The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work

Posted by Bridgette

Blind Man's Bluff, c 1769, Jean Honoré Fragonard. It appears to abolish the boundary between truth and lies, reality and fiction.


The Media is Playing the Game of Blind Man’s Bluff

With all of the disinformation swirling and around about Obama and his ineligibility issue, it seems important to refresh the memories of those who may not understand the importance of the term, Natural Born Citizen, as a requirement for the president.  The  truth and value of the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law must be followed and can not be shoved under the media rug.  They know what they are doing, and are attempting to cover up their own ineptitude or complicity by playing a game of  Blind Man’s Bluff.

There is great value to having a presidential and vice presidential candidate follow the Rule of Law and our national security depends upon it.  It is on Obama’s shoulders to prove his eligibility.  The media can not do it, no matter how many lies they try to pass off on the citizens of this country.  The truth is Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen as required by our constitution.   If he was, he would prove it.  He can’t.

His lies and those of his compatriots are catching up to them, and those who support such fabrications of his history,  background, and faux documentation are committing perjury as they write.  If Soros and his minions associated with Moveon.org, Daily Kos,  Huffington Post, FactCheck,  Snopes, AP, former JournOlist members or their offshoot, Cabalist,  throngs of lying and distortion writers can purposely change the Constitutional meaning by their outward fabrications, they are sadly mistaken.  The Constitution stands, but they will fall.  Until an amendment changes the meaning, “Natural Born Citizen” as a requirement for presidential eligibility, is the Rule of Law.

Prior to Obama’s election, Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote an outstanding article that described the constitutional crisis that our country would suffer if Obama did not prove his eligibility.  He also outlined the crimes that Obama would be committing if he took the oath of office as a Usurper president.   As Dr. Vieira stated, “Obama Must Stand Up or Stand Down.”   A moral man would have done so;  Obama did neither.   Obama had  no integrity then,  nor does he now.   As it now stands, all those who are involved in this massive cover-up are committing treason in addition to other crimes.  They are all participants in a criminal cabal.

Obama in his righteous indignation  of being a usurper, allowed an innocent man, LtC. Terry  Lakin,  to go to jail for questioning his eligibility as president.    The judge at the stacked trial  stated, if Obama produced his documents it might prove embarrassing!  Indeed.   Instead, they court martialed a  decorated soldier for asking what millions are asking, “Prove your Eligibility, Obama!”

The work of Dr. Vieira should be read and understood by all patriotic Americans, so that the hoodwinking being done at every level of our government, and by the so called  jounalistic puppets and minions won’t be able to blind you to the Truth.  Obama has never proven his eligibility, and can not because his background that he wrote about renders him impotent and ineligible.   His parents were not citizens, and unless his lineage is not what he has written about in his books, Obama or whoever he is,  does not meet the requirements.  He must have two citizen parents and be born on U.S. soil;   Obama does not.   Obama does NOT meet the natural born citizen requirement.

We must continue to expose the liars who are trying to cover their own tracks by dishonestly writing, deceiving,  and saying things that are contrary to the truth.  They are anxiously trying to cover  their  own complicity and corruption by participating in this charade, and a  true charade it is.  The words of Dr. Vieira from October, and written before Obama took the Oath of Office still apply,

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW

OR STEP DOWN!!

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.   Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all.   For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1).   Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not.   “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty.   And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government.   Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention?

What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr.

#######

Note to the Complicit, Irresponsible, Dishonest  Media, Senators, Representatives and other members of Government: 

We are NOT blind, deaf, or dumb, and we won’t be bluffed!

Advertisements

103 responses to “The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work

  1. WND has some interesting stories. The wife of the so-called delivering physician “works on a state taskforce that advises the agency that released the document, Hawaii’s Department of Health, WND has learned. … Like Obama’s mother, Stanley Anne Dunham, Ivalee Sinclair was born in Kansas. She reportedly came to Hawaii in 1945 on the first ship to allow civilians after the war.

    A profile on her in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from May 2008 says she met her late husband in a pre-med class at the University of Hawaii. In 1947, the couple departed for the University of California-Berkeley then returned to Hawaii in 1960.”
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292217#ixzz1KkaMpnjt

  2. I can’t even digest all this so-called news, much of which is contradictory. Check this story:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/

    “More than a month before Donald Trump began his media blitzkrieg over the issue of President Obama’s birth certificate, the document was quietly moved to a more secure location within a dual combination-key lock safe inside the state’s health department vault. … ‘It is my understanding that the book has been placed in a smaller locked container in the same secure safe,’ Chiyome Fukino, who served as Hawaii’s health department director for eight years until last December, told FoxNews.com in late February. ‘The safe is still in the department.’ Fukino and others claim the additional security measure reduces the number of people with access to the much-sought-after document from a handful to just one: Onaka himself. … Officials in Hawaii had said state law prohibits them from releasing the information contained in the full birth certificate filing even if the president himself requested a copy. But that didn’t stop the president from requesting last week two certified copies of certificate of live birth from Director of Health Loretta J. Fuddy. On Monday, Fuddy complied. ‘As director of health for the state of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as president of the United States, I am making an exception to the current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy,’ she wrote. … Hawaii did not provide copies of original longform documents since converting to electronic records between 1989 and 2001, said health department spokeswoman Janice Okubo.”

    So what does this tell us, considering that, as always, you have to read between the lines of their parsed statements:

    1. There’s information “in the FULL birth certificate filing” that HASN’T been released because EVEN the president can’t get it. Why? Is it ADOPTION information? So is what we see on this new computer-generated certified copy just an abstract of the end result of everything that’s contained in those “vital records” (plural) about which the HDOH has spoken before? It’s known to be amended, so where’s that information on this new document? According to their laws, IF amended or late, and it was, it MUST BE SO INDICATED on the document. So did she, in her newly self-proclaimed authority, rescind THAT legal requirement, too? Just for the president?

    2. As we can SEE, this IS a computer-generated certified copy.” Is that some kind of new entity? Is this the “something” that Abercrombie wanted to see if he could get released? Not a copy of the REAL document, but “something”? What’s a computer-generated CERTIFIED copy? Is the seal and the certification by the registrar also GENERATED by the computer instead of put on the document by the registrar or whatever the certifying entity is? So does that mean that although it looks “certified” since the certification is computer generated (and it does appear to be so), that the certification is not LEGAL? Without a comma, then “computer-generated” modifies “certified”, so the certification was generated by a computer on this copy.

    3. This is a certificate of live birth, different from the certification of live birth that was previously relased by Obama’s campaign.

    4. It’s a flat out lie that Hawaii didn’t issue copies of actual long-form original birth certificates since around 2001. A LIE. There are extant copies now, produced since 2001, one produced only last month.

    Here’s another quote:
    “Fukino, who left office in December, said that during her term as health director, Obama’s birth certificate was moved from a file vault, where bound books containing vital records line the shelves in handwritten, leather-bound ledgers, in colors chosen over the course of decades — and placed inside the vault’s five-foot-tall, grey, metal combination and key lock safe that holds money and other valuables. … Obama’s original certificate of live birth is bound with one ledger containing 499 other certificates of people born in Hawaii in 1961, according to Fukino. There are 500 sheets per book, and 35 volumes of 1961 birth records. The last series of digits in the registration number found on Hawaiian long form and current computerized-format birth certificates indicate which number volume the original document can be found inside the health department first-floor vault. According to Fukino, all books bound in the 1960s, including the one containing Obama’s birth certificate, have a bright orange elasticized canvas cover and the year of the birth designated on its spine.”

    Wow. So much detail NOW.

  3. This is nothing more then another attempt to pass off a forgery with additional information to make it appear as though it is authentic. The COLB that was manufactured before this one showed the registration as “FILED”. This brand spankin’ new one says “ACCEPTED,” When did the status change and why? There should be no difference. The first COLB was supposed to be the exact same data as the original. It is no longer a Certification but a Certificate? What changed Obama?

    Houston, I think we have a problem or many!

    • Will Trump cry Fowl? Will he say this form doesn’t cut the mustard? Tell Obama to Release a copy of the Original, not a computer generated form? Obama has a copy of it that he found among his mother’s things, remember? Trump is the only one that can say it! Where are those medical records from the hospital? The delivery room details?

      The more they say, the worse it gets for them.

  4. Bottom line: This is a newly constituted, newly invented by the NEW HDOH official Fuddy that is an abstract, generated and certified via computer. IT IS NOT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It was created via computer. It looks to be a photoshopped “something” that contains some information that has probably changed through time but which this complicit HDOH official is going to pass off as what? As what Obama wants his BC to say so that it matches both his bogus COLB AND his bogus biography.

    This long-form, since it only LOOKS LIKE a long-form but is a computer-generated certified copy (a new item, that is not according to usual policy), does not tell us who his birth parents are. Does not tell us what his name is TODAY. Does not tell us what his name was at birth. Does not tell us when it was amended. It does not say that this is what was on the original birth certificate in 1961, if one even existed then. IF he was adopted, then a long-form birth certificate WOULD name the adoptive parents AS IF they’re the biological parents. The only way to put out this bogus long-form, if he WERE adopted, is to do just what they did. Make up something different just for him, as a courtesy to the president.

    “The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth, as well as a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii’s director of health, approving the request.

    The president’s personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5pm Tuesday.” http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/120775124.html

    Has anyone seen that letter?

  5. thinkwell, at Post & Email, writes,

    “This appears to be an official government website [the WH website] so that by approving the release of this clearly digitally forged PDF Obama has inescapably painted himself into a prison cell corner.

    One can see that most of the print was layered on top of the scanned document by panning or zooming the view in or out slightly while viewing the document at a high zoom level. The bottom layer (background, most of the witness signatures and some of the form text that is still original) clearly pops up and is displayed as a complete layer in its entirety before any of the forged upper layer(s?) begin to display. Check this out for yourself by viewing the document linked above (and be sure to save a copy before it gets fixed). Also, note that all the original document text, original signatures and other document features exhibit multiple levels of intensity and hue when viewed under high zoom. All of the forged upper layer text appears as an even, single dark intensity level. This clean digital characteristic of the upper layer is completely unnatural, even to my untrained eye.

    Why would Obama release such an obvious forgery? The evidence is so undeniably incriminating. Why is he not worried about going to prison. Is he laughing our faces? Is he that arrogant?”

    But you see, they’re covered. Fuddy said it’s computer generated, which means it could very well be created on a computer, via photoshopping, and they certified it (somehow) and handed it over to his lawyer. The HDOH admits it’s created by a computer, so does that exclude all the machinations seen by thinkwell? I think not. It’s a special deal just for Barry. A special instrument created just for him because he’s president. Outside their usual policies. The important thing to publicize: THIS IS NOT A COPY OF HIS ORIGINAL LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. IT’S A FACSIMILE, WITH EDITED ENTRIES. You can count on that. The only reason why EVEN THE POTUS could not get ALL THE INFORMATION ON HIS ORIGINAL LONG-FORM BC IS IF HE’S ADOPTED AND THE ORIGINAL LONG-FORM IS SEALED. Adopted at some point, by someone.

    THIS item wasn’t presented to any of the courts because they wouldn’t accept it. It would have to be vetted and ALL THOSE VITAL RECORDS (plural) would have to be examined.

    His lawyers implied and one judge actually stated that it would be embarrassing to Obama to release his birth records. What’s embarrassing about this? Nothing. That’s how you know it’s not his birth record. It’s a fabrication made up by the HDOH. If the Hawaiians managed to do that end run around their own election laws, by failing to verify his eligibility, this newly created (and admitted to be so) document is a piece of cake for them.

  6. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292241

    That story might contain more information about the supposed correspondence between Obama and Fuddy.

      • If you look closely at the “b” in Obama in SAD’s signature, you can easily see how it was layered over the background. The center of the top of the “b” is white. It should show green through the loop. I bet if we looked at all the passport records and other signatures by SAD, we’d find exactly where they copied that signature from. It’s computer-generated. It was created in Adobe. It was saved that way. It was from a Mac. And I don’t even know what I’m talking about but it’s in the properties of the document on the WH site. But the bottom line is that they admit it’s generated on a computer.

        • so if it’s generated on a computor then why make someoe go all the way to Hawaii for it. Just fax it over babe. OMG, this hoax is getting even more shady. And notice the u in Student, or how the o in some parts is squished up near another letter but not consistantly. Did someone just copy paste from various certificates or somewhere else and drop them in? I think some layering going on too.

          • right away everyone gets it can’t be anything with validity,but why. Maybe he’s scared enough with his back against the wall and this is the best he can do.??????? Even if they say it is computor generated can they explain why the background patterning between the U and K in the Ukelele looking name is fixed later. It is only place I see right off that the verticle pattern is not right. Notice it slants. Wow, a pretty poor job. Anyone else see it. Once you do it is blatant.FORGERY,my foot; maybe Sasha and Michelle took a crack at it this time.

  7. I love Atlas’ title from the movie!
    OBAMA GASLIGHTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
    By Pamela Geller Snips

    Why is Obama gaslighting the American people? Why is he toying with, gaming the American people? I broke the story of the altered COLB back in June and July of 2008 — the COLB he posted to his farcically-titled blog, “Fight the Smears,” was an altered document. He subsequently admitted to dual citizenship for close to half his life. The question was a real one, and the American people have a right to know who and what is serving them at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    We owe Trump a debt of gratitude.

    Will Obama now explain how he came to Khalid al-Mansour?

    Percy Sutton, NYC political icon in the African American community and lawyer for Malcom X, told a NY 1 news reporter that Dr. Khalid al Mansour solicited a favor and a recommendation on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama in order to secure Barack’s entry into Harvard. Sutton was approached by Mansour on Obama’s behalf, to secure (procure?) Barack’s admission into Harvard from the second college, Occcidental.

    How did Obama come to Mansour and Saudi Prince Waleed back in 70s/80s? Khalid al Mansour is a vile antisemite, extremist Muslim and high level adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. How did Obama come to Khalid at such a tender young age? He grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii and then went on to a drug fueled couple of years at Occidental College, where he performed poorly. How did he come to have rabid hatemonger Khalid al-Mansour sponsor him?

    And why is the press so protective and apoplectic over this issue?

    The stark-raving madness of the media is made plain in the Obama document scandal and the CBS Bush document crime.

    I hope that Trump can get to the bottom of this void in Obama’s mysterious past.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/04/gaslighting-the-american-people.html

  8. Here’s the so-called letter of request:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

    Did we pay for her trip to Hawaii to pick it up in person?

  9. Hilarious. She just says she’ll be coming there to pick up the copies. Most people would ask first to be advised when/if they’d be forthcoming and then ask for further notification about when they could be picked up.

  10. The letter from Fuddy to Obama says there’s a receipt included for the payment for the copies. No receipt shown on the WH website, though.

  11. Wow it flew from Hawaii to Washington, DC without a single wrinkle or bend.

    • I can’t see this video for some reason it is much to dark. But basically he says the new Obama birth certificate creation is made up of several layers. However he is manipulating the multiple layers of images, the date disappears, a hyphen disappears, the date stamp changes, and Onaka’s name disappears. Whatever he does to one layer can affect other layers of the image. They can disappear and reappear which wouldn’t happen with a real document.

  12. Obama’s Birth Certificate Exposed Debunked as a Layered, Photoshopped, Fraud Hoax 4 of 4

    Whatever the White House put together has been pieced together and this video shows it. See things appear and disappear.

  13. Wednesday, April 27, 2011
    Associated Press Involved In New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery!? The Smoking Gun Also Raises Questions About Validity Of Document
    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 2:26 PM

    This is getting good… Just when they thought the “release” would put the issue to rest. Let us see if the mainstream media continues the coverup… Below reports from Market Ticker, Drudge Report and The Smoking Gun web site…

    Via Market Ticker: Oh C’mon #2 – AP Is Involved?

    The AP has also released a “different version” of the document the White House released. [White House Version Embedded Below, Note The Gap Between The Date Stamp And “Date Accepted…”]

    Guys, this is too freaking blatant.

    Incidentally, the AP’s version was flattened before being PDF’d. Too bad they forgot to do that on the *****house, er, Whitehouse copy.

    Heh AP – betcha you won’t look at this!

    Here’s the AP’s document snippet on the accepted date:

    And now let’s have the Whitehouse version

    Look closely at the date stamp. They’re not aligned at the top. The error is small, but it’s there. Also note the saturation problems in the White House version in the word “Date” and the fill on the “A”.

    The mystery deepens, but the evidence is even more damning than it was before: This “document” was tampered with.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/associated-press-involved-in-new-obama.html

  14. Bridge
    Take a look at the this… The Freepers may have the smoking gun …. Infant born on August 4 , 1961 died the next day August5, 1961
    They believe that the infants BC number was used…. Worth investigating …

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1566#1566

    • Look at the smear on the Certificate number 641. I am not sure if this Free URL is the same one where they compare the Nordyke date with the date on the Obama form…they are the same. Will check out what you are seeing.

      I have put together the different photos of birth certificates and will post. shortly.

  15. OH GREAT. Just when I was certain he was hatched instead of born he comes up with a birth certificate. That birth certificate doesn’t look like its worth two-bits, much less $$$$2,000,000.

  16. and sssssssoo true, folks.

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