Obama Long-Form Gaggledygook

© Miri WTPOTUS 2011

On April 27, 2011, Jay Carney, White House (WH) press secretary, held a “Press Gaggle”  to introduce the media to President Obama’s  original, certified, long-form birth certificate. Carney gave “paperwork” to reporters: a packet containing copies of Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the so-called long-form birth certificate, and four pages of correspondence between the Hawaiian Dept. of Health (HDOH), and Obama and his attorneys.

Since then, many have analyzed the documents, but I decided to analyze the words spoken at the birth certificate rollout.  So I read the gaggle transcript more closely, and noticed some curiosities.  Below are excerpts, not the entire transcript from the WH website.  Names of reporters were inexplicably excluded from the transcript.  Carney began the discussion:

Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we’ll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.

Off camera? Only pen and pad? Why?  This is supposed to be the “most transparent” administration ever.

No photos, so nobody can zoom in later to more closely examine the document they planned to quickly flash at reporters, from the podium? No audio, so any unfortunate or illogical statement made by Obama’s lawyer or spokesperson could later be explained away as something a reporter “misheard”? Pfeiffer spoke next:

What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.

They were COPIES, not originals of anything. Copied on a machine, from a stack of documents, as demonstrated by butterdezillion. A stack of papers that could not have contained either the allegedly certified long-form or short-form birth certificate, because text bled through onto each page from the page beneath, which can’t happen when copying documents printed on security paper.

PFEIFFER: In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

This cannot be true if the COLB is legitimate; the COLB is stamped 2007, not 2008.

PFEIFFER: We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

And yet, magically, these “independent fact checkers” came there in March 2008, before the COLB was ever posted online, so they were clairvoyant time travelers as well as self-proclaimed “fact checkers”.  But that settled it! Self-proclaimed, unnamed fact checkers, with no forensic experience whatsoever, declared it was “proof postive” that Obama was born in Hawaii. (These “independent” fact checkers worked for FactCheck, a blog funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, with which Obama was once associated.)

However, even if legitimate, which remains in question, that same COLB would be proof positive that Obama is not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the presidency, by virtue of having a foreign father.

PFEIFFER: To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.

At the time it was posted, in June 2008, even the state of Hawaii did not consider it to be his “birth certificate”.  To be clear, it’s a digital image on the Internet.  It’s not a 3-dimensional “document”. It’s not a piece of paper. It’s a digital image.

Only now does Hawaii consider it “the birth certificate,” because for some reason the state of Hawaii redefined their definitions, after this COLB was put online and was questioned by a discerning public. That COLB is not sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, because it does not state the citizenship of the parents. That “birth certificate” might be sufficient proof to obtain a driver’s license or a passport, but only when presented as a state-certified PAPER DOCUMENT, not a digital image on a blog, or in a campaign ad, or even as a photocopy handed out to the media.

PFEIFFER: That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was –

Read: for those who were in the tank, not paying attention, complicit, brain dead, ignorant, or afraid, that “solved the issue.” Even if the campaign didn’t spend time talking about it, which I seriously doubt, Mr. Robert Gibbs said plenty; it’s on You Tube. Note: Those who were talking were “very fringe”.  Alinsky 101.

REPORTER: When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

An intelligent question! The response. Wait for it . . .

PFEIFFER: Yes.

Astoundingly audacious!

REPORTER: Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

From this we know that the copy of the COLB given to the media was one-sided, as it’s ALWAYS BEEN. Doesn’t the WH have a copy machine that can copy both sides of a document at once? Luddites! So the media didn’t get a copy of the reverse side of the COLB and at least one unnamed reporter was smart enough to ask why not.

Why wouldn’t they have copied both sides of the COLB? Maybe because Pfeiffer got his copy from SNOPES. Click that link and roll to the bottom of the page; read what’s printed there.  Snopes!  This comes from the WH blog, within a story written by Pfeiffer on April 27, 2011.  Why wouldn’t the WH Director of Communications have an in-house, two-sided copy of the document?  Now even our government relies upon BLOGS for “facts”?  But what about what Pfeiffer said–that they posted both sides of the COLB on the Internet, back in 2008? Pfeiffer doubles down:

We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. …

So he didn’t misspeak. This is astoundingly audacious. The campaign NEVER posted the reverse side of that COLB ANYWHERE, nor did FactCheck blog, Fight the Smears, the LA Times, or Daily Kos blog.

FactCheck blog, which cannot by law be among Pfeiffer’s “we”, posted a tightly-cropped image of a registrar’s certification and date stamp (see above) that they implied came from the reverse side of the COLB that they examined in Chicago; but they NEVER posted the entire reverse side of the “document.”  They posted these carefully cropped, out-of-context images in August 2008, two months AFTER the campaign supposedly “posted” BOTH SIDES of the COLB.  It’s important to remember that FactCheck blog is (Pfeiffer said so) INDEPENDENT of the Obama campaign and his administration.  So when and where did the campaign post the reverse side of that COLB?  Never.  Nowhere.

PFEIFFER: Bob [Bauer, the lawyer] will explain why — the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to — essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country.

Allow me to welcome our readers to the “nether regions.”  According to this administration, the issue had become “a distraction.”   A distraction for Obama and his minions, who were closely following his sinking poll numbers. However, putting the issue to rest was apparently not important enough for them to take these steps much earlier, such as before consigning LTC Terry Lakin to Leavenworth PRISON. Riddle me this: If this long-form birth certificate–the version put out for public consumption–is indeed real, legitimate, authentic, and certified, then why, instead of showing it long ago, did Obama spend millions on lawyers and send a patriot to prison, rather than to bring it forward before now? There is no logical answer.

CARNEY: I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this – not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know….

Why wouldn’t the POTUS take questions?  True to form, he lectured, hectored, and ridiculed those who merely expect him to prove that what he says is true.

BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. 

The HDOH gave out certified copies of long-forms as recently as March, 2011; some indications are that this “waiver” may have been considered as early as August 2010, per the creation date on the pdf, which would put it right around the time that Obama made his infamous comment about how he can’t walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead.  Pay attention to the curious focus in those letters on the many requests made to the HDOH for Obama’s records.  Odd timing, considering that the issue was put to rest in May, 2010, by passage of the “vexatious requestor” bill, yet another example of Hawaii bending the rules to help Obama.

 REPORTER: Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

BAUER: I’ll let Dan –

PFEIFFER: Sure.

REPORTER: I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)

PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

So who was that reporter? Lester Kinsolving of World Net Daily or Jake Tapper of ABC?  Those are my guesses.

PFEIFFER: I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. 

No, it wasn’t resolved, and LTC Lakin was sent to PRISON as proof. I believe Mr. Kinsolving asked many times.  It was certainly an issue in the many lawsuits that challenged Obama’s eligibility, since that COLB was produced.

REPORTER: And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there.  

Of course people will say that because it’s TRUE. It’s logical, and it’s true, and not without precedent.  It’s entirely possible that someone did “type anything in there,” as forensic document experts have alleged. (Scroll down to find a collection of links to various analyses of this long-form birth certificate.)

People will say this so long as the actual physical documents are not subjected to forensic examination or presented to a court of law.  In Corley’s letter to the HDOH, she requested a waiver to “allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available.”  And yet, no certified copy IS publicly available.  The HDOH granted the waiver; the client did not hold up his end of the bargain, nor does he intend to, as you will see next.

REPORTER: Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any – (laughter.) 

I had to enlarge that for emphasis. Will the ACTUAL CERTIFICATE be ON DISPLAY OR VIEWABLE? Thank you, anonymous reporter!

Why did they LAUGH? Because they ALREADY knew the answer? The answer: a big FAT NO.

REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?

PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. 

Pfeiffer implies that what he holds is the actual certificate. But Obama will NOT hold it; will not avow it; will not recognize it; and Pfeiffer will take it with him before Obama arrives to speak. Why?

PFEIFFER: But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. … 

Obama’s spokesperson has just given the HDOH permission to speak on this issue. He’s given permission to ask them to “attest that that is what they have on file.” But even if someone asks, Pfeiffer refers to that OBJECT in his hands, which reporters cannot examine and which will NOT be “on display or viewable.” So the HDOH will not attest to the authenticity of the online pdf or those document copies handed out to the media (as with the COLB).

BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to – 

Ms. Fuddy’s letter attests that she oversaw the copying of whatever is on file in that book in Hawaii and that she saw them create and certify two copies of something. But her letter does NOT attest to the authenticity of whatever was handed out to the press or whatever was put into that pdf on the WH website.

REPORTER: But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

This reporter advises Pfeiffer that putting the ACTUAL documents on display would end all controversy. Pay careful attention to his non-response.

PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

REPORTER: You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical

PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

See what happened there?  Pfeiffer would not answer WHY they won’t put the actual documents on display for examination, even after the reporter pointedly spoke about “physical” items–physical certified copies, that they will not put on display to tamp down “conspiracy theories.”  Why not?

Why did Pfeiffer flash “just one” of the alleged certified documents at reporters? How well did he show it to them? Not well, as you can tell by their remarks.

Could there be two copies because one is a copy of the actual, original birth certificate and the other is a copy of a second, amended birth certificate, neither of which exactly matches the information displayed on the version released to the public?

Perhaps, if there was an adoption, there’s a first version (ordinarily sealed, now waived for disclosure to the POTUS and his lawyers), with the biological parents named, and a second version, showing adoptive parents.   Let’s speculate further:  Pfeiffer has only the amended version, which is why he showed “just one” to reporters. Perhaps there’s some indication on the document that it’s been amended, as required by Hawaiian law, which is why reporters can’t examine it closely.  The other version, Pfeiffer is never going to see, perhaps because it contains that “potentially embarrassing” information.

REPORTER: You showed us a photocopy of one.

PFEIFFER: No, I showed you – 

Pfeiffer disagrees, implying that what he’s holding and what he showed reporters is the actual certified document. Read closely what follows:

REPORTER: Does that have a stamp?

This anonymous reporter cannot see the paper well enough to know whether or not there’s “a stamp” on it. Therefore, he can’t READ what’s typed on it. He hasn’t a clue whether it matches the copy in his packet or not.

PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. …

Not an answer to the question asked; the reporter asked if it has a STAMP on it. The reporter refers to the certification stamped by Onaka, the registrar who thereby swears to the authenticity of the data. This is what is required; this is Onaka’s testimony that the data is true and authentic. But Pfeiffer avoids saying anything about a stamp.  Instead, he says there’s a seal, although one savvy reporter specifically asked about the STAMP.  So the question remains:

Did Onaka stamp and authenticate whatever was hand-carried to the WH by Obama’s lawyer?

Could one copy be the original document filed but not accepted by the registrar in 1961, while the other is the amended document, finalized after affidavits were given in 2008?

Why were these hand-carried instead of mailed, like other copies? Is it because whatever is on those two certified, physical documents can’t fall into other hands, at any cost? Is this also why Pfeiffer waved the document around in front of reporters, but would not let them see it well enough to determine if it’s stamped or to read what’s on it? Is this also why he will not put it on display for examination? Is this also why won’t he let the POTUS hold it, lest Obama be seen “owning” it? Does Obama himself know what it says? If this is a truthful version of what’s on file in those vital records in Hawaii, then why is the book containing Obama’s record locked away in a special vault, accessible to just one person–Onaka?

CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. … 

The only fallacy here is that they claimed they produced a “legal document” years ago. It’s not even a document (it’s a digital image) and if it’s “legal”, why didn’t they present it to any of the judges in the ineligibility cases?  Why did they fight discovery?

PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate …

There are no FACTS presented to ANY court of law; therefore, there’s NO EVIDENCE to settle the issue. Until there is EVIDENCE presented under oath in a court or to another officer of the People, like an elections official, it will remain an issue.

REPORTER: Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. … 

So what’s missing? We already know that the receipts for payment, referred to as enclosures in Fuddy’s letter, are missing. (h/t Papoose)

BAUER: The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 …

Not true, unless he’s admitting that the COLB posted online, which is DATED June 2007, is bogus.  Or could it be that the one posted was from 2007 but they requested another version (not posted) in 2008, after Granny submitted affidavits, and after amendments were made to the “vital records”, around August 2008?  Could both Pfeiffer and Bauer be confused about which COLB was posted and when?

BAUER: So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. 

Likely only true if there was another reason, like an ADOPTION, for sealing Obama’s original long-form birth certificate.

In sum, given every chance to put this “conspiracy theory” to rest once and for all, by allowing the two certified long-form birth certificates to be on display, to be examined by the media and the public, the WH declined, even though Obama’s personal lawyer used disclosure to the public as the excuse to obtain a waiver.

On cue, a member of the media, Sonny Bunch, while reviewing a book about 9/11 “Truthers”, invented a new Alinsky-style epithet for those who (logically) look askance at that “document” presented to the public at an opaque “press gaggle”.  The epithet?  FORGERS.    Mr. Bunch began his review of a book that had nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

The most disheartening aspect of the 2012 election cycle (so far) has been Donald Trump’s effort to press the “birther” argument, claiming that President Barack Obama may not have been born in Hawaii in 1961 but somewhere else—Kenya, perhaps. A survey in February recorded that 51% of GOP primary voters believed Mr. Obama to be a non-native son. In a victory for common sense, support for the position plummeted with the recent release of Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

He concluded his review of a book that has nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

After Mr. Obama released his birth certificate in April, Forgers came forward to claim that it was a photo-shopped fake. Mr. Trump has yet to join their cause.

Do We the People have the audacity to hope that Mr. Trump will join this cause?  

We the People deserve employees who are transparently willing to prove their eligibility for the job that they are hired to do.

UPDATE June 4, 2011:  On April 27, 2011, FactCheck blog updated their “Born in the USA” post.  Apparently, they removed the links to the images that were previously posted on the left sidebar.  They embedded some of the images within the updated story, while removing others.  These links were to the 9 images that were originally posted at full resolution, but were downsized, with EXIF data removed, once citizens questioned when the photos were taken (among other things).  At that time, the EXIF data indicated that the photos were taken March 12, 2008, not in August, 2008.  While the EXIF data remains missing, some images were restored to full size.  The original URL was http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html .  If you click it now, it goes to the updated story.  To see the original, use the archive:  www.waybackmachine.org ; you will have to cut and paste the URL, including .html

About these ads

98 responses to “Obama Long-Form Gaggledygook

  1. http://archiveindex.com/Affidavit_About_White_House_News_Conference_of_4-27-2011.pdf Scrubbed! Try this: http://www.vectorpub.com/Affidavit_About_White_House_News_Conference_of_4-27-2011.pdf

    On Independence Day, 2011, document expert Douglas B. Vogt swore in an affidavit allegations of false statements made at the WH news gaggle. I have a few comments after each quote from the affidavit:

    1. “The White House letter was electronically sent to the office of Perkins Coie, where Ms. Corley added a cover letter explaining she would personally go to Hawaii and pick up the two certified copies and bring them back to Washington DC.”

    If this is true, is it ordinary procedure for the HDOH to accept a request for original vital records based upon a DIGITAL IMAGE of the signature of the requestor, in this case, Barack Hussein Obama II? (I didn’t investigate whether or not it’s true. Just pointing out that if it’s true, it doesn’t seem kosher. Wouldn’t the HDOH require a REAL signature, not a digital image or a printed-out copy of a signature?) Could this be a case of plausible deniability, as in, they acted without my permission? See below.

    2. “At this point, the chain of custody transferred to Mr. Robert Bauer who supposedly had the two stamped and sealed COLBs. The White House communications staff made copies of the three letters and copied one of the Certificates and placed them into folders and gave them to the attending news reporters.”

    butterdezillion’s research shows that the WH staff did not copy one of the Certificates. IF the certificate were on security paper, as would be expected of a certified, authentic LFCOLB, then the copy handed to the media, at best, came from a copied PRINTOUT of a digital image OF one of the certified LFCOLBs. Otherwise, text from the paper behind it on the stack on the copy machine would NOT show through on the media-version of the LFCOLB, which it does.

    3. Savannah Guthrie “claims she touched it and felt the raised seal, or what looks like a seal. This was important to Robert Bauer and company because the copy they showed the news people did not show any embossed seal. So the White House handlers felt it necessary to have at lease [sic] one reporter, they could trust, see and feel the Certificate. She was also permitted to take a photo of the Certificate, which we will assume was done by her camera phone, because the quality was not very good.”

    We don’t know for certain that there was no so-called “embossed seal” on the copy that was waved at the media from the podium that day. A reporter specifically asked about the Onaka stamp (which unusually was on the front, instead of the back, as with the SFCOLB) and the WH spokesperson answered about the “seal”, as if to say, “yes, there’s a seal.” But did the reporters see it? Who can say? No cameras were allowed. Can you guess why not?

    4. “The big difference with her photo (See Figure 1) and the reporters (Figure 2) and PDF copies (See Figure 3) are that the italics E under the A in Alvin looks like it is not present on Savannah Guthrie’s copy.”

    Vogt’s referring to the supposed “smiley face” on Onaka’s signature stamp. If that “face” is truly an “E” in italics, it’s a new theory. But he’s correct that the dots are not on the “A” in Alvin on Guthrie’s photo. However, imho, that’s not the “big” difference. There are many questions about her photograph, some of which are documented here: http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/blackberry-brambles-tales-of-obamas-lfcolb-part-two/#more-10467 Pay particular attention to butterdezillion’s contention that the so-called seal differs in size between documents. I’m still not convinced that’s a photo of a document sitting on a table. No expert has yet weighed in on that issuse, and nobody can explain why there appears to be a stack of security paper on the table next to the so-called original.

    5. “The story of this PDF was that after the news conference, they scanned one of the two certificates and saved the scan as a PDF.”

    Is this the “story”? Where was it reported that the PDF came into existence AFTER the news conference and by scanning one of the two certificates? Just asking. If anyone knows. The creation date and time on the PDF argues otherwise. The copy I downloaded says the PDF was created at 7:09:24 AM on April 27. Wouldn’t this be before the gaggle? A niggling thing, I know, but this is a document expert. Did he check the properties of the PDF? Apparently, yes. See below:

    6. “The codes within this file indicate that it was created April 27,
    2011 at 12:09 p.m.
    and was created on a Macintosh computer.”

    How does he explain the 7:09 AM time on the WH PDF downloaded that day and the 12:09 PM time on the version he has? Does it have something to do with local time versus computer time? This is a five hour discrepancy. Which version was he working from? Did he download from another source or did someone send the copy to him? It might be explained by time zones, but an expert should be able to explain it. It’s important to know when the PDF was created. My contention is that the PDF was created and then the image was printed on computer paper and that copy was copied for the media, although I may be wrong. What’s not wrong is this: Whatever the copy given to the media says, it most likely doesn’t match whatever those certified copies given to Obama’s lawyer say.

    7. “What is interesting about these three images of the Registrar’s seal and the date stamp just to the left of it, is that all are in the exact same position to the hundredth’s of an inch and I mean both horizontally and vertically to the above form. So you have two Certificates with two hand applied rubber stamps on the bottom and a hand placed embossed seal applied by a machine and all three are in the exact same position. It is impossible to put two forms next to each other and hand stamp them as shown and get all in exactly the same position, along with being placed almost perfectly straight on the two forms. This could only be done with a graphics program like Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop. Keep in mind the clerk or Registrar has no reason or preference requirement to place these stamps in exactly the same position.”

    Good points, except it’s contingent upon the images coming from two separate documents. I don’t think that they did. All came from a digitally created object–the same object, imho. Therefore, the seal and stamp would be in the same place, exactly, on all three images.

    8. “The only way to know for sure would be to have the White House place both Certificates next to each other and photograph or scan them. I, personally, do not think they will do that because of what I found next in the text of the 8:48 a.m. news conference. Plausible Deniability. …

    Newsman’s Question: ‘Will the President be holding it?’

    MR. PFEIFFER: ‘He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.’”

    Well, I found that, too, much good it did me. And I suspect this happened for the same reason Mr. Vogt suggests: Plausible deniability. But check out the next contention:

    9. “[In] the transcript of President Obama’s speech at 9:54 a.m. about an hour after the news conference: He briefly mentioned the old history of the Short Form certification during the campaign of 2008 and he also mentioned “We’ve posted the Certification that is given by the State of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.” He is only referring to the Short Form Certification released in 2008, not the Certificate of Live Birth presented on the day of this speech. The rest of the short speech talks about the budget and other matters but nowhere does he mention anything about this new Certificate presented earlier that morning, or posting the new Certificate on the Web or even acknowledging he requested it or its existence. He ends the speech by saying, ‘We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do.’ What I believe you are looking at is a classic example of an attempt at Plausible Deniability. The flip side of this is that Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Robert Bauer must have known that what they presented at 8:48 a.m. was a forgery.”

    Now that’s brilliant and I missed it! Good catch, Mr. Vogt. Of course a certificate is not equal to a certification. The SFCOLB is a “certification” and the LFCOLB alleges to be a “certificate.” Obama, being a lawyer and prone to carefully parse in a Clintonesque fashion, KNOWS the difference that one word makes and KNOWS that he didn’t ever “own” that LFCOLB. Good eyes, Mr. Vogt.

    Mr. Vogt, interestingly enough, swore this affidavit in King County, Washington, alleged to be the one-time home of baby Barry Obama Soetoro or whatever his name is.

    • You and Douglas Vogt are a team!

      • I wish I’d gone one step beyond and analyzed Barry’s words at the presser. I was astounded that he appeared to own the document, but now we see that he never did. We must conclude that his spokesperson knew WHY Barry wouldn’t see or hold the document, but did these lawyers willingly go along with this ploy? Seems a risky business to me. Bauer did leave the WH shortly afterward. I’m going to have to go back and look more closely at what he said and what he didn’t say. Of course, Corley said nothing. Bauer was already knee deep in this mire, so what’s a little more dirt? But the way Barry uses them and protects himself is certainly something. Remember how people were amazed how Nixon’s Plumbers were ready to fall on the sword for him? Remember the guy who offered to be “offed” himself to truly fall on the sword for the POTUS? This must prove that at least SOME progressives are selfless. For all the wrong reasons. :)

  2. Hi Miri,

    The performance by White House officials on April 27th still boggles my mind.

    - Question: Are the October, 2008 and July, 2009 press release ‘Statements’ by Fukino the same as affidavits?

    At 9:48 A.M. EDT, the President/2012 Democratic candidate made televised remarks in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room following the release of the birth certificate image placed online. In his remarks, President Obama explained;

    “We’ve posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/remarks-president

    The State of Hawaii has only issued information in the form of “News Release” statements and no legal affidavits attesting to the existence of the birth certificate have been provided by the state of Hawaii.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    I have looked and looked for any HI law which might define “statement” by a department head as being like an affidavit. No such luck, yet. HI government does allow for a government employed notary public for these purposes.

    Is this covered under the ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause’ as to a public record?

    Sure seems to me that Fukino’s “Statements” are only “press releases”, …nothing legal attesting to facts. Going back to 2002, these are the only these two press releases using the words “Statement by” in the title issued by the Health Department. I’m thinking that anything legal done by the director would have to be by affidavit. (Does a press release have to be truthful as to the facts?)

    “The following are all press releases found at this web site arranged by date with the latest first.”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/pressdir.html

    Interesting to me to discount the legality of Fukino’s press release statements as any form of affidavit, your thoughts…

    • Hi, azgo. Have you not commented here before? If not, welcome. You raise a good point about whether or not Barry considers HDOH statements to be affidavits. He’s a lawyer (allegedly) so ought to know the difference between even an official statement and an affidavit. With Barry, you have to use Clintonesque parsing, as in “it all depends upon what the meaning of the certification that is given by the State of Hawaii” is.

      I don’t have all the facts/documents presented in all the eligibility cases, but it may be that more than one person among all those cases filed an affidavit saying that they saw “the certification” on the Internet.

      But see how clever he is. He doesn’t say “MY certification.” He says only that they posted “the certification that is given by the State of Hawaii.” Is he talking about an exemplar? A representative document?

      In the presser, he refers only to the SFCOLB that was posted in 2008. I don’t think anybody disputes that the FORM of “the certification” represented by that image is what the State of Hawaii gives out (to anybody who asks, not just to his campaign.) But he’s not saying that it’s accurate OR that the State of Hawaii gave him THAT particular certification. Everybody can see it, yes, so long as they have computer access.

      When he says, “People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate,” we don’t know what people, who they provided the affidavits to, or if “this birth certificate” (being the certificaTION that is given out by Hawaii) is, in his too-cute-by-half mind, a GENERIC item.

      He doesn’t clearly say he’s talking about HIS certification, or that “people” provided affidavits that they saw HIS birth certificate, or even whether he’s talking about an image on the Internet or a paper document.

      He lies by ommission. He lies by distraction. He lies by parsing. He lies. Period.

      We’ve parsed Fukino’s statements to death, too. They also are cleverly parsed statements designed to mislead and give the impression that they say something that they do not.

      Press releases aren’t the same as testimony given under oath, under pain of perjury. I’ve argued with obots about that “full faith and credit” theory.

      It surely does not apply to digital images on partisan blogs and campaign websites. So far, no judge has been presented with ANY document received from and vouched for by the HDOH. WHY is that? I think I know.

      Now that they’ve put what they allege to be his original LFCOLB on a government website, things have changed a great deal; but I don’t know that Barry has ever “owned” that digital image.

      It’s interesting how little he said in that press conference, how they removed the “document” from the podium so he wouldn’t be associated with it in any way, and how he referred to the 2008 certificaTION (different from a birth certificate) and NOT to that abstract that I believe they created on a computer.

      I do, however, accept that it’s likely that Judith Corley was given copies of whatever passes for his “original long-form birth certificate”–it’s just not what they posted on the WH website.

      • Miri,

        Thank you for your response. You bring up interesting points.
        I have commented here a few times before, in fact earlier in this “gaggledygook” thread back in May.

        “When he says, “People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate,” we don’t know what people, who they provided the affidavits to, or if “this birth certificate” (being the certificaTION that is given out by Hawaii) is, in his too-cute-by-half mind, a GENERIC item.

        He doesn’t clearly say he’s talking about HIS certification, or that “people” provided affidavits that they saw HIS birth certificate, or even whether he’s talking about an image on the Internet or a paper document.”

        Exactly! …That’s the question, who are the ‘people’ and what are the ‘affidavits’? No facts or clarifying information as to his remarks. No “certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii as discussed in the correspondence letters was conclusively presented as physical evidence to the reporters at the press briefing or to the public and the document was not verified by any outside authority familiar with Hawaii’s laws regarding the two and three dimensional authentication features. And of course, no legal affidavit by Loretta Fuddy attesting to the authenticity of a purported genuine identification document, only a letter of correspondence.

        Without a genuine identification document shown and conclusively verified, the press briefing can only be considered political speech by the White House officials to convince the public that the President is for real, a form of self authentication and of course, no explanation why this computer birth document image resolves the natural born citizenship requirement.

        “But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”
        - Supreme Court, Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

        As for your idea, “that Judith Corley was given copies of whatever”, something happened between Hawaii and the White House release of the computer birth document image. Samantha Gutherie was able to get a photo of something, maybe the ‘mock-up’ …as jbjd would contend and I would agree. Why did Ms. Gutherie not post it on her news broadcast, she got caught …remember, “this is off camera and only pen and pad”. Don’t hold your breath, the campaign is bound to use this “mock-up”, the same way they had the Annenberg FackCheck representatives photograph and declare the SFCOLB real, …only the article title will be, ‘Born in the U.S.A., Part 2′.

        Thanks Miri.

        (P.S. – We are still missing a complete and conclusive explanation of the $34.5 billion found by the Italian authorities and pronounced counterfeit from a photograph. I wonder if Congress and the media would be more interested in that story today as the reports of the stimulus money expenditures are not looking so good. Remember, about a month prior, Geithner announced there was $34.5b TARP money left over and they were going to hold onto it, …where is the money?)

        • You’re welcome! Glad you’re back here, azgo. For some reason, your other comment went into moderation. That’s why I asked if you’d posted here before. I know I’ve read your insightful comments elsewhere!

          I wrote a post about Savannah Guthrie and her special, exclusive visit to the supposed LFCOLB. (Yes, just like the FactCheck Krewe and their amazing adventures in imaginary trips to Chicago.) http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/a-tangled-web-tales-of-obamas-lfcolb-part-one/ In that post, I discuss who exactly Savannah Guthrie is. In the second post, I analyzed the photos: http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/blackberry-brambles-tales-of-obamas-lfcolb-part-two/ (to the best of MY limited ability).

          If she actually saw the “original” 3-D document that Corley was given by the HDOH, it’s not what she photographed. How do we know? Because they cauterized Barry’s passport file in order to remove “embarrassing information”. There’s NOTHING embarrassing on the image Guthrie posted because it perfectly matches Barry’s false biography and the SFCOLB (similarly bogus).

          What was that Supreme Court case in reference to?

          Supposedly the HDOH gave Barry a special waiver so that HE could obtain a copy of his original long-form bc SO THAT HE COULD MAKE IT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. He’s NEVER made it (whatever it is) publicly available.

          In addition, they recently denied Orly Taitz access to the original document BECAUSE she’s not among the class of individuals to whom Hawaiian law allows access.

          Since Barry himself IS the “registrant”, they why would BARRY or his representative NEED a WAIVER?

          The ONLY explanation is that his original is SEALED, and the only explanation for that sealing is that he was ADOPTED.

          The laws in many states seal original birth certificates even for the “registrant,” to protect the identities and privacy of birth parents.

          IF he got a waiver, it was so he could receive, via his personal lawyer (making the documents NOT public, presidential records), copies of his original SEALED birth certificate, which probably names his true parents–that embarrassing information he’s hiding for whatever reason.

          The images and the copies they gave to the media are NOT whatever his lawyer got. That was a Kabuki dance to provide bogus provenance for the rollout of the bogus LFCOLB.

          You probably know all this already, but I repeat myself for anybody who may be reading who’s new to the debate.

          I forgot all about that missing money! Great point. Where did it all go? OUR money! And now Barry wants yet another $450 billion for Stimulus Two.

  3. The affidavits are in the same exact form as the original, signed and certified birth certificate.

    i,e., nonexistent.

  4. Miri,

    I began this new sub-thread with cause of this long post.

    I’ve noticed the ‘new’ WordPress automatically puts comments into moderation when too many web links are submitted within a single comment.

    You asked, “What was that Supreme Court case in reference to?”

    The case has to do more with commercial speech but political speech is more protected and therefore enjoys more freedom of expression than commercial speech as commercial speech is regulated in the sense of product safety, false advertising and such.
    Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=507&invol=761

    I actually found this case through the following article and then found the original case with Justice Kennedy’s opinion. The author lays out an interesting account of the historical and contemporary use of expressions of free speech with a blend of the differences determined in the context of free speech.

    “The High Cost of Free Speech” by Jay Huber.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38863569/High-Cost-of-Free-Speech

    http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/freespeech.html

    The author is a lawyer and friend of the editor of Stay Free Magazine. I tracked the editor down and wrote the editor to find out who is the author of the article. The editor gave no more information.

    Regarding Samantha Gutherie and her “pic” with her comment.

    Since a genuine birth identification document revealing the proper authentication features according to federal law and as touted by the correspondence letters as “two certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii was NOT presented at the White House briefing …then her “pic” has no place of fact as to it’s credibility as the purported genuine birth identification documents were missing and were not conclusively shown at the White House event …maybe hearsay at best, meaning information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate. The “pic” could be anything if not matched up with the “two certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii and even the document(s) on record in Hawaii.

    Regarding “the FactCheck Krewe and their amazing adventures in imaginary trips to Chicago.” Great line. Here are a couple of tidbits;

    A couple of years ago, I found Jess Henig’s now “quiescent “ blogs which were in use prior to her working at FactCheck. Here is her last entry on her blog as a comment after she began work at FactCheck:

    “Oh, that’s so sweet. Since the blog’s been quiescent, a lot of the comments have been drive-by profanity, so I was particularly gratified to see this. I’m quiet right now for professional reasons, as I’m currently writing for a politically neutral cause and the blog is awfully politicized. I may start it back up without the slant, though.

    http://www.beepolicy.com/2007/03/unquiescing-briefly-to-mention-creature.html

    And then her other blog:

    “What are we doing here?

    Here’s what we figure: Anyone can call “ad hominem” or “straw man.” Even a right-wing pundit can do it — you can tell because they do it all the time, whether or not the fallacies are being committed. But who has the guts and the keen logical know-how to apply the tenets of formal logic to mass-media rhetoric?

    Not us. But we’re doing it anyway.”

    http://truthtables.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-are-we-doing-here.html

    I found Henig’s blogs to be an insight to her rhetoric-learned nature, state of mind and views of the world. “[A]pply the tenets of formal logic to mass-media rhetoric?” This can only mean by definitions, taking something valid and changing the truth into a language designed to persuade with impressive effect on the audience as the meaningful truth is twisted, destroyed or simply lost.

    Henig has moved on and is now a writer for Grist.org as a green jobber.

    http://www.grist.org/about

    “Staff Writer, FactCheck.org (May 2007 – January 2011)

    Jessica Henig earned her B.A. in history of science from Smith College and her M.A. in English from the University of Maryland. While at Maryland, she taught digital literature and rhetorical writing. Prior to joining the Annenberg Public Policy Center in May 2007, she worked for the National Academies Press. She has also worked for the National Institutes of Health and as a freelance researcher and editor. She left FactCheck.org in January, 2011 to become a news writer for Grist.org.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/about/

    And, of course, we know who Joe Miller worked for as a writer prior to FackCheck.

    http://www.mackcrounse.com/clients/presidential

    Check out the list of clients.

    “MCG understands that political communication is not about candidates, consultants, pundits or blogs. It’s about connecting with real people who lead real lives and don’t spend much time thinking about politics.”

    http://www.mackcrounse.com/about

    MCG suggests that their target group are the mass of voters basically uninformed. And, as with organizations such as FactCheck, the DNC, etc. and in context to communications and political speech, what a target group to have on your side, …the uninformed…

    • “Despite this protection, commercial speech remains a lesser category than political speech for two reasons: Government can regulate it for truthfulness, and it is “hardier,” or more resilient, than political speech–people will still buy ad time even if they have to tell the truth. In contrast, political speech once suppressed may stay squashed.”

      That’s from the article written by Jay Huber. I find it interesting as applied to the topic of the SFCOLB (at least) because, iirc, jbjd (or some other brilliant legal mind) said that it’s pertinent that Obama posted the SFCOLB on a campaign website. So, according to SCOTUS via Huber, it’s considered “political speech” and therefore cannot be regulated “for truthfulness” by the government!

      On partisan blogs (Daily Kos, Factcheck) the same–political “speech”. Ditto for Fight the Smears. Ditto for the image of the (Snopes) SFCOLB linked from the WH BLOG. A campaign advertisement. Political speech, unregulated for TRUTHfulness? Now about the LFCOLB, where is it? Handed to the media as copies in a press conference by the WH Director of Communication. Is that a political office? I’ll bet so, even if we pay him. SCOTUS would probably consider it to be so. It’s also linked from the WH BLOG. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but would the SCOTUS consider the images “political speech” not subject to examination for truthfulness?

      I agree with you completely about the uselessness of Guthrie’s pics. What matters is the REAL document supposedly given to Judith Corley on the pretense of making it available to the public. It’s not. A 3-D original was not even made available to the media.

      VERY interesting find about Jess Henig. Funny that she calls herself a “dilettante”. I should say so. A humble one, too. NOT!

      If she really is the person who saw the SFCOLB and declared it “real”, she must think she’s a forensic document examiner, too.

      Even a dilettante who’s into “rampant liberalism”, and is an obot, ought to recognize the irony of this statement:

      “… words mean things, sophistry doesn’t trump reasoning, and logic exists whether you like it or not.”

      Oh, please. Stop. I’m splitting a gut here. Sophistry? From an Obama supporter? I imagine a dictionary with a photo of Obama as the definition of sophistry, followed by, “see obfuscation.”

      Words mean things? Please. Yes, and so does Neurolinguistic Programming.

      Logic exists? Not from where I’m sitting, looking at Henig’s work. How logical is it for FactCheck blog, a highly partisan blog associated with a progressive outfit for which Obama once worked, to expect the citizens of this country to believe that a digital image of a one-sided document, seen only by partisan hacks, is PROOF beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama’s birth facts are as they wish us to believe, despite the FACT that the so-called real document has NEVER been presented to any judge? Is it logical for us to believe that if the document represented by that digital image is real and authentic, instead of presenting it to the judge Obama instead sent LTC Lakin to prison? Pshaw! Logic, indeed.

      So maybe Miller’s work for FactCheck blog was also political speech, not subject to regulation by the government for truthfulness? Hey. His former employer has a blog, too! I’m impressed that they’re “giving back.” What did they take in the first place?

      OF course they deal with the mass of voters they consider “uninformed.” They think anybody who doesn’t think like them is stupid. In need of “education”. And they’re the ones to do it with carefully deceptive propaganda.

      Apropos of nothing, I’m loving it that that PR company is in Arlington, VA. Which Saudi family that fled the country immediately prior to 9/11 had a home in Arlington? Which charity illegally run by a half-brother of the POTUS (recently given backdated amnesty for failing to register said charity) is listed in Arlington, VA?

  5. jbjd @ CW’s – President Obama’s ballot eligibility problem is about to blow wide open. When it does, you will need to understand how to explain to your public officials that while they might (genuinely) believe he has released a bona fide copy of his long form birth certificate evidencing he was born in HI; and the HI DoH confirmed, it’s real; neither claim is true. On the contrary, this was all part of a well orchestrated political ad campaign, carried out in full compliance with applicable state and federal law.

    RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT

    http://jbjd.org/2012/04/08/obamabc-fuddy-publicprivatehat/

    • Pfeiffer referred to the document as a long form birth certificate. If you review the gaggle exchange, you will see, he never explicitly said this long form birth certificate was “the President’s long form birth certificate” or “his long form birth certificate.” On the other hand, he once refered to that COLB posted in 2008 as “his birth certificate.” Does this mean that certification posted on FTS in June 2008 really began as an actual vital record received by the
      campaign (in 2007) from the issuing authority, that is, the HI DoH, which was then doctored appropriately so as to conceal from the public the information they – the campaign – wanted to hide? Or did Pfeiffer just misspeak?)

      Some aspects of this public/private dichotomy seemed more obvious than others. For example, recall that we were informed the (alleged) trip to HI to retrieve the document was made by Ms. Corley, the President’s private attorney, and not WH Counsel Bauer; and was paid for not by public funds (meaning, it was paid for by the campaign). Based on conduct on display at the gaggle, it was easy to see that Mr. Pfeiffer was ‘officially’ speaking on behalf of the President’s campaign, and not as a member of the staff of the Executive office. That is, when the conversation concerned questions directed specifically to the long form document purported to reflect the vital record of the President’s birth; it was deliberately steered to him, as opposed to Mr. Bauer or Mr. Carney. (Plus, as I further pointed out; the campaign communications person is often brought in-house to manage his client’s political message after the election. And I noted that his job required no Senate confirmation, implying he didn’t ‘owe’ the government anything, like fealty to the Constitution; rather, he served at the pleasure of the President.)

      On the other hand; as I noted, Mr. Bauer’s job as WH Counsel was to protect the (Office of the) President as well as members of the Executive staff, from legal liability,

      • “What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, …”

    • Was the Selective Service Card also a campaign ad?

    • The best item of information in her latest post is that the Hawaii Dept. of Health has a disclaimer than ANYTHING on their WEB SITE has no warranty of accuracy. That NEGATES anything they put there with regard to Obama’s records.

  6. In the course of looking for something else with regard to the “TXE” issue, I today ran across a MOST EXCELLENT series of analyses of the LFCOLB and some other associated issues. How this escaped notice previously, I don’t know but this blogger has found MORE (if you even need more) proof that the LFCOLB is BOGUS. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/white-out-document-covers-stamp You will need to go to the post to see the images that the writer speaks about, but this is compelling, if this interpretation is true. Dr. P, care to weigh in? [Emphasis added.]

    “You will note that there is text directly under the stamp. The stamp seems to conceal two sections:

    1. To the left the exact name/word under the stamp is still not verified, however it appears to be “O.K. Agcots” (What appears to be a “i” after the A is in my opinion a Y or a G, as there is a disguised tail which has been attempted to be scrubbed in the White Out). Agcots is a somewhat disused term which loosely translates to “representative”, “Lawyer” or even “guardian” in some instances. However it is possible it is just a yet to be understood name of a person. Though it would mean an additional scrubbing of information happened prior to the “White Out” I think it is quite plausable this section read “Ocke E Kats (sp) A name I have found embedded in an other area of the document.

    2.The section to the right is curious and I believe this section to say “63 as J7 65″ But decoding this buried layer in exact fashion will take time.

    3.Though not fully photographed here, the section which should say “STATE REGISTAR” Seems to have a different series of words, Hard to tell at this point but my assumption is that under “STATE” seems to be the numbers “5987″ and under “REGISTRAR” is the word “Witness“”

    So, iow, this person has uncovered data UNDERNEATH the registrar’s stamp and, imho, might explain the “smiley face” and other issues. Guardian? Anybody have the ability to separate out those layers and give us a second opinion?

    Do read on the other posts in the series for some great analysis of the words said the press gaggle and about that “TXE”.

    This one is good, too, and Red Pill and Bridgette might be interested because it touches upon the “original” versus “initial” topic AND the “invalid if altered” topic: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/legal-birth-certificate-vs-actual-and-original-birth-certificate#ixzz1MYRvBJOe

    “It can be suggested that there are several definitions of the phrase “original birth certificate” and my interpretation is that without a doubt it means the document in original unedited, unaltered, unamended form as it existed from the moment of birth until it was signed by the parent (within a several days of birth), the original doctor in attendance (within a several days of birth) and original registrar (within a several days of birth).

    The only references to “original” birth certificate In the white house press briefings from April 27th are:

    MR. BAUER:” There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. ”

    MR. BAUER::………”we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate

    MR. PFEIFFER: “Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate”

    (THE EXCEPTING:)

    MR. BAUER: ‘The certificate with the signatures at the bottom – and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health“.

    MR. PFEIFFER: …………….”In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you

    Will the “Real and Official and Original and Legal Birth certificates now step forward.

    It is now my firm conjecture that while both documents are now </em>[operative word there: NOW. "Make it so, minion!"] considered to be the legal birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II by the State of Hawaii and the Administration (and probably in fact by Federal Standards), Neither are in fact the “Original Birth Certificate” by the intended definition I have given above.

    Also worthy of note is a phrase as the bottom of the short form COLB posted on fightthesmears.com some time ago, “Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate”. The posted short form COLB has the numbers redacted, and therefore was not valid in its posted form as it was altered. Splitting hairs you might say?, well yes and no. It provides for a legal loop hole as well as a virtual loop in law. If invalid it is therefore not a legal document, and therefore any claims made using that document and referring to that document can not be held to scrutiny due to its status as “Invalid Legally”.”

    Read on and you’ll see issues we’ve hashed over, too: The “plausible deniability” of rolling this thing out the way they did AND the “TXE” debate. The article ends with a “wish list” that is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, but I sure would like to see Obama answer every one of these questions.

    Thanks so much, World Groove.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s