Obama Long-Form Gaggledygook

© Miri WTPOTUS 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Astoundingly audacious!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BAUER: I’ll let Dan —


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTER: You showed us a photocopy of one.

PFEIFFER: No, I showed you – 

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

REPORTER: Does that have a stamp?

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

PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98 responses to “Obama Long-Form Gaggledygook

  1. Good one Miri. The picture says it all…like a flock of geese, following along…

  2. Thanks to both. Isn’t it amazing that the media allow this administration to get away with this? Can you imagine them being so meek with a Nixon press gaggle? Or a GWB press gaggle? No photos. No audio. Can’t even SEE the document closely, even though Obama’s lawyer used making it “publicly available” the reason for a waiver.

    It’s NOT available to the media, much less the public. And the media march, in gaggle-like lockstep, reporting that the issue is decided. However, if they weren’t still concerned that it might again become an issue, then why are some in the cabalistic complicit media still going all Alinsky on us? Why more than two weeks later, is a guy writing a review of an unrelated book and inserting the “birther” issue, while christening a new name for the next expected (feared?) “conspiracy theory?”

    Why come up with “Forgers” to ridicule people who would be expected to have logical questions? Even that anonymous reporter foresaw it.

    Here’s an article that has a pretty good summary:

    “Carol Tabor, president of Family Security Matters told the Gazette the document needs to [be] forensically tested to confirm its authenticity.

    ‘Two years ago, the mainstream media published an online document and told us it was a birth certificate, which the White House at the time did not correct- that was a lie, which we now all know. More recently, Hawaii suggested the president of the United States could not get his own birth certificate despite their own statute stating otherwise– which was another lie, we now all know.’

    Tabor asked why Obama couldn’t have produced the document prior to Lakin’s court martial, ‘What possible explanation and what sort of character does Obama have for sending a soldier to jail over the very same document the soldier had to produce per his military deployment orders?’

    She continued ‘Because of all of the above, there is NO TRUST left for a man who will seal all of his life documents, and then for the documents and vital statistics that have surfaced -due to the efforts of private investigators, certainly not his own -[to] reveal that there are signs of possible fraud? No, Reagan was right when he referred to an unsavory opponent:Trust, but verify. Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate MUST be tested forensically.’

    Retired Naval Commander Charles Kerchner, whose lawsuit asking for proof of Obama’s eligibility was dismissed by the Supreme Court said he is angry that the president would allow Lt.Col Terry Lakin to go to jail for six months when he could prevented it by releasing the document sooner.

    ‘I watched Obama at that brief press conference with the smirk on his face saying he thought all this interest in his birth certificate was amusing. What a pompous arrogant person he is.'”

    That about sums it up. LTC Lakin may be released, but his family still suffers. And this complicit media all studiously avoid mentioning THAT topic. Why? Because they know it would resonate with the American people IF THEY KNEW what happened to LTC Lakin. Especially now that this “birth certificate” has been shown.

    Here’s a good op-ed about Obama’s “character” from someone in the middle of the Show-Me state:

    “A person’s character is the foundation of his actions and therefore it follows that a person’s observable behavior is an indication of true character. President Obama has clouded the controversy around his birth by his silence and has allowed the dispute to continue so that it reveals his true character to be much less than exemplary. If he were honest and forthright, he would have released his long form birth certificate shortly after the controversy over it arose. Instead he spent millions of dollars and caused his media friends to denigrate those who dared question his place of birth.

    Patriotic people vote for the person they trust and believe will serve the nation’s best interest. When a person has a habit of being dishonest and deceitful in all that he does, people lose trust in him and don’t know when to believe him even if he is being truthful.”

  3. There remains a plethora of RECENT “news” articles ridiculing the “birthers” and debunking the “conspiracy”. If it were all over, then why is the Journolist still going at the issue so strong? A few links:
    Leonard Pitts, playing that well-worn race card: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/05/presidenting_while_black_leona.html

    They’re still polling the issue: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/half-of-republicans-polled-still-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-hawaii.html

    Slamming all–Trump, Berg, Taitz, and every birther is racist:

    The usual race card played plus lumping “birthers” together with Big Foot and Chupacabra (must show diversity!). This one merits a quote:

    “The Internet provides a vast conduit for all types of information, but it also makes it very easy to find evidence that supports whatever worldview you want to embrace.”

    Oh, Mr. Zullo, you wrote a pageful there! Yes, indeed. Those “birth certificates” that you find on the Internet provide your “evidence that supports whatever worldview YOU want to embrace.” Such as, Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii to the people he claimed as parents in his fictional fantasy biography. Nope! If Internet evidence, by YOUR OWN STANDARD, is not good enough, then neither are the “documents” presented to the public by the POTUS on the INTERNET. While bashing people who believe what they find on the Internet, Mr. Zullo ridicules those who don’t believe what the Obama campaign and later the WH, put on the Internet!

    I have a challenge for Mr. Zullo: Sir, please ask the WH to let you SEE both of those certified documents that you accept as real EVIDENCE of your worldview–the COLB as well as the newly released-to-the-“clouds” long-form birth certificate. Bring along a forensic document examiner. Ask that person to sign an affidavit stating the results of his or her expert opinion about the authenticity of those documents. Then call the HDOH and ask them whether those documents shown on the INTERNET contain exactly what is on the vital records they have locked in a vault and whether they CERTIFIED all that data as TRUE.

    Then get back to us about who believes in alternate realities. Actually, sir, you have proven our point–the point we’ve been making for nearly 3 years. Digital images on the Internet serve as proof of nothing.

    This guy is still hyping the “birth announcement” angle:

    LGBT gets in on the act:

    Birtherism is a “religion”; it’s time to “Move On”:

    • If it were all over, then why is the Journolist still going at the issue so strong?

      Here’s something else to consider in that list…

      The story of Obama not choosing High Tech High as the recipient of his Commencement address came out on May 10th:

      Obama passes on High Tech High

      The next day, May 11th, this was released as satire:

      High Tech High Students Expose Flaws in Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate, Rescind Invitation for President to Speak at Commencement

      Unfortunately some people like Gateway Pundit and
      Orly Taitz thought it was real.

      • Herbert Harrison O’Brien, huh? Sounds like somebody’s a REAL COMEDIAN.

      • Oh wow!

        The thing that struck me as unexpected and particularly odd in that satire was this section:

        We did a little followup work and found a death certificate for a Herbert Harrison O’Brien from the same hospital, dated August 5, 1961. The date of birth on that death certificate is given as August 4, same as little Barack Hussein Obama. But the funny thing is, there’s no corresponding birth certificate for baby Herbert. Where did it go? And why doesn’t Obama’s mother sign his birth certificate until August 7, three days after her son is born? By then, we were too depressed to dig any deeper.

        I didn’t understand why they put that in there until now. They are using Alinsky tactics on the Virginia Sunahara story (born August 4, 1961, died August 5, 1961). Despicable. But I think their attempts to shoot this down may be an indication that ladysforest is above the target.

        • I just searched the comments here on “Sunahara”, and found that this has had several comments in another thread, beginning with this comment:

          Submitted on 2011/04/27 at 8:29 pm

          H/T AOne…From Free..
          “I’d hate to have an authentic Hawaiian long form birth certificate that was issued within a week or so of the Kenyan’s birth, he desperately needs an available serial number. Probably used this one :

          Deaths in the Newspaper..
          Virginia Sunahara
          Born August 4, 1961 – Honolulu
          Died August 5, 1961 – Honolulu


        • Good catch, Red Pill! So the question is: When did Orly first publicize the details of that child’s life and death? Or was it publicized elsewhere first, in detail, so they pulled the Alinsky tactics asap? We’re given to believe high schoolers were involved. Rishika Daryanani. That one was named as a senior and somewhere I read that the person does exist and is a student at that school. It is despicable to parody the death of that poor child.

  4. Have you seen this?
    It’s an archive from Obama’s Garden. She no longer blogs.

  5. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/birther-colonel-returns-home-saturday

    They don’t REPORT about LTC Lakin’s release; they write op-eds slamming him as gullible and defending Obama when people ask the logical question: Why didn’t he produce the long-form for LTC Lakin, but instead let him go to PRISON?

  6. Oh, gee. I hate to cite Media Matters, but they’ve come up with a new Alinsky epithet: Post-Birthers. And they’re trying to redefine the meaning of natural born citizen. AGAIN. They trot out the Wong Kim Ark bugaboo, too. And they FALSELY claim that other presidents had a foreign-born parent and so must have been eligible, YET they cleverly neglect to state that one, Arthur, hid the truth that his parent wasn’t a US CITIZEN, just like Obama’s; and, as for the others, their “foreign-BORN parent” WAS A US CITIZEN when the future POTUS was born. Thus, all except the prevaricating Arthur were natural born citizens, unlike Obama. And as usual, they deliberately confuse CITIZENSHIP with NATURAL BORN citizenship. It never ends. Which is exactly my point. If they won and “birthers” lost, then why are they still beating this particular dead horse?


    As it continues, so it begins:

    “The controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers’ allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country’s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as “real” Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.”

    Don’t like it? Then use the process delineated IN the Constitution to AMEND the Constitution. Don’t IGNORE the Constitution, which is the Supreme LAW of the Land. And no, you’re not going to be able to get a SCOTUS ruling that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

  7. “Instead, he says there’s a seal, although one savvy reporter specifically asked about the STAMP. So the question remains:

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


    This is a wonderful catch. In fact, this was brilliant to go through that transcript, so much to learn and so many words to consider carefully…

    My feeling is that Loretta Fuddy, Acting HDOH Director and FORMER Deputy HDOH Director (also former direct supervisor to Alvin Onaka, too) is the custodian of Obama’s late birth certificate, NOT Onaka. She filed it. And as the custodian registrar AND now the director of the HDOH, she certified this LFBC in her cover letter by attesting to the authenticity of the copies and signing it with a notation of ‘enclosures.”

    And the seal that has clearly been obliterated from the pdf online cannot ever be seen because it is not a match to the one factcheck.org photographed three years ago.

    I don’t believe Onaka’s cert statement appears on that LFBC. What you caught here, affirms my suspicions.

    • Hi, old friend! Thanks. I think you’ve done some great work lately, too. 🙂

      Actually, I happened across that transcript the day before yesterday, when I was looking for the page on the WH website that linked TO those pdf’s. Most links in news stories went directly to the pdf’s. I wanted to see where the original link was posted and what was said by the WH to introduce the pdf’s.

      I don’t know what to think at this point. Fukino said that the “original” is in a bound book at the HDOH. Somewhere I read that it’s in smaller vault, in a room where only Onaka can access it. That might conform with what Trump learned–that it was “missing.”

      If the entire book that contains whatever ORIGINAL vital records exist for Obama, if any, has been taken from its usual location and put into a different, locked location, then maybe, in the opinion of the HDOH employees, it’s “missing.” Especially if the powers didn’t inform their minions what was being done with Obama’s records. I pondered this last night. If the whole book is stowed away, then maybe this is why they’re not going to give out long-forms anymore, because Onaka himself would have to make that book available if anyone with records in that book wanted a copy. But I’m sure that was all folderol to rationalize away questions about why he didn’t get the document before. Until he did.

      It’s not surprising that all the players in this drama are now different people, appointed by Abercrombie, a personal friend, supposedly, of Obama’s parents. Ms. Fuddy got the job after Dr. Palafox was taken out of the picture. My guess is that he had a modicum of ethics, so wouldn’t go along with these games.

      Maybe Fuddy was finally the person who WOULD “accept” the amendments to the birth certificate. I believe the enclosures referred to in her letter include the receipt for the copies. Iirc, she specifically mentions them in the letter. You may be correct that her letter serves as the “certification”, which is why the reporter may not have seen a STAMP on that piece of paper being waved around, although, there’s another possible explanation. We know COLBs are stamped on the reverse side. For some reason, this “long-form” was supposedly stamped on the front (if you ignore questions about the stamp being photoshopped in). We also know that the long-form obtained by Post & Email News, which was sent out by the HDOH in March 2011, was also stamped on the front side. (Why they stamp COLBs on the back but long-forms on the front is a mystery.)

      So perhaps that reporter could see only the back of the paper that Pfeiffer was holding up. On the other hand, if Pfeiffer showed them the front and there was no stamp . . .

      Even at a distance, that stamp should be visible if he held the paper up for the audience to see. No wonder they allowed NO cameras. Something tells me they confiscated cell phones before letting the pool into the briefing room. So much for transparency.

      I noticed immediately that what purports to be an embossed seal on that long-form looks nothing like it should. I wonder if Pfeiffer was referring to the seal of the state of Hawaii that’s at the top of the document?

      I’m still puzzling over why the so-called Onaka stamp says TXE instead of THE.

      I was impressed that at least one reporter TRIED to hold their feet to the fire and challenged them to put the original PHYSICAL documents on display. I wish he or she would have taken the next step and written an article specifying why that is SO counterintuitive. If the POTUS wanted to eliminate conspiracy theories, he would show the proof to everyone. That the WH specifically refused to release the originals to the media for examination SHOULD TROUBLE ALL OF THEM. They wouldn’t let Nixon, Bush, or Reagan get away with anything remotely similar. Are they racists? 🙂

    • It’s good to see you here, MissTickly!

      If you would, can you tell us why you decided to make your blog private?

  8. Orly today has a long and original analysis of the forgery and an insertion into a court case,
    It is here:

  9. Hi Miri,
    Great job and an interesting detailed analysis of the “Press Gaggle”.
    I’ve been evaluating the “Press Gaggle” for days now and after reading and studying, I’m not sure that an authentic document was ever shown to the press. Here’s why.

    During the initial presentation, the importance of showing the document and defining a genuine identification document with the appropriate authentication features such as the State of Hawaii seal, embossed stamp with signature, security paper and whatever else the state of Hawaii requires was not pointed out and the initial presentation would have been the time to do this. Something like, “What I am showing you is…” and explaining the alleged genuine “certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth” with the authentication features which Judy Corley of the Perkins, Coie law firm had allegedly picked up .

    U.S. Code § 1028 (d) defines “authentication feature” and “identification document”.

    “(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;”

    (3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of …, a State, …, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;”

    “Identification documents fall into two categories: (A) “genuine” or (B) “false.” Neither type is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1028. The types may even overlap at times.

    A. Genuine Documents — The term “genuine” is not used in section 1028 but is used here to refer to those authentic identification documents actually made or issued under the authority of a governmental entity.”

    The conversation in the gaggle eludes to showing the real document but it does not be conclusively determine the real “certified copy” was shown.

    Nothing concrete was presented in this “off camera and only pen and pad” white house write up “Press Gaggle” to authenticate the computer image we have all seen and Bob Bauer, the attorney, knows this.

    Besides nothing in this public record defines and/or proclaims the 2012 Democratic candidate as a natural born citizen required by the Constitution.

    • Hey! Great minds think alike! Your points are very well taken.

      Yes, it’s LOGICAL that they’d point out everything that would convince a (should be) skeptical audience that the document is real. However, doing that might lead to problems if it’s not real, if you get my drift.

      I thought about this, too. If a person wanted to prove something, is this how it would be done? No. If I were he, I’d invite the media, with cameras, to the HDOH to look at the original documents (after getting that waiver, of course). There should be no problem doing that, IF what he has told us is true. Especially since he planned to copy the documents and give them out to the media for publication, pretending that the information on them is TRUE and matches what’s on file in Hawaii.

      But if I did go their route–have a lawyer pick them up–then I’d at least let the media pass the document around. Remember show and tell at school? We always got to pass things around so each kid could take a gander.

      Why wasn’t the gaggle allowed a gander? (Pun intended.)

      • Miri,
        You said, “If a person wanted to prove something, is this how it would be done?”

        Although a press conference is not a judicial procedure, U.S. code does give us information of how to legally introduce evidence into the public record.
        And Bob Bauer knows this.

        “U.S. Code, Title 28—Judiciary And Judicial Procedure, Part V—Procedure, Chapter 115—Evidence; Documentary, § 1732. Record made in regular course of business; photographic copies” tells us that in a court of law that a reproduction must be satisfactorily identified.

        “… or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original,… Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding whether the original is in existence or not and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement, or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original.”

        The visual imitation does not ‘accurately reproduce’ and ‘satisfactorily identify’ the “certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth” as the authentication features are not evident on a computer screen image or a photocopy handout. —“the reproduced record, …does not preclude admission of the original”. Without an impartial independent verification or at least an examination by the press of the “certified copy”, the image is simply a reproduced visual imitation and is …nothing …without the proper authentication features.

        And you are right, “Why wasn’t the gaggle allowed a gander?” …lol

        If presented properly by the admin./campaign to the press, the press would have reported on this aspect of the B/C issue explaining to their readers the importance of the authentication features making their ‘sideshow political campaign’ strategy, … more truthful.

        The press got fooled …again.

        • Thanks for the legal analysis. This explains why I didn’t become a lawyer. Too many fine points to parse. Makes my head spin. Too hard for a fundamentally honest person to habitually be so disingenuous. It’s hard enough, and tiring enough, trying to figure out WHAT they might be up to.

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

          No it didn’t contain those items; it contained one-sided photocopies, not the “president’s long-form birth certificate.” So even the introduction of what was handed out was incorrect.

          Of course, that’s splitting hairs–nobody would expect them to give out original certified copies to each reporter, although, why not? If they got two certified copies, they could get 30. Or at least they could have got one copy to give to a chosen, trusted member of the media, who could then allow other reporters access to examine it.

          Whenever these LAWYERS and communication directors formerly known as press secretaries speak, they carefully parse EACH word. I agree; Bauer is a savvy lawyer, which is why the only mention of things like the birth announcements or the COLB were made in footnotes in the legal cases, not presented as evidence to any court. They didn’t “own” those items; they simply mentioned that the so-called “independent” BLOG FactCheck, among other blogs, reported about them.

          These people are thick as thieves. I just learned, while searching on Pfeiffer, to learn his educational background (BA in gov’t.), that he’s married to Sarah Feinberg, now Dir. of Communications at Bloomberg News but formerly senior advisor to Rahmbo when he was WH chief of staff. whorunsgov.com says she “matched Emanuel’s intensity and aggressiveness.”

          The press got fooled again, unless they wanted to be fooled, which is always a possibility with this krewe. However, I really was happy to see at least one reporter trying to make them be more forthcoming. This is the official WH transcript. I don’t know that there are any other transcripts available. So we don’t know how accurate or inclusive it is. Why did they have this secretive “press gaggle”, instead of an open process? I’m positive it’s because they knew there are clever citizens who, given any photo of that document Pfeiffer held, would be able to eventually expose it for whatever it was. It’s curious, too, that the transcript didn’t name the questioners. How transparent is that? Surely they knew the names of every person present. Or could have found out. How’d they make this transcript, anyway? Don’t We the People have a right to know, since we PAID for it? I mean, was there a court reporter? Or did the WH staff record it, later to be transcribed by a secretary not at the gaggle, so he or she couldn’t name the speakers?

          You got it! This was a perfect example of a political campaign sideshow run by carnival barkers! Only this time, they did it on OUR DIME.

  10. Click to access obamaen.pdf

    Check out the year that Obama’s official biography on a GOVERNMENT website said his parents married: 1959. If it’s true they married and that they married in February of the year he was born, then if he was born August 4, 1959, Hawaii wasn’t yet a state. That happened on August 21, 1959. I’m remembering that one of his campaign websites gave his age as 52. Remember that? Curiosities abound.

    • Miri, This is what I think too.

      • If he is born in ’59 then who is the mother…it cannot be SAD unless her birth was also changed.

        • Early on, tdr, there was controversy over her date of birth, too. This was way back when, at TD’s blog. I remember that we turned up birth years that were within a year or two of the year they finally settled on, 1942.

          This was like with the hospital of birth–first Queen’s, until they decided the “official” place would be Kapiolani.

          This was like with her NAME! It was Shirley Ann, Ann, Anna, Anne, S. Ann, until they finally settled on “Stanley Ann”. I have a gut feeling that somebody didn’t KNOW, when they “chose” her, that her first name was actually Stanley. Later in life, she went by S. Ann or Ann Dunham. If you see a scribbled signature of the name Stanley, it could be perceived by a reader as Shirley BECAUSE the person expects a woman’s name. The first letter is the same. The second letter, “t”, could easily be mistaken for an “h”. Same with the third letter, an “a” taken as an “i”. A handwritten “n” is often mistaken for an “r”. And the last three letters are the same. If the signature was on an old document, frequently copied, then it’s possible that it was misread.

          It’s proven by psychologists that people PERCEIVE what they EXPECT to see, even though reality differs.

          So I do think that early on, somebody saw a handwritten “Stanley” and read it as “Shirley”. Since she didn’t USE her first name, they assumed her name was Shirley until they learned otherwise. Which leads to the question–why wouldn’t a boy know his mother’s first name?

          Then again, I do believe it was reported that Aunt Virginia, who SADOS barely knew, once referred to her as Shirley, but since her aunt was involved in the rollout of so many of the “family photos”, then it might have been cover for the controversy over Shirley’s/Stanley’s name.

          Or maybe they settled on Stanley for some other reason–like to confuse people who were looking for official documents, until these documents could all be “cauterized.” In any case, she became Stanley.

          I also remember that people looked for her SSDI record and, iirc, at first it didn’t exist, until it did; but I might be confusing it with when we were looking for Madelyn’s death record.

          But I clearly remember discussing what the hell year SADOS was BORN. We had several years, revolving around 1940-1942. If you take her “official” date of birth and her “official” year of HS graduation, that is a mismatch, too. She should have graduated in 1961, not 1960. She was no genius and there was NEVER any mention of her skipping grades, which would logically be touted, if true, given that everything about this family is JUST SO EXCEPTIONAL!

          Usually kids who move around a lot, who often have to start over again at a new school, tend to fall behind, not get moved ahead. Mercer HS was a college prep school, which would be more demanding, not less demanding. Even her teachers there implied that she wasn’t a GREAT student. Her college grades back that up. So we don’t know when she was born.

          There were similar discrepancies in the reported AGE she was when she died. Remember? It ranged from 52 to 56, iirc.

          Who was BHO Sr.’s wife who was an American citizen, living in the Philippines, btw? It wouldn’t be SADOS, because she was still in school. Why would she be in the Philippines? So could it have been his other USC wife, Ruth? In which case, simultaneously married to Ruth and SADOS? So could Ruth be the Mrs. who gave birth in August ’61? Or could that USC wife be yet another wife so far not named? And she’s the one who gave birth in August ’61.

          Composite characters in the fictional fantasy autobiography. Composite wives for the alleged father?

    • Here is another article stating that Obama’s parents married in 1959. Do we have proof of Stanley graduating from high school in 1960? We’re back to wondering why she needed her birth certificate in July, 1959.


      • There’s no proof when SADOS graduated. Her so-called HS “friends” have been told by the POTUS to NOT SPEAK, according to a friend who was quoted, and why would she lie? It’s obviously true that none of them speak except the chosen few who speak the party line. Remember, too, that in the fictional fantasy autobiography, supposedly SADOS was in Chicago, being an au paire, after being ACCEPTED at a college there. She was in Chicago after school was out for that year and while there, she SAW the movie Black Orpheus. However, that couldn’t have been when she was 16, as reported in the book, because that movie was released in Dec. 1959. It had to have been the following summer, 1960, but that summer she supposedly was in Hawaii, preparing to be impregnated by BHO Sr. None of it hangs together. History is fungible in the Obamanation. Orwell truly was prescient.

        • this is as good a time as any to give you guys this. I have been busy. Lots I would share but not place to. I give you this because it is a new place to look and a treasure trove as well on some laudable aspects of Kenya at this time 50s-60s. And notice where where SAD’s mentor is . Au Paire?????? There is so much more. Adlai Stevenson makes trip all through Africa and more than once.Got to go ,more later. http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=39290

          • Alfy, Renee likes to play music. I’ve been wanting to play this one for you. So here it is…..What’s it all about Alfy?

    • Re: 1959
      Yes, I remember too, it was posted on his FaceBook page for the longest time. I believe I read that here @ WTP a few times. Probably in comments.

  11. Excellent analysis Miri! To bad the JournOlist do not have the critical thinking skills that you have.

  12. Affidavit Filed with Louisiana Court Declares Obama “Birth Certificate” a Forgery

    by Sharon Rondeau Snips

    Is this man an empty suit?

    (May 12, 2011) — A document which has become part of a lawsuit filed by offshore oil-drilling companies states unequivocally that the image released by the White House on April 27, 2011 purported to be a certified copy of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery.

    The analyst, Douglas B. Vogt, agreed with three other analysts whose reports have been published in recent days at The Post & Email in regard to the presence of multiple layers in the image. Vogt has described a superimposition of text as a “cut and past [sic] job” (page 4 of 21). He contends that the operation to create the image involved more than one person and amounted to “a conspiracy to defraud the United States” (page 5 of 21).

    The document was notarized on May 10, 2011, in the state of Washington (page 6 of 21).

    A second affidavit from the state of Florida by a different analyst states:

    I observed that the birth certificate pdf file could be opened with Adobe Illustrator and the software revealed that this document has many layers of images on it. This indicates that the document was not a true copy of the original birth certificate, but a recently created document using Adobe Illustrator.


  13. Rosemary Woodhouse

    The best yet! You are all so awesome! FWIW, despite the new theory that’s being floated about Trump being “part of it” {RW says: all of them (grin)} I don’t believe that’s so. I sent a link to this article to ShouldTrumpRun.com

  14. Rosemary Woodhouse

    I’m beginning to believe he was hatched in a petri dish (quasi kidding).

  15. The reason for reading..because he makes the distinction between being eligible as a natural born citizen and being ineligible as a naturalized citizen. Therefore, he may find it wrong that we don’t accept naturalized citizens as eligible to the office of president, but he does know we are not to make exceptions according to the constitution.

    A right of all citizens
    May 12, 2011 Snips

    In light of the recent controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy espouses his views on the subject in the May 12 edition of The New Republic online. In Kennedy’s opinion, the Constitutional provision that excludes non-native citizens from holding the nation’s highest office “makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as ‘real’ Americans who are native-born.

    The “general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners … will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,” Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. “It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”

    The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading.

    We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.


  16. White House releases “long form” birth certificate under pressure from Trump, other media outlets
    Jack Minor • May 12, 2011 Snips

    Naval officer furious for not releasing document sooner to prevent decorated officer from going to jail

    Retired Naval Commander Charles Kerchner, whose lawsuit asking for proof of Obama’s eligibility was dismissed by the Supreme Court said he is angry that the president would allow Lt.Col Terry Lakin to go to jail for six months when he could prevented it by releasing the document sooner.

    “I watched Obama at that brief press conference with the smirk on his face saying he thought all this interest in his birth certificate was amusing. What a pompous arrogant person he is.”

    He went on to say “The man is not a Commander in Chief. He’s a Narcissist in Chief.A Commander in Chief would have taken care of his men in uniform. A Commander in Chief would not allow harm to come to his men if he could easily prevent it. A real commander would not have allowed LTC Terry Lakin to go to prison for simply asking to see 18 months ago what Obama released today. Obama is a disgrace to the office of the Presidency.”


  17. MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website.

    Which one was the wrong one that he speaks about and which website was it posted on?

    • I wondered about that, too, because it made no sense in the context given. How could the “wrong” certificate “already” be posted on “the website?” WHICH website? How could anybody OTHER than the WH post any certificate on any website until they received them from the WH at this gaggle? Or maybe they sent them out in advance to complicit bloggers? I’d love to see this “wrong” certificate.

  18. Commensurate with the public release of his long-form birth certificate it was at least morally, if not moreover legally under the UCMJ, incumbent upon Obama to grant Lt. Col. Lakin an immediate pardon, re-instatement, back pay and appropriate recompense for false imprisonment.

    • Well, they did announce that Lakin’s being released. Is it tomorrow? Morally, LTC Lakin should never have been imprisoned. I cannot conceive of Obama granting a pardon or back pay. Lakin’s crime was to question and defy Barry. That crime, in Barry’s eyes, stands, regardless of whether or not the long-form exists, or what it says.

      To pardon or give clemency would be admitting fault, which is something Barry will never do. Only if it becomes a political issue that affects Barry personally, might he come up with some rationalization for clemency, which the complicit lamestream will accept and pass on, in gaggle-like lockstep, to a gullible public.

      But since the PUBLIC doesn’t even know about LTC Lakin, much less WHY he and his family suffer, it’s unlikely that the complicit gaggle will allow Lakin’s plight to become a political issue for Barry. As Trump said, the media protect him.

    • wouldn’t this be sort like withholding evidence. I say new trial on false documents and withholding those docs and impuning the reputation of Lt. Col. Lakin.

      • That would be a good point except the judge probably ruled that the documents wouldn’t be evidence one way or the other because they threw out the entire rationale for why LTC Lakin “disobeyed orders.” I’m happy he’s out. I hope he gets justice, eventually. A Republican president might restore his pension and benefits. We can pray for that. It’s a shame that this POTUS is such a small person, in so many ways.

  19. He’s not a NBC and it’s there for all to see. Father Kenyan, case closed. We have a Government in Breach of Contract. Breach Birthers.

  20. 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/

    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”.

  21. I cross posted the above comment from another thread, because I want other opinions. I’m referring to those hand-written codes on the various birth certificates. For example, the 9 written next to BHO Sr.’s name and the 1 written next to Stanley Ann’s name. My theory is that they are codes for the person’s race, used when they keypunched cards for use in compiling biostatistical reports on vital records.

    The lamestream media is not giving up on this topic. They’re still polling and are alarmed at the results. Here are a few stories:


    “‘That uncertainty and disbelief is likely to continue until most Republican leaders and candidates publicly affirm that they believe the issue has been settled,’ says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin: ‘Partisans are rarely convinced by partisans on the opposite side.’

    The findings also reflect a deterioration in faith in ‘the traditional gatekeepers of truth,’ including the news media and senior political leaders, he says. ‘There’s a problem in what do you believe when everything is contested so vigorously by both sides.'”

    Sounds like he’s an advocate for censoring too many “sides”. Shut down that damned Internet! Especially bloggers. It makes it too hard for “traditional GATEKEEPERS (bad choice of words!)” to create the “truth”. Anti-Constitutionalists, all. They HATE, absolutely HATE, that part about freedom of speech and a marketplace of ideas. They cannot RULE until they can create “truth”, history, everything. Orwell knew them SO WELL.

    So there’s also the reason why they’re hyping this: They’ll be back to berating EVERY Republican with the same old question. The VERY first question in EVERY interview, until every Republican leader and candidate bows down. They will be challenging them ALL to disavow “birthers”. Watch for it. They’re going to try to force the people they think are our leaders to browbeat us into submission. Because this is what Democrats, progressives, Nazis, Marxists, Commies, and the lamestream do, they think this is what conservatives do, too. They think that We the People will knuckle under to group think and mind control if ONLY all the Republicans tell us to grovel. It ain’t gonna happen. IF any Republicans fall for this, then it’s time to start working for that Republican’s defeat, too. The media is under orders from above. They WILL try to make every Obama opponent speak the words that they want to put into their mouths. This will be the “litmus test” of 2012. You MUST repeat after me, “The case is settled. Barry was born in Hawaii. His long-form is real. It’s proven. He’s a natural born citizen. He’s eligible.” If you don’t say this, on cue, you are a RACIST!

    Here’s another story:

    Read that one. Turns out birthers are Southern Rubes or Ignorant Undereducated Folks. 🙂

  22. Congratulations Miri……Great Article……….Did you know this article was selected as the Blog of the Day over at The Post and Email?

  23. h/t Newssleuth: Jack Cashill has yet another story about Obama’s mother. This time, it’s about how the lamestream media CONTINUE to carry water for Barry, with regard to his bogus creation stories. He writes about Janny Scott’s new book and also refers back to a similar coverup by David Remnick. Remember that a review of Remnick’s book referred to her as SHIRLEY:

    “The Bridge also will include some of Obama’s private correspondence and letters by his mother, Shirley Ann Dunham.”

    This comes from my analysis of the plethora of news stories that ONCE referred to her as Shirley:

    Again, in The Bridge, did Remnick refer to her as Shirley? Did Remnick see these letters from Shirley Ann? Is that where he got the name? Or is that where somebody first mistook Stanley for the name Shirley, expecting a woman’s name? Again, I say, what kind of son doesn’t KNOW his mother’s first name?

    Read Cashill’s new piece: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/how_the_media_falsify_obamas_o.html

    Cashill writes,

    “While writing his definitive Obama biography, The Bridge, New Yorker editor Remnick had access to all this information, which was also posted on apolitical history sites in Washington State. He could not ignore it, but he could not embrace it either. So he tried to finesse it.

    In Remnick’s butchered version, when the baby was born, ‘Ann dropped out of school to care for her infant son.’ In the months following, Remnick suggests that Ann grew restive at home ‘while Barack Sr. was in classes, studying at the library, and out drinking with his friends.’

    As far as I know, Remnick is the first mainstream reporter to place Dunham in Washington State, but he tells us that Dunham ‘registered for an extension course in the winter of 1961 and enrolled as a regular student in the spring of 1962.’ In the sentence that follows immediately, Remnick adds, ‘She moved to Seattle with Barack Jr … and reconnected with old friends.’

    Remnick here creates the deliberate impression that Dunham lived with Obama Sr. after the baby’s birth, took ‘an extension course’ in the winter of 1962, and then moved to Seattle with the baby in the spring. He had to know this was false. According to the university’s official transcript, Dunham had received 20 hours of academic credit through four evening classes at the Seattle campus by the time the spring semester began. Moreover, she had dropped out of the University of Hawaii not after the baby was born but seven months beforehand.”

  24. Just how many people can Obama be related to? Trump will be thrilled. Such a friggin’ joke!

    Separated at birth? Experts find Obama family ties to Trump on Lewis
    May 15 2011

    Experts find family ties on Lewis

    BARACK Obama and his political foe Donald Trump could be family, according to family tree experts in the Outer Hebrides.

    The shock discovery came after a distant cousin of the US President ordered a search to track down his Scots ancestors. Mary Forsythe, an 11th cousin of Obama from Canada, believes the President’s family roots stretch back to the Isle of Lewis, where tycoon Trump’s mother was born.

    She commissioned Western Isles genealogist Chrissey Lawson to look into the possibility that his descendants left the Isle of Lewis in the mid-19th century. Trump, whose mum Mary Anne comes from Tong on Lewis, last month forced Obama to produce his birth certificate to prove he was born in Hawaii and qualified to be President of the United States.

    But Chrissey says there is even a chance the two could be related. She added: “Mr Trump’s family are Macleods who are descended from one family on Lewis – Siol Torcuil. “It is extremely likely that Mary’s family would have married a Macleod back in time. So it is possible that Mr Obama and Mr Trump are distantly related through marriage.”

    Ms Forsythe, who lives in Kelowna, British Columbia, is descended from a family who left for Quebec in 1851 when there was a sponsored emigration to the area.

    Chrissey, who runs genealogy service Co Leis Thu? on the Isle of Harris, said: “Mary’s grandfather married a lady who was of the same family as Barack Obama and Mary is his 11th cousin. “It does not mean that Obama has Scottish blood necessarily – that would need DNA testing – but there is a definite connection to Lewis through marriage. “Some of the very distant relatives may still be here. It is possible. Mary was desperate to find out and was due to come to the isles but illness has prevented her.

    “We have carried out some initial work which suggests where Mary and Mr Obama’s relatives may come from on Lewis. It is quite a big job when you are delving back into time so much and when it involves emigration. “The strands in Mr Obama’s family are incredible. His links to Scotland could be from all sides. His links to the isles would be through marriage.”

    First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Obama is descended from the first Scottish King, William the Lion, who ruled from 1165 to 1214.
    But Chrissey, who with husband Bill researches 400 genealogy cases a year, believes the Lewis link is more solid.

    Obama and his wife, Michelle, will make a three-day trip to Britain – starting on May 24 – ahead of the G8 summit of world leaders in France. The day before he starts his UK visit, he will travel to the small village of Moneygall in Co Offaly, Ireland. The President is paying a visit to the ancestral home of his great-great-great-grandfather before he emigrated to the USA.

    In 2009 Trump made an emotional visit to his late mother’s old home and met his Scottish cousins. Afterwards he said he was pursuing his £1billion golf course scheme in Aberdeenshire in memory of his mum.


    • First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Obama is descended from the first Scottish King, William the Lion.


  25. The strands of ANYBODY’S ancestry are “incredible.” If you go back far enough, we’re all related. Do the math. Going back 11 generations? These people have too much time on their hands. And they think we’re crazy.

    I’m putting this here for further reference. I didn’t know that Abercrombie put out a press release on the long-form issue. To be parsed when I have more time. Tomorrow, I hope. Stay tuned!

    Click to access News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

    What’s totally AWFUL is that I have ancestors from OFFALY, too. But I’m positive that I’m NOT related to Obama because he’s NOT related to the ancestors he claims.

  26. http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/21/wnds-jerome-corsi-obama-was-born-in-kenya/

    Sharon Rondeau advises AP reporter Mark Niesse that he’s suspected of being involved in a forgery of the LFCOLB (long-form COLB). She gets this response:
    “I am Vice President for Global Security at the Associated Press. I would be more that willing to discuss this subject with you. Since you are a journalist, I would also refer you to AP’s Director of Media Relations Paul Colford at (212) 621-1895.

    Thank you.

    Danny Spriggs
    Vice President, AP Global Security”

    Then she talks to someone from the AP:

    Although the person she spoke with is unnamed, could it be Spriggs or Colford? One has to wonder what the heck a VP of “global security” for a news agency DOES. Here’s something about Spriggs:

    “Carlton Daniel Spriggs spent 28 years in the Secret Service, starting as a special agent with the Albuquerque, N.M. field office and working his way up to deputy director in Washington, D.C. in 2002. In that role — the No. 2 position in the agency — he helped carry out the presidential executive order transitioning the Secret Service from the Department of the Treasury to the newly created Department of Homeland Security before he left in September 2004.

    The next month Spriggs went to the Federal Reserve in Philadelphia, part of the nation’s central bank. He stayed until 2007 as assistant vice president, managing the regional bank’s protection department and overseeing a uniformed force of Federal Reserve law enforcement officers whose duties included the security of the facility.”

    Wow. He’s got it all. Works for the AP, ex-SECRET SERVICE, ex-cop, banking connections, helped with creating the DHS, and he’s black. But he’s NOT a lawyer.

    Now about Colford:

    Reporter and journalist, wrote a book about Rush Limbaugh. A bachelor’s degree. Not a lawyer.

    Why are they scrubbing radio interviews of Jerome Corsi? Here’s one that’s been scrubbed off Clear Channel but remains at You Tube for the time being:

    By Helen

    Whether you voted for President Barack H. Obama or not you need to be aware of this very serious breaking story. It is serious for many reasons key among them that the question of the President’s eligibility is reaching a point that seriously threatens our entire nation’s capitol. This is deadly serious and every American, not Republican or Democrat, but American needs to be made aware of these very serious charges being leveled against the President.

    Watching and studying events as they are currently unfolding, I can say that the entire question of the President’s eligibility has been turned on its head in the last eight hours

    Author, Jerome Corsi, and Publisher, Joseph Farrah, of “Where’s the Birth Certificate” have evidence that the birth log at Hawai’is Dept of Health has been tampered with. A criminal complaint is being filed with the FBI. This means the eligibility issue is now being elevated to an entirely different level which is extraordinarily serious and will have consequences; we just don’t know how serious.

    Below is a link to a post we just put up at the T-Room that includes the interview that “breaks” this information and an article detailing what Corsi and Farah knew prior to the President’s release of his birth certificate late last month.

    • Jerome Corsi: Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate
      Posted by Helen

      “Smoking Gun: Gov’t moles alerted investigator of planted Obama birth certificate 2 months before release”

      Now we learn from author and private investigator, Jerome Corsi, that he and Joseph Farrah, Publisher of World Net Daily, were tipped off by an anonymous source associated to the Hawai’i Dept. of Health that someone in the Dept. slipped the recently released “forged” Obama birth certificate into their birth log. Corsi wrote a story about the tip, which was not published, on February 24, 2011. You’ll have to listen to the interview to learn why Corsi and WND didn’t publish it.

      Additionally, you’ll also learn more details about Corsi’s investigation including the ringer, Donald Trump, and his snooping around Corsi on behalf of the administration, the Kenyan governments criminal investigation into tampering with birth records at the Mombasa, Kenya hospital claimed to be Obama’s birth place and how Corsi is approaching a criminal lawsuit against Obama.

      Three Videos


  28. Smoking Gun: Gov’t moles alerted investigator of planted Obama birth certificate 2 months before release
    Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
    May 24, 2011 Snips

    Speaking today on the Alex Jones Show, investigative journalist Jerome R. Corsi dropped a huge bombshell. Dr. Corsi provided proof that he was alerted to an on-going plot to release a fake more than two months before President Obama released his purported long-form birth certificate.

    Corsi supplied Infowars.com with time-stamped Microsoft Word documents [.ZIP] of five unpublished World Net Daily investigative drafts, written between February 23 and February 24, 2011, two months before Obama’s April 27 birth certificate press conference. The unpublished reports confirm that moles inside the Hawaiian State government, including one inside the Department of Health, had warned Corsi of a plan by Obama operatives to plant and then publicly release a forged birth certificate.

    Three weeks before the April 27th Obama press conference, Corsi was contacted again by his informants, who had been keeping a close eye on the birth records. It had happened. Prior to April 2011, there had been no Barack Obama birth certificate in the sequentially numbered book, but as of early April, it had suddenly appeared in the records.

    Remember, in January 2011, Hawaiian Governor-elect Neil Abercrombie had told reporters that he was unable to locate President Obama’s birth certificate, but a few months later it had magically appeared.

    Now here’s the smoking gun bombshells:
    #1 Corsi has witnesses inside the Hawaiian government that accurately called what was going to happen, and who can be called as witnesses once Corsi files his criminal charges with the FBI.

    #2 Obama Took the Bait – World Net Daily publisher Joseph Farah and investigator Jerome Corsi are on record via e-mail and in front of staff discussing the fact that the moles had warned them of the planted birth certificate, and the plan to roll it out. Farah and Corsi again decided, as they had done with their earlier February 24 report, to not go public and let Obama commit himself openly to the forgery.


  29. Corsi: FBI Criminal Complaint Being Filed This Week About Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate; Trump Called Corsi Today For Latest Details
    May 24, 2011

    Video: World Net Daily’s Dr. Jerome Corsi reports that he will be having a top expert file a criminal complaint with the FBI this week about Obama’s newly forged birth certificate.

    Dr. Corsi also reports that Donald Trump called him today to find out what Dr. Corsi’s next move was related to Obama’s eligibility.

    During this lengthy interview Dr. Corsi reveals new information regarding the Bush Administration’s attempt to get Obama’s Kenyan birth documents. Interview aired on Infowars Radio Show on 5/24/2011.


  30. Unpublished WND Report: Corsi Warned About Future Release of Fraudulent Obama Birth Records Two Months Prior to Actual Release
    May 24 7:45 PM

    Just hours ago Dr. Corsi released numerous unpublished reports that document his correspondence with the insider at the HDOH. It is also reported that the insider connected to the HDOH will be called as a witness once the criminal complaint is filed with the FBI.

    The unpublished World Net Daily reports are embedded below for your viewing pleasure… [ See letters at URL. Snips from 4 letters that are posted in Scribd]

    WND has possessed for over two years information proving any Hawaii Department of Health records attempting to document Barack Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital must be a forgery, a source with top-level access to officials within the Hawaii government pointed out to WND in a series of highly confidential emails and phone calls.

    According to the source, a photograph of an Obama Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, released by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign has ironically complicated the possibility the Abercrombie administration may cause the Hawaii Department of Health to falsify or otherwise produce fraudulent documents attempting to establish Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.

    Speculation continues in Hawaii that Governor Neal Abercrombie asked Dr. Neal Palafoxto withdraw his nomination as director of the Hawaii Department of Health because Palafox was unable to produce for Governor Abercrombie legitimate Hawaii Department of Health birth records that would substantiate Abercrombie’s repeated claims Obama was born at Kapi’olani, and Palafox was determined to prevent any forgeries from emerging within the Hawaii DOH.

    The WND confidential source urged WND to investigate Abercrombie’s decision to remove Dr. Palafox in relation to the possibility Dr. Palafox refused to participate in a scheme to create fraudulent Obama birth records or otherwise misrepresent existing records to dispel continuing doubts over whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.


  31. You’re forged! Trump declares Obama’s birth certificate fake
    ‘I always said I wanted to know if it was real’

    May 25, 2011 Snips

    Billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president during March and April – and rose to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination then as a result – says he believes the “birth certificate” released by the White House is forged.

    His comments came yesterday in a telephone call to WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

    Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document.

    Trump asked Corsi about the book, its evidence and what is happening next in the effort to document whether Obama is, in fact, constitutionally qualified for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1’s “natural born citizen” requirement.

    “I always said I wanted to know if it was real,” Trump told Corsi.

    During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him at the release that it was a computer-generated document.


    • 🙂 🙂 🙂 Doing a happy dance now. The media will HAVE TO jump on this because of Trump’s involvement. They won’t be able to help themselves. In fact, I bet there are stories out there already. How right I am. Huffpo, 1 hour ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/donald-trump-obama-birth-certificate_n_867367.html

      • “The state of Hawaii said it inserted “safety paper” into a copy machine and copied onto the new paper the original image from its state records. However, state officials were unwilling to confirm to WND after the image was released that what was issued by the White House was, in fact, an accurate representation of their original records.”

      • The news is just starting to hit..and the first ones out are from the Left!

      • Huff Po UPDATE: Mother Jones relays a statement from Trump pushing back against the report released by WND on his posture toward the president’s birth certificate.

        …Frankly, many people were surprised that it took so long for this to happen. Is his birth certificate legitimate? I hope it is for the good of the country, but that’s for experts to determine–not me. I have not read the book written by Jerry Corsi nor did we discuss whether or not the birth certificate was computer generated or in any way fabricated. I merely asked him how his book was doing and wished him good luck.

        Also right after you posted those, one article came up on FOX. I clicked on it and it was already gone. The URL is still there, but it goes to an error type page.

        • I saw the story at FOX but it was on a site that a person has to be a member of. It wouldn’t give me access. Now it does appear as if it’s been scrubbed.

          WND wrote about the Corsi/Trump controversy:

          Apparently whatever Trump said, it sounds as if he said it to Farah, not Corsi. I read an interesting op-ed in the WSJ by Shelby Steele. He said that Trump did a good job showing the Republicans what they MUST do to beat Obama and that is to burst that bubble. To take on the guy up front, damn political correctness. Make everybody see that this emperor has no clothes. Show them who’s really behind that curtain. Of course, this is what we’ve been saying for 3 years, but Steele says it far better than I could. He says that the Republicans have to beat not only the man, but the myth. All of this crap (pardon my French) about the BC, etc., is all part of the myth. And this trip to Ireland. Puhleeeze. Did you see the fawning column by our least favorite, Maureen Dowd? Puhleeze.

    • After reading the WND story, it occurs to me that perhaps the biological mother’s name (either on his original or the original used as a template) was Ann D…….. One of our insightful readers recently commented that it’s unusual that she saved herself room to insert “Stanley” ABOVE the Ann. Everything about this “document” is unusual.

      I do wish anybody with a conduit to Mr. Corsi or Mr. Farah would tell him that those x’s and 9’s and other handwritten numbers are codes for the keypunchers.

  32. Donald Trump: My Expert Says Obama’s Birth Certificate Is ‘Computer-Generated’ (UPDATED)
    Jon Bershad | 11:07 am, May 26th, 2011

    Sigh. I don’t want to type this. My fingers are rebelling against me.

    His Update: Quotes Huff Po who quotes Mother Jones (a Soros favorite).


  33. http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/article/id/47936/group/Opinion/
    An excellent editorial from a few days ago. If linked already, it’s still worth another look:

    “One feature that marks a totalitarian regime is media that serve as the government’s information service. TASS, Radio Berlin, Voice of Hanoi — these were all government entities that conveyed what the dictatorship wanted. The handout comes, the handout is published. The real danger point arrives when propaganda no longer rankles, but flows naturally. That’s when authority carries more weight than evidence, and peer pressure suppresses independent thinking. It’s also when captives become subjects.

    Watching our free, First-Amendment-protected media react to the surprising release of President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate, I have to wonder: What exactly is the difference?

    I exaggerate, but not much. It’s been three weeks since Obama first made his long-form birth certificate public on April 27. Why, suddenly, did he do this, and not in 2008, 2009 or 2010 when this first of the missing bona fides became a focal point of deep national consternation? Why did Obama send lawyers to courtroom after courtroom to keep this simple document hidden — and now mass-produce it on Obama 2012 campaign t-shirts? Why did Obama prefer to see Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin throw away his military career and go to prison for five months rather than, presto, authorize the document’s release? The answers have something to do with political inroads Donald Trump was quite unexpectedly making simply by asking natural, obvious questions about Obama that neither Big Media nor someone of un-ignorable celebrity had ever asked before. But that’s not the whole story.”

    Do read the whole thing. She concludes thusly:

    “Meanwhile, back at the simultaneous White House briefing, the transcript shows what happened when one journalist haltingly attempted to do his job:

    “Q. And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)”

    Laughter. That was the answer.

    Evidence is a joke to media in thrall to authority, those whose incuriosity about the many mundane documents Obama has mysteriously withheld from us leads to copy fit only for a palace pamphlet. From the transcript: “Q. Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House …. was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?”

    Let them eat birth certificates.”

  34. Criminal complaint charges Obama birth record ‘forged’
    22-page brief filed with FBI claims ‘irrefutable proof’ document a fraud

    May 31, 2011 8:09 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi Snips

    This is the first of three articles on the criminal complaint that scanner-expert Doug Vogt filed last week with the FBI.

    An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent.

    “What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a Certificate of Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the Hawaiian Health Department,” Doug Vogt writes, “but this form is a created forgery.”

    Vogt’s criminal complaint asserts: “I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011, is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs, and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense.”

    When the Obama birth certificate “forgery” comes to the public’s attention, Vogt continues, “It will surpass all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.”

    Since 1993, Vogt has owned Archive Index Systems Inc., in Bellevue, Wash., a company that sells a wide variety of document scanners worldwide and develops document imaging software.

    “It is a logical conclusion,” he says, “that since President Barack Obama felt it necessary to have a Certificate of Live Birth forged for himself then we must conclude that there is in fact no birth certificate in Hawaii and therefore he was not born inside the United States, as the Constitution requires, and he knew it and others also knew it but wanted him in office for whatever reason.”

    Examples of the fraudulent document…

    • Will the mainstream media report? We will see. How could they possibly be silent?

      • We can watch these lawsuits in tandem. See if they’re treated the same. Barry’s versus the alleged one that Arnold’s cuckold is filing.

  35. I doubt that the lamestream will report, unless it’s to ridicule and do Barry’s bidding. Did you hear the new twist on the Schwarzenegger saga? The husband of Arnold’s housekeeper/girl toy is suing Arnold and his wife for “falsifying” a birth certificate. It will be interesting to see if he has “standing.” Huh? http://nation.foxnews.com/arnold-schwarzenegger/2011/05/31/schwarzenegger-be-sued-over-child-falsifying-birth-certificate

    Discussed on O’Reilly’s show last night, by the lawyers. They say it’s a serious crime to falsify a birth certificate, AND that Arnold had a responsibility to report the crime as soon as he became aware of it. However, Arnold didn’t know the kid was his until several years after the birth, so who falsified the document? If it was the wife, then tell me HOW Arnold could have known what was on the BC, in order to report any crime? Arnold, being not the father of record, being NO relation to the child, legally speaking, wouldn’t have a clue what the BC said and wouldn’t be able to SEE the “original long-form birth certificate” in order to determine who the named father was, would he?

    “Yet Rogelio Baena’s name appears on the birth certificate as the boy’s father, and attorneys have told him that if Schwarzenegger and Mildred Baena knew this was not true, they engaged in conspiracy to falsify a public document — a serious crime in California.”

    Interesting that the media goes all out to find out who the named father is on that child’s bc. Isn’t it a violation of the child’s privacy to publicize the birth facts? Gee, if only they cared as much about that minor child’s privacy as they do the asshat who sits in the WH. If only they cared equally about FALSIFICATION of birth documents, instead of looking the other way, depending upon the political leanings of the alleged conspirator. There are reports that no DNA test was run to ensure that Arnold is the dad, but her husband wasn’t in the US when the child was conceived (which makes me wonder if her husband is legal, but I digress). I might also point out that just because hubby’s not around and Arnold is, in his own house, that doesn’t mean that he’s the only “candidate” so to speak, given what’s been reported about this “housekeeper.” Oh, if only the lamestream cared to learn about the DNA test or any test that was or wasn’t run to determine Barry’s paternity. What’s good for the gander is not good for the goose and don’t expect the gaggle to look any further than their noses when it comes to Barry.

  36. Obama’s ineligibility: Picking up the pieces after political Armageddon
    June 3, 2011 Snips

    It is becoming increasingly likely that Barack Hussein Obama will be forced to resign the Presidency before the 2012 election. Vice President Biden will also be obliged to resign, as will Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. All Obama’s appointments and all the legislation he has signed will be null and void.

    The crisis we now face is not a failure of the American experiment, but, as citizens, we have, for far too long, been silent and inattentive.

    Most of the guilt lies with a permanent political class and a grossly dysfunctional press corps, who, for reasons of complicity, negligence, avarice or cowardice, have contributed to the greatest fraud in the history of the United States. The permanent political class and the main stream media (MSM) have become a corrupt, incompetent, profligate, selfish and undemocratic American aristocracy.

    Even if one considers the Obama Administration as legitimate, which it is certainly not, the results have been a disaster.

    Obama and his cheerleaders in the MSM have brought our country weakness, indecision, mediocrity and ineptitude, drifting from crisis to crisis, bankrupting our country, while eroding our national will and confidence.

    The fall of Barack Obama will expose the endemic corruption within our political system. Many in our political leadership will be charged with felonies. Some will go to prison.

    It will be a national trauma equivalent to the Civil War. It will, however, also provide an opportunity for an American Renaissance.


  37. I read an article in the WSJ which stated that the Berlin Wall was instituted via a flub on the part of JFK, who looked the other way on the partition of the city. Be that as it may, what struck me was the date of the initiation of the Wall: August 13, 1961. If that date sounds familiar, it’s the same date that Barry’s birth was allegedly announced in the Honolulu Advertiser.

    Which reminded me about how Barry and his peeps just love to make little snarky, inside, symbolic “jokes” when they play games with We the People.

    Which reminded me of the time that Barry claimed that he was only 8 months old during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which was also discussed in the WSJ article. That took place in April, 1961, which means that Barry, by his own admission, was born about August, 1960, not 1961. That timeframe exactly corresponds with babysitter Mary Toutonghi’s FIRST story about when she babysat Barry and he was about 7 months old. It also could explain why the HDOH will only give index data that includes Barry’s name in a five-year data set. It also fits for why SADOS might have been seen non-preggers, in a bikini, the summer of ’61. And how she was able to move to Washington State for college in the autumn of 1961, living there by AUGUST, which is supposed to be only a few weeks after baby Barry’s birth.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s