Islam's Messiah (Mahdi); Obama

The difference between Jimmy Carter's mistakes in handling the 1979 revolution in Iran and Obama's handling of the 2011 revolution in Egypt is that Carter's team made mistakes out of ignorance and naiveté. Thirty-one years later, Obama's diplomatic team cannot claim naiveté in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamists. Obama is consciously supporting the Islamists in Egypt and facilitating their rise to power.

How else can one explain the extraordinary statements of James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence, in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "secular organization" that has "eschewed violence"? They operate hospitals in Egypt, so they must be peace-loving humanitarians? Hamas operates charities in the Gaza territory, so they are not really dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

We might forgive some American citizens for being confused about the character and goals of some Islamic organizations disguised as charities, but don't we expect more from our "intelligence community"? As one wit has already observed following Clapper's testimony, we might as well abolish Clapper's agency and save the taxpayers $40 billion if this is the quality of "intelligence" our policymakers are getting from that bureaucracy.

Clapper's statements, made this past week at the height of the Egyptian crisis, might be excused or explained away if they were an isolated incident. But his statements are part of a pattern of mischaracterizing and underestimating the threat from radical Islam. Clapper's testimony can only be viewed as part of the Obama administration's persistent efforts to "humanize" the Muslim Brotherhood and prepare the ground for a new Islamist-run Egyptian government.

In his televised interview on Super Bowl Sunday with Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly, Obama specifically included the Muslim Brotherhood in the groups that must be included in any new Egyptian government. This is the equivalent of President Woodrow Wilson welcoming the Bolsheviks into the Russian government in 1917. 

Obama went to Cairo in 2009 to deliver his first speech on foreign soil, a speech that was billed as his "outreach to the Muslim world." Obama specifically requested that representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited to the speech. 

In 2005 parliamentary elections in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 percent of the vote by putting on a moderate face and talking about social reforms and civil liberties. But in 2008 they replaced their leadership with a more fundamentalist, less secular group that has renewed the call for Shariah law and a turn away from Western civil institutions. Surely, our intelligence community knows this.

Today in Egypt, there are a dozen or more secular, reformist parties that will seek public support in the next elections. We have to ask, why is the Obama administration favoring the Muslim Brotherhood and insisting that they be included in any constitutional reform committee? 

The contrast between Obama's behavior during the Iranian street protests in 2009 and his very visible intervention in the Cairo situation is chilling. Pro-democracy demonstrators against the corrupt Ahmadinejad theocracy, which had rigged the presidential election to guarantee Ahmadinejad's victory, were greeted with indifference in the White House. Thousands of Iranian dissidents were jailed and tortured. But when Cairo erupted in protests against a secular dictatorship, Obama readily took sides. 

We live in a far more dangerous world in 2011 than we did in 1979. When the radical mullahs seized power in Iran and imposed a dictatorship based on radical Islamic doctrine, we thought it might be a short-lived experiment and not a direct threat to the United States. Today Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and is exporting money and "revolutionary training cadres" to Venezuela and elsewhere. Hezbollah has seized power in Lebanon and Hamas controls Gaza. In this environment, why are we welcoming a political role for the Muslim Brotherhood in the most populous nation in the Middle East? 

Both by constitutional separation of powers and by tradition, the president has wide latitude in conducting foreign policy. George Bush waged a war to achieve "regime change" in Iraq and was widely criticized for it. Obama clearly has a different vision of regime change, one that includes anti-American radicals dedicated to the destruction of Western democracy. 

What we need most is regime change in Washington, D.C.

Read more: Obama's Islamic tilt in Egypt http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=262489#ixzz1Dp1wis00

Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties

 

Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties

by Robert Spencer

02/08/2011

Barack Obama has declared that all opposition groups should have representation in the next Egyptian government, which essentially ensures that the Muslim Brotherhood will be part of that government.  The Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in Egypt, so it will probably end up in the driver’s seat in any new regime, and steer Egypt toward becoming an Islamic state inveterately hostile to the United States.

So why isn’t Obama working to limit the Brotherhood’s scope and influence?  Maybe because he doesn’t really have a problem with the Brotherhood, despite its hostility to America.  He made sure to invite Brotherhood leaders to attend his notorious speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, Egypt, in June 4, 2009.  Starting in the earliest days of his administration, he showed an intense desire to establish friendly ties with Brotherhood-linked organizations—despite the Brotherhood’s stated goal of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

Obama first reached out to the Brotherhood when he chose the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies.  Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama’s Inauguration Day—despite the fact that the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood.  The previous summer, federal prosecutors rejected a request from the ISNA to remove its unindicted co-conspirator status.

Obama didn’t ask Mattson to explain the ISNA’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.  On the contrary:  He sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at the ISNA’s national convention in 2009.

Even worse, in April 2009, Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security.  Just two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”) participated in a fund-raiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).  Like the ISNA, MPAC has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In a book titled In Fraternity:  A Message to Muslims in America, co-author Hassan Hathout, a former MPAC president, is identified as “a close disciple of the late Hassan al-Banna of Egypt.  "The MPAC-linked magazine The Minaret spoke of Hathout’s closeness to al-Banna in a 1997 article:  “My father would tell me that Hassan Hathout was a companion of Hassan al-Banna. ... Hassan Hathout would speak of al-Banna with such love and adoration; he would speak of a relationship not guided by politics or law but by a basic sense of human decency.”

The late al-Banna, of course, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Terror researcher Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project has documented MPAC’s indefatigable and consistent opposition to virtually every domestic anti-terror initiative.  Its magazine The Minaret has dismissed key counterterror operations as part of “[t]he American crusade against Islam and Muslims.”  For his part, while Alikhan was deputy mayor of Los Angeles, he blocked a Los Angeles Police Department project to assemble data about the ethnic makeup of mosques in the Los Angeles area.  This was not an attempt to conduct surveillance of the mosques or monitor them in any way.  LAPD Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing explained that it was actually an outreach program:  “We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians, and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities.”  But Alikhan and other Muslim leaders said that the project manifested racism and “Islamophobia,” and the LAPD ultimately discarded all plans to study the mosques.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a pro-Sharia group.  Obama’s chief adviser on Islamic affairs, Dalia Mogahed, is a pro-Sharia Muslim.  In their Gallup survey published under the hubristic title "Who Speaks for Islam?  What A Billion Muslims Really Think," Mogahed and Saudi-funded dhimmi, or non-Muslim, pseudo-academic John Esposito cooked their data to increase the number of Muslim “moderates,” counting as “moderate” Muslims who wanted Sharia rule, hated America , supported jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing, and opposed equality of rights for women.  Mogahed also defended Sharia on a British TV show.

With Brotherhood operatives in the American government and working closely with it, thanks to Barack Obama, it’s no surprise that he would have no problem with their being part of the Egyptian government too.

Obama Beware the Muslim Brotherhood

Beware the Muslim Brotherhood

It might eventually take over a post-revolution Egypt

 

Sunday, February 13, 2011

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

What will happen next in Egypt? We don't know. But the consequences -- for good or ill -- will be enormous.
Egypt is the most important nation in the Arab world. It's population (80.5 million) is more than that of Iraq (29.7 million), Saudi Arabia (25.7 million), and Syria (22.1 million) combined.

If Egypt becomes a stable, Western-style democracy, it will transform the region.

But if Egypt becomes an "Islamic republic," as Iran did after its revolution in 1979, war and depression are likely.
So it's important to get the transition right.
We're off to a rocky start. The protests caught the Obama administration by surprise, and it's been behind the power curve ever since.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned Friday -- a day after he said he wouldn't -- and turned power over to the military. This is probably the best result possible under the circumstances.

It happened in spite of the Obama administration's ever-shifting policy. In his rambling televised address Thursday night, Mr. Mubarak stuck a rhetorical finger in the president's eye. "I would never permit ... any sort of intervention that would come from outside," he said.
"This was a direct slap at Obama," said Middle East expert Barry Rubin. "He basically said: 'I am an Arab warrior, not a community organizer.' "

To give the impression they're on top of things, President Obama and his aides have spoken out frequently. But their many shifts in position have alienated both supporters of the regime and those protesting it.

"The official U.S. position is that Mubarak needs to go immediately, he needs to stay indefinitely, he needs to stay for a bit and then go, he needs to stay for a bit longer and then go sooner rather than later, unless he decides to stay until September," summarized humorist Mark Steyn.
"The improvisational -- critics say closer to schizophrenic -- nature of U.S. diplomacy during the crisis leaves the administration in the unwelcome position of having to make amends with whichever side emerges from the Egyptian tumult as the governing power," wrote Ben Smith in the Webzine Politico.

Our news media have been of little help in understanding what's going on. The networks sent their big names to Cairo though none spoke Arabic, knew the culture or knew the players.

"Their being in Cairo was adding zero news value other than making the plight of Western reporters the focal point of the story, which was not the point of their being in Cairo in the first place," said Rich Galen, who had been press secretary for House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Few journalists have mentioned the protests were sparked by a doubling of food prices in the last year. But the greatest disservice they have done is to misrepresent the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When journalists tout the brotherhood's "moderation" because it has publicly eschewed violence, they fail to mention that its goals are similar to al-Qaida's; that it grew to prominence because of its alliance with Adolf Hitler and that -- according to Kuwait's education minister -- it is the father of all current terror groups in the Middle East.

Confusion about the Muslim Brotherhood is not limited to journalists. In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee Thursday, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, described the brotherhood as "largely secular."
"This is one of the most reckless and irresponsible statements ever made publicly by an American official at a critical and delicate moment," said John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine.

Obama administration cluelessness about the brotherhood is dangerously reminiscent of Carter administration policy toward Iran in 1979. President Jimmy Carter's U.N. ambassador, Andrew Young, once described the Ayatollah Khomeini as "some kind of saint."

The Muslim brothers are bad guys. But they seem to have been as surprised by the protests -- which have been dominated by young people who seem genuinely interested in freedom and democracy -- as the Obama administration was.

Mr. Obama should be providing the democratic elements among the protesters with more than lip service. But it's evident his administration has few contacts among them, and they have little regard for him.

So maybe it's good that few in Egypt are paying much attention to what Mr. Obama has to say.

Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412 263-1476).

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11044/1124812-373.stm#ixzz1Dotx5H89

President is an atheist or fake Christianity

Obama’s fake Christianity?

Liberals argue whether the president is an atheist

President Obama‘s coddling of Islam has many Americans questioning his national-security judgment, if not his intentions. In his administration’s muddled response to the crisis in Egypt, one clear message came from all the president’s men: A new government in Cairo “has to include a whole host of important nonsecular actors,” as stated by White House spokesman Robert L. Gibbs. The hitch is that in the Middle East, nonsecular means radical Islamist, like the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, in the middle of this global clash of civilizations, Mr. Obama‘s own religious disposition is being questioned – and not from the right, but the left.

On his HBO show “Real Time” on Friday, host Bill Maher said of Mr. Obama, “I think he’s a centrist the way he’s a Christian – not really.  … His mother was a secular humanist and I think he is.” When Princeton University professor Cornel West challenged Mr. Maher‘s point about Mr. Obama‘s religion, saying, “He changed his mind on the God question, brother Bill,” the comic retorted, “It’s like when he says ‘I struggle with gay marriage’ – you don’t struggle with gay marriage, you’re fine with gay marriage.” Another guest – who insisted Mr. Obama has “always been pretty centrist” – helpfully reminded that Mr. Obama “did go to church before he was a candidate for the presidency.” That church, of course, was presided over by the racist, anti-American, hate-spewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

Bill Maher can be a funny guy. His website flashes the crack, “It doesn’t make me un-American to say I’d rather live in Paris than in places where cheese only comes in individually wrapped slices.” Aside from the fact that bashing France is a national pasttime and a pretty reliable measure of patriotism, a man who prefers unpasteurized fromage can’t be all bad. That said, his humor has a very tangible dark side, especially when it comes to faith. In the past, Mr. Maher has called Christianity “the ultimate hustle” and ridiculed the fight of good versus evil as a shakedown: “If God gets rid of the devil – and he could, he’s all powerful – well, then there’s no fear. There’s no reason to come to church. There’s no reason to pass the plate.”

Liberals hate it when anybody throws their own gaffes back in their faces. Media Matters can chuck bricks at us all they want for taking purported cheap shots at the president. This debate over Mr. Obama‘s religion is happening among his most ardent supporters, just like the birther flames being fanned by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Hawaii’s Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie. Mr. Obama‘s critics just sit back and laugh while Democrats do their dirty work for them. With friends like Mr. Maher, Mr. Obama doesn’t need enemies.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC

Sierra Club vs. Wyoming Rancher

The Sierra Club and the U.S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the coyote population. It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue. What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would then be castrated and let loose again. This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U.S. Forest Service. All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes. Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said; "Son, I don't think you understand our problem here... these coyotes ain't ?uckin' our sheep... they're eatin' 'em!" The meeting never really got back to order. .

.

This is how our government governs...what a joke!

Obama administration's Justice Department

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's Justice Department has asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process or court oversight, according to a document obtained by McClatchy.

That assertion was revealed — perhaps inadvertently — by the department in its response to a McClatchy request for a copy of a secret Justice Department memo.

Critics say the legal position is flawed and creates a potential loophole that could lead to a repeat of FBI abuses that were supposed to have been stopped in 2006.

The controversy over the telephone records is a legacy of the Bush administration's war on terror. Critics say the Obama administration appears to be continuing many of the most controversial tactics of that strategy, including the assertion of sweeping executive powers.

For years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI sought and obtained thousands of telephone records for international calls in an attempt to thwart potential terrorists.

The bureau devised an informal system of requesting the records from three telecommunications firms to create what one agent called a "phone database on steroids" that included names, addresses, length of service and billing information.

A federal watchdog later said a "casual" environment developed in which FBI agents and employees of the telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records so cavalierly that one senior FBI counter-terrorism official said getting access to them was as easy as "having an ATM in your living room."

In January 2010, McClatchy asked for a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel memo under open records laws after a reference to it appeared in a heavily excised section of a report on how the FBI abused its powers when seeking telephone records.

In the report, the Justice Department's inspector general said "the OLC agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency."

In its cover letter to McClatchy, however, the OLC disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority. That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking, experts said.

"This is the answer to a mystery that has puzzled us for more than a year now," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney and expert on electronic surveillance and national security laws for the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"Now, 30 years later, the FBI has looked at this provision again and decided that it is an enormous loophole that allows them to ask for, and the phone companies to hand over, records related to international or foreign communications," he said. "Apparently, they've decided that this provision means that your international communications are a privacy-free zone and that they can get records of those communications without any legal process."

That interpretation could be stretched to apply to e-mails as well, he said.

However, Bankston said, even if the law allows the FBI to ask for the records — an assertion he disagrees with — it would prohibit the telecommunication companies from handing them over.

Meanwhile, the refusal to provide to McClatchy a copy of the memo is noteworthy because the Obama administration — in particular the OLC — has sought to portray itself as more open than the Bush administration. The decision not to release the memo means the details of the Justice Department's legal arguments in support of the FBI's controversial and discredited efforts to obtain telephone records will be kept from the public.

The FBI and Justice Department have refused to comment on the matter.

For years, the Bush administration had refused to release the memos that provided the legal underpinning for harsh interrogations of overseas terror suspects, citing national security, attorney-client privilege and the need to protect the government's deliberative process.

In April 2009, the Obama administration released four of the Bush-era memos that detailed many of the controversial interrogation methods secretly authorized by the Bush administration — from waterboarding to confining prisoners in boxes with insects.

Experts that track government spying and the Freedom of Information Act said the refusal to release the FBI memo to McClatchy appears to be improper and contrary to the intent of FOIA.

Since the memo appears to be exclusively on the OLC's legal justification for getting the phone records, the Justice Department should be able to release at least portions of it, experts said.

"It's wrong that they're withholding a legal rationale that has to do with the authorities of the FBI to collect information that affects the rights of American citizens here and abroad," said Michael German, a former FBI agent of 16 years who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The law should never be secret. We should all understand what rules we're operating under and particularly when it comes to an agency that has a long history of abuse in its collection activities."

Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., demanded more than a year ago that Attorney General Eric Holder release a copy of the memo.

The Justice Department has responded, Wyden said this week, but he declined to elaborate on the exchange.

"I do think the level of secrecy that surrounds the executive branch's interpretation of important surveillance law is a serious problem," he told McClatchy, "and I am continuing to press the executive branch to disclose more information to the public about what their government thinks the law means."

When President Barack Obama authorized the release of the interrogation memos, he said at the time that he was compelled to release them in part because of an open records lawsuit by the ACLU.

"While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security," he said.

Obama said he'd concluded the documents could be released because they wouldn't jeopardize national security and because the interrogation techniques described in the memos had been widely reported. By then, the practices were no longer in use.

The FBI's activities discussed in the most recent and still secret OLC memo also have been widely publicized. An inspector general report that revealed the existence of the FBI memo was one in a series on the FBI's informal handling of telephone records and it concluded the bureau had committed egregious violations of the law.

When revealing the existence of the OLC memo, the inspector general described it as having "significant policy implications that need to be considered by the FBI, the Department, and the Congress."

Since 2006, it appears the bureau has refrained from using the authority it continues to assert, according to another heavily redacted section of the inspector general's report.

"However, that could change, and we believe appropriate controls on such authority should be considered now, in light of the FBI's past practices and the OLC opinion," the inspector general warned.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108562/obama-assertion-fbi-can-get-phone.html#ixzz1DnOeWNqB

Bedbugs and Islamic maniacs

If you haven't seen this guy before, you've missed an extraordinarily erudite speaker who was a comedian before he found his niche. He is serious when he is funny and he is funny when he is serious. And, boy, does he make sense. This is his latest, and I think the first of 2011.

Of course those who read Islam’s text and the fine example of Mohammad know that text, laws and Mohammad fully endorse the ‘right’ of Muslim men to take the women, children, property and land of the infidel not only in jihad or raids but any time they feel like claiming that the dhimmis have ‘broken their pact’ to be totally subservient to their Muslim overlords.   Such acts not only take children from their families and remove ‘reproductive’ females, but they generate fear and constantly enforce the powerlessness of the non-Muslims who receive little help from the police or government.  In this Islamic country the police and government are as dangerous to non-Muslims as the readily ignited Islamic mob.   Abduction, slavery and forced conversion to Islam is what Muslims call, bringing ‘enlightenment.’

Reports of Muslim men abducting and forcibly marrying and converting Coptic Christian women and girls have filtered out of Egypt with increasing frequency over the past decade. The emerging patterns

In this article, Nadia recounts some of the more distressing incidents she has encountered:

“In 1992 in the village of Sanboo (Upper Egypt) Muslims disabled 15-16 young men by cutting off their right arm at the shoulder and their left leg at the knee.   They killed 13.  No-one was charged.”

“In the report on the abduction (enslavement), forced conversion to Islam and forced marriages of Coptic girls to Muslims, none of those responsible for the abductions had been brought to justice.”

“If a girl is raped and manages to get back home there is no testing, no reporting and if you insist that a report be made, it goes no further.   If a parent reports abduction they are not permitted to have a copy of the police report.  Such incidents were brought to the Minister of the Interior but when the Ministry checked with the police NO information was there; it ‘goes missing.’”

“In a current case where the young girl who is very ill, was abducted, the mother was at the police station 5or 6 times a day because if her daughter doesn’t get her medicine she will die.  She told them she suspected a certain person.   But they did nothing and it’s been 3 years now.  She doesn’t know if her daughter is alive or dead.....she said ‘if she’s dead just give me her body.’ The head of police was interviewed when they were in Melbourne ‘visiting’ and he was asked about specific cases.  His response---‘give something in writing to prove the allegations.’”

“In Upper Egypt girls are approached by principals and teachers to convert to Islam!  If a girl reports them then she is accused of trying to seduce a teacher and expelled while the teacher is promoted.”

“In 2000, a village in Luxor El-Kosheh, 20 Christians were killed and no-one was charged!   The police ‘taking care of the investigation’ were promoted and given money for their ‘good work.’”

“Al-Azhar university which originally began as a theological institute teaching Islam and still trains imams, gives fatwas and ‘interpretations’ and allows entry to courses such as medicine, law, engineering  to Muslims who have much lower academic scores.  Muslims who couldn’t enter a normal university are ‘educated’ at al-Azhar which lets in poor standard Muslims and supposedly trains them as doctors and feeds them Islam’s hatred of non-Muslims.”  (Beware Muslim doctors for many reasons including poor overseas training!!)

“A mother of 5 with a sick daughter with severe anaemia went to the public hospital for her daughter’s blood transfusion.  She was told she had to pay but she didn’t have any money as she was very poor.  The doctor tells her to go across the road to the mosque and speak to the imam who enabled the transfusions and gave food and water but a Muslim man took her and the child to al-Azhar as conversions go through al-Azhar and they were converted on the spot, issued with an ID and then taken back to her town and placed in a branch of the al-Azhar which has over 500 branches or juristic associations.   These associations supposedly provide social work, medical advice etc to MUSLIMS free of charge.   What we don’t know is a ‘hidden section’ looks after ‘converts’ who are kept under lock and key with a guard and security system!  She stayed for 2 months under sedation—drugged—she could move and talk but wasn’t really there!  They forgot to give the medication and she started to feel that she was returning to her old self.  With a bit of luck and help she managed to escape and ran to the church with her little girl!

The Coptic priest had previously reported her missing to the police who claimed they didn’t know where she was.   When she returned to the church, the priest took her with him to the police to report what had happened.  They requested to keep her 24 hours to interrogate her ---in the middle of the night she was taken to a secret security place (people don’t know where they have their offices) and tortured.  She was taken and put in a room ½ filled with water in the middle of winter, beaten, offered money to stay ‘Muslim’; they broke 3 of her back teeth, forced her to defecate and urinate in front of the guards, etc... 

The Church went to the governor...the priest said ‘I took her in in good condition, in ‘good faith’ and let her out of the custody of the church.’   The priest wanted the law to do the right thing, but they kept the woman for 3 days.   The church was trying to co-operate with the authorities...The police officer who did the violence to her was never punished or questioned and 2 months later received a promotion to another city (2003)

Right now she is constantly on the move with her 5 children.”

“The case shows the police involvement in pressuring women, forcing them to remain as Muslims, the role of al-Azhar...the force, drugging, threat of imprisonment ---WHERE IS THE LAW?”

“In Germany, Muslim convert Marwa al-Sherbiny was stabbed ---a one-off stabbing, Not religiously backed and not the result of endless discrimination and persecution---yet the whole world jumped up and down because a Muslim convert had been killed  ....but there’s not a word when Coptic girls are raped, drugged, abducted, killed...”

“Copts question what’s going on---but they just claim it’s ‘individual cases’ or ‘incidents’ , not the government against the Christians yet every piece of evidence incriminates them.” 

“In the mid 1970-90’s there were straight abductions –girls would be walking down the street and were taken and never seen again.  Sometimes 6 months later the parents would get a letter saying the girl converted to Islam and now married.   The parents were forbidden any contact with their daughter!”

“But when some in the world became aware of what was happening, their strategy changed to luring girls and ‘seduction.’   Look at who is targeted –socially disadvantaged girls, little education, no money, little future.. 
Socially disadvantaged Muslim boys eg a person who doesn’t work, mechanic (lower class in Egypt), unemployed, someone who is just an errand boy etc are ‘paid to entrap’.   The boys are promised a flat or apartment, money to start a little business, protection from the police..”

“Muslim girls are involved in the entrapment.  A Muslim girl (friend ha.ha) talks to a Christian girl – asks her to visit, go to the shops or visit ‘granny’ and a trusting person goes...before you know it she’s raped.   Once the girl has been raped she is seen in the Coptic culture as a second hand product particularly for poor girls and they are forced into Islam.  But converts are always second class Muslims and she is taken on to serve the first wife ---she is a slave.  Muslims enslave Coptic girls!”

“The church has built crisis homes within the monasteries but the girls need more rehabilitation, some remain there for an indefinite period.   Families can be ashamed and may let the church care for the girl.  Some are married off to widows.   Is the church protecting the girls?   The Coptic culture needs to learn how to cope with the enforced shame Islam inflicts on them.”  

(I heartily agree –children are not responsible where adults rape and brutalise them and these girls are not responsible when Islam and Muslim men rape and brutalise them –they need every care and support so they can return to a normal life with their heads held high.   It is the sick depravity and violence to others plus the loathing of females that permeates Islam that bears all the shame and all the responsibility!)

 “(A worse case response from the primitive area of Upper Egypt)  El-Manya –This is the worst town in Egypt, which hosts the Muslim Brotherhood.  It breeds the most vicious Muslims. A girl  of 18 years with a 20 year old brother, the only 2 children, came home one day and said she had been raped by a Muslim and that to save the family from shame she would go convert to Islam—she had ‘died.’  The mother was too scared to speak to the father but told the son who spoke to the father.  They confronted the girl and while the father refused to punish her, the brother shot her......... and claimed she fell down the well.   The brother went to the priest for forgiveness...”

(Nadia said such violence to women was not part of their ancient Egyptian custom but developed from the Arab/Islamic culture forced on them.  Clearly some Copts brought up under the culture of Islam for 1300+ years where shame and honour reside in the ownership of women’s bodies and where women are held responsible for rapes etc must step out from this hate filled misogynist Islamic culture and both protect and support their girls and women who are the constant targets of Islamic abuse because Islam’s text and laws fully endorse the abuse of others.   Some would rather die than be forced to live as a Muslim slave.  Yes wouldn’t it be amazing if Islam’s culture changed but it won’t because violence towards and loathing of girls and women permeates Islam’s text, laws and Mohammad’s sick example!).

“Rich, well educated girls have some chance of safely claiming rape and possibly fighting a case in court.”  

Nadia noted that while some bishops/priests would allow her to speak to people, others would not.  

(This is the psychological aspect of centuries of dhimmitude; they have forgotten how to fight for equality and basic human rights, others fear violent responses if they dare to make public the ongoing abuse of Copts in particular.   Some as true dhimmis will do anything in the hope of being left alone –but they are never left alone!   I know Copts even in Australia who fear speaking out because they will suffer here and in Egypt!!   Remember, Mohammad was made victorious with terror  - DON’T let Muslims use fear to destroy our freedom and equality!)

(Mohammad himself and all those vile Muslims following have taken the women and children of others and enslaved, raped, and forced them into Islam.  This is a well tried plan which removes the breeding stock of others, often aided by the emasculation of non-Muslim males, and uses the wombs of women to breed Muslims and the children for the Muslims sexual enjoyment.   It is a means of ensuring the genocide or total submission and degradation of others.   The only reasons Copts still survive is they have a strong faith and they serve as communal slaves for Muslims often doing those tasks that Muslims refuse to do eg clearing rubbish –though the Egyptian government has now let this out to others and killed the Copt’s pigs that fed on the garbage and gave the Copts an income  (Lateline, ABC,  Australia 19/4/2010);–so Copts are becoming more ‘expendable.’   They are the exploited, reviled underclass even in ‘modern’ [ha, ha,] Egypt where any ‘justice’ that we would recognise never applies to non-Muslims.   Remember, Islamic ‘justice’ is something very different and horrendous for all non-Muslims.  Islamic ‘justice’ ensures the superior position of allah’s slaves, Muslims.)image to read the full story)

“Human rights issues:   There is no system for DNA samples ---and who could trust the police with such samples anyway!”

“If a Muslim male raped a Muslim female and she went to the police, he would be forced to ‘marry’ her for 2-3 days then divorce her (yes, those few magic words) -.   This is LEGALISED RAPE!!”

(***Reliance of the Traveller:  Law m8.10  p 535:   A man is obliged to pay the amount typically received as marriage payment by similar brides when the marriage was (N. Consummated, but) invalid OR when a man FORCES A WOMAN TO FORNICATE with him.   When a woman voluntarily fornicates with a man, she does not receive any marriage payment.    
     
Forcing a woman to fornicate is RAPE (virtually impossible for a Muslim female to prove without male witnesses!).  Fornication is sex outside marriage - this could at least result in a whipping --or death for the Muslim female eg Iran hangs girls for crimes against their chastity --ie being raped.   In some Islamic cultures the male can marry the female he raped, throw a bit of money to her or her guardian and enjoy her as his wife, then divorce her!  No problem, no punishment –lovely!  And it happens to Muslim girls in the Islamic world and in the west [Barenakedislam 2010].   This is how they treat their own Muslim girls—imagine the hell they subject Coptic or non-Muslim girls to!! )

“For a Christian girl –if she is forced to marry the Muslim male she is forced into Islam and then divorced!   But she cannot return to Christianity for she would be an apostate from Islam and you could be removed from the system ---you don’t exist, no superannuation, no hospital treatment, can’t get a job....so forcing girls into Islam is a means of killing them ....they cannot simply marry, divorce and return to Christianity for they nolonger ‘exist.’”

“In 2004 an Italian girl with a Lebanese Muslim boyfriend who wanted marriage began to feel unsafe and didn’t want to convert.   The boyfriend was becoming aggressive and threatening ...so the girl and her mother had to MOVE!  This case is in Australia, Melbourne"

“A Copt has a tattoo of a cross on their wrist but when a Copt ‘converts’ the Muslims burn the cross off using acid!”

“Following the claim that a Christian boy raped a Muslim girl, Muslims shot dead 7 people coming out of a church on 7th Jan 2010 (Coptic Christmas) plus the accused boy’s father and brother coming out of court at the first hearing.  The boy was found not guilty, there was no investigation, there was no proof the girl was even raped...the whole system is corrupt...they can claim anything, frame anyone...”

(Indeed it would be a very brave Copt male who would get anywhere near a Muslim.
 It should be noted that throughout Islam’s horror history, all sorts of claims are made to excite the Muslim mob to extreme violence as has been recorded in many of the articles on slavery.  It was the Muslim mob that slaughtered the Armenians on many occasions over many years after assertions from imams and ditto for attacks on Hindus, Copts, Assyrians, ....whom ever!   Note the Mohammad cartoons...ohhh, they’re insulting allah/Mohammad...kill, kill!

The claimed rape or contact with a Muslim female is of course a violation of the 'Dhimma pact' and although only one member of the subjugated group is accused of the transgression, the whole group is punished by the Muslim mob!   Whether such a ‘pact’ has actually been ‘signed’ is irrelevant  as Islam’s religion and culture set the relationship between superior Muslims and subjugated non-Muslims and this continues today.   These communal attacks by Muslims on others are frequently reported across the Islamic world including the middle-east, Africa, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China (Uigurs)  eg torching churches, houses, temples, businesses and all forms of violence, rape, torture and murder.  

Australia witnessed the same when the angered Muslims who had caused the trouble in Cronulla with their abuse of Australian women and attack on a lifeguard, came back later and randomly smashed cars, shops and attacked people in other sites –yet Muslims are still a minority here so imagine how bad it could become if they are NOT stopped!!!!)   

“In Egypt, if 2 Muslims go to the police claiming they heard a Christian say allah was god and Mohammad his prophet, the Christian is forced to be Muslim.”

My interviewee claims that since the 60’s it has been impossible to find the Sirat Rasul’allah in Arabic in Egypt  because they are ‘modifying’ it, no doubt to fool the west but there’s still the Koran, hadith, laws ...though ‘English’ translations are a modified, sanitised version but still vile enough to scare any thinking person! **

Like the Israelis who treat Muslims, including those who have tried to kill them, in their hospitals, so do the Copts (El 2009).   But such kindness will not alter the Islamic dictate from allah and example of Mohammad to kill, enslave or totally subjugate ALL non-Muslims so all the religion is allah’s and sharia rules.

Both Copts and Christian converts out of Islam not only face severe persecution and death in Egypt, they are unsafe in Australia.  For the past two years, ''Mina'' has regularly phoned his mother in Egypt. But the 36-year-old is so scared for the safety of his family here and in Egypt that he has not told her he lives in Australia, instead letting her believe he is in the United States.  Following his conversion out of Islam in Egypt he was arrested, beaten and his passport taken –but he eventually fled to Australia but fears Egypt’s security police operating here (Jackson  2010).   A woman convert to Christianity, attempting to exit Egypt with her family was arrested, jailed, beaten, sexually attacked ...and told by the judge that he wanted to kill her! (Compass direct News 2009).

Insanely we allow Muslims into Australia while those suffering Islamic violence find it almost impossible to escape their Islamic hell hole. 

Insanely we treat Muslims as victims and look the other way, leaving the real victims, those suffering under Islam, unprotected.  We don’t even bother to report their suffering and totally fail to demand that non-Muslims in the Islamic world are treated as free, equal citizens with every right and protection expected in the west.   We don’t even bother to listen to their personal experiences of Islam or give them protection if they do manage to reach Australia!!

Why is the Islamic world excused from the demand that they behave as civilised people?  Why are Islam’s laws and practices tolerated in any way, let alone allowed to be practiced in western countries?   Why do we allow Muslim children in Australia to attend Muslim schools and mosques where Islam’s vile attitude to others is pushed into their heads from childhood, threatening the future and freedom of others in Australia!   Why do we have laws like the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria which gag those who tell the truth about Islam because ‘TRUTH’ is NOT a defense against prosecution!

Why is the world silent on the violence, murder and persecution carried out by MUSLIMS!!!

From Bill Warners Bulletin of Christian Persecution -May 15, 2010 - May 31, 2010 (www.PoliticalIslam.com)

*May 22, 2010 United States/Egypt
Leaders of the Coptic Christians, whose community is facing growing persecution in Egypt, say they have been unsuccessful in efforts to gain a hearing from the White House or other parts of the Obama administration. (What else would you expect from Islam’s abeed/slave, Obama)

*Egypt, May
For nearly two years, El-Gohary and his teenage daughter have been living in hiding because he abandoned Islam and embraced Christianity. During this time he has been beaten and forcibly detained, and his daughter has been attacked. He has had to endure death threats, poverty and crushing boredom.

---

References:

1)  Barenakedislam:  NEW ZEALAND: 14-year-old Muslim girl forced to marry her rapist and live as his sex slave.  http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/new-zealand-14-year-old-muslim-girl-forced-to-marry-her-rapist-and-live-as-his-sex-slave/    March 2010

2)  Compass Direct News: EGYPT: JUDGE TELLS OF DESIRE TO KILL CHRISTIAN.  January 27, 2009   http://copts.com/english1/index.php/2009/01/27/egypt-judge-tells-of-desire-to-kill-christian/#more-2783

3) El, Kal.  Egypt: Persecuted Christians serve medical needs of Muslims who attack them.  http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/05/07/egypt-persecuted-christians-serve-medical-needs-of-muslims-who-attack-them/   May 7, 2009 •

4) Jackson, Andra.  Keeping the faith in the shadow of persecution   http://www.theage.com.au/national/keeping-the-faith-in-the-shadow-of-persecution-20100112-m4qg.html   January 13, 2010

5)  Reliance of the Traveller:  A classic manual of Islamic sacred law.   In Arabic with facing English Text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller  Al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib;  Amana publications  Maryland USA 1994

Obama Eligibility Controversy

This Primer introduces and explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience. We’ve double-checked the facts presented here, and we’ve cited the sources of each fact.

Questions and Answers

1. What is a “birther”?
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
4. How is “natural born citizen” defined?
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
6. Does the birthers’ viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential “natural born citizen” requirement?
8. What is the difference between a “Constitutional” and a “statutory” natural born citizen?
9. Wouldn’t the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of “natural born citizen” take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
10. If Obama is not a “Constitutional natural born citizen”, so what? Why should anyone care?
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does “jurisdiction” mean?
14. Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a “natural born citizen”?
15. Doesn’t the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a “natural born citizen”?
16. Could “natural born citizen” be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
17. What’s the “beef” with President Obama’s birth certificate?
18. Didn’t the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
19. Doesn’t the mere existence of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
20. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
21. Where do we go from here?

Obama's original birth certificate at issue

You really have to wonder why Obama just won't produce his "Certificate of Live Birth."  No, not the fraudulent "Certification of Live Birth" (COLB), that the Obama Campaign released to the Daily Kos and that now lives at FactCheck.org -- the one that this page will demonstrate is a counterfeit document:

click for larger image

This is an example of a real, honest-to-God "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the State of Hawaii.  The image below of a 1961 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth belongs to one of the Nordyke twins.  The twin sisters were born the day after Obama.  Click the image to see a large copy of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates:

click for larger image

Now go back and look at Obama's document.  Do you see the difference?  Do you see the bogus piece of crap that Obama is trying to pass off to the American People?

 

Read on and be amazed at the scope of this fraud.

From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:
    

92-31 Disposition of original record.  A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same.  Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed.  The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping.  The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.

     
So, either the original microfiche copy is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available.  To put something in electronic form and not copy all the data on the original document would be against the law.  Where these files have to be accessible and provisions have to be made for examining them, it would be misleading for the Department of Health to say that the information on the original Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available.  Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records.  That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)
Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.

Photostat of Susan Nordyke's 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)
The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.

The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.

As WND reported yesterday, Hawaii's director of health responded to the growing controversy over the White House's refusal to release Obama's original long-form birth certificate by issuing a statement about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino declared she has seen the "original birth records" that verify Obama was born in Hawaii and is a "natural-born American citizen," the Honolulu Advertiser reported.

But in two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the health department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.

WND also reported the Hawaii Department of Heath affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.


Photostat of Susan Nordyke's 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

The statement to WND by Janice Okubo, public information officer for state's health department, contradicted CNN U.S. President Jon Klein, who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing Obama's birth certificate on the air. Klein insisted the issue was "dead" because Obama's original long-form birth certificate had been destroyed by the Hawaii DOH in the conversion to electronic files.

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

The middle figure in Obama's purported registration also is different than the Nordykes'. Obama's is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes' is merely 61.

One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.

Another possibility is that Obama's number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Eleanor Nordyke told WND she thinks her twins got lower numbers because she went into the hospital Aug. 4, 1961, and was in labor for 20 hours before she delivered. She speculates that Ann Dunham came in after her and was given a later number, even though Dunham's baby was born earlier. Nordyke's twins were not born until the afternoon of the next day.

WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers.

Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"

He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."

It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

 

What Is the Long Form for Certification of Birth?

A long-form certification of birth is a copy of the original document filed at the time of a live birth. This document includes information about the baby, the circumstances of the birth and the parents.

Child

1. The information on the child is given in this section, such as name, date and time of birth and sex. Information about the facility and the facility's location is recorded here as well.

Certifies or Attendant

2. Information about the doctor, nurse, midwife or attendant is listed here, including their qualifications, name and address.

Mother

3. The mother's name, maiden name, birth-date, birthplace and current residence are listed here.

Father

4. Information given on the father include his name, birth date and country of birth.

Medical and Health

5. This section lists additional information, such as the parents' race, marital status, education and pregnancy details.

What Is a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii?

Hawaii issues two similar types of birth certificates. The Certificate of Live Birth has more information than the Certification of Live Birth, but it is not issued automatically by the hospital in which the birth occurred. During President Obama's 2008 campaign, rumors surrounding his U.S. heritage brought the distinctions between the two forms to light.

Function

1. Requests for the Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii typically occur during the "Hawaiian Home Lands" program. This government social program provides a monetary benefit to Hawaiian citizens who are at least 18 years old and are native Hawaiians (at least 50 percent Hawaiian). The Hawaiian government requires applicants to provide proof of genealogy with their Hawaiian Home Lands applications. The government prefers that applicants provide Certificates of Live Birth.
   
   The Homestead Lease program conveys lease terms for parcels of Hawaiian land, and some may even come with a single family home already constructed.

Types

2. Hawaii's Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated form and contains less information. It provides specific birth details. Also known as the "short-form birth certificate," it includes information about place of birth, gender, date of birth, parents' names, and filing date.
   
   The Certificate of Live Birth is also known as the "original birth certificate" or "long form." This form has additional information used for tracing heritage and is the preferred form by the Hawaiian State Department of Health. It is not computer-generated; it's generated by hand through a hospital employee from where the child was born.

Features

3. Hawaiian "apostille" certifications are the long-form "Certificate of Live Birth." They are hand-signed. In order to obtain a long-form certificate, you need to contact the Vital Records department in Hawaii.

Significance

4. In 2008, rumors circulated about Obama's heritage in several political circles. These rumors questioned his Hawaiian heritage and whether he was a natural-born U.S. citizen. The United States Constitution requires the country's president to be a natural-born citizen; naturalized citizens are not allowed to fill this office.
   
   The Obama campaign released an electronic image of his Hawaiian birth certificate, but since the released birth certificate was Hawaii's "Certification of Live Birth," the rumors were not quelled.
   
   The citizenship questions were put to rest when experts determined that the Certification was a legal document that is accepted by the U.S. State Department to prove U.S. citizenship. The document contained all of the required elements (full name of parents, date of birth, place of birth, filing date, sex, and seal).

Theories/Speculation

5. In response to overwhelming public requests to view President Obama's birth certificate, the Hawaiian Department of Health stated that certain government records may be inspected by the public. In this case, Hawaiian law does not allow vital records to be disclosed unless the person requesting it has a direct interest. Because the Hawaii Department of Health received overwhelming amounts of requests to view Obama's birth certificate, it provided the public with information as to how to request the information. The Department of Health noted that the request must be followed by a description of what constitutes a valid "direct interest."

What Is the Difference Between a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth?

The main difference between a birth certificate and certificate of live birth is a matter of terminology. The two phrases refer to the same document, though the federal government's official term for a birth certificate is "certificate of live birth."

Basic Information

1. A certificate of live birth lists the newborn's name, mother's and father's names, location and date of birth, and the baby's birth weight and length. The official standard U.S. birth certificate form also lists information regarding the parents' race, health history and educational background.

Process

2. Parents of newborns usually fill out an application for a birth certificate while still in the hospital after the birth. Depending on the state, the vital records department may issue an official certificate of live birth in a few weeks to a few months.

Importance of Accurate Birth Records

3. Vital records offices may delay issuing an official birth certificate if the information on the original application is erroneous or incomplete. Accurate birth certificates are necessary to obtain other official documents, such as a social security card, passport and marriage license.

Post-Adoption Birth Certificates

4. Adoptive parents may request an amended birth certificate for their child. The adoptee's original birth certificate is used to create a new birth certificate which reflects the adoptive parents' names.

Fetal Death Certificates

5. If a baby is stillborn or dies while in utero after 20 weeks gestation, states require that it be documented with a fetal death record. States vital records offices will issue a certificate of fetal death or a certificate of still birth.

Differences Between Birth Abstracts & Certified Birth Certificates

Governments n Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Persia began compiling vital statistics before the birth of Christ. Beginning in at least 1532, English churches recorded births, marriages and deaths in registers. Virginia was the first U.S. state to require birth registration in 1632. States remain the proprietors of this data. The federal government relies on the states to provide the information.

Model

In 1907, the federal government first proposed the Model State Vital Statistics Act and Regulations. The Act passed and was effective January 1, 1917. It established "nationwide uniformity in the system of vital statistics, the forms of certificates and reports... shall include as a minimum the items recommended by the Federal agency responsible for national vital statistics."


Regulations require the birth certificate's filing in the Office of Vital Statistics within five days after a live birth. Mandatory information includes the child's name, sex, date of birth, state, city or country of birth, mother's and father's name (if known), certificate number and date of filing.

Certified Birth Certificate

The certified birth certificate is the most common. It's required to register a child for school, sports and to obtain a driver's license for individuals born after 1963.

A registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolor seal and signature are present on all certified birth certificates. It also contains the date it was filed with the registrar.

For federal employment and passport purposes, a certified birth certificate is required. Matters such as immigration, Native American Registry and dual citizenship require a certified copy.

Birth Abstract

A birth abstract is a computer summary of the information related to the birth. Parental information may be unavailable on an abstract.

Most abstracts are unacceptable for passports and other official purposes.

Structure of the Birth Certificate

Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

Right:  Some birth and marriage certificates are now "warehouse receipts," printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as 'chattel' property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.

 

A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms.  Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.
Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts."  The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)

-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")

-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)

Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code.  Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."
Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence.  All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks.  The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt.  That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt.  In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end.  Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis.  This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.
Additional Birth Certificate Research
Federal Children
 by Joyce Rosenwald

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........

Birth Certificate Overview

A birth certificate is an official vital record kept by a government entity, documenting the birth of a child.  In the United States the term “birth certificate” usually refers to a certified replica of the original document, though it can also refer to the original document kept by the issuing state or county government.  Outside of the United States the term “birth certificate” is used to refer to the original birth record.

History of Birth Certificates

Due to the strong ties of the American Colonies to Britain, early American settlers applied British laws and customs to recording of birth certificates.  Before the 19th Century, churches maintained records of christenings for their congregants in the American Colonies and all European countries.  Because of this historical context most early American birth certificates or information is only found in church records.  Eventually, some American Colonies required churches to report birth events and information to civil authorities.  As a result birth information is reported by both civil and church recorded in some locations.  Eventually, some colonies, primarily those in New England, passed laws to requiring local governments to record and maintain birth certificates.  Massachusetts was the most advanced in colony in regards to birth registration.

In the 19th Century many British and European countries began maintaining birth certificates on a national level but the United States was much slower in creating government mandates for birth certificate regulation and has never adopted a national registry.

Most states did not initiate birth certificate registration until after 1900, and passage of birth certificate registration laws was not uniform. This accounts for the difference in state birth certificate starting dates and information collected on birth certificates.  Fourteen states and five cities initiated birth certificate registration before 1880:

State	Year
Vermont	1770
New Hampshire	1840
Massachusetts	1841
Hawaii	1850
Rhode Island	1853
Virginia	1853
Delaware	1860
Florida	1865
Michigan	1867
Washington, DC	1871
Wisconsin	1876
New Jersey	1878
Iowa	1880
New York	1880

City	Year
New Orleans	1790
Boston	1848
Philadelphia	1860
Pittsburgh	1870
Baltimore	1875

Early birth certificates can be a great treasure trove of information but the ability to find them is sometimes difficult.  Even if the locality had birth certificate registration laws in place, the laws were not always enforced in a uniform manner.  Many birth certificates were not registered and the exact extend of compliance is difficult to determine.  There were real reasons for the difficulty in compliance such as the struggle in traveling long distances over sometimes rough terrain to file a birth certificate.  Slave owners in the south were more likely to register a birth of a slave than the birth of their own child because the registration of the slave birth protected their property rights.  It was also common for some families to register the birth of one or some of their children, but not all of their children.

The Birth Certificate and Fathers' Rights

DNA is now the accepted procedure for use in determining paternity.

baby image by Dron from Fotolia.com

Since the early 1970s, laws regarding biological parents have been shifting. Parents of out-of-wedlock children are treated the same as parents who have gotten divorced. The biological parents must share in raising the children, the children must be financially supported, and visitation and custody issues must be resolved. Fathers and mothers are treated equally under the law.

Father's Rights

1. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, when a putative or presumed father has a "substantial relationship with his child," the Supreme Court has affirmed his parental rights. The court defined this relationship as a biological link, involvement in the upbringing of the child, and financial support.
   
   Drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners (NCS) on Uniform State Laws in 1973, the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) has not been enacted in every state. It's not been passed unaltered in any state. The goal of the Commissioners was "to remove the established differences in status between legitimate and illegitimate children and provide equal rights for all children regardless of the marital status of their parents."

Birth Certificate

2. With out-of-wedlock births, there are instances where the biological father is not present at the birth. Often when this occurs, the mother will give the child her last name and leave the father's name off. Other times, she may list the man she believes to be the father.
   
   If the father comes forward voluntarily or is located and forced to take a DNA test, the birth certificate must be amended. In instances where the man believed to be the birth father is listed on the birth certificate, his name may need to be removed as a consequence of DNA testing.
   
   Making modifications to a birth certificate requires a court order from probate court.

Paternity and Support

3. Both biological parents, regardless of whether they are married, must support the child. If the father admits paternity, it is recommended that the mother obtain his admission in writing in case he later changes his mind. If the presumed biological father does not willingly admit paternity, the mother can file a paternity suit. Under the UPA, the court can order a DNA test of both the child and the father without starting the paternity litigation. A "reasonable probability of sexual contact between the possible father and the mother is sufficient to order the test. Refusing to take a DNA test can result in automatically being named a parent.
   
   If the paternity suit is successful, the court will order the father to pay child support. The guidelines for child support are determined by individual states. He may also be required to pay for the mother's medical expenses relating to the pregnancy. Failure to pay child support may lead to wage garnishment, seizure of property or bank accounts, or even jail.
   
   If the mother denies the paternity, the presumed father can file an affidavit of paternity with the court. The acknowledgment ensures the father he will receive notices from the court regarding hearings, adoption petitions, etc.

Adoption

4. A biological father must be notified and give his consent prior to his child being placed in an adoptive home. If he is not notified, he can contest the adoption within the time limit set by the state. It's typically a six-month window in which he must act.
   
   If a biological parent refuses to permit an adoption of any kind, including by a new spouse, it cannot proceed. A court order declaring the objecting parent as unfit before the adoption could proceed. State laws vary as to the definition of an unsuitable parent. Normally, any parent who fails to contribute financial support, has been abusive or neglectful, or has not maintained regular contact with the child is considered unfit.

Custody

5. The days when mothers automatically receive custody are gone. Between the 1960s and 1980s, state laws shifted making each parent equal.
   
   If the parents cannot agree on the issue of custody in the case of a divorce, a judge will determine what is in the best interest of the child. Each parent will have to argue his case as to why he should receive custody over the other.

Revisions

6. According to the Council of State Governments (CSG), amendments and revisions made to the Uniform Parentage Act in 1988, 2000 and 2002 strengthened the laws requiring the identification of the father so that child support can be ordered, added DNA testing as the way to determine parentage, and addressed children who were conceived by an artificial insemination, donor or carried by a surrogate.
   ************************************************************
   The Documentsyou really have to wonder why Obama just won't produce his "Certificate of Live Birth."  No, not the fraudulent "Certification of Live Birth" (COLB), that the Obama Campaign released to the Daily Kos and that now lives at FactCheck.org -- the one that this page will demonstrate is a counterfeit document:
   
   
   
   click for larger image
   
   
   
   This is an example of a real, honest-to-God "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the State of Hawaii.  The image below of a 1961 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth belongs to one of the Nordyke twins.  The twin sisters were born the day after Obama.  Click the image to see a large copy of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates:
   
   
   
   
   click for larger image
   
   
   
   
   Now go back and look at Obama's document.  Do you see the difference?  Do you see the bogus piece of crap that Obama is trying to pass off to the American People?
    
   Read on and be amazed at the scope of this fraud.
         
   
   
   If There Is One, Hawaii Would Have It
   
   
   From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:
       
   

   92-31 Disposition of original record.  A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same.  Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed.  The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping.  The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.

        
   So, either the original microfiche copy is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available.  To put something in electronic form and not copy all the data on the original document would be against the law.  Where these files have to be accessible and provisions have to be made for examining them, it would be misleading for the Department of Health to say that the information on the original Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available.  Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records.  That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.
   
   
   In "Dreams..." Obama Tells Us There Is A Birth Certificate
   
   We know from "Dreams...," that Obama has a birth certificate.  He tells us so (Pg. 26 last paragraph):
            
   
   "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.  It's a short piece, with a photograph of him.  No mention is made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure.  Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father's imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for.  I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents."
       
   Obama is reticent to release his long-form birth certificate for one of two reasons:
       
   1.  There is something on the document, or missing from the document, that Obama doesn't want the American People to see.
   
   2.  There is no document, and the above passage is just another Obama fantasy.
       
   There's also this question -- how did he get the driver's license he had in Chicago and Massachusetts?  He had to show a birth certificate to get a driver's license, didn't he?
   
   Hawaii Hides Birth Records And The Mystery Begins
   
   Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation -- and even several lawsuits – Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.
   
   The governor's office officially declined a request, made in writing, by Jerome Corsi, in Hawaii, to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.
   
   "It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a request seeking the information.
   
   Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.
   
   The official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.
   
   Still, a source said, confidentially, the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.
   
   The source also refused to answer questions about the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.
   
   The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.
   
   The Beginning -- The Daily Kos & AsperGirl
   
   When the Daily Kos posted the now-infamous Certification of Live Birth (COLB) image along with a cover story on June 12, 2008, the Kos received 648 comments in a span of only 24 hours, of which the first 644 were about the most insipid, lame, and mindless reactions ever accumulated in one place.
   
   The vast majority of them consisted of derogatory comments about John McCain and his eligibility issue:
   
   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/534616/-Obamas-birth-certificate
   
   HOWEVER, there was one, brave Kos commenter who identified all of the key anomalies in the COLB image and had the stones to question it’s authenticity.  Her screen name is AsperGirl and her comment was #643, or one of the last five comments to be posted.
   
   Why is this significant?
   
   Because I believe that her comments hit too close to home. I believe that she struck a nerve, and that’s why the comments section was closed off to new ones less than three hours after he post.
   
   Here is her comments, and they serve as a testament to those loyal to the truth:
   
   Birth Certificate is an Obvious Fake (0+ / 0-)
   
   Sorry to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on dailykos is an obvious fake.
   
   The fake "birth certificate" just appeared Thursday morning on dailykos without any reference as to who released it or where it came from.
   
   There is a link from the FightTheSmears website to "the truth" posting on MyBarackObama.com to it without any reference. (i.e. there is no "this is Barack Obama’s birth certificate provided to dailykos by person xxx of the Obama campaign")
   
   There is no provenance explaining where the "birth certificate" came from.  In Hawaii, birth certificates aren’t publicly available and reporters’ requests for one have been ignored for months.
   
   There is no explanation as to whom vouches for its origins or its authenticity.
   
   The certificate number is blacked out.  Why?
   
   There are image artifacts consistent with forgeries and image processing.  It’s not a real, unprocessed scan of a birth certificate. 
   It’s not certified.  Hawaii state code provides that certificates issued by the department of health be certified:
   
   "§338-13 Certified copies.  (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.  (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original,..."
   
   This certificate is what the Hawaii DOH calls a "Late" Certificate of Birth, and it is not an original Birth Certificate for a birth recorded near the date of actual birth.  In Hawaii, anyone can claim they were born there and submit the evidence years after the birth to obtain a late "Certificate of Birth".
   
   http://hawaii.gov/...
   
   "Who is Eligible to Apply for Late Registration?  As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration: Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth.
   
   Doe the Obama campaign have a statement on this uncertified "birth certificate?"
   
   Isn’t this Obama’s "birth certificate" issue getting to be kind of strange by now?
   
   How can a man run for President without disclosing his birth certificate?
   
   Why does an anonymous, no-provenance, obviously fake scan of an uncertified birth certificate appear on DailyKos, a fanatically pro-Obama blog?
   
   Why won’t the Obamas or the Obama campaign just formally and transparently release a certified copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate?
   
   "It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama
   
   by AsperGirl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM PDT
   
   
   Israel Insider’s Report
   
   On June 24th, 2008, Israeli Insider blog reported the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a Photoshopped fake.
   
   The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks.  But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.
   
   The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.
   
   That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama Campaign.  Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.
   
   Gibbs Claims Credit
   
   
   
   At 1:44, Gibbs clearly says, "I've seen the real birth certificate, I put it on the Internet."  (01:56)
       
   
   The COLB Means Nothing
   
   Well, here's proof that Obamas "Certification of Live Birth" means nothing.
   
   Amended certifications of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
   
   This is straight from the Hawaii Department Of Health Website.
   
   In other words, the "Certification of Live Birth" posted on Obama's website, Factcheck.org and the Daily KOS doesn't prove anything, simply because someone born in a foreign country could file for an amended certification -- click the link, read it for yourself.
   
   The simple fact is, the paper version of this "COLB" has never been examined by any controlling legal authority.  The only people to have ever seen this document are Obama's operatives in his campaign and at FactCheck.org.
   
   A Certification of Live Birth is not a Birth Certificate.  Obama's sister Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, but Anna Dunham registered her as "born in Honolulu" shortly after her birth.  Maya has a State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, just like Obama -- proves nothing.
   
   Here is a source that claims Maya was born in Honolulu.  We know that is not true, but it demonstrates the mendacity of Obots.
   
   The Law
   
   Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.
   
   Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii.   The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence.  If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.
   
   What Hawaii Really Said
   
   Countless politicians, reporters, bloggers and even a few judges have claimed that the State of Hawaii have ascertained that Obama's birth certificate is on file and it proves he was born in Hawaii.
   
   
   
       
   "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
       
   There is nothing in that statement that states the birth certificate Hawaii holds was issued by Hawaii.  There is nothing that states Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.  That statement simply says that Hawaii has the original birth certificate.
   
   It is very obvious, in reading the statement of the Director of Health, that this statement was very carefully worded, which leaves the inquiring mind asking, why?
   
   When DOH Director Chiyome Fukino announced to the press, on October 31, 2008, that "Hawaii has Obama’s original birth certificate on record," this should have been the time for Hawaii to also confirm the existence of the COLB posted online, since that is what prompted hundreds of phone calls to Ukubo and company in the first place.  The fact that she didn't only reinforces the fact that his COLB does not exist.
   
   If the birth information on that COLB matched the birth information in his birth record, then why not say so?  It would have stopped them from being bombarded with phone calls, and may have ended the quest for his long-form birth certificate.
   
   Conversely, if the birth information on that COLB did not match the info on his birth record, then they would be dancing around the issue and dodging all questions about it -- which is exactly what they did.
   
   No One Confirmed It
   
   In a phone call to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part.  Dr. Ron Polarik posed as a writer doing genealogy research, knowing that if he portrayed himself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that he would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, he was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all.
   
   He proceeded to ask Dr. Onaka questions about the COLB that only he, or a manager in Vital Records, would know.  These are questions that Communications Officer, Janice Okubo does not know or anyone else not connected with Vital Records.  Polarik did this as a way to corroborate his conversation with Onaka.
   
   Polarik asked Dr. Onaka if the COLBs are stamped using a machine or by hand.  He said, "Both."  Hawaii uses a machine that applies the Seal and stamps electronically and simultaneously.  That's why they appear to be placed in the same position, from year to year -- except in years where the large Seal design is used.  He said that they use a desktop Seal embosser, similar to what notaries use, but much longer, so as to place the Seal higher up on the paper.
   
   Polarik then asked him, "Why is the border on 2007 COLB different from the 2008 COLB, why is the Seal larger, and why is your signature stamp located off to the side instead of directly under the Seal?  He told Polarik that they alternate the Seal design and border design, and when the Seal (the larger one) doesn't leave enough room to place the signature stamp below it, it's put off to the side.  Evidently, this larger Seal is what is applied by hand, as in every case where it has been used, the Seal impression appears in a different spot on the paper.
   
   Then, Polarik slipped in the the following question.  He asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
   
   "Absolutely not.  No one in our office confirmed it."
   
   That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from Polarik.
   
   Okubo Refuses To Authenticate COLB
   
   PolitiFact.com actually has Okubo on the record denying that the electronic COLB image provided by the Obama campaign can be authenticated by her or by anyone at DHOH!  But that was only in a follow-up to their initial story where Okubo said the COLB was a valid HI BC.
   
   PolitiFact.com describes the controversy that erupted from their initial story:
   
   "When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it.  Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
   
   "'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
   
   "Then the firestorm started."
   
   After the "firestorm," Politifact apparently conducted a follow-up interview with Okubo which shows that what Okubo meant was that the Obama COLB only appeared to be be a valid Hawaiian BC, but she could not and did not "verify" that it was a valid Hawaiian COLB BC.
        
   Politifact: "Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.
   
   "And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification?  'When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.'"
   
   "Still, she acknowledges: 'I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.'"
   
   Okubo had to back off her original claim.  And a good thing ... she originally said Obama’s alleged COLB was real because it looked like her own.  IOW, she used no formal technique to verify its accuracy.  She relied on no official record to verify its accuracy.  She just thought it looked like hers.  At best, she follows up with a second-hand anecdote, "... our registrar ... thought he could see pieces of the embossed image ..."
   
   Really?  Nobody else could.
   
   
   Hawaii Does Have Obama's Original Birth Certificate
   
   In July 2009, CNN's Lou Dobbs demanded Obama's original birth certificate.  That was followed by CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein telling staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that the issue is a "dead" story, according to a Los Angeles Times report.
   
   In an e-mail, according to the Times, Klein wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Obama's 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawai'i officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 -- a claim denied yesterday by Isle health officials.
   
   In 2001, Hawai'i's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.
   
   Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is, but said "we have backups for all of our backups."
   
   
   Did Hawaii Have Any Records On Obama Before 2006?
   
   The following are the closing paragraphs of the Post & Email's article.  The full article, including email exchanges is here.
   
   Since the Hawaii Department of Health has not responded to Mr. Charlton’s UIPA request of March 4, it appears that they have affirmed that there is no documentation on file to indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.  If Obama’s name appeared in the Birth Index, this information would have been released many months ago to quell the rising doubts about Obama’s birth story.  Then there would be no need for the secrecy and attempts to limit the public’s access to information.
   
   Perhaps Obama presented some type of evidence to Dr. Fukino and received a COLB.  Perhaps that is why the certificate number has always been obliterated: it does not correspond to the series used in 1961 because it was issued much later.  According to the Western Journalism Center, there are five different ways in which a Hawaiian birth record can be obtained, including as an adult.
   
   According to Hawaii’s UIPA law, once Fukino made a public statement about Obama’s records, the index data, or pieces of information used to formulate the statement, should have been readily available to the public upon request.  Despite its declarations of openness in government, Hawaii officials, particularly Fukino, have refused to follow their own law.  Why the obfuscation if there is nothing to hide?
   
   The Post & Email will not stop its investigation until we receive answers to these questions.
   
   Is it possible that the Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, granted Obama a "Certification of Live Birth" sometime in 2006 or later when he was planning to run for president?  Fukino is the only person in the United States to affirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.  No hospital, doctor, nurse, witness or other individual has come forward to corroborate her story.
   
   The Birth Certificate Number Mystery
   
   1. August 4, 1961: Obama born in Hawaii
   
   2. August 5, 1961: Nordyke twins born in Hawaii
   
   3. Nordyke birth certificate number on top of birth certificate:
   
   4. One twin:  61 10637
   
   5. Other twin:  61 10638
   
   6. Obama birth certificate number:  61 10641
   
   7. The information above has been displayed on the Internet, so it is part of the public record.
   
   8. If the above information is displayed all over the internet for anyone to see, then why can't the Hawaii government be forced to legally explain the following controversy:
   
   9. That is, if Obama was born one day BEFORE the Nordyke twins -- Aug. 4 vs. Aug, 5 -- then why is Obama's birth certificate number 3 numbers higher -- 10638 vs. Obama's 10641 -- than the Nordyke's number?
   
   10. So why can't Hawaii officials, like Dr. Fukino, be forced to legally explain why Obama's birth certificate number is higher than the Nordyke twins' number, if the numbers are already part of the public record?
   
   Hawaii Is Loose
   
   The Hawaiian "birth certificate" program.
   
   The Dept. of Hawaiian Homelands does NOT accept the "Certification of Live Birth" as documentation.  This is the same document that Obama is showing the world as proof of his Hawaiian birth and American "natural born citizen" status.
   
   If you submit the "Certification of Live Birth" to the DHHL, they will make phone calls and written inquiries (to have a paper trail) to the office of Vital Statistics, to confirm information that WOULD BE on the "Birth Certificate," that is NOT present on the "Certification of Live Birth."
   
   The DHHL, being a Hawaii state agency, KNOWS the loopholes built into the Hawaiian "birth certificate" system. Many of the laws Hawaii has hearken back to BEFORE the Hawaiian Organic Act, BEFORE Hawaii was a territory, BEFORE King Kalakaua ruled...
   
   IN FACT, the court that Ann Dunham filed for her FIRST divorce through in 1964 was done through a Hawaiian court, the "Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit" that I've traced back to the 1860s.  That court is defunct today.  The judge is in his 90s and retired from the Hawaiian court system.  There are many antiquated procedures and laws still on the books that are mired in the annuls of Hawaiian history.
   
   As an island nation, Hawaii has had procedures in place to allow for "stragglers" who were born on other islands, or in other countries (Guam is similar, BTW).  Such is the "loophole" Sun Yat-sen exploited, Chinese revolutionary and political leader often referred to as the "Father of Modern China."  He was able to file a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" application and immigrate to the US in 1904 using the form. Yat-sen was born in Guangdong province, China, in 1866.  His "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" was issued based on Sun's typewritten testimony rather than on any documentation from witnesses.  The "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" for WAS STILL ISSUED UP UNTIL 1972; BHO was born in 1961.
   
   SO, let's see, how could a person like Ann Dunham (and later BHO when he was an adult) exploit Hawaiian "birth certificate" law?
   
   •  file for a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth", using affidavits from herself and her mother saying he was born in Hawaii ...
   
   •  convert the "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" to a "Certificate of Late Birth" as state law allows...
   
   •  convert the "Certificate of Late Birth" to a "Certificate of Live Birth," with comments in Block 23, "Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration"...
   
   •  and then BHO uses the "Certification of Live Birth," which was created and first used in Nov 2001, to hide any prior alterations or modifications!
   
   Did it happen THAT way?  It's anyone's guess.  BUT because the Hawaiian "birth certificate" program is SO freakin' loose, it's quite possible, with other variations possible as well.
   
   ADD TO THAT that Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" states in the bottom lefthand corner: "Date FILED by Registrar" vs. "Date ACCEPTED by State Registrar," there's plenty of reason to be suspicious.
   
   Hawaii's Multiple Birth Certificates
   
   Generally, folks don't know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for several types of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates.  The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii.
   
   1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
   
      a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information.  (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
   
      b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate," that required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file.  The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.  (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
   
      c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.  (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
   
   2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii.  HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
   
   3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961.
   
   4. A press release concerning numerous questions raised across the country as to whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen was issued on October 31, 2008 by the Hawaii Department of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
   
   5. In that very carefully worded press release, Dr. Fukino said that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
   
   6. The intentional ambiguity of that statement raises more questions that it answered.
   
   7. That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation across the country over the issue of Obama’s birth and qualifications for the office of the President of the United States, including:
   
      a. The specific type of certificate was not identified.  Could it be the certificate for someone born outside of the State of Hawaii?
   
      b. Being "on record" could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or an actual "vault" original.  If the latter, those are the words used to describe what is there.  The data base record could have been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.
   
      c. Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.
   
   8. It should also be noted that in the face of all this litigation, the simple presentation of Obama’s vault birth records would put the questions to rest.
   
   9. Obama has not taken this approach to a single one of the cases, but instead has hired legal counsel across the country at no small expense, much of it illegally from his campaign, to defend the claims with motions to dismiss on standing and similar procedural grounds.
   
   10. Such response to the request for proof that he is qualified to serve as President of the United States of America only serves to raise more questions about this election.
   
   COLBs For Anybody
   
   Click the thumbnail to see a large copy of this beautifully printed Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
   
   
   
   
   
   It belongs to Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China.
   
   This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, dated March 14, 1904, was issued after Dr. Sun signed a raggedy type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870.
   
   Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not Hawaii, as this document affirms.
   
   We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia.  You can be born anywhere and get one.
   
   Anna Dunham may not have been America's #1 booster, but, gypsy that she was, she made sure her kids were well-anchored in the good ole USA.
   
   DoHHS Inspector General -- Birth Certificate Fraud
   
   Over the last 25 years, a number of studies have addressed problems related to false identification and the misuse of birth certificates.  These studies conclude that false identification is a major factor in crime, and that most, if not all, Federal fugitives and drug trafficking crimes are associated with false identification.  They also conclude that stolen, counterfeit, and altered birth certificates are often used as "breeder documents" that allow the holder to obtain documents needed to create new identities.  The Office of Inspector General has conducted three inspections focused specifically on birth certificate fraud that identified a number of vulnerabilities in birth certificate processes.  Because so many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates to assist them in determining eligibility for services and benefits, it is important that these agencies have current information on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud to assist them in the proper assignment and protection of benefits.
   
   Computer Graphics Expert Says It's Bogus
   
   Dr. Ron Polarik's final report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research, the sole purpose of which has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate.
   
   In his report, Dr. Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters, provides conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Petersburg Times, and Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document.
   
   Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.
   
   Sadly, mainstream media have totally ignored this inconvenient truth and are not even been willing to even look at this birth certificate issue.  They are all still in-the-tank for Obama, but even more so now that he is in line to be President.  They all bought into the lies and fraudulent documents proffered up as evidence on Obama's qualifications.  They have been too quick to label as "trash" or "garbage" any legitimate questions asked about Obama's real birth certificate.  Even high-ranking governmental officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was allegedly born, won't reveal what's on Obama's original birth certificate.  All they have said is that they have it.  They have not said (1) where Obama was born, (2) when Obama was born, or (3) even to whom Obama was born.
   
   The answer to "What's on Barack Obama's real, original birth certificate" ranks right up there with some of the great mysteries of our time -- and that is really hard to swallow.  That a man, with a dubious background, has been elected to the highest office of the greatest superpower in the world without ever having to prove who he says he is!  That is not "nutty," that's just plain insane!
   
   With all that said, and without further ado, I present to you my final and complete report on Barack Obama's bogus birth certificate, The Born Conspiracy. (video)
   
   Dr. Polariks' Final Report
   
   Forensic Examiner Says It's Bogus
   
   A second expert forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines has filed an affidavit [.pdf] associated with one of the lawsuits stating the following:
   
   1.  I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an address at...  I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer.  I began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991.  I am a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials.  My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto.
   
   2.  I have reviewed the attached affidavit [.pdf] posted on the internet from "Ron Polarik," who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received.  After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine.  Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.  Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
   
   3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No.  That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, "Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?"  It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for obliterating it.
   
   4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness.  In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.
   
   Genealogist Says It's Bogus
   
   A third investigator, a genealogist, says The FactCheck.org Certificates of Live Birth (COLB) have been an issue since they were posted.  In an attempt to backup the original forgery posted on the Obama campaign website, "Fight the Smears," FactCheck.org overlooked glaring errors with both COLBs.  I reference that there are two separate and individual documents as one clearly shows an embossed SEAL while the other does not.  The one that does contain an embossed SEAL, however is not an official SEAL from the State of Hawaii Department of Health, and hence, the document itself is already in question.
   
   Here (in an image rich file) in an attempt to identify additional ink markings from the Statement and Signature Stamp applied to the back of an authentic Certificate from the Vital Records Department, I will be using the FactCheck.org images and developing a composite image based on several layers, and seeing if any additional indications can be detected.
   
   This genealogist concludes the COLBs are forgeries, plain and simple.
   
   Forgery #1 - The COLB posted on 'Fight the Smears' - No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.
   
   Forgery #2 - FactCheck - Two different COLB's one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL
   
   Forgery #3 - FactCheck - COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.
   
   So, how can there be three versions of a document that Hawaii NEVER issued?
   
   A Nail In The COLB Coffin
   
   NoBarack08 is reporting that Barack Hussein Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the one that has been posted all over the Internet, first the DailyKos, then Fight The Smears and the at FactCheck.org, has now been proven to be a fake, fabricated, and forged document.  There is no doubt that the original is not an authentic State of Hawaii, Department of Health issued document.
   
   NoBarack08 has established what appears to be proof that the original COLB that was posted had no number or lettering indicating that it was never issued by the State of Hawaii Department of Health.  It was based on a blank template, and nothing more.
   
   Good stuff!  Too much to post here, but check it out here.
   
   He also provides directions to replicate the process, so you can see for yourself.
   
   This is probably why Janice Okubo, the Communications Officer for the Hawaii Department of Health is on record saying, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents."
   
   
   Miss Tickly Says It's Bogus
   
   MissTickly -- aka TerriK -- says Obama’s COLB lacks legal veracity.   So, what now?
   
   On July 27, 2009, Obama was not verified as "constitutionally qualified to be U.S. President" by the standards of Hawaii’s Department of Health and Vital Statistics Registrar.  Any assertions by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else must be re-examined under the following LIGHT:
   
   The key is the distinction of the terms, "FILED by Local Registrar" as opposed to "ACCEPTED by State Registrar"
   
   We have two statements about two sets of vital records belonging to the Obama issued from Hawaii.  An "original birth certificate" that is "on record in accordance to state policies and procedures" in October, 2008, AND "original vital records" that are "maintained on file," on July 27, 2009.
   
   1.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:
     
   "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
     
   2.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:
     
   "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
     
   • We also have a COLB presented by Obama that indicates the information shown has been "Filed by Registrar" -- Fig.1 (at link)
   
   • However, we also have samples found online of HAWAII COLBs that say they have been "Accepted by State Registrar" -- Fig 2 & Fig 3 (at link)
   
    Using Nevada’s guidelines on vital statistics TerriK walks through the process here . . .
   
   MissTickly documents the fact that Obama's "vital records" have not only been "amended," but have never been "accepted" by the Registrar.  It is not a completed document.
   
   Exposing The False Hawaii Department Of Health Seal
   
   A records request made under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), Hawaii’s Open Records law, for a black and white copy of the Hawaii Department of Health’s (HDOH) departmental seal as described as "Exhibit A" in their agency administrative rules has yielded disclosure of an electronic copy of the Department’s embossed seal.
   
   While there is a story unfolding concerning the HDOH’s irregular action and response to my request for disclosure of "Exhibit A" that I will relay in the near future, I am restricting this particular post to the introduction of the image they did provide me and to offer some background on why it was requested and why it appears in "Obama’s Garden."  What I will say for now though is that the HDOH appears to be very reluctant to release the specific record authorized by law to be disclosed to me considering they first denied my request, then conceded after consulting with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) that disclosure is authorized by state law, then failed twice to provide me the specific record I requested.  Still, this newly disclosed image represents major progress coming from such a demonstrable and historically closed agency.
   
   The Seal of the Hawaii Department of Health has been in effect since 1988 when it was made a part of the HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: "§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
       
   a)  The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter.  At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words "STATE OF HAWAII."  At the curve on each side portion shall be a star.  In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine.  The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" and "STATE OF HAWAII."  For illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of the official seal is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit "A," titled "Seal of the Department of Health," and dated November 1, 1988, and made a part of this section."
        
   
        
   Now, look at the close-up of the seal on Obama's COLB from the Factcheck.org photos:
       
   
       
   •  The outer ring in HDOH example is a single line.  The outer ring on Obama's COLB is a double line.

   
   

   •  The inner ring in HDOH example is a single line, like the outer ring.  The inner ring on Obama's COLB is a broad, woven line.

   
   

   •  The typeface is a significant identifying feature of the seal.  Obama’s is wide and bold, the HDOH seal lettering is condensed and a much lighter weight.
   
   •  Present is a font type treatment anomaly seen in the word "OF" -- see how small it is on Obama's COLB, as compared to the HDOH example?
   
   •  The two stars, described in those administration rules, are missing.  Any alleged HDOH seal missing these two stars is NOT an official seal according to administrative rule §11-1-2.
       
   Due to these indisputable facts, the seal on Obama’s COLB is not the HDOH seal and Dr. Fukino does not have authority over the seal appearing on Obama’s COLB according to the description in the Title 11 rules AND the version disclosed in my records request.  The seal seen on Obama’s COLB HAS NO LEGAL WEIGHT either online or as a physical copy.
   
   Read the whole thing here . . .
   
   Obama’s COLB Never Accepted By Hawaii Registrar
   
   AXJ-Action For Justice International Forum has a thread entitled, "Obama’s COLB was never accepted by the Hawaii Registrar!," that has some very interesting stuff related to the bogus Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that was provided to the Daily Kos and others  by the Obama Campaign.
   
   Obama’s COLB has only been "filed" but never "accepted."  AXJ contends that if it hasn’t been accepted, it’s not certified or official according to the State of Hawaii.
      
   
   click image for large copy
      
   Notice the lower left hand corner for the wording "Filed" or "Accepted" in this side by side comparison of two officially certified "Accepted" Hawaiian COLB’s with Obama’s unofficial "Filed."
   
   One comment says Orly Taitz will be presenting it to Judge Carter tomorrow morning along with a request for a Subpoena to the Registrar of Hawaii, but there is no information on her website to that effect.
   
   This has been pointed out previously, but is now popping up on current Google searches.
   
   I will try and track down the Hawaii regulations for the use of the terms, "Filed" and "Accepted."  I'll update this item when/if found.  If any readers have information on the distinction between "Filed" and "Accepted" shoot me an email.
   
   Notice the middle COLB.  It has "Japanese" as a value of the "Race" field.  Hawaii's bureaucrats evidently are confused about race and nationality.  May help to explain why Obama Sr.'s race is listed as "African."
   
   There were federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for "Race" -- enter "227" in the "Page" text box and hit "Enter" -- warning big .pdf file.
   
   Although, I'm not sure any of this matters, since there are three examiners who have each declared Obama's COLB is counterfeit. A big "thank you" to Liz -- Here is the Hawaii statutes on the "FILED" and "ACCEPTED" on the COLB: -- see sections 11-1-4(d) and 11-1-28.
   
   The statute specifically states that the date of filing is the date that a document is "RECEIVED" at the Department of Health office.  Obama’s information was received or "FILED" on Aug. 8, 1961, according to his COLB.  It was never "ACCEPTED" by the Registrar.  Obama’s COLB is still being "MAINTAINED"  -- awaiting acceptance by the Hawaii State Registrar.
   Here is a ton of information about this issue -- this stuff is dynamite! -- the whole process -- check it out.
   
   The Bottom Line
   
   First Hawaii first "Files" a COLB, and then later the Registrar "Accepts" by registrar State of Hawaii then certifies.  It is not certified until "accepted."
   
   So you could file for a COLB with Marilyn Monroe as your mom, born on Maui last year, and say "I have a COLB 'on file' with Hawaii," as Obama has done.  Also please note Fukino only said she saw Obama's "vital records" that are "filed," that say he was born in Hawaii.  She does not say he was born in Hawaii.
   
   Further, I have written to Okubo to get her to abide Hawaii's law which requires her to "Verify 'any record'" and she not only refuses to verify Obama's COLB but she also refuses to vouch for Fukino's statement, as does the Attorney General (refuses to corroborate). The Hawaii Office of Information Policy refuses to uphold the law as well. I've sent this data to The Post & Email and they may write it up shortly.
   Obama was not born in Hawaii and they have nothing to say that he was. Zero!
   
   Sure the COLB is a forgery, but it's only on file anyway, until it's accepted by the registrar it's nothing. They all know he was not born there. I spoke to Lingle's office and they said he's from there, they did not use the language that he was born there.
   
   From an attorney who wishes to remain anonymous.
   
   Proof Positive It's Bogus
   
   
   
    
   
   The State Seal Is Bogus
   
   
   
   click image to see large copy
    
   
   It Is A Fake
   
   People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Birth Certificate.
   
   •  He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
   
   People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth.
   
   •  He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
   
   People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
   
   •  Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
   
   People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth, while incorrectly referring to it as a "birth certificate."
   
   •  Factcheck was complicit in falsifying this image and passing it off as a genuine scan.
   
   Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
   
   •  That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate, while ridiculing anyone that dares ask.
   
   Why The COLB?
   
   The obvious question must be asked:  If Obama has an original "long form" birth certificate issued on the day of his birth by the state of Hawaii, why would he also have a "Certification of Live Birth"?
   
   It would not be necessary.
   
   Barack Obama was asked if he was eligible to become president under the Article II "natural born" eligibility clause.  Obama masked the truth by posting a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB).  His supporters declared him a "native born" citizen and the issue was pushed back into the realm of conspiracy theories.
   
   Upon further investigation, the mask of the COLB started to be more and more revealing of the original 1961 certificate, made much of by Hawaii’s Governor Lingle and the state’s Department of Health official, Dr. Fukino, as more probably a Dept. of Health document and not a hospital long form.  [See my recent post on the Hollister dismissal in which I quoted Endnote 12 of Mario Apuzzo's Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al case. Apuzzo's jurisprudence of challenging prima facie evidence is brilliant.
   
   If Obama was trying to promote his Hawaiian native born status, he would have willingly posted a hospital certificate as solid, best evidence. A COLB is labeled as only prima facie evidence; the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.
   
   If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it?  Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5,[7] it is compulsory for the Dept. of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident, even if no documentation of place and time of birth is presented.  Only the word of one parent is required by law.
   
   If the hidden 1961 certificate is a §338-5 form, face down like a card in a poker game, the $800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release means Obama is not just bluffing, but covering up perjury and other violations of election law.
   
   In the end, a §338-5 compulsory registration will be more probative of the direct testimony evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth,[8] than of his claimed Hawaiian birth.
   
   Obama Stonewalls
   
   It's been more than two years since Obama announced his candidacy for President, and five months since he was elected President, yet Obama has repeatedly refused to provide any proof that he is Constitutionally qualified to be president.  Despite what you may have heard, Obama's eligibility issue has never been settled.  If you are looking for reasons why, there is only one reason that you should know:
   Barack Hussein Obama flat-out refuses to show the one document that would confirm or deny his true identity, parentage, and birth origin -- his original, "vault" birth certificate.
   
   In March 2008, a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain, the GOP candidate, from the ballot because his natural-born status was also in doubt.  John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to Congress.
   
   On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
   Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed.  It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth."  HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript.  Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known.
   
   What Is The Evidence Of A Counterfeit
   
   Many people who also saw this image (see Appendix A) had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine.  The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently.  Here is an annotated list of them:
   1. The image contains digital signatures of Photoshop
   
   2. Only one side of alleged COLB shown (COLB is two-sided)
   3. Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
   4. Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
   5. Missing the State Registrar's signature
   
   6. Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data
   7. Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
   
   8. Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background layer
   9. Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
   10. Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for the border
   11. Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
   12. Border pattern is more blurred than the background
   13. Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
   14. Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
   15. Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
   16. Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text
   17. White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
   18. Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
   19. Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
   20. Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the image
   
   
   It's Invalid
   
   In Dr. Ron Polarik's final report, "Obama's Born Conspiracy," these anomalies are explained in greater detail.
   The consensus among all of us was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored.  What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it.  They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way.  Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama.  The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
   One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself.  The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
   ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE
   In other words, "Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
   
   
   What's Wrong With This Picture
   
   There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery."  Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
   What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
   If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus.  We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud.  So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website.  Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements).  These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
   Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image.  Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus.  For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features.  Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides.  Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture.  Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
   
   Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported Polarik's conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images.  A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions.  The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
   If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
   
   
   Does Anyone See A Pattern Here
   
   From the first day he ran for the Office of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become president.  But, he ran anyway.  Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
   Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
   If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original.  If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original.  If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12?  What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
   Well, it's a lot more than that.  This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins.  This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our government, our judiciary, our armed forces, and law enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is constitutionally qualified to become president.
   Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution.  Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
   There is no question that Obama fails to meet the constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen.  But, what about the question of document fraud?  Has a crime been committed?  Who's responsible?  What if a president was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
   Conspiracies in presidential elections do happen.  Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
   Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat.  It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
   As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?"  Where, indeed.
   
   Other  Opinions
   
   At the same time that Dr. Polarik saw Obama's alleged COLB, a discussion of that image was taking place among the registered readers of a popular blog (HotAir.com) that is a repository of top stories from other blogs and websites.  I had not seen these comments until now, ten months after they were published.  Although the Hot Air community is mostly pro-Obama, a number of members had identified the very same anomalies as I had while working independently.  The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated as it serves to validate the work that I've done in proving this image, and ones to follow, to be false, forged, and fabricated.  Here, in their own words, is what they said on June 12:
   
   From JM Hanes:
   
   it really bothers me when something like this simply makes no sense.  I couldn't begin to guess who would have fiddled with the document -- or the when & why either -- but I also can't think of a single logical reason (including filters, sharpening, or conversions) that a scan of an original document could result in the kind of selective pixelization/artifacting in evidence here.  Pasting from one image into another, however, would produce precisely that effect.
   
   "The pixilation around the text is...completely inconsistent with the background, which is discontinuous behind the text.  Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse "JUN 6 2007" in the lower middle of the document for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted.  That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone Photoshopped it.  The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text.  Nice try with the "Photoshop filter" theory though! I n any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
   
   From Spolitics:
   
   The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it.  So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties.  According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh.  That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no "date acquired" listed, which would have indicated this was scanned.
   
   From LimeyGeek:
   
   Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them.  I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text.  Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering.  Contrast the artifacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars -- that’s original text.  The text in the body of the document has been doctored.  Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy.  I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
   
   As somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artifacts are nothing of the sort.  This is not a case of lousy artifacts due to image encoding (jpeg).  Such artifacts would be consistent, these are not.  In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts.
   
   The point is that an original document would have consistent artifacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artifacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression).  Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
   
   From RightWired:
   
   It’s a 100% forgery.  There are numerous reasons, but the #1 reason: Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts.  Zoom in to 600% or greater in Photoshop or Corel.  Look at an "A".  Notice how it’s smoothed a bit?  You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green government background.  There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character.  When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision.  It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
   
   I work in advertising.  I have studied this...as well as our department’s graphic artist -- it’s fraudulent.  Also file properties say Adobe CS3, black copy is much darker than the rest.  The official seal is blurry and pixilated.
   
   From Just A Grunt:
   
   Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well.  While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped.  The integrity of the typical 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot.  I may not be using the right techno terms here -- alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomalies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
   
   From WoosterOh:
   
   I find it odd that every word is pixilated around it, yet the black box is not.  Those words are not on the document.  To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates.  Select a background image, select text to put on the background image.  I guess that {the Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated printout) could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it.  You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate.  Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image. FAKE
   
   From G Charles:
   
   A word of caution -- I use Photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text.  I agree that this is not a scan of an original document "AS IS".  Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a Photoshop filter once or twice.  And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo.  And as support for my "Photoshop filter" theory, the seal carries the same pixilation artifacts.  Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed -- whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixilation.
   
   From iurockhead:
   
   Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background.  I call fake.  I don’t doubt his citizenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
   
   From wise_man:
   
   And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.
   
   From SilverStar830:
   
   Looks "chopped."  It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake.
   
   From Buford:
   
   When blown up it is clearly a fake.  At 2000% it is clear that the pixilation of the text is much finer than the pixilation of the background.  It is an extremely low quality fake.  If this served any purpose but to drive traffic to the Kos site I would be surprised.
   
   From infidel65:
   
   After repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, a copy shows up on the Daily Kos.  This stinks to high heaven.  The Obama campaign may have thought they’d put this issue to bed, but they have only succeeded in fuelling the suspicions.
   
   Confused?
   
   Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?
   
   Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?
   
   Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?
   
   Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?
   
   Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?
   
   Fear not!  Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.
   
   Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician."
   
   Here's the outline:
   
   Now What
   
   To date, the suspicions have not subsided, yet people are talking about Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as if it really exists.
   
   Why?  Because they know that foreign-born children are also issued a COLB by Hawaii, and therefore, the COLB cannot confirm one's natural-born status.  Only the actual, "vault" original birth certificate can, and Obama knows that better than anyone.  What other reason could there be for the occupant of the Oval Office to refuse such a simple request?
   
   Because, it is not a "simple request," but a bombshell that blows Obama's entire claim to the presidency right out of the water.
   
   Now that you see the big picture, what are you going to do about it?
   
   A Forged Long-Form Birth Certificate
   
   DC sources say that an Administration team is working on perfecting a forgery of the long-form birth certificate.  They plan on presenting it in a a month or so.  The source is an FBI agent who has drinking buddy from University of Illinois now in the Administration.  It's second hand, but the source is supposed to be solid.
   
   They have already prepared the forgery with special paper and ink.  The document was printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto.  Access was arranged by a trustee of the museum who is connected to a large Canadian banking/investment firm with major US interests.
   
   The blanks in the forged form were filled in with an old Underwood Manual typewriter bought at an estate sale in Skokie, IL.  The raised seal was the easiest piece to fake, since you can by a special order corporate seal from just about any online office supply store.
   
   The only reason they haven't rolled out the forgery yet is that it is "seasoning" under mild UV light and a back and forth rotation between between a humidifier and a sauna.  Get ready....one to two months tops.
   
   I personally don't put a lot of stock into this report.  I have included it here in the off-chance that a couple of months down the road Obama suddenly releases his long-form birth certificate after his long and expensive battle to keep it from the American People.  If that happens, this report will immediately gain a great deal of credibility.
   
   The Billboard
   
   
   
   Donations are being accepted for a national billboard campaign with this simple message.
    
   
   Finally
   
   Somebody finally asked Barack Obama's White House press secretary about the president's elusive birth certificate.
   
   When asked by WorldNetDaily.com White House correspondent Les Kinsolving why Obama, who has pledged transparency in his administration, would not release his long-form birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility for office, spokesman Robert Gibbels, employing Alinsky's Rule 5, guffawed in unison with members of the Washington press corps, about the concerns of 400,000 petitioners who have demanded it.  Here is the video.
   
   "Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" Gibbels asked incredulously.  "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me.  The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth.  I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people -- (laughter) -- that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download.  I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
   
   It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."
   
   Gibbels continues the lie that Obama released his birth certificate.  It's a damnable lie.  Obama has never released his birth certificate and Gibbels and the rest of the White House staff knows it.
   
   There are actually 3 lies in Gibbels statement:
   
   1. The State of Hawaii has never provided a copy of Obama's birth certificate -- with or without a state seal -- never.
   
   2. The State of Hawaii has never certified Obama was born in Hawaii -- never.
   
   3. There has never been an Obama birth certificate on the Internet -- never.
   
   Now you know why I refer to Gibbs as Gibbels.  He's Obama's propagandist.
   Go here for the background on Obama's bogus birth records, and here for the law behind the eligibility question.
   
   Hawaii Changes The Rules
   
   According to the Hawaii Star-Bulletin, the State of Hawaii, Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
   
   The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
   
   And, it's only available in electronic form.
   
   Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
   
   "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.
   
   Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
   
   "The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.
   
   Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."
   
   "The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.
   
   Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."
   
   She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."
   
   The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign.  Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign web site a fake.
   
   Asked about that document, Okubo said, "This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."
   
   Everything above is a lie.  It clearly demonstrates that officials in Hawaii's Department of Health are engaged in a cover up and fraud.
   
   Here is a long-form Hawaiian "Certificate Of Live Birth" that was issued on September 28, 2010.
   
   First They Will -- Then They Won't
   
   The Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB) the Obama Campaign posted on the Internet as proof of his eligibility would not be accepted for eligibility for some Hawaiian state government programs.
   
   The website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, states clearly the COLB touted by the Obama campaign, White House press secretary Robert Gibbels and a host of other Obama defenders is not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program.
   
   From the DHHL website:
   
   There are two categories of documents used in determining eligibility: primary and secondary.
   
   Primary Documents
   
   The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
   
   A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
   A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
   A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
   You will need the certified birth certificates for:
   
   Yourself
   Your biological father; and
   Your biological mother
   The state Department of Health, (DOH), Vital Records Section, records documents by island and district (geographically) and by the date of the event (chronologically).
   
   If your biological parents' documents don't clearly prove that you have at least 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry, you will also need certified birth certificates for:
   
   Your biological father's parents; and
   Your biological mother's parents.
   
   In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green.  This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).   Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
   
   Hawaii Home Lands won't take it, but Obama insists it certifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.
   Update:  This item was cut 'n' paste from the DHHL website.  Between 6/8/09 and 6/18/09 DHHL has scrubbed this site.  In the past 10 days they have changed the policy above.  They will now accept Certifications of Live Birth.  Click the link now.  Check it out.
   
   A coincidence?  Suuuuuuuuure!  The Obots continue to scrub the Internet for the Obamamessiah.
   
   I'm going to have to start caching everything.
   GOTCHA!
   
   Here are three cached pages from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands document, "Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands," that proves that Hawaii is actively supporting Obama's usurpation of the Office of the Presidency.
   
   Cover page -- "Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands"
   Page 1 -- Primary documents -- "Certified copy of Certificate of Birth"
   Page 2 -- "DHHL utilizes information that is only found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth"
   
   Commonality
   
   Breaking News From Rush Limbaugh’s Radio Program!  Rush just said:
   
   "...you know, a lot of people talk about Obama and his messianic complex.  He does have one thing in common with God.  Barack Obama has one thing in common with God.  Do you know what it is?  God does not have a birth certificate either."
   
   Heh, heh, heh . . .
   
   Happy Anniversary
   
   Dr. Ron Polarik reminds us that today, June 12th, 2009, marks the Anniversary of the Obama COLB Forgery.   Yes, a whole year has past since Obama committed felony document fraud and posted a false identification document on the Internet.
   
   As battles go, the Obots and the liberal media and blogsphere launched a bigger assault in defense of this bogus birth certificate than the Battle of Stalingrad in WWII.
   
   It was Factcheck.org and Politifact that mounted a full-court press against the upstart "Birthers," a name given to them by the liberal "Truthers" who conjured up more 9/11 conspiracies than Uncle Ben has rice.  When the liberal "Truthers," so-called for the "Truth Movement" they started, went viral on so many Leftist websites that there wasn’t enough Reynolds Wrap in the world to fashion hats for them all.
   
   Now, the shoe -- or "tin foil hat" -- is on the other foot...er...head.
   
   Like Ron says, "It’s the forgery, Stupid!"
   
   Here is Polarik's final report -- the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research, the sole purpose of which has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate.
   
   The Birth Certificate Question
   
   An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News -- Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:44:05 PM · 99 of 113
   
   We have no proof of where Obama was born.  Anyone who claims that he was born in Hawaii is suffering from COLB  Derangement Syndrome.  Hawaii never confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, never confirmed that he has a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate or any other US birth certificate on file, or even if they have anything tangible beyond a computer record.
   
   Most of all, Hawaii confirmed that they never released a copy of Obama’s COLB to anyone in June 2007.
   
   Einstein could have called himself, "Humpty Dumpty," and hid his face, but that would not change the fact that he discovered E=mc².   Likewise, Obama’s 2007 COLB would be just as nonexistent as if I had never discovered that it was nonexistent.  But, it is a good thing that I did.
   
   It's positively amazing the amount of effort that people have expended in defense of this piece of crap COLB image that the Poseur-in-Chief now admits to posting online.  There is only one reason why, after more than a year, that only one scan image of one side only has ever been made from what is alleged to be Obama’s 2007 COLB: it doesn't exist.  Obama’s 2007 COLB is a forged fake, fabricated in Photoshop, and nothing that anyone says or does can change that fact.
   
   There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that the Obama Campaign would not make another, more detailed scan, including one of the reverse side of the COLB, and send that out to quiet critics.  No reason, EXCEPT that the document does not exist in the real world.  It only exists in the unreal, virtual world of Photoshopped fakes.
   
   BTW, a digital photo is not the same thing as a scan image, and it most certainly cannot be used to validate a scan image.  Certainly not when the document object is photographed at a steep angles from the capture device (which were intentional).
   
   Remember that Factcheck.org did not take a digital photo of the reverse side (all that Factcheck photographed was only 1/4 of the entire back page, and only 2/3 of the Seal).  Why was so little of the back page shown?  Because what was photographed belonged to a different COLB!!  Check it out for yourself: the Seal on the reverse side does not match the one on the front side.  It is one of several, new discoveries I've made after revisitng the Factcheck photographs.
   
   A year later after the bogus scan image was posted, THAT is exactly what people are still talking about.  They are referring back to the original forged image on Fight the Smears and Factcheck.  They are quoting Factcheck -- the co-conspirator in this birth certficate scam -- as having "verified" the bogus "scan image."
   
   Recall that Factcheck claimed they photographed the same object that the Obama Campaign scanned two months earlier.
   
   They took these photos SOLELY IN DEFENSE of the scan image that they alleged to have "validated," and to fend off the widespread criticism of the COLB as a forged image.  However, they failed to "debunk" the critics.  This was all part of an elaborate ruse to create the illusion that Obama had released his genuine, certified original birth certificate to the public.
   
   What is hard to believe are the people in high places who actually believe that this document exists, but of those, here is a segment who also discount it as being proof of where Obama was actually born.  COLBs are incredibly easy to get with little documentation required.  And, yes, it is a well-documented fact that Hawaii was giving COLBs to foreign-born children.
   
   But the bottom line is that the original "scan image" is what people are still talking about today, and it is an indisputable fact that Obama, or anyone else, does not have a genuine 2007 COLB document.  What is posted online is as bogus as a four-dollar bill.
   
   Obama ascended to the position of President by fraudulent means, including document fraud, Internet fraud, voter fraud, and campaign funding fraud, to name a few.  The only question at hand now is whether he will be removed by invalidating his election, or by the articles of impeachment.  If I were a Democratic Congressman, and I was going to be implicated in this fraud, I'd be calling for impeachment in a New York minute.
   
   FReeper Ron Polarik, Ph D
   
   Criminal Document Fraud
   
   The only thing I'll sign is a petition for Obama, Obama for America, and Factcheck to be charged with criminal document fraud and Internet fraud for creating and proffering a false identification document, aka the fabricated COLB image posted on Obama's website, among others, that Press Secretary Gibbs publicly admitted was put there by the aforementioned President of the United States and his Presidential Administration.
   
   These said individuals and parties did willingly, and with malice aforethought, violate Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information, by creating and preferring what they allege was Obama's actual, original birth certificate, but was, in fact, a false identification document as defined by statute below:
   
   A "false identification document" is any document *or facsimile of a document) of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that -- (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and (B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization.
   
   The Obama Administration, the Obama Campaign, aka Obama for America, Factcheck.org, and Barack Hussein Obama as the principle mastermind of this document fraud who directed the creation and distribution of a false identification document for himself, are hereby charged with the commission of felony document fraud, punishable by up to five (5) years in prison, and a maximum fine of $250,000 for each offense.
   
   It is a statement of fact, and admission therewith, that the Obama Campaign, aka Obama for America, did create a minimum of three (3) false identification document copies and distributed said copies to the Daily Kos, Factcheck, and Politifact; and, additionally, posted the original false identification document on Obama's own website, "My.BarackObama.com" and also on a separate website known as, "Fight The Smears."
   
   Furthermore, two months after the creation and distribution of these false identification documents, Obama for America, in collusion with Factcheck.org, a subsidiary of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, owned by the Annenberg Foundation and funded by billionaire George Soros, created and posted nine (9) photographs of what they further alleged was the same, false identification document that they had earlier alleged was a scanned facsimile of Obama's original birth certificate -- thus compounding their earlier offenses with further violations of the same statutes.
   
   In all, then presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, his campaign organization, d/b/a Obama for America, and Annenberg's Factcheck.org organization are hereby charged with thirteen (13) separate violations of Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028.
   
   It is further alleged that these individuals and organizations, by virtue of displaying and promoting these fraudulent images as genuine government-issued documents, to the voting populaces of all 50 states in the Union, are hereby, also guilty of committing Internet fraud, in violation of individual state laws and Federal laws.
   
   Lastly, these false documents are also in violation of Hawaiian state forgery statues as the State Government of Hawaii was directly deceived and harmed irrespective of the other charges.
   
   I call upon the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Attorneys General of the other 49 states, the DC District Attorney, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Congress of the United States to launch their own investigations of the crimes committed against the respective state and national governments, and the citizens under these jurisdictions.
   
   Or...something like that.
   
   Ron Polarik, Ph D . . .
   
   Who Is Behind Quashing The Birth Certificate Issue?
   
   Back in October of 2008, when the subject of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then-92-year-old mother’s birth certificate.
   
   Frankly, I didn’t think finding my mother’s birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn’t speak English.  Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care [in a nursing home} that she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.  When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible."  I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last name.  Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!"  When I expressed my amazement, the woman said:  "That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"  Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!
   
   Obama was born not in 1913, like my mother, but in 1961.  So it was quite curious that not one cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original vault copy birth certificate.  I’m not talking about the faux version Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a "truth"-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago.  In other words, the least credible source!
   
   Even more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama’s missing birth certificate worth even casual mention.  Their thinking seemed to be: If we’re not going to check on his eligibility to be president, then why question why the other crucial documents were -- and continue to be -- sealed?  For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois attorney’s license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a community organizer in Chicago; and medical records.  I’m also curious about why Michelle Obama’s law license was suspended in 1993 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn’t running for president.
   
   Instead, the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was eligible -- according to the U.S. Constitution -- to become President of the United States!
   
   NOW WE KNOW WHY
   
   In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th, Douglas Hagmann -- a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press -- the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!
   
   According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:
     
   
   •  A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.

   
   •  FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine "look mild" in comparison to other consequences.

   
   •  In at least one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other specific subjects like Obama’s Illinois lawyer’s license, his college records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.
          
   
   Continue reading here . . .
   
   Hawaii Confirms Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended
   
   Leo D'Onofrio says he will be assisting one of his readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials.  (Readers of his blog will recognize her as MissTickly, aka TerriK.)
   
   Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
   
   TerriK was originally interested in whether or not Obama made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending.  Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state... regardless... TerriK's requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:
   
   1. we have the record you requested and will provide them
   
   2. we don't maintain the records you requested (aka we don't have any such records in file)
   
   3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them
   
   She was told on two occasions by an Office of Information Practices (OIP) staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.
   
   Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the Department of Health (DoH) told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected.  Their official response was that she wasn't allowed access to those records...  They never told her that they didn't maintain these records she requested.  If they didn't have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don't exist.
   
   D'Onofrio will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via his blog in the days ahead.  This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the OIP and the DoH.
   
   Details and background here . . .
   
   What Will Obama Say To Nathan Deal?
   
   The Post & Email asks, will an official request by a group of congressmen to see Obama's birth certificate be the straw that breaks this camel's back?
   
   Georgia’s representative in the U.S. House, Nathan Deal announced in early November that he and 10 House colleagues were going to sign a joint letter, asking Obama to publicly reveal his birth certificate,.
   
   The simple enough question was rebuffed and ridiculed by the Main Stream Media, and even the Savannah Morning News, as if a birth certificate was some sort of private journal or diary of past affairs.
   
   The mere fact that the liberals and progressives ridiculed Nathan Deal -- whose only interest is to quiet the nation -- shows that they have no substantive reason to oppose the request.  It further shows that they know that Obama cannot oblige Deal and his co-signatories, for in Democratic circles nothing is a secret.
   
   The answer must come soon.  Deal said that he was to send his letter after Thanksgiving.  Any delay on the part of Barack Hussein Obama to oblige Deal, will only further erode his political influence in Washington, DC.
   
   Obama has been effectively checkmated by the concerted effort of public support, publicized lawsuits on the eligibility question, publicity campaigns such as those of World Net Daily and Charles Kerchner to put the issue in the face of liberals on a constant basis, and blogs and bloggers the world over.
   
   If Obama obliges him, then the online image of a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) provided by his campaign will be proven a forgery, according to the consensus of opinion of citizens who have studied the images posted on the net and found some images of the allegedly same document, contain a HI State seal and some do not.
   
   If Obama does refuses, however, it will only further confirm that he has something to hide.
   
   Palins remark that it is a valid issue and Ogden’s resignation as Deputy U.S. Attorney General in the same week, following the sending of Nathan Deal’s letter, appear to be diagnostic signs that the political establishment understands the risks and imminent crisis about to break.
   
   Even the pulse of Obama’s political support on the net tells the tale: a lull and quiet among them posting comments at opposition blogs is noticeable.  There remain only the violent, the perverse and the somewhat mad to carry on the cheers of "Change," which were the mind numbing drum beat of the Obama for American campaign, just 14 months ago.
   
   The political momentum of the nation now follows diverse roads to the same destination, and the resulting fireworks are going to be much brighter and invigorating than those of any Fourth of July in many a year!
   
   Hawaii Launches Obama Birth Queries Firewall
   
   Bob Unruh reports that Hawaii has launched a defense against Obama birth queries.  The Department of Health has posted a "vital records" Web page -- "obama.html" -- that says they aren't answering any more questions about Barack Obama, the mysterious circumstances surrounding his birth, and/or what documentation is in their possession.
       
   
   click image for large copy
      
   It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by -- or is just annoyed at -- the number of inquiries about the birth records of Barack Obama.
   
   The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not "require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency."
   
   After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.
   
   The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a "legitimate" president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure.  The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.
   
   Kinda makes you curious to know what's in that documentation.  It's as guarded as the "Go Codes."  The greatest secret in the Age of Obama is Obama's bona fides -- the stuff that the rest of us have to present with regularity. 
   
   Attorney General Will Not Corroborate Obama Birth
   
   The Post & Email is reporting that while political momentum is building within the Democratic Party from coast to coast to make the issue of Obama’s claims to be born in Hawaii a litmus test for its political opponents in the 2010 general elections for Congress, a key component in such a strategy has been undermined by the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office.
   
   In correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a "natural-born American citizen."
   
   The stunning admission was made in an email sent to the Editor of this paper yesterday evening.
   
   The implications of this denial are catastrophic for the Democratic strategy.
   
   The Hawaii Attorney General’s office has the duty to prosecute the laws of the State.  Mark J. Bennett, the current Attorney General, was appointed to the office by Governor Lingle on Jan. 3, 2003.  He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Honolulu, and a graduate of Cornell’s Law School.  Bennett is the first Republican to hold the office in 40 years.
   
   According to published reports, Dr. Fukino has admitted that her July 27th statement received the verbal approval of the Hawaii Attorney General, who "o.k.’d it."
   
   In an attempt to corroborate the contents of Dr. Fukino’s statement and understand better the value of that testimony, I put the following two questions to Nagamine, as a member of the press.
       
   I am seeking some information in response to 2 questions I have. Please understand that your response(s) or non-response will be quoted by our paper.
   
   Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to define the citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
   
   Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the definition of a "natural-born citizen" of the United States of America?
       
   I put my question to the Deputy Attorney General to avoid putting the Attorney General in a situation of a conflict of interest, if he in fact, did, as Dr. Fukino claims, advise her regarding her July statement.
   
   Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict of interest for her office.  And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a "natural-born American citizen."  It is such, because if Fukino’s declaration had legal weight of any kind, surely a response to my questions would have corroborated that without such a conflict-of-interest scenario.  You only have a conflict if the Fukino claim would not be supported by a Nagamine response.
   
   Continue reading here . . .
   
   "Obama" Not On Hawaii Birth Database Document
   
   The Post & Email is reporting that the Hawaii Department of Health has sent them an Adobe document containing an alphabetical list of births, produced from the Hawaii Birth Index database, containing the names of those issued Certificates of Hawaiian Birth from 1911 to 1971, for those who did not get a standard Birth certificate, at birth."   The name Obama does not exist.  Here is an image of the "Ob*" page from the document:
       
   
       
   Click here to read the details and how John Charlton came into its possession.  Verrrrrrrry interesting . . .
   
   New Hawaii Law Shuns Obama Birth Document Requests
   
   The AP is reporting that it's now law in Hawaii that the state government can ignore repetitive requests for Barack Obama's birth certificate.
   
   Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
   
   The law is aimed at so-called "Birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president.  They contend the Democratic president was born outside the United States [among other things], and therefore doesn't meet the constitutional requirement for being president.
   
   Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
   
   Health Department officials supported the law because the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii.
   
   A few of those requesters file repeated inquiries seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
   
   Advocates for openness in government oppose the law because they fear it could be used to ignore legitimate requests for information.
   
   Another Obama Double Standard
   
   The White House appears to be laying the groundwork for Barack Obama to shake the hand of each senior at Kalamazoo Central High School’s commencement ceremony next month.
   
   Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizenship status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed.  Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of Obama, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday.
   
   Of the fact that the White House is requesting information on all the graduating seniors, K-Central Principal Von Washingon Jr. told the students, "I’ll let you figure out what that means," said senior Simon Boehme, who was at the breakfast.
   
   "Everyone is excited that we might have the opportunity to shake the president’s hand," Boehme said.
   
   Boehme and the entire class ought to respond, "We'll show you our birth certificates, if you'll show us yours."
   
   The Summary CNN Doesn't Want You to See
   
   Butterdezillion says the Hawaii Department of Health (DHOH) has indirectly confirmed that Obama's Factcheck Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a forgery because:
       
   They have made a statutory admission that Obama's BC is amended, which is required to be shown on a legitimate COLB but is not shown on the FactCheck COLB.
   
   They have said that Oahu birth certificates have always been given the birth certificate number by the HDOH on the "date filed."  The FactCheck COLB has a "date filed" 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins' but was given a number later than theirs.  This statement by Okubo rules out past explanations (hospitals numbering the BC's or being given blocks of numbers, or BC's sitting in piles at the HDOH for days before being numbered).  This means that either the "date filed," certificate number, or both have been altered on the FactCheck COLB.
       
   Because Obama's genuine Certificate of Live Birth (BC) is amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that it has no legal value unless it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body, and they rule the BC to be probative.  Obama has fought lawsuits to make sure that his BC could never be presented as evidence, even though it is the only way he can have any birth facts legally determined.
   
   The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect "fails to qualify" by Jan 20th, the Vice President elect is to "act as President" until a President qualifies.
   
   Because the required procedure to legally determine Obama's birth facts has never happened, we know that Obama could not have "qualified" by January 20th, and anybody who certified his eligibility documentably perjured him/herself, since even his age has never been legally determined, and could disqualify him from eligibility for the Office of President.
   
   The President elect becomes President automatically at noon on Jan 20th, but there are 2 Constitutional requirements that must be met before a sitting President can "act as President," or exercise the Presidential powers: he must take the oath of office and he must "qualify."  Doing one of the 2 is not enough, and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.
   
   Obama has "failed to qualify," and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to "act as President" is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.  All this is known simply because his birth certificate has been amended, and he has never presented it as evidence so it could possibly gain legal evidentiary value.
   
   These claims are documented here.
   
   On My Forehead
   
   
   Drudge has this image and headline on his website, and it's linked to a Politico article that had almost 2,000 comments as of 7 AM (EST).  The comments are running 99% against Obama. 
     
   
   click image to view video snippet
                
   This is not the first time Obama has addressed the "birth certificate" -- a term that has come to symbolize all of his missing documentation.  This issue is never, ever going to go away until he releases that $12.50 long-form birth certificate.
   
   As a matter of fact, polls demonstrate that more and more Americans are joining the ranks of the skeptics.
   
   
   Do You Recognize BS When You Hear It?
   
   From the MSNBC transcript:
       
   BRIAN WILLIAMS: Mr. President, you're an American born Christian.
   
   PRESIDENT OBAMA: Uh-huh.
   
   BRIAN WILLIAMS: And yet, increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents are claiming you are neither.  A fifth of the people, just about, believe you're a Muslim.
   
   PRESIDENT OBAMA: Keep in mind, those two things -- American born and Muslim -- are not the same.  So -- but I understand your point.
   
   BRIAN WILLIAMS: Either or the latter, and the most recent number is the latter.  This has to be troubling to you.  This is, of course, all new territory for an American President.
   
   PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, the -- the facts are the facts, right?  So, we went through some of this during the campaign.  You know, there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation, that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly.  We dealt with this when I was first running for the U.S. Senate.  We dealt with it when we were first running for the Presidency.  There were those who said I couldn't win as U.S. Senator because I had a funny name.  And people would be too unfamiliar with it.  And yet, we ended up winning that Senate seat in Illinois because I trusted in the American people's capacity to get beyond all this nonsense and focus on is this somebody who cares about me and cares about my family and has a vision for the future?  And so, I will always put my money on the American people.  And I'm not going to be worrying too much about whatever rumors are floating on -- out there.  If I spend all my time chasing after that then I wouldn't get much done.
   
   BRIAN WILLIAMS: Even a number as sizeable as this -- what does it say to you?  Does it say anything about your communications or the effectiveness of your opponents to --
   
   PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, Brian, I -- I would say that I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.  (LAUGHS)  It -- it is what -- the facts are the facts.  And so, it's not something that I can I think spend all my time worrying about.  And I don't think the American people want me to spend all my time worrying about it.
       
   You'll notice, Obama didn't answer Williams' direct question.  He ridicules it with an Alinsky Rule 5 response.
   
   That's not going to work Barack, Barry, Soebarkah -- or whatever your name is!
   
   And, Obama's reference to "facts" is ludicrous.  There are absolutely NO FACTS to support Obama's mythology.  His entire life history is hidden behind a stonewall of money, lawyers, and frightened politicians, judges, and journalists.
   
   Famous Dead French Artist Supports Birther Position
   
   Squeeky, girl reporter, says that a famous dead French artist named Rene Magritte spoke from beyond the grave to endorse the Birther philosophy that you just cannot trust picture!  He produced a painting called the "Treachery of Images" that shows a pipe with the French words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." 
   
   Translated to English, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" means "this is not a pipe."
       
   
       
   As Rene Magritte said:
      
   "The famous pipe.  How people reproached me for it!  And yet, could you stuff my pipe?  No, it's just a representation, is it not?  So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe," I'd have been lying!"
        
   What Magritte was saying is, this is only a picture of a pipe.  It's NOT the pipe itself.  This supports the Birther position that the Internet copy of Obama's birth certificate, is just that, a representation, or a picture, of the actual document, NOT the document itself.  That is why we keep hollering, "Show us the Birth Certificate!!!"
       
   
   "ceci n'est pas une acte de naissance"
       
   Sooo, the next time an Obot tells you to look at the Internet and you can see Obama's birth certificate, just say to them: "ceci n'est pas une acte de naissance" -- "this is not a birth certificate" -- heh, heh, heh!
   
   NO, I repeat, NO qualified, independent forensic document examiner has ever been allowed to examine the REAL document that the Internet image represents.
   
   We KNOW that Hawaii Health Department Communications Officer, Janice Okubo, has said, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
   
   U. S. Standard Certificate Of Live Birth
   
   The recommended data requirements as defined by the U. S. Department of Health, Center for Disease Control.
   
   Obots often point to states, such as Hawaii and Missouri that claim to only issue short-form birth certificates as proof that the data commonly found on long-form birth certificates are not maintained.
   
   That is a foolish notion.
   
   The states are empowered to run their own information facilities as they choose, however, to remain in compliance with the reporting requirements of the federal government, it is "recommended" that the data identified as "standard" and described in this document be maintained by the states "for reporting purposes."
   
   The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or Chief Technology Officer (CTO) knows exactly how to read these recommendations -- these "recommendations" ARE requirements.  Read the CDC's subtle directive:
      
   "It is critical that all registration areas follow these standards as closely as possible..."
       
   "As part of the revision process, CDC/NCHS has developed sets of detailed specifications for collecting and reporting the items on the birth and death certificates and fetal death report, which are all available on this Web site.  It is critical that all registration areas follow these standards as closely as possible to promote uniformity in data collection across registration areas.  Included with the draft specifications is an "overview."  The overview gives the rationale behind the approaches taken to develop the specifications."
   
   The states are independent entities and are entitled to run their own shops.  However, the states know that if they do not comply with these "recommendations," their federal monies can and will be affected.
   
   A Nail In The COLB Coffin
   
   NoBarack08 is reporting that Barack Hussein Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the one that has been posted all over the Internet, first the DailyKos, then Fight The Smears and the at FactCheck.org, has now been proven to be a fake, fabricated, and forged document.  There is no doubt that the original is not an authentic State of Hawaii, Department of Health issued document.
   
   NoBarack08 has established what appears to be proof that the original COLB that was posted had no number or lettering indicating that it was never issued by the State of Hawaii Department of Health.  It was based on a blank template, and nothing more.
   
   Good stuff!  Too much to post here, but check it out here.
   
   He also provides directions to replicate the process, so you can see for yourself.
   
   This is probably why Janice Okubo, the Communications Officer for the Hawaii Department of Health is on record saying, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents."
   
   Dr. Fukino Has Resigned Or Been Fired
   
   In a blog post at Obama's Garden MissTickly has the following information about Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health:
   
   [Ed Note: I want to be sure everyone understands what has happened:
   
   Dr. Fukino has resigned or been fired.  I received an autoreply telling me SEVEN minutes after I sent her a UIPA request this evening.  It is with a heavy heart that I announce to you that I received this from Dr. Fukino’s former email account:
       
   From: "Fukino, Chiyome L."
   To: [Redacted]
   Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 8:53:00 PM
   Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: UIPA Request -- State and National guidelines etc. pertaining to seal
   
   "Out of Office AutoReply: UIPA Request -- State and National guidelines etc. pertaining to seal
   
   I am no longer with the Department of Health. Please send emails to dohdir@doh.hawaii.gov. Thank you."
       
   This was the UIPA request the autoreply was in response to, for the record. It is VERY significant in light of Dr. Fukino’s departure because it refers to the direct evidence that Obama used his own seal to "certify" the COLB image posted online.
   
   Update:  For the record, the Omsbudsman’s Office was told that with the new administration coming in, Fukino left.
   
   Fukino has been providing cover for Obama with her selective leaks of information favorable to Obama's mythology, while burying anything potentially unfavorable.
   
   Neil Abercrombie is coming in as Hawaii's new governor.  Any problems Obama has had with records or record-keeping down there will be mitigated shortly.
   
   
   I do not want a

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate Truth

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The Uniform Commercial Code is looked upon as the bible in the world of business. Under Caeser of Rome, it was established that all nations in the empire that do any form of business, should all play on a level field, but what is not told is that the UCC is based directly on Vatican Canon Law, of the Roman Canon Law, which means, its regulations are under the Roman Catholic Church. Now, you maybe wondering what this has to do with birth certificates, so let's break down the origin of birth certificates.

Question: What is a berth? To come into or dock at a wharf such as when a ship comes into a dock, it arrives. So consequently, when a ship pulls into a port, it pulls in and stops, that is called its berth, because the ship has now arrived. So because it is on the laws of the high seas, it is governed by the UCC Commercial Law. So when the ship pulls in to it's berth, the first thing the captain must do is to present a certificate of manifest to the port authorities. What is a certificate of manifest? It is a document listing a ship’s contents, cargo, crew, and passengers. So whatever the ship brings in at berth, the captain has to present a certificate of manifest showing the identity and value of the items on the ship. Now consequently, when people are born, they come out of their mother's water, therefore they must have a birth certificate, which is a certificate of manifest, because the people are considered a corporation owned item, they are a human resource. This goes back to the German Nazi concept, that every human coming out of their mother's water must be birthed, and therefore the people have to have a certificate of manifest, to see who this individual is and how much they are going to make for the government in their New World Order.

So, since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge the people as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is. Why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? The people are resources to the government, their birth certificates are a security on the New York Stock Exchange, which is why if you look at all birth certificate's in America, it will say at the bottom this is printed on security paper, do not accept if not on full color security paper. At the bottom, you will always have a series of numbers, red numbers printed on the birth certificate, in which those numbers are a security stock exchange number on the World Stock Exchange, in which the American people are worth money to the International Bank that bought the government in the 1930's.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens in America began on July 14, 1862, when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis. See the government knows that they can only extract so much money out of the economy, so their idea is to bankrupt private owners so that the banks who are behind this syndicate become the owners of all the assets in this country. That's the real scheme; that's the real motive. By encouraging Congress to spend money it doesn't have, Congress has to turn around and "lien" on American labor and American private property for collateral. See they do that by fraudulent conversion of birth certificates, for example. Doctors, who are franchisees of the state, are obliged to sign birth certificates and forward them on to the Secretary of State in Sacramento. They make certified copies and forward those birth certificates to the Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C. The Department of Commerce does the same thing: they make certified copies and forward them on to the International Monetary Fund in Brussels, Belgium.

Now this is the center of the hub of the banking syndicate and they are, of course, loaning these huge sums to various governments around the world, including the Congress of the United States. The Congress needs something for collateral, and what they use for collateral are these birth certificates. They get treated as certificates in equity which mature on the 18th birthday of the person whose name appears on the birth certificate. The bank then keeps track of these and uses the number that any particular nation has available, as collateral on the international debt, as "performance units" on the international debt. These certificates in equity end up being regarded as "performance units" on the international debt. The more of those you have, the more money you can borrow. It's like this: the more collateral I have, the more money I can borrow from banks and the more I can secure. So, governments are securing their international debt by "liening" on the persons and property of their citizens. They're doing this on a massive scale, and it's technically a fraudulent conversion of the birth certificate because, if they did that with your birth certificate, they never told you they were doing it. They never told you they were obtaining a lien on your person and starting a third-party debt that you're responsible for. You had no meaningful choice in the matter, which makes it an "unconscionable contract" by definition.

Think of it very simply, as walking into a department store and saying to the salesman, "I really like that refrigerator over there, I want to buy it, ship it to my home tomorrow, and send the bill to, say, Willy Brown." So the next day, the refrigerator ends up in your garage, and the bill ends up in Willy Brown's mail. Willy Brown opens his mail and says, "What's this, Sears? One refrigerator, $800? What is this? I didn't buy this. I'm not a party to this transaction. I didn't even know about it. Why are they billing me? There must be a mistake here." Well, this is kind of like what is happening now. In this example, the department store is the Federal Reserve. They're supplying Federal Reserve Notes, right? Willy Brown is the American people, and I -- the one who went in there and bought the refrigerator in the first place -- I represent Congress. And I'm saying, "Don't send the bill to me, send it to the American people. And you can lien on their property, by the way. You can use our police, we'll enforce it for you; we'll extract the money." So that's the fraud the government and Obama is keeping from the American people.
The fraud is that Congress bankrupted the U.S. Treasury and turned all their gold over to the Federal Reserve banks, which are not federal government agencies.

The Federal Reserve is a "municipal corporation" created by an act of Congress, but it's still a corporation. And all that gold is now in their hands. But there wasn't enough to discharge the debt that had accumulated up to 1933. They had to go into bankruptcy to discharge the rest of the debt. They're using standard federal bankruptcy rules for this, but the creditors, of course, are in charge. And they're back there telling Congress, "Go ahead, continue spending more money that you don't have, because we know we'll take it out of the land and the labor of the American people, ultimately." And that's what's going on. Look at the current economic situation, the government is using Obama to push this idea concept of stimulus checks as a way for slowing down inflation, creating jobs, and giving the American people more money to spend. Now to the average puppet, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, but what the government doesn't tell the people is that, in the process of them giving these stimulus checks for the American people to spend more money, it will only devalue the American Dollar, and the banks will close up, because how can you spend more in a recession to boost the economy? Therefore by the banks closing up, it will force the American people into a one way electronic spending money system, that will be monitored and administered by the government, forcing the people into compliance with their New World Order.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from the government imposing as God, to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records.

Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth. In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. Why do you think they teach teachers to not only teach their students, but their parents that their child needs a good education so that they can grow up and get a good job? Lol they been making the people slaves for years and no one has ever stopped to question them on it? The child itself, when born, is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked, thus making whomever gets a birth certificate owned by the state. Everyone who has a birth certificate, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States of America, which makes them designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES". Again, ask yourself, why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? Better wakeup folks!

Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist. They have no legislation for ordering you to have a identification card, health card, and so forth, but they know the people are ignorant to the Law, so therefore by ignorance of the people, the government is allowed to freely at will keep coming up with forms of taxation against the American people. Birth Certificates proves that you are national property of the International Banks. The birth certificate thus becomes a form of theft, the theft of the child’s true identity as a free child of God to a servant of the State. By affixing a national seal of approval to a child, the state denies the freedom, rights, and dignity that God has ordained in the scriptures. You don't need proof that you were born, you breathing is proof enough for these hypocrites. By requiring a license, the state is claiming complete control and ownership over your liberty, and property. Christ's assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts. Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper, we should not look to them for any authority for doing anything. Christ is our authority for doing the things we do.

Now ask yourself, have you ever, in your entire life, "signed" your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? Of course not! Haven’t you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. At Law, this lets others know you are an entity created by God, and not an entity created by man. Now, there are entities created by man, Corporations for example. Corporations are known as "persons" created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this entity does not have a body, soul, and spirit like man has, but that this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit.

Now, if you look at a license, or ID Card or Birth Certificate, you will notice the name that appears on it is spelled in all capital letters! What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this license is a creature of the government, and not a creature of God. It means that entity is a servant of Caesar, and not a servant of God. Send your birth certificate back to the government or your state, and follow the path of freedom which is in the Most High. Shalom!

 

Appendix T

Revocation of Birth Certificate

Reader's Notes:

FROM:       John Q. Doe

            c/o general delivery

            San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]

            CALIFORNIA STATE

TO:         Registry of Vital Records

            Commonwealth of Massachusetts

            c/o general delivery

            Boston 02111/tdc

            MASSACHUSETTS STATE

TO:         Social Security Administration

            Office of the Commissioner

            c/o general delivery

            Baltimore 21235/tdc

            MARYLAND STATE

NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT

AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION

California State/Republic   )

                            )        Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed

Marin County                )

PREAMBLE

      I, John Q. Doe, being natural born in Massachusetts a male human being, now living in Marin County, California Republic, as a Citizen in the California Republic, do hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them.  Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:

      I, the undersigned, a natural born free Sovereign Citizen in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, hereby affirm, declare and give notice:

      1.    That I am competent to testify to the matters herein;  and further,

      2.    That I have personal knowledge of my status and of the facts and evidence stated herein;  and further,

      3.    That all the facts stated herein are not hearsay but true and correct, and admissible as evidence, if not rebutted;  and further,

                4.    That I, John Q. Doe, am of lawful age and competent;  I am a natural born free Sovereign Citizen now living in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, in fact, by right of heritage, a Citizen inhabiting the California Republic, protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Act of 1849, the original Constitution of California (1849), the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble;  and as such I retain all my fundamental, unalienable rights granted by God in positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and binding rights upon myself and my parentage, this day and for all time;  and further,

      5.    That this document has been prepared, witnessed and filed because the State of Massachusetts holds the position that there are no statutory provisions to rescind a Birth Certificate, nor any trust or contractual obligations derived therefrom, and because there is no other remedy available to me At Law by which I can declare and enforce my right to be free from State enfranchisement and the benefits therefrom;  and further,

      6.    That, on my birthday, ___ / ___ / ___, I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts to my parents, James F. Doe and Jane M. (Smith) Doe, who were both under the misconception that they were required to secure a Certificate of Birth on my behalf, and they did obtain the same;  and further,

      7.    That my parents were not aware that, at the Common Law, births were to be recorded in the family Bible, and that only deaths were made a matter of public record;  and further,

      8.    That my parents were not aware that any certificate required by statute to be made by officers may, as a rule, be introduced into evidence (see Marlowe v. School District, 116 Pac 797) and, therefore, they were acquiescing to State requirements which violate my rights to privacy and the 4th Amendment protections under the Constitution for the United States of America, because the Birth Certificate is the record of the State of Massachusetts, not of the individual, and the State may be compelled to introduce said record without my permission;  and further,

9.                That such statutory practices by the State of Massachusetts are deceitful misrepresentations by the State and society, on the recording of births, and my parents were unaware that a Birth Certificate was not necessary, nor were they aware that they were possibly waiving some of my rights, which rights are unalienable rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution for the United States of America;  and further,

      10.   That the doctor who delivered me acted as a licensed agent of the State of Massachusetts without the consent of either my own parents or myself, and offered me into a State trust to be regulated as other State and corporate interests and property as a result of that offer and acceptance, which comprises a fiction of law under statutory law (called contracts of adhesion, contracts implied by law, constructive contracts, quasi contracts, also referred to as implied consent legislation);  and further,

11.   That, from my own spiritual beliefs and training, I have come, and I have determined that the right to be born comes, from God Almighty (who knew me before I existed) -- not the State of Massachusetts and not the State of California -- and therefore original jurisdiction upon my behavior requiring any specific performance comes from my personal relationship with God Almighty, unless said performance causes demonstrable damage or injury to another natural human being;  and further,

      12.   That, after studying the Birth Certificate, I have come to the conclusions that the Birth Certificate creates a legal estate in myself, and acts as the nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he were a corporate entity, that the State of Massachusetts, in cooperation with the federal government and its agents and assigns, is maintaining the Birth Certificate so as to assume jurisdiction over many aspects of my life in direct contravention of my unalienable rights and Constitutionally secured rights to be a "Freeman" and to operate at the Common Law;  and further,

      13.   That such statutory provisions also cause a loss or diminution (depending upon other statutory provisions) of rights guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th amendments in the Constitution for the United States of America;  and further,

      14.   That, as a result of my earnest and diligent studies, my prior ignorance has come to an end, and I have regained my capacity to be an American Freeman;  therefore, it is now necessary that I declare any nexus assumed as a result of the Birth Certificate,  by the State of Massachusetts or by any of its agents and assigns, including the federal government, and any jurisdictional or other rights that may be waived as a result of said trust/contract with all forms of government, to be null and void from its inception, due to the deceptive duress, fraud, injury, and incapacity perpetrated upon my parents and myself by the State of Massachusetts, the third party to the contract;  and further,

      15.   That I was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States" as defined in Title 26, United States Codes and, therefore, I am not subject to its foreign jurisdiction.  See 26 CFR 1.1-1(b)-(c);  and further,

      16.   That, with this revocation of contract and the revocation of power, I do hereby claim all of my rights, all of my unalienable rights and all rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America, At Law, and do hereby declare, to one and all, that I am a free and independent Citizen now inhabiting the California Republic, who is not a creation of, nor subject to any State's civil law of admiralty, maritime, or equity jurisdictions and, as such, I am only attached to the judicial Power of California and/or the United States of America;  and further,

      17.   That I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the "United States" (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution), that the Preamble and Sections 1 thru 16 of this Affidavit, are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of my knowledge;  and further,

      18.   That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)" above my signature on this document indicates: that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not;  that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally;  that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements;  and that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.  And,

Further This Affiant Saith Not.

Subscribed and affirmed to, Nunc Pro Tunc, on the date of my majority, which date was ___ / ___ / ___.

Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this __________________ day of

__________________________, 199___ Anno Domini.

      I now affix my signature to all of the affirmations herein WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207):

__________________________________________________________________________

John Q. Doe, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights.

John Q. Doe

c/o general delivery

San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]

CALIFORNIA STATE

California All-Purpose Acknowledgement

CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC       )

                                )

COUNTY OF MARIN                 )

      On the ______ day of ____________, 199___ Anno Domini, before me personally appeared John Q. Doe, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument.  Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

_____________________________________

Notary Public

                                                                                                                c/o general delivery

                                          San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]

                                          CALIFORNIA STATE

                                          April 3, 1992

Registrar

Department of Public Health

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

c/o general delivery

Boston [ZIP code exempt]

MASSACHUSETTS STATE

RE:   NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION

Dear Registrar:

      Your letter to me dated March 23, 1992 acknowledges receipt of my signed and notarized revocation affidavit, referenced above.  I am writing this letter in order to address the two statements contained in your letter, and to rebut any presumptions which could or might be conclusively established by allowing your two statements to remain unchallenged.

Statement #1:     "This letter is to inform you that there is no provision under Massachusetts law to rescind a properly filed birth certificate."

      Although this statement may, in fact, be technically and generally true, it is irrelevant to the specific issue at hand, for several reasons.  First of all, it implies that my original birth certificate, on file in your office, was "properly filed".  You have made this statement contrary to numerous facts which are contained in my revocation affidavit.  You have now had ample opportunity to rebut any and all of those facts, and you have not done so.  Accordingly, your failure to rebut any of those facts now renders them all conclusive, permanently for the record.  You are now forever barred and estopped from challenging those facts as stated.  Therefore, my original birth certificate was not "properly filed" as you incorrectly attempt to imply.

      As a member of the Sovereignty by right of birth and hereditary succession, I belong to that group of people by whose authority the Massachusetts State Constitution was created.  The Massachusetts State Legislature was created, in turn, by that Constitution.  The "Massachusetts law" to which you refer is, in turn, a creation of that Legislature.  Regardless of your status prior to becoming a State employee, your current status as a State employee necessarily subjects you to the letter of that "law".  I am not subject either to the letter or to the spirit of that law, however.

Even though you are evidently restricted by law from unilaterally rescinding a birth certificate, I am not subject to any such a restriction.  As someone who has explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, I specifically retain  my right to unilaterally revoke and cancel my original birth certificate, for the several reasons stated in my affidavit, and to render it null and void from its inception.  The affidavit which I have filed with your office is prima facie evidence that I have, in fact, exercised that right, the exercise of which is entirely within my Sovereign power and authority to do.

      Moreover, you are evidently unaware of my prior written correspondence with Governor William F. Weld, in which I documented the fraud to which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an "accommodation party" as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code.  If you have any need to obtain copies of this correspondence between me and Governor Weld, I recommend that you first contact the Governor's staff for assistance.  Alternatively, Governor Weld's office has personally informed me that my notice to him, with attachments, has now been forwarded to the offices of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senate, Washington, District of Columbia.  Governor Weld's office did not challenge or rebut any statement of fact contained in my correspondence to him, except to suggest incorrectly that the issues which I raised were not within his jurisdiction.  Senator Kennedy's office has not responded to me in any way concerning the materials which he received from Governor Weld.

      The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is bound by the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (see MCLA c 106 Section 1-207).  The conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit now constitute material proof that my original birth certificate was an unconscionable contract ab initio because, among other reasons, it was lacking in meaningful choice on my part.  You have already been notified, and I hereby notify you again, that I have explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights, without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights.  This means that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon all agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not.

      Furthermore, my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of the "Remedy" which you must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

      My explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all of its assignees, that they are all limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements (see UCC 3-305(2)(c)).  You are under the obligation of good faith imposed at several places in the Uniform Commercial Code (see, e.g., 1-203).  My valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.

Statement #2:     "For this reason, your birth certificate on file in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts remains valid."

      This statement is clearly incorrect because it is a non sequitor, in light of my responses in this letter to Statement #1, and particularly in light of the conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit.  As an unconscionable contract the primary purpose of which was to offer me into a State trust, to be regulated as other State and corporate interests without my full consent of majority, this birth certificate is null and void from its inception, as are any rights of interest which may, now or in the future, be claimed as a result of any conveyance or reconveyance thereof to undisclosed third parties.

      Your attempt to assert its validity in the face of contrary evidence is noted and can be used as prima facie evidence of your willingness to violate and otherwise contravene my unalienable rights and my Constitutionally secured rights as a Sovereign Freeman.  These rights include, but are not limited to, those which are enumerated in my revocation affidavit.

      You are hereby warned that you can and will be held personally liable for any further attempts to violate my fundamental, unalienable rights by acts on your part which attempt to compel my specific performance to any third-party debt or obligation created through the unlawful conveyance, conversion or other instrumentality of an invalid birth certificate.  As an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are under a legal obligation to recognize that "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument," El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979).  Your ignorance of the law is no excuse in this matter.  If you are unsure about your own legal situation in this matter, may I recommend that you contact the State Attorney General's office for advice and assistance.

      For your information, I am not subject to any foreign jurisdiction by reason of any contract or commercial agreement resulting in adhesion thereto across America, nor are millions of other Sovereign Citizens, unless they have provided waivers of rights guaranteed by the Constitution by means of knowingly intelligent acts, such as contracts or commercial agreements with such government(s) "with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences", as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).  I have given no such waivers, nor is it possible that I could have given such waivers by reason of a birth certificate executed by other parties long before I was even able to speak or write, and long before my age of majority.  Therefore, the birth certificate at issue is necessarily null and void, ab initio, notwithstanding any and all unsubstantiated statements by you to the contrary.

      If I do not hear from you within ten (10) calendar days of the above date, I will be entitled to the conclusive presumption that this matter is settled.  Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John Q. Doe, Sui Juris

with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights

and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights

copies:     Senator Edward M. Kennedy

            United States Senate

            Social Security Administration

            Baltimore, Maryland

Reader's Notes: