So, having exhumed the dead horse, I’m going to beat it some more.
Even though the obfuscators want us to be bogged down in contradictory details, I nevertheless have some comments on Nick Chase’s articles. (See here and here; some background on him here, and a list of all of his articles for American Thinker here.)
I won’t address all of his articles, but will take issue with a few. First of all, Chase believes that Obama’s short-form certification of live birth (SFCOLB) is “genuine” and that the information on it is “true“.
But there’s no embossed seal on the image posted on Daily Kos and other blogs. Why not? If the SFCOLB is authentic and certified and unaltered by anyone, then why would the Obama campaign not publicize the copy with the seal and certification and why wouldn’t that actual 3-D document be available for anyone to examine in person?
Why wasn’t the entire back side of that “document” published? Could it be because there can be no back side of a created digital image?
The back is where the registrar’s stamp would be, in order to certify the authenticity of the document. If this document exists and is correct and certified, then why hasn’t it ever been presented to a court of law, in any of the hundreds of Obama ineligibility law suits? That would be the quickest way to put the issue to rest and stop wasting the taxpayers’ money and the courts’ time.
Way back in 2008, the Obama campaign should have provided the public with the actual “genuine,” certified document; that would have prevented any need to get a waiver (allegedly) and to publish a long-form certificate of live birth (LFCOLB) in 2011. That’s provided that the SFCOLB is “genuine” and the information on it is “true.”
Chase doesn’t address the fact that the photo (p.3) that FactCheck representatives allegedly took of the “genuine” SFCOLB paper document has a shadow exactly across the image where the embossed seal should be. Why? Could it be because there was no embossed seal on that paper, whatever it is?
In another article, Chase discusses the “verification of birth” that AZ Secretary of State Ken Bennett received from Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka, which led to Obama’s name being placed on the presidential ballot in AZ for the 2012 election. Chase determined that the information common to both the long-form certificate of live birth (LFCOLB) and the SFCOLB matches and is accurate (true). Notwithstanding that belief, he nevertheless states that the LFCOLB was forged.
Chase seems to believe that there is a 1961 (contemporaneous) birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, based upon Onaka’s statement that the information on the copy that Bennett sent him “matches the original record in our files.” However, Chase doesn’t specifically point out (at least in that article) that a birth certificate could have been first created for Obama in the 21st century, and that birth certificate would still be called the “original”, despite not having originated in 1961. In addition, an original “record” or original “vital record” (Onaka’s word) is NOT necessarily the same as an original birth certificate (or certification).
The HDOH could have created a late (or amended) birth certificate for Obama based upon his own 21th-century affidavit (or “evidence”), or based upon affidavits provided at any time by any other family member or alleged witness (such as his now-deceased grandmother). The scenario is possible under Hawaiian law.
Hawaiian law also provides for law enforcement (like the Secret Service?) to request creation of a “new” birth certificate for someone that they determine, for whatever reason, to be in need of protection.
Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
That law probably exists to protect someone placed in witness protection, who is given a new identity. But if this law was used to generate a new “original” birth certificate for Obama, it wouldn’t be the first time that Obama’s administration has stretched the spirit or letter of any law. A late birth certificate could have been created for Obama and then law enforcement could have requested a “new” version with the information on it that they determined would best protect Obama’s “safety.” (For more, see here.)
Note the other possibilities for creation of a new birth certificate: adoption (settled upon by Chase as the explanation for the forgery) or to establish paternity. In the case of paternity, the registrant himself can ask for a new birth certificate.
If the HDOH, in the 21th century, created a new “original” LFCOLB for Obama upon the request of some law enforcement agency, then the information would (duh!) match.
If the actual original record is “sealed”, then the subsequent “original” would necessarily appear to be pristine and truly original; but it’s a legal fiction. If the certificate given to Obama’s lawyer resulted from creation of a new record via adoption, law enforcement request, or establishment of paternity, then it should absolutely match the image published on the WH blog; but presumably it does not, because for some as yet unknown reason, the image was digitally forged, according to many analysts, including Chase. Therein lies the puzzlement. Are we to believe that the exception the HDOH made for Obama was to provide him with a copy of his SEALED birth certificate (if he has a sealed document)? Do HDOH officials have the legal authority to do that?
Chase indicates in one article that much of the microfilm portion of the LFCOLB appears digitally created (p.17). That suggests that a recently generated birth certificate is what was given to Obama’s personal attorney back in April 2011. Any new birth certificate wouldn’t look at all like a 1961 birth certificate.
Chase believes that the information concerning the delivering physician would perhaps not have been previously known by the supposed forger and so would need to be extracted from the “genuine long-form birth certificate that was to be kept from public view.” In other words, he believes such a contemporaneous document exists.
If the public was to be deceived into believing what the public had been told already (at least the latest version of what we’ve been told–Kapiolani hospital instead of Queen’s, e.g.), then a microfilm image with believable names and signatures for the doctor and the registrar, as well as for Obama’s mother, would have to be forged, if there was no birth certificate from 1961. Those are the very items on the digital LFCOLB that look most suspicious, according to those, including Chase, who have analyzed the image.
Chase discusses how difficult it would be to take signatures from the actual documents that were given by the HDOH to Obama’s lawyer in April 2011, because of the green security paper. However, there may have been no signatures for a doctor or mother because the document was created after the individuals were already dead.
In other words, what Obama’s lawyer received may have been something that looks more or less exactly like the SFCOLB, but with more data: A printout of information from a database onto security paper, which was then certified by the HDOH and which perhaps indicated on the document that it was based upon affidavits and is a “late” birth certificate.
As for the registrar’s signature, if Obama’s birth record is a 21st-century creation, then the signature couldn’t possibly match because the 21st-century registrar isn’t the same person who was registrar in 1961.
Chase believes the signatures were taken from the document that was given to Obama’s lawyer and moved to the forgery. The signatures might have been taken from other people’s documents and moved to the forgery because there is no contemporaneous 1961 birth certificate for Obama. If so, then to make us think otherwise, the signatures had to be cadged and put onto the digital image of a “microfilm copy”.
That said, Chase’s explanation for why the certification stamp had to be rotated 90 degrees before being placed on the digital LFCOLB is a brilliant and convincing insight (pp. 21-22): [emphasis added]
I suspect the forger put the Hawaii-issued birth certificate on the glass sideways to capture only the rubber-stamp images, while the microfilm-image part of the document was left hanging over the edge so it would never, ever, in any way, be entered into the computer as a digital file where it could later be
discovered (even if deleted) or wind up in a backup file.
Although the HDOH links to the LFCOLB digital image on the WH blog, they certainly do not verify that it’s an authentic copy of whatever was sent to Obama’s lawyers. Onaka’s “verification” merely states that certain information on records in Hawaii “match” some of the information on a copy of a digital image sent to Onaka’s office by AZ officials.
Chase also believes in the authenticity of the so-called contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement. Why? To date nobody has produced an actual newspaper, despite an offered reward, to prove that this unprovenanced, unverified image of an announcement is anything more than yet another digitally created image. The woman who allegedly first received the image from a library in Hawaii is now deceased, a sad event that happened just as Donald Trump was getting serious about researching Obama’s birth.
The announcement, having to necessarily follow form (unfortunately for Obama’s supporters), did not name the child or his mother. Given that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (BHO Sr.) had at least two, if not three, wives in 1961, and given that he had many sons over his lifetime (at least 7 documented at that link), who can say definitively that the “son” born in Hawaii (if any) was the person who’s currently president?
Chase believes that the “public State of Hawaii” birth index proves that Obama was born in Hawaii. Apparently, he’s unaware of a person who viewed the hard copy index at the HDOH when Obama’s name was not there. Later on, however, his name mysteriously appeared on a computer-generated, 5-year listing from the database.
The Cold Case Posse has found that birth certificates were issued to 3-year-olds as if they were newborns and also that birth certificates were issued to children known to not have been born in Hawaii.
Generating a birth certificate automatically triggered an announcement and also, one assumes, an entry on the index list. That index is meaningless if 3-year-olds can be listed as newborns and if people born elsewhere can receive Hawaiian birth certificates. A blogger has found original names on the same index for children who were adopted (and given new names) and so were supposed to have sealed records. Therefore, the birth index is meaningless. Nobody certifies its authenticity or accuracy, at least not under threat of perjury.
Chase also believes in “eye witnesses” to Obama’s birth in Hawaii. I would challenge him to name one. Name one. There are none so far.
Dr. Sinclair, who allegedly delivered Obama, is deceased. Allegedly delivered because prior to the release of the LFCOLB image, another doctor (Dr. West) had been named by one of the now thoroughly debunked “eye witnesses” as the deliverer. This “fact”, however, was proved to be impossible when it was learned that Dr. West, also deceased, had given up practicing medicine 5 years before Obama’s birth. He took a desk job. So a new candidate was conscripted. Nevertheless, Chase wrote that “the name of the doctor who brought baby Barack into the world is not politically controversial.” We beg to differ. One of the supposed “eye witnesses” to the birth told us that Obama was delivered by Dr. West, but the LFCOLB says it was Dr. Sinclair. To date, no nurse or other hospital employee has come forward to say that s/he attended upon either the baby or his mother.
Chase believes that Obama’s birth in Hawaii is supported by his “father’s student-visa INS records.” He must have missed the page where, just a year after Stanley Ann gave birth, Obama’s alleged father documented having only one child–the Kenyan-born Roy Obama.
It should be noted that BHO Sr. should also have mentioned his daughter Auma, who was born in Kenya while her father was a student in Hawaii. Perhaps BHO Sr. was as yet unaware of that happy event, although he very well ought to have known about the birth of the son by his new American wife, right there in the city where he lived. At the time Barack Jr. was born, BHO Sr. was estranged from his Kenyan wife Kezia, because he learned that she was “stepping out” on him, which is why he pursued Barry’s mother in the first place, according to his friends.
In this article, Chase concludes that what journalist Savannah Guthrie saw was not the certified original document given to Obama’s lawyer (as she apparently believed) but a color laser printout on regular paper (not security paper) that somehow was embossed to her satisfaction, but not authentically. He further concludes that any forgery was done at the White House, not the HDOH.
Chase believes that Obama’s LFCOLB image was forged to hide an adoption that took place in Hawaii. In this article, he addresses that theory, and also mentions Obama’s mother’s 1968 passport renewal:
Her passport was amended to include or to exclude Soebarkah (aka Barack Hussein Obama II). The names were entered and then crossed off. Was that her way of indicating that she wanted Barry taken off of (excluded from) her passport? Chase seems to believe that she changed her mind in the course of the application, which is why she crossed the names out. But what exactly did she change her mind about?
She was either including him or excluding him. If she were including him, or leaving him on her passport, as Chase seems to believe, then she should have put his photo into the space at the bottom. There’s no up-to-date photo of the 7-year-old Barry there, so it appears that she might have intended to include him and then changed her mind and kept him off her passport. In which case, he must have had his own passport, perhaps Indonesian or Kenyan or both, because he most certainly traveled extensively during childhood.
There’s another possibility: She may have indeed excluded him from that passport application, but someone later on crossed out the information before the copies were made available to the public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. There’s nothing to prove that his mother is the person who crossed out those names. If she crossed them out, then the change should have been initialed or else a new form should have been used, in order to avoid confusion.
Many have kicked around the idea that Obama was adopted, yet Chase limits himself to the notion that Obama was born in Hawaii, to Stanley Ann and Barack Hussein Obama Sr., and subsequently adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro. There are many other variations on the adoption theme. He might have been born elsewhere and adopted by both BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann. After all, his step-grandmother, who worked with Kenyan orphans for decades, once said that even the president of the USA “passed through” her hands. He might have been born elsewhere and adopted by both Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann. After all, she once told her high school girlfriends that she didn’t have to have biological children–she could adopt. And then there’s the information gleaned from Obama’s father’s INS file, wherein it was reported that his mother intended to give him up for adoption, after his birth. Did that happen, but subsequently the adoption was rescinded?
What’s the truth? Will anyone ever know?
Now you have the picture of this puzzle. And that’s all we have: PICTURES. Digital images. No paper document. No document that’s ever been submitted to any judge for authentication. The details are mind-numbing, and by design.
Infernal ironies and insoluble problems.