© Bridgette WTPOTUS 2011
Obama Released Another Computer Generated Version of a Document purported to be his real, authentic, verified Birth Certificate. I guess the DOH had time to make up a computerized version because the new director, Fuddy, couldn’t get access to the ORIGINAL VAULT COPY even for the president! Instead of releasing a copy of the ORIGINAL vault copy of the birth certificate, they manufactured another one.
How does the new Certificate compare to the old Certification? How does it compare to Miki Booth’s document that was received in March..only a month ago? Who will call the President’s newest bluff? The media complex heralded the release of this document, but it certainly is not what can be called the Original Long Form Vault Record of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Graphic artists are already calling this document a layered product where information appears and disappears when examined. Why would Onaka’s signature appear and disappear? In other words, it was a creation of multiple layers and not even a copy of a document nor a digital record of an original. It appears this document is as poorly done as are the photo-shopped family photos. It probably might be very difficult to find a forger that could keep his mouth shut if asked to make such an important document that would undergo forensic analysis. That will happen to this document or won’t it?
This is the BLUFF they are trying to pull over citizens with the release of this newly “created” document. They want citizens to pay attention to the birth certificate and not mention the real issue which is that Obama is still NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. He is not eligible now nor was he ever qualified according to the Constitution.
No, Mr. Trump, this document is not going to check out beautifully! We know you won’t be duped!
The Media believes this is over, Is it?
Miki Booth’s Son’s Certificate of Live Birth
Miki Booth's son.. Alan Booth Certificate of Live Birth
Certificate of Live Birth, March 15, 2011, Miki Booth
Certificate of Live Birth Dated March 15, 2011 from Miki Booth
Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth
(which was a Certification previously)
Obama's "New" CERTIFICATE of Live Birth
Obama’s CERTIFICATION of Live Birth
The first version
Obama's CERTIFICATION of Live Birth
Nordyke Twins Born the Day After Obama
Susan Nordyke
Susan Nordyke Certificate of Live Birth 1961
Gretchen Nordyke
Gretchen Nordyke Birth Certificate
Barack Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate
Barack Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate - Lucas Smith
Tim Adams’ Affidavit stating there is NO original birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.
Tim Adams Affidavit
Bridgette
itooktheredpill
Miri
newssleuth
We the People of the United States 
Okay. Here’s the whole item:
Here are the three exemplars of Mr. Ukulele’s name:
Barry’s:
Coat’s:
WND:
For comparison, here’s the Edith Coats bc:
The WND bc has those keypunch codes on it, while Edith’s doesn’t. Makes me wonder if they used a different system in 1962? That’s when she was born, while the WND person was born in 1959 and Barry, supposedly, in 1961. It will be next to impossible to find out because the HDOH won’t give away anything that might help prove that any of his records are bogus.
However, the WND exemplar backs up my theory that the numbers are keypunch codes. (I wish somebody would tell this to Corsi. They’re still talking about the “mysterious hand-written numbers.” They’re codes for keypunchers.) Look at race, for example. SAD, the Nordykes, the unidentified person on the WND bc–all are coded “1”. That’s 1 for white. (Minorities will tell you that whites are always first. It’s no joke; it’s true, probably because whites were the majority–yet it could be subconscious race preference.) Anyway, look at BHO Sr’s code: 9. So he’s not “Caucasian”, which we already know. But I think the last race code wasn’t “Negro”. It was other non-white, iirc. I’ll correct this after I find my previous comment on this. Look at the sex codes. The WND and Barry are “1”. Default to male as number one. Same thing: Sexism versus racism. Male equal normal; number 1. The Nordykes are coded “2”; ergo, female. See how that goes? Doctor Nordyke’s profession is a “1”. My guess: Professional. The WND father is a “7”, so probably some type of blue-collar laborer profession–he’s in maintenance. You’d have to get the specs for the computer programs, which you’re not going to get. It’s been tried, I believe. But that’s surely what those numbers mean. Were they duplicated on Barry’s? Who knows?
In 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare classified non-Whites, who were not Asian, Eskimo, Aleut, Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, or other “non-White,” as “Negro.” The U.S. Census Bureau also used the term “Asian and other Pacific Islander” in 1961, which included Filipino, Hawaiian, and part-Hawaiian. The Census Bureau, like HEW, used the term “Negro” to describe blacks and those of black descent. The term “mulatto,” used to describe those of mixed white and black ancestry, ceased being used by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1918.
1961 Vital Statistics of the United States;
U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
Public Health Service;
National Center for Health Statistics;
National Vital Statistics Division;
Race and color
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.
*************************
Above are the official classifications used in 1961, thanks to Helen at http://www.t-room.us/2011/04/mr-president-your-official-document-maker-czar-has-made-a-fool-of-you/
SO:
1. White
2. Negro
3. American Indian
4. Chinese
5. Japanese
6. Aleut
7. Eskimo
8. Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined)
9.Other Nonwhite
And there may be the problem! Since the forgers didn’t know what those codes meant, they didn’t know to change the one next to the father’s name. So he’s coded as “Other Nonwhite”, which he would not be, since he was Negro and should be coded 2 (not 9). But Lolo would have been coded Other Nonwhite, imho.
BHO Sr. should have been coded as 2, NEGRO. Even if he had Arab ancestry, that makes him mixed with African ancestry and he still would be considered Negro. Not “Other Nonwhite”.
Miri, I agree on the punchcodes, it makes me nervous when people (like Corsi) who are the purported experts on this stuff make claims based on something that seems so obviously explainable. I wish people would quit saying that the hospital didn’t have that name in 1961…whatever the history says, obviously it DID. It’s on ALL of the birth certs tha I’ve seen from that hospital and era.
The x’s over twin and triplet apparently signify something also, mysterious but not inconsistent with other examples, right? So, I just think there are plenty of anomalies that are real without reaching into those that can easily be explained.
Those x’s mean he was a single birth. I talked about that somewhere already, too. Look at the Nordyke BC’s. They’re marked as twins. One has this code above: 1 2. The other has this code above: 2 2. That means, first of two (twins), and second of two (twins). So you know the birth order. Since Barry’s was allegedly a single birth, it has x x, meaning not applicable. If you look at the codes next to the parents’ place of birth. It looks to me as if “a” means, Born in the USA. Kenya has a different code. But everybody who was born in the US, has an “a”. I think. I didn’t do an exhaustive study of it.
I didn’t know Corsi is an expert on keypunch codes. I’ll bet I forgot FAR MORE about vital records and keypunch codes than he ever knew.
Miri | April 28, 2011 at 9:56 am | Reply
Did you hear Barry’s entire press conference? I wouldn’t have except Greta Van Susteren played the entire thing last night, along with Trump’s entire conference. Somewhere within all his bloviating, he made a Freudian slip because while talking about the officials who vouched for his COLB (which NOBODY did–another LIE), he said, people “signed affidavits.” NOW, WHO signed affidavits other than Tim Adams, who signed one that specified that everybody in the HDOH, where he worked, KNEW that Barry had NO ORIGINAL LONG-FORM BC? Thus, the need for a “computer-generated certified copy”–an ABSTRACT of a long-form, a new instrument created ESPECIALLY for Barry alone.
But Barry slipped and said the important word–AFFIDAVIT. That’s what’s behind the information we now see on this rigged up CGCC (computer-generated certified copy) that ONLY Barry will receive. AFFIDAVITS by someone. AFFIDAVITS attesting that the “facts” we NOW see on this fake impression of a long-form BC are “true”, in the legal sense of being verified via sworn statement. By Granny in 2008? That’s my guess.
****************************
Miri, Obama may also be concerned with the affidavit Lucas Smith sent to every member of congress, along with a copy of Obama’s Kenyan BC.
Possibly, but in the context of the statement during the news conference, he was talking about how his birth in Hawaii has been proved already, in so many ways. So I do believe he meant that people gave affidavits swearing to his birth there; but, of course, if they did, we’ve never seen those affidavits, only suspected their existence.
Miri..a different take on those numbers on the b.c.
Does the Birth Certificate Contain Source Notations?
A CITIZEN’S ANALYSIS OF OBAMA’S LONG-FORM “BIRTH CERTIFICATE”
May 14, 2011
To be accurate, what we call a Long Form Birth Certificate should probably be referred to as “the top portion” of a long form birth certificate.
Another possibility that occurred to me is that the little pencil notes might be an internal coding system indicating which information needed further verification or guidance, perhaps something on a scale of 1 to 9 meaning a 1 or 2 is fairly certain, practically self-evident, but a 9 is raising red flags or uncertainties and needs more proof.
Questions over citizenship a legacy of American slavery
Sharon Davies
May 15, 2011, 3:30 AM
When President Barack Obama announced that he had taken the unprecedented step of requesting and then releasing the long form of his birth certificate, for many African-Americans, echoes from our nation’s past of withholding citizenship for blacks seemed to hover in the air around him. The country as a whole might benefit from taking a clear-eyed look at that history before celebrating how far we pushed America’s first black president to go to answer groundless attacks on his nationality.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/05/questions_over_citizenship_a_l.html
Pathetic. Note question about citizenship not natural born citizen..how far they can obscure the real issue? Now it is back to slavery by questioning the black/white one. It should be the black community who should be asking the questions. Obama is the one that has put a huge blotch on their race. To continue supporting a man without papers and who has a fraudulent past blemishes them for not standing up for truth. Would MLK have agreed to this cover-up? The Civil War has nothing to do with Obama nor his alleged relatives.
Yes. And it was racist when they pursued George Romney about his non-natural-born citizenship status, too. He was born in MEXICO! How racist of them to question his patriotism and nationality. Consider what a sore subject it is for Mexican-Americans, like George Romney, to be asked for their papers!
Then you have John McCain–the New York Times, iirc, actually asked for his papers. He’s from PANAMA! How insensitive to ask a Panamanian-American for his papers. Congress even got into the act, passing a resolution about McCain’s citizenship status.
Chester Arthur! Don’t even ask. His father was from Ireland. Consider the discrimination those people faced, when they regularly saw “Irish need not apply” signs at employment offices. They questioned HIS citizenship, too. How insensitive, considering the history of discrimination against Irish immigrants, who came here only because they needed to support their STARVING families, oppressed by the British who stole their lands and starved them out of their homeland. OMG. How insensitive! (Let’s not forget that McCain got a double insult there–being part Irish-American himself.)
Then there’s the story of George B. McClellan Jr. who, although his father was an American Civil War hero, saw HIS citizenship questioned when he considered running for the presidency. He was born in Dresden, Germany. Remember how German-Americans were treated in the US. During the two world wars, they were treated as collaborators. Compared to Nazis! Before that, they were discriminated against on account of religion (Catholic or Jewish). Jewish! OMG, just think of the history those poor folks experienced. So how insensitive to question the patriotism of German-American George B. McClellan Jr.!
Even to this day, descendants of German immigrants are treated AS RACISTS in kneejerk fashion, even though the influx of freedom-loving Germans to America directly fed the movement towards emancipation of the slaves.
Why are they treated as racists? Because of their white skin. No matter what their ancestors did to free the slaves, they’re still tarred with the sin of racism simply because of the color of their skin. HOW INSENSITIVE!
Obama’s America: Talk gets sillier as stakes get higher
May 15, 2011
Since President Obama was elected, the nation’s political conversation has grown ever sillier even as the long-term stakes have grown higher. At a time when the nation faces numerous long-term threats at home and abroad, conservatives have wasted far too much oxygen on conspiracy theories and carnival sideshows.
While this has to be personally annoying to Obama and his supporters, it’s also to his political advantage, and he knows it. The more attention paid to professional publicity seekers and fringe players on the right, the more by comparison he seems reasonable, moderate and presidential.[Give me a break!]
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/fl-nncol-obama-election-gop-nikpour-020110515,0,6884389.column
Does this article really sound like a Republican wrote it? Why is she using Leftist talking points i.e., carnival sideshows, conspiracy, fringe players?
Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist and fundraiser, regularly appears on Fox News, The Strategy Room and various political talk shows.
Nothing can make Barry seem “reasonable, moderate, and presidential.” The latest meme is that he’s an “adult”. Whenever they present a meme like this, it’s because they know that the opposite is what the public sees–that he’s a very immature personality. Obviously. They have only so much to work with, and so they MUST spin, no matter how ridiculous the spin looks to anybody with common sense.
Birth certificate doesn’t meet Hawaii standards
Image White House released ‘may not be a certified copy’
May 14, 2011 Snips
A previously unexplained anomaly in the Obama long-form birth certificate released by the White House has now become even more suspicious, as WND has learned the online image of the document does not conform to Hawaii’s standard practice for issuing certified copies of birth certificates.
While the governor’s office maintains Obama was given a certified copy of his birth certificate, and while Hawaii – WND has learned – includes an embossed seal to complete the certification, the raised seal on the image posted by the White House … is missing.
Furthermore, an official with the Vital Statistics Section of Hawaii’s Department of Health told WND, a document without the seal “may not be a certified copy.”
No similar embossed seal markings are discernable on the White House-released birth-certificate image, even under magnification.
According to a press release issued by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, President Obama requested and was granted two certified copies of his original, long-form birth certificate, which were hand-delivered to Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley.
The governor’s office, however, did not respond to WND requests to clarify whether the certified copies given to Corley were somehow exempted from the embossing, or to explain how the seal may have “vanished” between the time it was given to Corley and the time the purported same document was posted online.
The White House-released Obama birth certificate has the same deficiency that plagued the short-form certification of live birth when it was first displayed to the public by DailyKos.com on June 12, 2008: Neither document, when made available in digitized form, have contained evidence of the raised impression of the Hawaii state seal.
Update: While no seal can be seen in the image of the purported birth certificate released by the White House, MSNBC reporter Savannah Guthrie tweeted that she was given access to the actual paper document and that she has seen and felt the seal. Guthrie further posted a photograph of the document, in which a raised seal can seen but not clearly read.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298537#ixzz1MRms5H8h
@SavannahGuthrie Savannah Guthrie
I saw the certified copy of long-form POTUS birth certificate today, felt the raised seal, snapped this pic http://plixi.com/p/96540721
http://twitter.com/#!/SavannahGuthrie/status/63373897835356161
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
I see no seal. I see no embossed seal. There is no seal. She might have seen the one that the Chief of Staff was waving in front of people. H ow did this woman get so lucky to hold the b c when Jay had said it wasn’t for viewing? The photo proves nothing.
GUTHRIE
She probably got a special invite into the room. All gushing and flattered, she took the photo of the REAL thing! So overcome was she by the presence of That One, perhaps, she didn’t have time to take a good photo of the embossed seal that she was supposed to vouch for. Since when to reporters snap their own photos, btw? Maybe they printed a version out and embossed it just to fool one little ole reporter with, so she’d go out and vouch for its authenticity. Maybe that’s why they didn’t leave it at the podium for Barry to accidentally show too much of–they had this photo date with Savannah. The “new” factchecker. Won’t FactCheck blog be jealous?
We know that they HAVE a method of creating a raised seal on a piece of paper, because there WAS one visible on the photograph of what FactCheck blog CLAIMED was Barry’s COLB–the one that didn’t have a father’s name on it, btw. So she could easily have “felt” a raised seal, but does Savannah Guthrie have a CLUE what the official seal of the state of Hawaii looks like? Anybody can go to a stationary supply store and buy a contraption that will emboss paper. It’s interesting that Pfeiffer, in the news gaggle, spoke about the seal instead of the stamp, which is what he was asked about. Maybe they wanted to point reporters to that as “proof”. Watch this hand; don’t watch that one.
“It’s a RAISED SEAL; IT MUST BE REAL!”
Wait, what? It’s NOT the official seal of the state of Hawaii? Nevermind.
There’s no seal in HER photograph! So of what use is her photograph? The WND image clearly SHOWS the raised seal. It would show on a PHOTOGRAPH, too. Digital cameras show EVERYTHING.
What’s ridiculous is that the photo she published is cropped EXACTLY at the point where the supposed raised seal begins. In other words, she cropped the bogus seal OUT OF HER PHOTO. How can this be on accident?
Look at the pdf image of the long-form bc: There’s a tiny indication of some kind of seal, whitish dots, that begin to form an arc right underneath Mr. Ukulele’s name. See them? It’s not the seal of the state of Hawaii.
But it might be good enough to fool most of the complicit media all of the time.
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
Ok. There’s more of their game playing. If you click the link to Guthrie’s tweet, you’ll see the cropped photo. On that page, you can click an arrow to go backwards on a slide show and view a “photo” (or something) of the long-form bc.
It looks AS IF it’s on a wooden table. Photographed. If you fiddle with the brightness, etc., an oriental rug is visible below, to the right of the document. But look how odd that document is positioned on this “table”. Look how it looks as if the image of the document was layered on top of an image of the table and rug. It looks as if it’s floating in space, perfectly flat, over the table!
The photo’s cropped, of course, as is everything with these people. But look at how crisp and straight the edges of that “paper” look. You CAN, however, see the so-called “seal” on that “document.” But just the circle of the seal, not any details which would be crucial to prove whether or not it’s a legitimate embossed seal.
For this paper to actually be on that table, being photographed, part of it would be hanging over the edge of the table. If so, then how could it look so absolutely flat? The perspective is all wrong, which even I, no expert, can see.
Dr. P.? Anyone who knows about digital images?
The long-form itself casts nary a shadow on the table, although part of a stack of papers, visible on the left, does cast a shadow.
What kind of fools do they think we are?
Click to access obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck.pdf
Butterdezillion has a take on the Guthrie embossed seal claim. She points out that the seal is a different size than the seal supposedly embossed on the FactCheck COLB. And so it is. Easy to see. Just count the crosshatches between the top and bottom of each seal. Different size. But surely the HDOH uses the same seal to emboss or at least they all conform, in order to be official.
“The WND image clearly SHOWS the raised seal.”
No, they don’t..the Factcheck.org photos show a seal that is not raised.
Here is a close-up comparison of the word ‘Hawaii’ in Miki Booth’s COLB and Obama’s…the Booth seal is raised, Obama’s is not raised, it’s incised into the paper and ‘raised’ on the reverse side of the seal: http://imageshack.us/m/806/1142/closeupraisedvsnotraise.jpg
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/806/closeupraisedvsnotraise.jpg/][IMG]http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/1142/closeupraisedvsnotraise.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Here is another seal that is raised from 2010…regardless of the side of the paper it’s applied to, the seal and text should always be raised: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valeehill/5477012596/sizes/l/in/set-72157626010291215/
Notice the reverse/backside of the seal on the Patricia Decosta COLB is incised: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
YET, the reverse/backside of Obama’s seal on his COLB is raised:
Tickly, I was referring to the image of a raised seal on WND’s exemplar, where it’s SO clear that anybody can see it. The black and white 1959 BC is the one I meant. But now that you mention it, it probably is incised, not raised. See above.
I can see what’s supposed to be a seal on Barry’s bogus long-form bc. It’s faint, the ring consists of dots, and it has nothing in the middle that’s very visible. If Guthrie really photographed that bc, any seal on it should show up clearly, especially when you zoom in. Why was the photo she supposedly took and posted on line so DARK? I’ll put a copy in my next comment. Look at it on the Web and then look at the version that I had to modify to bring out the background.
Does it LOOK like it’s sitting on that table? Is it hovering in hyperspace? (Or, should I say, cyberspace?) Do you see that faint ring that’s supposed to be the seal? btw, where’s the Great Seal of the State of Hawaii, as is on the COLB? You know, the one that appears at the top of the COLB. How can this be considered a true copy of the long-form when the medical section is missing?
“Tickly, I was referring to the image of a raised seal on WND’s exemplar, where it’s SO clear that anybody can see it. The black and white 1959 BC is the one I meant. But now that you mention it, it probably is incised, not raised. ”
Ah, I see…and it is raised, the image is inverted.
The Guthrie images shows some kind of seal there, but a certain seal has to be there: the raised seal used by the HDOH Office of Health Status Monitoring.
We can’t tell if it meets the regulated requirements from what we’ve been given. So who cares, Savannah Guthrie, if you can see a seal is there or not…we want to see if it meets the regulations, ya know? That seal could say “Grade A Bullshit” for all we know. And we sure can’t tell if it’s raised.
Factcheck.org said the seal on the short form was raised, and it’s incised – so I am not going to take Savannah Guthrie’s word. She could have felt some texture and thought, “that’s raised!” But reality might show it’s pushed through and impressed into the paper.
Factcheck.org goons claimed to have spent time holding, touching, caressing and taking dirty XXX pics of the short form and still they didn’t get to know it well enough to caption the photo of the seal correctly.
‘They’ always give us junky/web/cellphone quality images, poorly lit photos and any decent photos always show some close-up of stuff that doesn’t tell us if the record photographed is legally certified. Yeah, it’s frustrating. And I have to admit there is a chunk of pixels in that ‘seal’ area that look totally out of place to me. No..I don’t trust Guthrie and Factcheck.org to exercise any critical-thinking skills.
I overlayed the scan/pdf on the Guthrie photo and it aligned fairly decently, so I figured it must be on a flat surface…although I could not tell what was going on with the background/table either when I first viewed it.
The regulations state that either the State Seal or the HDOH Seal must be present in a certified copy…I assume the embossed seal will qualify IF it is official and raised. On that note, Fuddy’s cover letter attesting to the authenticity shows the state seal and her letter conforms to the the regulations pertaining to legal certification…as long as that seal is official and is raised, that is.
To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, “That’s one magic long-form birth certificate” if it can hang over the edge of a table and remain perfectly flat. My point is that it looks to me as if somebody superimposed the flat image of the bc scan over the top of a photo of the table. As I said above, even if Guthrie FELT something (besides a tingle), that doesn’t make it the official seal of the HDOH registrar. Anybody can buy a fancy contraption to emboss things on their papers. The most important point, imho, is that Obama’s lawyer used the FACT that they were going to make a certified copy of the long-form available TO THE PUBLIC in order to obtain the waiver. NO CERTIFIED COPY IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. So far as we know, only Ms. Guthrie has been allowed to visit the purported real certified copy. Just like with FactCheck. Only they, inexperienced, uncertified people, were allowed to look at it. Besides which, they lied when they said that in 2008, they published BOTH SIDES of the COLB on the Web. This would have been BEFORE the visit by FactCheck and therefore before FactCheck published cropped images they claimed were from the COLB. But another important point: FactCheck is not and CANNOT BE among the “we” of the campaign to which Pfeiffer referred. Or are they? Are they finally admitting what we all suspect? That FactCheck IS part of the Obama campaign?
More about Savannah Guthrie:
She’s a LAWYER, which I never knew. White-collar crime defense for the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, so one would EXPECT her to be able to authenticate a document as LEGITIMATE, except did she? What did she really see and did she really photograph the certified long-form hand-carried to the WH by Obama’s personal lawyer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_Guthrie
Her ex-boss is an interesting fellow. Robert Strauss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schwarz_Strauss
Texas politician, served Connally, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Kennedy, GHWB, ambassador to Soviet union, once chairman of the DNC, member of the Council on Foreign Relations . Sister-in-law Annette Strauss was Dallas mayor.
If you look closely at the image that Guthrie says is the original LFCOLB, photographed by her, it is larger than the image in the WH pdf, and there’s no smiley face in Onaka’s signature! Although the seal is hard to see, it’s in the same spot on both images, BUT it looks different, at least to me. butterdezillion has said that it’s smaller than the seal on other examples of COLB’s, so what’s up with that? The WH pdf of this supposed green LFCOLB on security paper is perfectly flat. This photograph, which is supposed to be of the same item, isn’t exactly flat–the paper does seem a bit dimpled in places, as a paper that’s been handled would be. BUT why doesn’t the edge of the paper bend down, even if only slightly, off the table’s edge? That isn’t an ottoman or a floor. It’s a wooden table, with a stack of papers, showing a shadow, on the left. On the right, below, you can see the pattern of an Oriental-type carpet. The LFCOLB is supposed to be sitting on the table, being photographed by Guthrie. It just doesn’t look right to me.
btw, Miss Tickly wrote another blog post (h/t Red Pill) and she says she asked Guthrie about her visit with the original LFCOLB, but she got NO ANSWER. Of course!
Wonder why Jay didn’t just put the fraudulent piece of crap under Claire’s pillow or beside her coffee cup. Why should Savannah get all the glory?
Bwahahaaa. What a crock!
Darling Savannah works for NBC and MSNBC. She is married to a BBC “presenter” whose marriage she allegedly broke up, but now they might be separated because she doesn’t wear her ring. So, lots of complicit lamestream media connections for Savannah.
Wait! What? He was associated with Al Jazeera:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/01/love_etc_16.html
“Separated: New NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie and husband, Al-Jazeera producer Mark Orchard, after three years of marriage.”
Oh, my. Wikipedia dissembles. BBC, indeed!
Bridgette | May 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Recent promotion also for a job well done!
NBC announced Monday that “Today” show anchor Meredith Vieira will be leaving her position at the anchor desk in June. Longtime newsreader Ann Curry will take Vieira’s place alongside Matt Lauer. In addition, Natalie Morales will take Curry’s place as newsreader, and Savannah Guthrie will become a co-host of the third hour of the show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/meredith-vieira-leaving-today-ann-curry-morales-guthrie_n_859267.html
I disagree with you on this :And there may be the problem! Since the forgers didn’t know what those codes meant, they didn’t know to change the one next to the father’s name. So he’s coded as “Other Nonwhite”, You See AFRICANS do not view themselves a NEGRO and they will not call themselves such. The Hawaiian official had to pencil 9 = Not White = Non White, due to the info Sr. gave them.
Georgtown: Maybe so that African’s don’t view themselves as Negro. But we’re talking about 1961, when it didn’t matter what people “viewed” themselves as. The law dictated how people were categorized. In 1961, there was no such thing as self-defined racial category. If you were black, you were Negro. According to the rules I listed here: https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obama-fool-us-once-fool-us-twice-dont-think-so/comment-page-3/#comment-55565
Any black ancestry (unless mixed with NATIVE HAWAIIAN) and the person was considered Negro. You are assuming, btw, that he gave any information to the Hawaiian officials. The mother was ordinarily the informant, not the father. He and his so-called wife did not even live together. Three weeks after the supposed birth, she was on the mainland, thousands of miles from BHO Sr. and Hawaii, enrolled in school in the state of Washington. The “baby” was with her. A baby she did not even know how to diaper and who her friend described as “pink”. BHO Sr. had nothing to do with the birth certificate.
Allow me to add that smart-ass comments and Alinsky tactics will quickly get you banned.
Purported birth certificate signed by “U K L Lee” may play Obama’s swan song
April 28, 2011
Israel Insider Snips
The “Signature of the Attendant” was taken care of nicely: a local ob-gyn named David A. Sinclair who conveniently died in 2003 and whose widow happens to be a Democratic party operative and, as Aaron Klein reports today in World Net Daily, an advisor to none other than the Hawaii Health Department. Oddly, the checkbox appears smudged, with evidence of a clumsy change, as if there was at some stage uncertainty as to whether the attendant was an MD.
But the Signature of the Local Registrar? Somehow, All the President’s Lawyers may have overlooked the significance what was written there: U K L Lee. Ukulele!
The ukulele is the distinctive traditional musical instrument of Hawaii. Guitar-like, ith four strings, it literally means “jumping flea,” likely because of the finger action that playing the instrument demands.
More respectably, Queen Lili’uokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch, claimed that the name means “the gift that came here”, from the Hawaiian words uku (gift or reward) and lele (to come). With delicious irony, the uke is commonly thought to be a Hawaiian “native” but actually came from abroad, “an adopted son.”
Wikipedia notes that Hawaiian musician Israel Kamakawiwo’ole helped popularize the instrument, in particular due to his 1993 ukulele medley of “Over the Rainbow” and “What a Wonderful World.”
Whatever the origins of the word, it seems dubious that the person who signed Barack Obama’s wannabe birth certificate was a “local registrar” named U K L Lee.
Lee is probably a common family, but “U K L” is almost certainly not a common sequence of initials. This improbability suggests that the one who signed as “U K L Lee” — or who modified another signature to make it pronounceable as “ukulele,” was by this act of invention or alteration taking credit for the deed with an in-joke that presumably would escape the attention of the masses and the mainstream media cowed into submission by an imperious Presidential statement that he had “more important things” to worry about.
It is also possible that the forger may have been uncomfortable with the criminal task imposed on him or her, and therefore left tell-traces, together with the artifacts of photoshopping and document assembly, as clues.
Israel Insider is familiar with all this because we encountered it before, in our detailed analysis of the original publication of the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” originally published on the White House’s behalf in the Daily Kos. There a skilled document-manipulator named Jay McKinnon produced knockoffs of that document with the whimsical signature “I B A Forgerie” in examples showing how it’s done.
Insider readers will recall that McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
In our original series, we explored this series of admitted forgeries and the motivations behind them, discussing the “unbearable ease” with which digital technology allows the re-creation of documents from templates based on authentic originals.
So why would OpenDNA, later revealed as McKinnon, post this self-incriminating evidence? What explains his suggestion that Kos “print one up” with a “blank template”? Is he just trying to be funny? Is he trying to impress the other commenters? For this did he go through the trouble of removing all the text and the reverse date-stamp? Or was the blank template “just lying around somewhere” on his computer or in some corner of the Internet, just happening to have the identical information as the purported Obama birth certificate?
A hint may be found here in another fake COLB that opendna posted: Of course, the almost-blank “Haye I.B Ahphorgerie” certification is not a particularly useful counterfeit. But, as McKinnon suggests, the unbearable ease of digital manipulation speaks for itself through the document itself: “Hey, I be a forgery!”
“U K L Lee” is a slightly more subtle signature than Haye I.B Ahphorgerie, but the idea is identical. Forgers, like all artists, invariably find ways, directly or indirectly, of claiming credit for their creations. Whoever added the ukulele signature either was arrogant enough to believe that his in-joke would be overlooked, or arrogant enough not to care. Or even, consciously or unconsciously, he wanted to be discovered.
One would hope that, if this confession was done without direction from the president, the forger knows how to conceal him or herself better than the evidence of his or her forgery!
One cannot even discount the possibility, unlikely as it may seem, that Barack Obama himself, with characteristic hubris, added the ultimate final touch by his signing his own “birth certificate” with the humorous pseudonym, brazenly thumbing his nose or, as is his wont, upraised-middle-fingering his cheek, to indicate that what he appears to be saying is not what he really thinks, as he did famously in his bittersweet “tributes” to Hillary Clinton (video) and John McCain (video), figurative telling the birthers what they can do to themselves.
However, in this case, regardless of the source of the signature of the “local registrar,” it appears that the current resident of the Oval Office overplayed his hand, or perhaps his handwriting. It is one thing to have endless technical arguments about digital document manipulation. It is quite another to have a supposed Hawaiian birth certificate signed by a three-initialed registrar pronounced Ukulele!
It may turn out that there is, or was, a local registrar by that name. The identity of local registrar must be a matter of public record that can be readily ascertained with some research. It’s even possible that there is an authentic registrar named Lee whose signature a possible forger may have altered to become a more pleasing “ukulele.”
If it turns out that a person by that name exists, and was just doing his or her job, all concerned can have a hearty laugh that Obama’s birth was approved by a U K L Lee.
But it is also possible that the signature will turn out to be what the good Queen Lili’uokalani said it was: a gift and a reward that has come to the “birthers” and all others who question the legitimacy and honest of Obama from none other than he who claims to be the legitimate President of the United States.
In that case, this ukulele would be the “smoking instrument” that suddenly appear in Act 3 to play the swan song for Obama. After his performance before the press corps yesterday, he had better find somewhere over the rainbow a local registrar – living or dead — by the name of Ulysses Kamakawiwo’ole Luau Lee and have good ol’ U K L sign some more contemporaneous birth certificates.
They say it ain’t over till the fat lady sings, but this Ballad of a Thin Man ends very badly for Obama: “You walk into the room, with a pencil in your hand, you see someone naked and you say: who is that man?” A man in Oval Office can survive many affronts but howling ridicule, ignominious undressing, and a case of Haye I.B Ahphorgerie may not be among them.
The fat man may be singing for Obama, chuckling at the possibility that the world’s most powerful man has contributed to his ridiculous undoing to the tune of a lowly uke.
Meanwhile, waiting in the wings, Donald Trump, accompanied by tens of millions of unsung and ridiculed “birthers,” may be humming, no doubt with U K L Lee backing them: “What a Wonderful World!”
http://israelstreams.com/i.html?http://israelinsider.net/xn/detail/2018399:BlogPost:71038
I am beginning to think William Ayers, although mighty good at creating highly explosive instruments, he certainly doesn’t have this photoshop thing down yet. Certainly looking like some of his work, of course he probably is not completely guilty, like in the past, this could be the work of some of his loyal students.
I don’t know, I have to disagree that the name UKL Lee is that unlikely. That 1959 BC posted on WND a few days ago is signed by the then director of health, Richard K.C.Lee.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=298101
Not to mention it has now appeared on I think three different certificates that have been displayed online, including that one.
Well, Richard K.C. Lee was the Dir. of Health, not the “local registrar”, although your point is well taken that he, at least, used two initials. Maybe it was a Hawaiian thing, because they had an “Anglo” name and used initials for their Hawaiian name. It would be well if somebody could actually turn up the NAME of this supposed registrar. According to WND, the number of local registrars was reduced to 4 for the entire Hawaiian Island Territory. There was just the one for Honolulu. If you scroll way up to the top of this page of comments, you’ll see where I posted the excerpts of several of these bc’s, showing a comparison of Mr. Ukulele’s signature. It would be nice to know exactly what his name was. Is the first letter a U or is it a C? It certainly looks as if the signature on Obama’s was composed of parts from the other bc’s. How could a person write his name so exactly the same? This was long before the days of automatic signatures. Some have already pointed out that it was also before the days of felt-tip pens. Is that so? I don’t remember. I do remember when Bic ballpoints came out, and I remember using a pen with ink cartridges in grade school. Do the signatures seem signed in felt tip?
Answer to the question: A Japanese fellow name Horie invented the felt-tip pen in 1962. The Papermate Flair was one of the earliest versions on the market in 1966.
Miri,
First–I did read your response to me on your ‘gaggle’ thread, thank you. I am sorry and I don’t mean to annoy you guys by not always responding, I do come back after I leave a comment and read your responses (almost always) even if it takes me a day or two..but your responses are usually jammed packed with info so I really do have to take a moment to just digest what you offer.
[IOW, if I respond before I digest, most likely I’ll get something completely wrong or sound stupid and make an ass of myself. ]
_________
On to the pen/felt tip…Personally, I find it strange that SAD’s pen was almost calligraphic in her signature (in it’s thick-to-thin line weight) but the date by her name was not written in a pen with that same pronounced characteristic.
It just seems that every single time in my entire life that I had to formally sign something, I also dated it – if needed – at the same time and with the same pen.
Just like every. single. form. we’ve see online that SAD ever touched, her signature on the LFBC is slip-slop, crazy-ass, all kinds of weird.
Parenthesis around your legal first name in a formal signature like an after-thought???? Geez & WTF rolled into a ball! Who does that??? The woman’s handwriting is crazier than a serial killer’s. It’s freakish handwriting, it’s chicken scratches…it takes her two and three times to get her name/signature ‘right’ on everything it seems.
It gives me a headache to look at stuff she’s ‘filled out.’ Talk about batshit nutty: SAD’s handwriting, signature and expression of her recollection of her own, her husband’s and her children’s names could be on display in a museum for the criminally insane.
And STILL I have not gone far enough in describing how weird her handwriting is.
I agree, Miss Tickly. That’s one of our best arguments. Anybody could have a document or two with some questionable entries, but this guy and his family have EVERY document (of the VERY few revealed) with MANY questionable entries. They don’t even know their own names or how to spell them! Barak, Barrack, Barack, Barry; Hussein, Houssain; Jr. or II; SHIRLEY, Ann, Anne, S. Ann, Stanley Ann, etc. On and on.
Right, Miri, my only point was the director of health Lee also had four names, like the registrar Lee, although I think the most convincing evidence it is a real name is the fact it is found on several of the BCs.
I asked the HS Library if they had any records with a historical list of the registrars, they sent me to the HS Archives who told me to contact the Dept of Health…needless to say, I didn’t bother. A Polk directory for Honolulu might have Mr (Miss?) UKL Lee’s name, and profession but I don’t have access to a 1961 Honolulu Polks directory.
That’s a thought, SEO! A Polk directory. Now who might have one? Would the library do a lookup?
I guess we have to trust WND and Corsi that the bc exemplar they put online is legit. The others, I’m not so sure of because there’s not much of a provenance. They could be as bogus as Barry’s, although Mrs. Nordyke’s look real, even if she’s tightly connected with the East-West Center, too.
I read elsewhere that obots, mostly, propose that his name was Vick Lee or Vince Lee. If that first letter is a C, there were quite a few Chung Lees in Hawaii, based upon genealogy websites. Without knowing the full name, it’s hard to find him. If he was registrar in the ’60s, then he could have been born anywhere between 1896 and 1943. Most likely in the 1920s, though.
Miri, I just emailed the librarian at the HSL to ask about a Polk for 1960 Honolulu. I’ll let you know what she says.
Great! Good going, SEO. Of course, we must always wonder, after the birth announcement fiasco, what the HSL librarian knew and when she knew it.
Likely origination of the 1959 BC on the web is here:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/politics-religion-and-controversy/2825185-heres-how-you-present-a-birth-certificate.html
That’s a good find, Bones. Thanks! What’s interesting is that WND uses it as an example. So was it on this blog first or at WND first? Did WND get it from a blog, without provenance; or did this person post it as if it’s his BC? That was posted on that blog on April 27. It’s in Drew Zahn’s WND story of May 14. So did Zahn contact this person and make sure it’s legit and get permission to post the bc?
Bones, thanks for that. Except it wasn’t posted until 4/ 27/2011.
Note the name of the Director of Health
Richard K. C. Lee, M.D.
Is he a relative of Ukulele?
And there is Rodney West .
SEO: What would be nice is an entire copy of the Polk Directory for ’61. Now I’d like to see the records for W, as in Waidelich (spelled Waidalich, if I’m not mistaken, in the birth announcements).
Nordyke numbers expose Obama document fraud?
Newly found details about birth registration show president’s certificate out of sequence
May 16, 2011 Snips
NEW YORK – Newly unearthed information about Hawaii’s procedure for numbering birth records at the time Barack Obama was born casts further doubt on the authenticity of the short-form and long-form birth certificates published online with the president’s authority.
Details about the registration procedure are significant, because some analysts have wondered how Obama could have been issued a registration number that is higher than the numbers of the published birth certificates of Susan and Gretchen Nordyke, which were registered three days later than the president’s.
A search of Hawaii newspapers indicates 13 babies were born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, and 22 on Aug. 5, 1961, suggesting Obama’s birth certificate number should be about 30 to 50 digits lower that the Nordyke twins’ numbers. Since the Hawaii DOH will not allow an open inspection of the August 1961 birth records, it is impossible to know how many birth certificates the registrar general filed and numbered between Aug. 8 and Aug. 11, 1961.
Birth certificate procedures revised in 1955
In his 1955 article, Bennett and Tokuyama noted that by 1950, Hawaii had reduced the total number of local registrars from 35 to four.
Bennett’s and Tokuyama’s article is also rich in details regarding how the original birth certificates were produced in Hawaii in the era in which Obama was born.
“In practice, a hospital where a birth occurs assumes the responsibility for reporting it,” they noted. “Since more than 95% of all birth occur in hospitals, this is the usual procedure.”
Here is the critical paragraph:
A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=299781#ixzz1MnlTsu00
Did someone obtain proof of the August 2010 creation date?
The thing was supposedly stamped April 25, 2011 – a creation date of 2010 would be impossible if it were real.
And RE: Virginia Sunahara and the claim that the number ending in 41 WAS hers… what is the evidence for this? Claims that aren’t backed up by evidence are useless, unless you’re using them to market an e-book. No offense, but let’s see it.
No offense, Bones, but when and where did we EVER make a claim that the Sunahara number ended in 41? We’re not marketing an e-book. Are you? We allowed you to comment, as we allow most others to comment who aren’t obviously Alinsky-tutored obots and who don’t personally attack others or make racist or sexist comments. We have rules; you can read them above. Just because we have an open forum where we allow all polite individuals to comment doesn’t mean that we BELIEVE everything everybody who comments here says.
In fact, if you read our blog, you’ll find that we have open minds and have also asked for PROOF whenever someone makes a claim. Don’t ask US for the evidence–WE didn’t make the claim. Ask the person(s) who do make the claim.
But miri, Bone was asking where’s her record so we can see Sunhara’s certificate. I don’t know where she came from myself. ya’ll are talking about her .So where did she come from? I must have been out..
alfy, I answered Bone below, but it’s not here in line because this whole thread is screwed up with regard to the nesting function. I know that there’s no proof that that baby had that number on her BC. Nobody has her bc; it’s all speculation. If you believe “researcher”, even the mother said she doesn’t have it and WND says she’s “not interested” in getting it. I bet. If it were me, I would be running away as fast as I could. Either paid off big time or scared to death. Where did she come from? Ask whoever first exposed her name on WND forum, over a year or two ago. Long ago. The comment was deleted. Then recently, the name was put on the Free Republic forum, but that comment was deleted, too. But not before people saw it and started researching it again. But many were researching it from the first time it was shown on the Web. As I said, at least a year, maybe two, ago. I was out, too, when that comment was linked to. By the time I came back, it had been deleted.
Thanks Miri , very much for the explanation of the name. But that just lead me to the question, something I made reference to sometime recently, that this type of scenerio could have for sure happened. I dont know why Hawaii doesn’t have an electronic index like the ACT on electronic records of 1996 trys to establish and the act was supposed to have most states done by 1999. In other words you could review all births and deaths by electronic(internet) record of a recorded birth index. It’s silly…. you can view the whole list like butter dilly or rosemary what’s her name claim they saw. by the way, I hate to make accusations, but to tell you the truth the record she showed a long time ago didn’t fly to well with me because I have worked with records since I was a teenager in the record room at a hospital, across the hall from the registrar of deeds in my courthouse, the clerks office filing and typing and transferring written records to microfilm, criminal dockets, all the lingo and I have never seen such simplistic records in my life for births…. I know things can change,,,,,,,OOps also I recorded records for the tax office for all property listings.I have looked at old barely visible records for old cemetaries and records have more identifying markers than those at the Hawaii department had. That could not have been the only public records availabel for births…for public viewing. I am not saying this was not a real record, but it is supicious to me that if you went to the trouble to finally go in and get some record that is all you could come out with.
I apologize for any confusion. The August 2010 is the creation date for all of the letters (4 pages) that were produced and put on the WH website. The Adobe information was on that file. I mistakenly read Miri’s information incorrectly. She was talking about the bc file and I was looking at the file with the letters. Still the Adobe creation date for the letters shows they were created in August, 2010. The modifications after that were not in the Adobe summary page. They were well prepared, don’t you think?
When I realized my error and that we were talking about two different files, I downloaded the bc file on May 5, 2011 and it stated the bc file was created on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:09:24 AM. I don’t know if that was the original file that was on the WH website. I took a screen shot of the birth certificate rather than downloading the file on the day it was released. We still need someone to look at the file if they downloaded it that morning to see what information is in the Adobe file.
I agree regarding Sunahara, it is all supposition and deduction at this point. Orly has requested discovery of the vital records of Virginia Sunahara in her latest lawsuit.
For Orly’s lawsuit information, stay on this thread and go back two pages and search for:
Bridgette | May 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Miri,
I didn’t mean to offend you, and my question with the ebook comment was aimed at the person who said the number WAS 41 (Dr. Polland). ‘Not “probably”‘ he said. But he didn’t back it up. And I was feeling angry about seeing claims like that that aren’t backed up by evidence. It creates disinformation. And in the next sentence he starts talking about how it will be exposed in his ebook. It made me angry. I am sorry. I’m not typically an impolite commenter, but I don’t understand what is up with a comment like that.
Sorry, Bones, if my response was snippy. We’re often criticized by other commenters for allowing some people to speculate here. Since you’re new, I didn’t discern where you were coming from. My bad. It’s just that we’re too often attacked by hit-and-run “guests”, if you know what I mean.
In addition, some of our commenters do try to persuade us to ban certain individuals who, in our opinion, don’t merit banning.
If the person follows our rules, then we allow him or her to speak, in the spirit of free speech and an open marketplace of ideas. That doesn’t mean that we agree with everything said and anybody is welcome to challenge the claims or dispute the evidence.
We do often challenge people who make claims without backing them up. In the case to which you refer, I see that we didn’t specifically challenge Dr. Polland to show us proof, although I did obliquely state that I awaited more evidence of this supposed family connection between the former HDOH employee and the infant in question.
We also asked him for an opinion on that August 2010 creation date, but none was forthcoming. An expert on another blog did state that if a pdf has a creation date on it, that’s when it WAS created. Which is quite curious.
Bridgette and I were talking about different files, which we probably forgot to clarify on the blog. In any case, it’s odd that the correspondence pdf was CREATED in August 2010, not in April 2011, which is the month/year on the letters themselves.
If the letters began to be created in August 2010, then it was during the last Hawaiian administration and different bodies were at the HDOH. This was around the time that Obama “joked” about how he can’t walk around with a birth certificate plastered on his forehead. At the time, I thought: Why not? It would be an improvement, and it might answer a lot of questions.
But you see, he doesn’t even allow examination of the PAPER so-called certified long-form that he claims was the item copied for the press.
Our blog IS aimed at the truth, so we hope it’s “great” in your book and that you come back to read and comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I may as well add this: We know that we’ve been mentioned recently on other blogs, with regard to this birth certificate number situation. If people shared information with others who leaked it (here or elsewhere), that’s not our problem. Loose lips sink ships.
Since the name was already “out there”, perhaps not as visibly as now and moderated out of existence after being on the Web for a short while, beginning at least a year ago (at World Net Daily and Free Republic, among other places), then we didn’t think we should have censored the information when it showed up on our blog.
If others think otherwise, they might have contacted us, presented their case for deletion, and we would have certainly considered it, because we’re all working towards the same goal. Aren’t we?
I have nothing against your blog – only that one commenter’s comment.
If your blog is aimed at the truth, then it’s great in my book.
Bridgette, thanks for the clarification on the August 2010 date.
Let me also add that it’s entirely possible that many saw that name, when first mentioned on the Internet, or figured it out for themselves, by carefully examining items that were freely shared on the Internet. So many may have independently researched the very same possibility, but kept their research to themselves until they had solid evidence.
The more I troll the Internet, the more apparent it becomes that there’s rarely such a thing as an “original idea.”
This one was stolen and exposed, tipping off the general public too soon busting any chance of the needed discovery. Yes, Miri, you know the person who was leaking this information weeks ago on several blogs.
Put up or shut up Kathy. Don’t assume Miri knows who did anything.
There is no leaking information when that information is already on the internet. Does one person “own” said information? How so? Once information is used in a story what makes you think it can be “leaked”?
In the News Business information can’t be leaked after it’s used in a story. Get a grip.
Some of the people you have been trusting our not who they seem. They are more interested in promoting their own agenda than getting to the truth and they don’t care who they step on in the process. Read Corsi’s book, WND and the Post and Email. They site the correct sources!
My bad….it should be are not our above.
Perhaps the word stolen is too harsh, but reckless betrayal of trust is definately the case.
Try indexing Corsi and see what you find. Try PACER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi
Kathy said, “Yes, Miri, you know the person who was leaking this information weeks ago on several blogs.”
How so? I know the person? That’s news to me.
I saw one mention of that child’s name on THIS blog in late April. That’s the only place I recall seeing it RECENTLY, but it was mentioned on Free Republic and WND over the past few years. I saw it there and others did, too, even though those comments were scrubbed. Is one group of researchers the only folks in all of cyberspace to have seen and noted that name?
Anybody who wanted the name taken off our blog might have requested it, but nobody did. Ergo, nobody thought it was a “leak” so important that it endangered “needed discovery.”
That recent comment at FR, linked from here, was scrubbed before I ever saw it and clicked it.
Stolen? What exactly was stolen? The name of the child? It’s been on the Web for at least a year, if not longer. Also on the Web, freely shared with everyone, were the images of newspaper pages containing the name.
Since the name and images were on the Web, the general public already knew. As did the family, who was actually visited, as exposed, iirc, on May 13. Several stories were written about that investigation; one story was written last year, same blog, same author, LAST AUGUST.
Both articles would certainly tip off anybody involved in a possible BC# theft. So it was known that somebody was looking as long ago as last summer, iirc.
If that number was stolen, the thieves know from whom they took it. So all they needed to know for a tip off was to know somebody was looking. But surely they didn’t need evidence that people were investigating. “Birthers” have been looking for years. Even Trump admitted that he had investigators looking. He’s got more resources than do citizen investigators. So does Corsi, who’s been looking for years, as well as Andy Martin. Remember him?
My guess is that anybody involved has already been paid off or threatened well enough to make that avenue a dead end. Any records have already been taken care of. Long ago. Since all of Barry’s documents have been scrubbed, cauterized, or disappeared, wouldn’t anything that would prove this particular theft have also been taken care of?
Threads at FR and MANY other blogs speculated that the number belonged to a child born within that timeframe, who later died. Not exactly rocket science. It’s the stuff of many a detective novel and spy movie.
I can’t remember the name of the movie, but I clearly remember seeing one where an actor walks through a cemetery, like Billy Ayers, looking for deceased infants, so he can order the bc’s and somebody can assume their identities.
That child isn’t the only candidate, btw. There were others born and died that same month, same city and state. It was a sad state of affairs in Hawaii at that time. Too many infant deaths.
How many “birthers” are there? How many others have been researching this same stuff for YEARS?
Now you say that stolen is “too harsh” and you prefer “reckless betrayal of trust.” Then you claim that “some of the people you (who, me or all of us here?) have been trusting” are imposters or have another agenda.
If it’s a reckless betrayal of trust, then who has been mistakenly trusting someone unwisely? Surely not us. We’re not the ones who claim to be betrayed.
Who exactly ARE the “correct sources” that are given CREDIT in Corsi’s book, WND, and Post & Email? Is their goal to get CREDIT and be cited, or is it to expose a fraud and, as you suggest, get to the truth? Who’s been stepped on? And how?
Don’t be accusing me of knowing something that I don’t know. Like alfy, I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Name the person who is being accused of whatever. Who shouldn’t be trusted? Whose trust was betrayed? Why is this shrouded in secrecy? If something happened, what exactly was it? Innuendo is just that, innuendo. If something is put on the web, it becomes public knowledge.
All researchers have followed multiple leads or tidbits of information for 3 years and to attempt to pit people against an unknown person is ridiculous.
We know full well that WND has used our information in their articles and not acknowledged us. We may not like it, but it became public information that they could use and investigate further. Would we prefer to be acknowledged for our work, of course.
We like Reagan’s motto, “Trust, but verify!”
wish I knew what ya’ll were talking about in reference to leaking and proving information and I digress. Anyway, in reference to the Sunhara person, I had been thinking a stolen record switch was highly probable. Not sure the details,but it’s so funny , because I was just reading yesterday a really complex sight on matching birth,death identities and probable matching pairs by deduction. Believe me if I have just sounded confusing, so in depth and technologle was the sight, that I decided it was of no use save it to make my point that the switcheroo of birth certicates was a real possibility. But……..Sunhara’s records are not(I should say are not supposed to be) unavailable to the general public, especially, if she is dead. Her birth and death certificates , if they exist would be obtainable in the county where she was born, and most likely (given the site I was just reading)if the death occurred shortly after birth, the death certificate would be in a close proximity ,(ie, same county or nearby county). Who can check this out?
They have checked it out already. They couldn’t get access to records. Go to butterdezillions for all of the information. They are the ones doing the research as well as ladysforest. Your questions will be answered by reading their blogs.
That’s really something! And damning. I wonder what the response to THIS will be?
And Esquire Magazine is a liar tooooooo……………
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=300301#ixzz1MioxHk5n
Bye Bye Newt !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_(magazine)
Esquire is a men’s magazine, published in the U.S. by the Hearst Corporation. Founded in 1932, it flourished during the Great Depression under the guidance of founder and editor Arnold Gingrich.[2]
Esquire appeared, for the first time, in October 1933. Founded and edited by David A. Smart, Henry L. Jackson (who was killed in the crash of United Airlines Flight 624) and Arnold Gingrich.] It later transformed itself into a more refined periodical with an emphasis on men’s fashion and contributions by Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. In the 1940s, the popularity of the Petty Girls and Vargas Girls provided a circulation boost. In the 1960s, Esquire helped pioneer the trend of New Journalism by publishing such writers as Norman Mailer, Tim O’Brien, John Sack, Gay Talese, Tom Wolfe and Terry Southern. Under Harold Hayes, who ran it from 1961 to 1973, it became as distinctive as its oversized pages. The magazine shrank to the conventional 8½x11 inches in 1971. The magazine was sold by the original owners to Clay Felker in 1977, who sold it to the 13-30 Corporation, a Tennessee publisher, two years later. During this time New York Woman magazine was launched as something of a spinoff version of Esquire aimed at female audience. 13-30 split up in 1986, and Esquire was sold to Hearst at the end of the year, with New York Woman going its separate way to American Express Publishing.
David Granger was named editor-in-chief of the magazine in June 1997. Since his arrival, the magazine has received numerous awards, including multiple National Magazine Awards—the industry’s highest honor. Prior to becoming editor-in-chief at Esquire, Granger was the executive editor at GQ for nearly six years. Current[when?] award winning staff writers include Tom Chiarella, Scott Raab, Mike Sager, Chris Jones, John H. Richardson, Cal Fussman, Lisa Taddeo and Tom Junod.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gingrich
I don’t get the bye bye Newt? What does he have to do with this?
Let’s see, does Esquire cater to mostly black people/men? Or am I thinking of Ebony? If the Soros group wrote that about Corsi’s book being cancelled or set it up, who would they be most worried about reading the book?
Later on, they tried to add that the information or article was satire..good luck with that in court. A totally intentional set up.
I guess information about Corsi’s book should be on the Enemies List.
I think Esquire caters to “gentlemen”. Elites, certainly. Men.
How Not to Write Satire
An Esquire writer lobs an egg at the birthers, but the yolk’s on him.
May 18, 2011 Snips
None of that report that is true. I assume it is a very poorly executed parody. In any case, I [J. Farah] have begun exploring our legal options, since this report has all the earmarkings of a deliberate attempt at restraint of trade, not to mention libel.”
Over at WND, in a story posted before the disclaimer was added to the Esquire post, Farah lobs an accusation that is about as plausible as the book itself:
“This is an astonishingly reckless report by a company that has demonstrated its total disregard for the truth,” said Farah. “I don’t know who Esquire’s anonymous sources are, but I can only guess that their address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Does WND have a case against Esquire? Color us skeptical. Farah and Corsi are public figures, so that in order to prove libel, they would need to establish not only that the material was false, but that it was published with “actual malice”–defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as “knowledge that it was false or . . . reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331400552386130.html
Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones: White House Running Scared Over Latest Discovery of Obama’s True Origins – 1 out of 3 videos
Bombshell information!
Corsi may have found who the forger was.
Corsi says there is a Smiley face in the A in the birth certificate? Have you seen it?
He is talking about the misspelling of THE and instead it is TXE
Information in the bc shows who the forger is and he is not in the media, but close to the government.
Part II Jerome Corsi: White House Running Scared Over Latest Discovery of Obama’s True Origins 2/3
Signature characteristics of the forger.. The way they do their work..their information is in the birth certificate. He says the Initials of the person involved are in the birth certificate and he is looking to identify the chain of people in this cover-up. Hopes to tie this up in a week.
Criminal tampering of birth records in Kenya..will hope to release information on Monday on Alex Jones and on WND. Kenyan government states that medical records surrounding Obama’s were also tampered with. Kenyan officials did extensive investigation. Corsi has documents.
Part III. Jerome Corsi: White House Running Scared Over Latest Discovery of Obama’s True Origins 3/3
Yes, this is the beginning of the end. We wanted them to release the document and knew it would be fraudulent. They had to forge it within the group. They will crash criminally. The truth is Obama was not born in Hawaii. He is not who he says he is.
Barry Soetoro Soebarka. Corsi sent Trump a copy of the book at his request. Then he dropped the issue. He told Trump that he needed to ask for forensic investigation, expecting him to stay in the battle.. There is some building to be built in Chicago (GE), so Trump got what he wanted. Moveon.com and media matters are blackmailing and telling advertisers if they advertise on any conservative sites, TV etc., all backed by Soros, that they will be destroyed. This is using blackmail, espionage, RICO violations, infiltrating companies to destroy them, etc. There is a cover-up being perpetrated which is a crime.
‘The Obama code’: Hidden messages in birth doc?
Computer experts find anomalies embedded in White House release
May 21 Snips
NEW YORK – Recalling Dan Brown’s bestselling novel “The DiVinci Code,” computer experts have discovered strange anomalies in the Obama birth record released by the White House. They include a different birth registration number that shows up in “hidden text,” remnants of the short-form certificate apparently bleeding through the long-form and a “smiley face” in the registrar’s stamp that does not show up on other recently issued Hawaii birth records.
Curiously, in a simple process run by Optical Character Recognition software that reveals hidden text, the registration number 10611 turns up, instead of 10641, the number displayed on the two birth records authorized for publication by the White House.
Application of the Adobe Acrobat’s “Examine Document” function on the Obama long-form document produces the following hidden text: The number 10611 would seem to be more plausible than 10641, which appears to be out of sequence with the numbers of the published birth certificates of twins born a day after Obama. Is 10611 Obama’s true birth registration number, the number on a document used by a forger or just a meaningless symbol beneath the text?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301329#ixzz1N9tyaXQl
Ghost of the short-form birth certificate?
While the White House posted an electronic copy of Obama’s birth certificate printed on the green hash-mark paper of the Hawaii Department of Health, the press was handed a paper copy that for some unspecified reason lacked the green background.
Within days, contributors demonstrated on AboveTopSecret.com that when the copy is run through a color filter process in Paintshop Pro, the text of Obama’s short-form certification of live birth, oddly, appears to bleed through the page. The contributors speculated that the short-form birth certificate was placed behind the white, long-form birth certificate when it was copied for distribution to the White House press April 27.Here are two versions of the white birth certificate analyzed under color filters [See the bleed through]
Smile, Alvin T. Onaka!
WND previously reported that a close inspection of the Hawaii Department of Health state registrar’s stamp affixed by Alvin T. Onaka on the White House-released document reveals a curious misspelling. The language of the seal reads, “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of TXE record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.”
Additionally, with a magnification of 800 percent, the distinct form of a smiley face can be seen on the side of the “A” in Onaka’s first name. The figure appear to be a side profile of a face with a nose, eye and mouth. Why would the Hawaii DOH allow the document issued to the president to contain an obvious smiling face hiding within the first letter of the state registrar’s signature? Or, could it be the work of a forger leaving his mark, laughing at those who take the document seriously?:
Jerome Corsi To Release Details On Key Media Person Who Helped Create Obama’s New Birth Certificate; Got AP’s Mark Niesse!?
May 20
World Net Daily’s Dr. Jerome Corsi will soon release details of the key person who helped create Obama’s newly forged birth certificate. Dr. Corsi reports the key person is in the Media.
Could the key person in the media be that scumbag AP reporter in Hawaii named Mark Niesse!?
See Sunday, August 29, 2010 http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/hawaii-doh-exposed-hawaii-department-of.html
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/jerome-corsi-to-release-details-on-key.html
A Must-Read from MissTickly:
Thanks Bob, I have asked Leo if we can post it in full.
Leo is all for spreading the truth.
Democratic National Committee Uses Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate for Fund Raising–A Huge Mistake
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/ooooooopsdnc-makes-big.html
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/revealed-us-citizenship-and-immigration.html
*******************************************
Check out pages 167, 168, and 169, under filing status, there is no exemption for Barry, and on page 168, Maya is listed as an exemption, but no Barry. Page 169 shows 3 exemptions, and no Barry. I don’t know what it means, but either Barry inserted himself into this family, or someone else claimed Barry as an exemption.
Miri, Miss Tickly, et al.
Great comments and detail. BTW Miri, I am about to release a book on this – aimed primarily at those on the so-called “Right” who have cheerlead this whole thing for the White House, by disparaging all of us – those with critical thinking skills. Anyway, you asked at one point if FactCheck was actually a part of the Obama Campaign. While I focus on that in the book, do you really have to ask the question? Ditto that for PolitiFact, Snopes, and Wikipedia. They might as well be the DailyKos or FightTheSmears. Their transparency is so overt that it is comical. They, however, can be “forgiven,” or, at least, understood. Fox News, however, gets no such pass in my book. The title is “Oh Really, O’Reilly!” It will be out soon!
Tom Ballantyne – Author of Uncommon Sense…Apparently!
http://www.UncommonSenseNow.com
Did I ask that about FactCheck? If so, I must have been feeling facetious, fey, ironic that day. We’ve known for a long time that FactCheck is, shall we say, and extension. Annenberg. Obama. Chicago. Soros.
Good luck with your book.