote:
> The information contained in the ”Certificate of Live Birth” published at
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate
> and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached
> with your request, 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.
This is similar to the statement the Arizona Secretary of State received from Hawaii after they asked him to reword his request for information.
I want to bring your attention to two things:
1. the url in that statement is a copy of the LONG FORM birth certificate.
2. Hawaii says the information on the LONG FORM on the WH website matches the information contained in the original COLB on file with the State Dept of Health.
The COLB was posted in 2007. You know the COLB is the short form birth certificate that leaves out the name of the doctor, the name of the hospital, and other important information. The long form birth certificate was posted in 2012 and contains a lot more information than is on the COLB.
Hawaii did NOT confirm the information on the long form the White House published matches the information on Hawaii's copy of the long form.
Hawaii did not say the long form certificate posted by the WH represents a true and accurate copy of the original in its entirety, or even that Hawaii has a long form birth certificate on file.
Hawaii is not claiming any of the information on the long form birth certificate is true, and they are not saying all of the information on the long form birth certificate matches what they have on file. They are saying SOME of the information - that which is on the COLB and repeated on the Long Form posted on the WH website - matches what was submitted on Obama's birth registration in the State of Hawaii.
__________________
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. ~ Patrick Henry
> No new points. I've been saying the same things over, and over, and over.
but apparently not related to the question that you quoted (my main argument)
>> I'm not sure yet whether we are conform, that AP has more information,
>> and better details than WH and thus cannot be made from WH.
> You seem to think documents originated from multiple sources.
no. Probably all from one (and the same) of the two certified/verified copies
that they (claim to have) got from Hawaii.
> Obama's attorneys
> produced a document they claim is his long form birth certificate and simultaneously
> posted copies of that document online. ONE source. No other.
yes, but that doesn't answer my question.
> A copy is a copy - same information and same level of detail. Or it is NOT a copy. That simple.
define copy. In your speek, which of {WH,AP,SG,SGc,CBS} are copies ?
[Polland - apparently that was the shortform back in 2008]
> Yes, Hawaii is being complicit in the cover up. They are very careful in the way
> they word anything that makes them liable legally if they are not telling the truth,
> but political statements are misrepresentations designed to mislead the public.
So Hawaii knows that LFBC is fake but thinks they can verify/certify it nevertheless
somehow with tricky wording ? How long may that work.
---------------------------
: The information contained in the ”Certificate of Live Birth” published at
: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate
: and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached
: with your request, 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.
--------------------------
> This is similar to the statement the Arizona Secretary of State received from
> Hawaii after they asked him to reword his request for information.
yes, two independent confirmations.
> 1. the url in that statement is a copy of the LONG FORM birth certificate.
sure
> 2. Hawaii says the information on the LONG FORM on the WH website matches
> the information contained in the original COLB on file with the State Dept of Health.
yes.
> The COLB was posted in 2007.
both are COLBs ("certificate of live birth"). Let's call them SFBC and LFBC to distinguish
> You know the COLB is the short form birth certificate that leaves out the
> name of the doctor, the name of the hospital, and other important information.
> The long form birth certificate was posted in 2012 and contains a lot more
> information than is on the COLB.
> Hawaii did NOT confirm the information on the long form the White House
> published matches the information on Hawaii's copy of the long form.
ahh, that would be very tricky and obviously misleading. They just mentioned the LFBC
before and it's on file. If that comes out that they meant the SFBC that would be presumably
as bad as if they forged or wrongly certified it in the first place.
But the information on the SFBC is different. No match.
I was thinking that maybe the White House could have deleted some info -like a Mother's
Mailing Address that links to communists- in that case the contained info would match
a subset of the info of the original LFBC on file. Would that qualify as "matches" ?
Still probably not IMO, but debatable.
> Hawaii did not say the long form certificate posted by the WH represents a true and
> accurate copy of the original in its entirety,
one is an optimized computer-file the other is a written paper.
How else should they have worded it ? I would have said : "the information in WH is the
same as the information of our LFBC on file".
> or even that Hawaii has a long form birth certificate on file.
they already certified/verified that.
> Hawaii is not claiming any of the information on the long form birth certificate is true,
right
> and they are not saying all of the information on the long form birth certificate matches
> what they have on file.
wrong
> They are saying SOME of the information - that which is on the COLB and repeated
> on the Long Form posted on the WH website - matches what was submitted
> on Obama's birth registration in the State of Hawaii.
I don't think "matches" can be interpreted this way. If it can, what did they win ?
Arizona and Mississippi - or someone else earlier or later - would have requested a clarification
and the judges would not accept it.
__________________
a chart says more than 1000 words
my links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H
but apparently not related to the question that you quoted (my main argument)
There's obviously a language barrier here, gsgs.
Quote:
no. Probably all from one (and the same) of the two certified/verified copies
that they (claim to have) got from Hawaii.
If they ALL came from 2 identical copies of the same document in Hawaii, then there should be NO differences at all.
Quote:
yes, but that doesn't answer my question.
Ask your question again, because I thought I was answering it.
Quote:
define copy. In your speek, which of {WH,AP,SG,SGc,CBS} are copies ?
They are all copies. The story we are given is, there is ONE long form birth certificate document on file in State offices in Hawaii. That document was laid on a xerox machine, copied twice, and those copies were given to Obama's lawyers. Therefor ALL copies should be identical. The only variations we should see are those that could be attributed to the method of reproduction. Content should NEVER change and none of the copies should be sharper than the original.
Quote:
[Polland - apparently that was the shortform back in 2008]
Correct. Polland manufactured a fake shortform to show how easy it is to manufacture an authentic looking document.
Quote:
So Hawaii knows that LFBC is fake but thinks they can verify/certify it nevertheless somehow with tricky wording ? How long may that work.
Tricky wording is common in US politics.
Look at ObamaCare. The President's campaign promise was no new taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year. After he was elected he toured the country promoting ObamaCare, saying it was NOT a tax - even though the law contained numerous taxes which together compromised the biggest tax increase in the history of the WORLD. Not just the US. No country has ever had such a big increase in taxation as the result of ONE law. But the President insisted, it is NOT a tax. It is a "mandate".
The Supreme Court said, it IS a tax.
I could present numerous examples of the same trickery. Politicians garner public support by misrepresenting what they are doing until the deed is done.
Quote:
yes, two independent confirmations.
It would seem so to the uninformed. But Hawaii stalled for eight weeks and would not answer AZ when they asked if Obama's long form birth certificate was the same one issued by Hawaii, and if the information contained therein was the same in its entirety.
This is important, gsgs, because only the long form will show if the bc had been submitted late, submitted by a questionable source (not the hospital) or showed a foreign birth, or had been amended or modified since 1961. Hawaii asked AZ to reword their request. Under Hawaiian law, if it WAS the same, they MUST verify. It is is NOT the same, they must Refuse. Hawaii refused. That meant the long form Obama showed is NOT the same as they have on file OR they do not have one on file.
So Hawaii's confirmation is not a confirmation that the long form is authentic. It is confirmation that someone, at some time, registered Obama's birth in Hawaii and Hawaii cannot validate any information, but can verify that the information on the short form is the same as they have on file.
Quote:
ahh, that would be very tricky and obviously misleading. They just mentioned the LFBC before and it's on file. If that comes out that they meant the SFBC that would be presumably as bad as if they forged or wrongly certified it in the first place.
YES!
The short form is derived from the long form. When a birth is registered, the long form is typed up and it is signed and stamped. The short form is derived from the long form. Hawaii verified the information on the short form was the same as they have on file, and through careful word crafting would not go so far as to state the information on the WH long form is the same as they have on file.
Quote:
I was thinking that maybe the White House could have deleted some info -like a Mother's
Mailing Address that links to communists- in that case the contained info would match
a subset of the info of the original LFBC on file. Would that qualify as "matches" ?
Still probably not IMO, but debatable.
It is all speculation because we simply do not know.
But one of the obvious conclusions is, if Hawaii refuses to state the long form on the WH website is the exact same as the one they have on file, then the WH long form is a manufactured document. Someone manipulated or changed the information on it - which is exactly what we're seeing in the clipping layers and variations in characters and graphics.
Quote:
one is an optimized computer-file the other is a written paper.
How else should they have worded it ? I would have said : "the information in WH is the
same as the information of our LFBC on file".
Here's a curiosity for you. In March, 2010, The Aloha Reporter, a Hawaiian newspaper, published Obama's long form birth certificate:
Even hard core birthers called it a fake because the signature of Obama's grandmother was so similar in style to the attending physician.
Compare it to the certificate Obama's attorney released thirteen months later:
Now look at the handwritten 2 on the right side of the field that asks "Is it a farm or plantation". They are identical on BOTH documents.
So now people are wondering just which came first - is the form signed by the grandmother authentic, or is it a fake that was derived from the original? And if someone was able to get their hands on the original a full year before Obama released his version, just what the heck is going on?
Quote:
I don't think "matches" can be interpreted this way. If it can, what did they win ?
Arizona and Mississippi - or someone else earlier or later - would have requested a clarification
and the judges would not accept it.
What you or I think about how things should be does not matter. Hawaii has regulations regarding public documents that require them to answer in very specific ways. If they are asked if the information on one document matches the other, they can either confirm it does, or refuse to answer. They cannot say no it doesn't, or give an explanation why it doesn't. That's the laws the department must honor.
>> but apparently not related to the question that you quoted (my main argument)
> There's obviously a language barrier here, gsgs.
my main argument: AP more details than WH
I found the Pollard-papers at scribd , 56 and 123 pages ! The Obots say they debunked it
> If they ALL came from 2 identical copies of the same document in Hawaii,
> then there should be NO differences at all.
the two copies should have small differences in the Onaka stamps, we didn't see that,
so presumably they are all made from the same Hawaii-certified copy (SG).
But scanned,photographed,copied, processed,optimized with maybe different settings
> Ask your question again, because I thought I was answering it.
AP(-JPG) has more details than WH(-pdf), so can't be made from WH,
so if WH was forged then AP was forged independently. But why double-forge
instead of copying ?
>> define copy. In your speek, which of {WH,AP,SG,SGc,CBS} are copies ?
> They are all copies. The story we are given is, there is ONE long form birth certificate
> document on file in State offices in Hawaii. That document was laid on a xerox machine,
> copied twice, and those copies were given to Obama's lawyers. Therefor ALL copies
> should be identical. The only variations we should see are those that could be attributed
> to the method of reproduction. Content should NEVER change and none of the copies
> should be sharper than the original.
well, yes, except that the pdf was optimized and maybe AP had a greenfilter to
eliminate the security-paper background, I don't know
> Correct. Polland manufactured a fake shortform to show how easy it is to manufacture an
> authentic looking document.
BTW. he also manipulated the longform later with strange claims, I couldn't find
a debunking of that new paper yet.
> Tricky wording is common in US politics.
eliminate tricky wording
> Hawaii refused.
finally they confirmed
> That meant the long form Obama showed is NOT the same as they have on file OR
> they do not have one on file.
strange conclusion. They confirmed both now twice. The whole correspondence Arizona-Hawaii is public
> So Hawaii's confirmation is not a confirmation that the long form is authentic.
> It is confirmation that someone, at some time, registered Obama's birth in Hawaii
> and Hawaii cannot validate any information, but can verify that the information on
> the short form is the same as they have on file.
they clearly said the long form
> When a birth is registered, the long form is typed up and it is signed and stamped.
> The short form is derived from the long form. Hawaii verified the information on the
> short form was the same as they have on file, and through careful word crafting
> would not go so far as to state the information on the WH long form is the same
> as they have on file.
you redefine "matches".
> But one of the obvious conclusions is, if Hawaii refuses to state the long form
> on the WH website is the exact same as the one they have on file,
it's not. It has the smiley etc. It was processed/optimized. Hawaii can't examine documents
they can only check the content, the contained information.
Is the used formulation unusual ?
> then the WH long form is a manufactured document.
not a logical conclusion
> Someone manipulated or changed the information on it - which is exactly what we're seeing
> in the clipping layers and variations in characters and graphics.
what information was changed ? It has the same information as SG,SGc,AP,CBS
> Here's a curiosity for you.
... I'll check later
__________________
a chart says more than 1000 words
my links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help her gain world domination
Can't leave the Siwwy Wabbit behind!!
The press release and video are new, and mostly confirm information that has previously been reported by bloggers (Verna Lee's statements match Hawaii's written rules, which were well reported on thedailypen). However, there was also new information, specifically how ALL birth certificates from Hawaii are worthless, as the state had a policy of issuing BCs to any resident who could prove they lived in Hawaii for one year and paid taxes there - and registered and amended BCs at any time after the alleged birth (in other words, a 40 year old could walk in and create a BC for himself) thus creating a gateway for illegal aliens to obtain fraudulent US BCs. Arpaio went hunting for a President and caught a whole State.
__________________
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. ~ Patrick Henry
The Following User Says Thank You to flourbug For This Useful Post:
OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED IN BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES
WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives.
Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent highschool graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting guidelines are not conducive with determining the natural born status of the child.
For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted all residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the Census when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county through the information provided by others. This applies even today.
Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was determined that births must be accounted the same way for all usual residents regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event when that resident mother intended to return to that county. In Hawaii, if a child did not have an official certificate prior to the mother’s return, the local Health Department was obligated to provide one under the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public Health Regulations and HRS 338.
The sources of information used by Obama defenders to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii are taken from two fallow historical documents. The digitally fabricated internet image of an alleged 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" and two copies of alleged newspaper announcements which take their information directly from the information provided by the registrar which was used prior to register the birth. Both of these sources show the same address which is the address of Ann Dunham's parents. It was confirmed that Ann Dunham was a resident at this address, as well, using historical Polk directory information applicable at the time of Obama's birth.
Protocols for completing birth registrations stipulate that the birth certificate must contain the usual place of residence of the mother including address, city, county and state. In 1961, only about 6% of births were illegitimate or occuring to one parent. Because the mother MUST be at the birth (obviously), whereas the father does not, the NCHS mandated that birthplace information was provided in conjunction with the mother's usual place of residence, which is defined as her normal household where she "sleeps and lives most of the time", according to the Census Bureau. In 94% of births, which are the legitimate births, the household is typically under the father's name and therefore is the mother's address too. But this was not the case with Obama. His mother lived in a household with her parents.
Another reason Obama's birth was not allocated to the Obama Sr's address is because the relationship between he and Dunham was estranged at this point. Grandma Dunham would have not even considered assigning baby Obama to Obama Sr. In fact, Obama Sr. was, in all likelihood, not even in Hawaii at this time, since he was already married to an African woman.
If the birth occurs in a place outside of the location of the mother's place of residence, the certificate must still state the mother's place of residence as the location of the place of occurrence of the birth.
The image of the Certificate of Live Birth (albeit digitally counterfeited)contains the address as the allocated location of the birth according to the mother's place of residence per NCHS protocols for reporting foreign occurring births to U.S. residence abroad.
Penbrook Johannson, the author of the article, claims,
Quote:
I, too, was issued a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth after applying for the document based on Hawaiian law 338-17 which allowed me to gain natural-born American natal status despite my birth in Brisbane, Australia. I am natural-born citizen of the United States because the laws of the state of Hawaii says I am, despite the fact that my natal origins are nowhere near American soil. I could actually run for President, despite being born abroad, under the same circumstances Barack Obama was.
Mara Zebest, Graphic Artist and Adobe expert, talks about the metadata in the last birth certificate. She claims the BC shown to the public was never a paper original and was in fact manufactured via Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premier, in that order. (While I do not know Premier I do recognize Photoshop and Illustrator elements in the BC). Her information has been supplied to the Cold Case Posse.
The document released by our Manchurian Moonbat is proven fake.
__________________
Socialism is the art of creating addiction, then living off the misery of it. Communism is the gang affiliation to spread it. Leftism is the art of watching you die from it and telling you it’s utopia.
Linear Mode
