Military REVOKES order for soldier to ship out

heckofajobbrownie · July 17, 2009

It really is something, isn't it? If it weren't for this board would you ever meet someone like Cal, or someone as completely paranoid as Mr. T? It's quite an eye-opener.

I mean, you knew someone was buying Michael Savage's books and getting their news from World Net Daily because they continue to exist, but you never run into them.

The Browns Board - bringing people together.

July 17, 2009

I guess I always stumbled upon Rush's or Savage's or Hannity's show and wondered who, besides the folks who think they're insane and listen to be amused by said insanity, actually listen to them.

Now I know.

Nothing like the great sport of football to bring the "masses" together...

calfoxwc · July 17, 2009

Well, if factcheck and AP can see it, why can't we see it?

Is that all you have, to go overboard to denigrate me as a person for disagreeing with you?

That's sad.

I'm free to jibber jabber too.

If that bothers you, you don't have to respond.

heckofajobbrownie · July 17, 2009

You can see it! Right there in the pictures! Do you need to actually hold his birth certificate in your own hands and run your fingers over the raised seal before you believe? Do you need to "take it to the lab" and run some tests to ensure its authenticity?

Can we give up on this one now, Cal? I've explained to you why the soldiers orders were revoked. I can quote you the Army spokesperson saying the exact same thing if you like. Then I've produced some links that should put to rest any sane person's questions about whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States.

You and a few others have been at this nonsense for months. It's terribly amusing for the rest of us, but now is the opportunity to admit you were wrong and show that you can accept some new information and acknowledge at least some piece of reality.

Will you do it? Are you convinced Obama was born here or not?

What about you, T?

DieHardBrownsFan · July 17, 2009

As soon as you file to run for President they run a thorough background check. When you are elected, the most thorough background check is done since the President has the highest clearance of anyone. This is a dead story perpetrated by someone who wants it to never die. Just like the 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts keep their stuff alive.

calfoxwc · July 17, 2009

I have seen the short version, that doesn't say where he was born.

What other pics are there? Since when is the AP and factscheck allowed to see the

forbidden and sealed LOL birth certificate, but Fox News, all conservatives, etc,

are not allowed to see it?

Doesn't that make ya wonder just an eensie teensie weenise bitsie?

We aren't talking Clinton or Bush or Reagan,

we're talking about a socialist whose background and overseas education

and communist mentor gives us great pause.

When Hannity or Rush or Levin or Rusty Humprhries or Quinn and Rose or

all of Congress gets to see it, I'll buy it.

Until then, I don't consider him the legit pres, because he lied, per Heck's own concurrence, to

get elected.

OR, failing that, I'll go along, if all the libs on the board will admit that Pres Bush and VP Cheney

NEVER had anything to do with "outing" Plame.

There's your-alls chance.

July 17, 2009

heckofajobbrownie · July 17, 2009

Good to have the old Cal back. You scared me for a second.

calfoxwc · July 17, 2009

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm

Inconsistencies undermine FactCheck report on Obama "birth certificate"

By Israel Insider staff August 24, 2008

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg This Story

The embedded EXIF file information dates the image file from March 12, 2008, while FactCheck claims vaguely that the shot was taken "recently"

The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.

The Factcheck.org report, titled "Born in the USA," accompanied by an image of the Bruce Springsteen album cover, starts:

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

FactCheck claims that its staffers have "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate" begs the question and obscures the truth. In fact, the article later goes on to make clear that this is in fact not "the original birth certificate" but "a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns."

"The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."

This would seem to suggest that Factcheck went through the process of requesting the birth certificate (after all, why else reproduce and link the request form?), but no -- it turns out that they had a special invitation to visit the birth certificate at its residence, as if they were visiting some long lost relatives or a reclusive celebrity:

"Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago."

For an organization that claims to be fastidious with the facts, the sentence is vague and overly cute. Who made the invitation to "spend some time with the certificate"? How exactly did it happen that they "got a chance"? Did FactCheck approach the Obama Campaign or did the Obama Campaign approach FactCheck? And what are the forensic analysis credentials of the FactCheck staff that allows them to conclude definitively that the birth certificate is real and original?

And when is "recently"? The controversy over the birth certificate has been raging for ten weeks. Was it coincidental that it would emerge right after Obama returned from his "vacation" in Hawaii? The claim of "recently" is thrown into further doubt by the revelation that embedded date information in the photographs indicates that the photos were taken nearly a half year ago.

Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night.

No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to

FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software.

If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008.

Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time.

Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair.

It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org."

FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

Most curious, too, is the apparent lack of curiosity of FactCheck in pursuing the original "long-form" birth certificate that was supposedly used as the basis for the short form. After all, Barack Obama refers explicitly to possessing this document in "Dreams from My Father". Since FactCheck apparently has sufficiently close relations with the Obama teams to merit the exclusive privilege of being invited to "spend some time" (or at least 6 minutes and 44 seconds) with the reclusive short-form, one might think that if they were really interested in checking facts or examining original records they would doggedly pursue the paper source document -- the real thing from 47 years ago, not something cleaned and extracted from a database and thus subject to all kinds of potential revision and redaction.

The Ides of March: A link with the pilfering of Passport files at State?

Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements.

But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests.

But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed.

Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport?

The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth?

A cynic might speculate -- and it is only speculation, not a fact claim -- that these photos were originally taken to proudly show off how wonderful this document looked, complete with every detail necessary to obtain a U.S. passport -- the generation date, the embossed seal, the signature, the place of birth. And, based the embedded image information (unfortunately, for them, overlooked), it was conveniently photographed late one night in March 2008, before anyone even began to question his birth certificate in the blogosphere. "Recently", as FactCheck claims, being a relative term. Given these circumstances, it is incumbent on FactCheck to provide the exact date, place, and all participants in its photo shoot, and the circumstances by which this visit was arranged.

All of this, of course, would mean that FactCheck is working hand-in-glove with the campaign of that other Annenberg grantee, Barack Hussein Obama II. Either that, or their camera has a defective date function or special time machine capabilities worthy of their subject. In any case, Israel Insider and millions of Americans would really like to hear the clarifications about these discrepancies from the fellows at FactCheck, rather than accuse them of malfeasance.

A Very Short Photo Session: Wham, Bam, Thank You, Obama

The photographs themselves of course superficially resemble what a real short-form certificate should look like, although it is impossible to ascertain from a series of jpg images. Remarkably, for an organization which purports to be dedicated to checking facts, no high resolution of the document's two sides was made so that professionals could compare that scan with the scan previously published in the Daily Kos. The Obama headquarters has no scanner? FactCheck has no scanner? Only a Canon Powershot 570 with an unset date? Or perhaps they were granted a mere six minutes and 44 seconds and had no time for a scan.

Comparing the high resolution Daily Kos scan (as opposed to the scan originally published) with the FactCheck photos, there are obvious and dramatic differences. The scan shows only the thinnest of fold marks at the top and none below, no seal and no signature block. Oddly, only the June 6, 2007 date stamp is visible. Only after extreme manipulations of the Daily Kos image did some graphic specialists managed to squeeze out the blurred and color enhance image of something that just might be a seal or a signature block. But even then, the blurry seal trace did not appear in the correct size or expected location.

Those stark differences clearly validate the skepticism with which the scan was regarded by Israel Insider and others from the start. Why, then, did it take the campaign ten weeks to produce photos that show the missing seal, signature block and deep fold marks, so deep that they degrade some letters and print of the seal? What changed between June 12 and August 21?

Black out: Who forgot about concealing that all-important, or unimportant, file number?

Then there is the issue of the redacted file number which for the last ten plus weeks has been blacked out . Here's the explanation that comes from the Obama campaign, according to FactCheck:

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world."

That's odd. What "rush" to release the document? Who exactly was rushing them? The bloggers over at Daily Kos? Why was the Obama campaign in such a "rush" if there was no problem and no real pressure to produce? They couldn't wait another few hours or a day to talk to the Hawaii Health Department before rushing to print at the Daily Kos? And then, after the redacted document was up, they couldn't have replaced it with an unredacted image, just as Kos later replaced, without telling anyone, a medium resolution with a high resolution image? Who told them to do that?

Only last week, the Honolulu Advertiser quoted Janice Okubo, Director of Communications in Hawaii's Department as Health, as saying that with the file number one could hack into the system. "Potentially, if you have that number, you could break into the system." Okubo seems on intent on defending the Obama campaign even if she admits that the image they presented as authentic lacked visible stamps and seals. "They responded and apparently it isn't good enough that he posted his birth certificate," Okubo said. "They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It's pretty ridiculous."

So which is it? Is the file number irrelevant, as the campaign now claims, or is it a data that could be used to hack into the system, as Hawaii claims. If it is irrelevant, why is Janice Okubo providing excuses for the Obama campaign? If it is dangerous for data security, why is the Obama campaign ignoring that danger? And why does Okubo say it's "ridiculous" to be asking questions about the provenance of a vital record of a presidential candidate when the proffered proof clearly lacked the requisite stamps and signatures. Or did Obama's people and Okubo have a heart to heart between body surfing sessions at Waikiki?

Despite the points scored by the Obama campaign in gaining high level media coverage for a favorable puff piece, the FactCheck photospread -- revealing so much that the scan did not --unwittingly serves to validate the legitimacy of the probing questions and analyses that have been asked over the past two and a half months by Israel Insider and various bloggers, document examiners, and average citizens.

While the quality and consistency of the analyses of these amateur sleuths have been irregular, and have taken wrong turns on several occasions, shouldn't the burden of proof for documenting one's citizenship and producing the original vital records fall on the candidate and the legal authorities empowered for this purpose, not ordinary citizens disturbed by the lack of transparency of a presidential candidate and his arrogant unwillingness to produce documents expected of regular Americans?

The FactCheck report may have Obamatons humming "Born in the USA", but anyone serious about getting to the truth of Obama's constitutional qualifications will be disappointed by their casual and smug report. And they will expect more from a candidate who, like the protagonist in the opening lines of the Springsteen song, seems to "spend half [his] life just covering up."

The evidentiary and analytical shoddiness of the FactCheck report, both in terms of the dubious dating of the photos, the inexactitude in the circumstances of the shoot, apparent inconsistencies between the photos and the scan, and the failure to pursue the more significant, truly original, long form birth certificate, all point to the inadequacy of the proof presented to date to validate Obama's claim to being a "natural born" US citizen.

That question, it now seems, will need to be answered in federal court.

calfoxwc · July 17, 2009

I don't drink poison koolaid. Here is another expose' on what a LOT of people believe is a fraudulent birth certificate.

This link REALLY takes it apart: (partial article listed below the link)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2066515/posts

FactCheck's photos of Obama's birth certificate just proved that their posted image of it was forged

The Greater Evil ^ | 08/21/2008 | Polarik

Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 10:51:31 PM by Polarik

What's This, FactCheck??

From the high-res photos that FactCheck provided, I was able to confirm a number of my findings that exposed the FactCheck COLB image as a manufactured forgery. To get everyone up to speed, there has been one, and only one forged image. From this one source image, several copies were generated. One was kept by the Obama campaign while one copy went to the Daily Kos, and the other went to FactCheck. Both the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign cropped their images before posting them on June 12. The Obama Campaign posted a very small, low-res copy to their "Fight the Smears" website, while the Daily Kos image was cropped close to the borders but left in its original size. FactCheck posted their uncropped image to their website four days later on June 16.

Here's what FactCheck said in their "Expose" about Obama's long sought-after birth certificate:

The truth about Obama's [bogus] birth certificate.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Well, speaking for the huge population of skeptics, I beg to differ. Other than showing that Obama took a trip to Hawaii just to get this thing printed, and bring it out for a show-and-tell to FactCheck's affiliates, the "supporting documents" prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the image posted on FactCheck;'s website was NOT an accurate copy of a real "birth certificate," but was instead, a stone-cold, dyed-in-the-wool forgery.

There are a lot of things that do not match up between the image FactCheck posted and these new photos of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth." In fact, there are a whole host of things wrong with the image FactCheck posted when compared to genuine scans of real 2007 COLB's.

FactCheck went on to make derisive comments about the claims that others made, including me, about the suspicious image they posted: Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi said in that interview that "there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce."

Never have truer words been spoken. Not so for the hard-headed hoohahs at FactCheck who still insist that the image they posted on June 16 was genuine:

Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.

* It isn't signed.

* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.

* The certificate number is blacked out.

* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.

* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

I must say that FactCheck is not known as a place that gets its facts straight. The only ones I care about are those that pertain to my research. No, FactChump (sic), I complained about there being only one "crease from folding evident" in your full-length image, when all others had two folds evident.

No, FuktCheck (sic), I did not talk about "strange halos" around the letters, but well-known and well-defined white and gray pixel halos BETWEEN the letters, when there should also have been greenish-colored pixels. Leave it to FlakCheck (sic) to come up with the reason why their image was fake, and not why this fast-food COLB has no pixel halos:

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

No, FaxedChek (sic), not to "some" people, but to "one person" who spotted the telltale signs of an image that had been graphically altered only three days after you posted it. Plus, I am going to post all of my test images that failed to create ANY pixel anomalies or "digital artifacts."

By golly. You know, every one of my detractors have said stuff like this, as if there are thousands of the same "pixel halos" fully documented as being artifacts. In fact, FactCheck, I have never even seen one that matches the hack job you posted.

FactCheck pulls a fast one when it makes the following claim:

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect.

Very clever, just like your Messiah. I, and others like ne, never doubted the content of your COLB image. What we sincerely doubted was the "authenticity" of the document image you posted on your website. It was a fraud, and you, FactCheck were complicit in promulgating it as the real deal.

The folks at FastChick (sic) quoted another one of the fraud perpetrators, PolitiFact.com, who "also dug into some of these loopy theories."

Now, them's fighting words. there is nothing "loony" about felony fraud. There's nothing "loony" about constantly deceiving the American public as Obama and his band of rogues have done. Here's Politfact's two cents:

Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over.

No way, Polident! (sic) The "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" was just posted by your buddies at FeltChunks. They confirmed what I've known all along: that the image purported to be a true copy of Obama's original birth certificate was, absolutely, a well-conceived forgery of what his "birth certificate" might look like -- but, one that had too many flaws to fool this expert.

"How do I loathe thee. Let me count the ways."

For starters, there are those wacky borders.

I had always said that they were added last to the image, and were the least compelling evidence that a forged image had been "manufactured." Now that I've had a chance to compare them to the genuine borders of real 2007 COLB images, I can now say, with 100% certainty, that these wacky borders were poorly drawn replicas of what real borders are supposed to look like.

The degree of smearing on them and the lack of any "real artifacts" were incongruous, given that this image was a high-resolution one. Basically everything inside the borders were far superior in quality to the borders themselves. Proof-positive that they were added post-hoc to a forged image.

Furthermore, the two vertical borders on each side of the FactCheck COLB image were not drawn as long, parallel rectangles, but as divergent ones! When comparing them to real 2007 borders, the border on the left side went from being narrow at the base to being wider at the top. Conversely, the border on the left side went from being wider at the base to being narrower at the top. These disparities show up when the FactCheck COLB is made semi-transparent and laid on top of a genuine 2007 COLB image (as shown below).

To demonstrate the disparities, I created a semi-transparent New 2007 COLB image and placed it on top of the FactCheck COLB image, so that we can see the underlying FactCheck COLB image through the partially transparent 2007 COLB image. I lined both of them up at the top border corners.

For comparison purposes, I also created a semi-transparent PD COLB image to place on top of the FactCheck COLB image. Recall in my previous post that I found a very close correspondence between the 2002 PD COLB and the "2007" FactCheck COLB.

When the top borders of the FactCheck COLB were aligned with the genuine 2007 COLB, the alignment of all the printed information common to both COLBs, grew worse as you progress downwards to the bottom of both COLBs.

Here's a visual comparison of the FactCheck COLB image placed on top of a New 2007 COLB:

calfoxwc · July 17, 2009

smart off about me because I don't believe that is the real Obama birth certificate?

I'm the only one who doesn't buy it, right?

Say, I found another link ! Want to know how MANY LINKS I can post in response

to your childish personal attacks on me?

Well, I don't know either !

But here is another one:

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.

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.

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 makes it a forgery?

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:

The image contains digital signatures of Photoshop
Only one side of alleged COLB shown (COLB is two-sided)
Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
Missing the State Registrar's signature
Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data
Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background layer
Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for the border
Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
Border pattern is more blurred than the background
Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text
White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the image

In my 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:

<H2 align=center>ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE</H2>In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?

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 my 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 President, 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.

heckofajobbrownie · July 17, 2009

And scene.

calfoxwc · July 18, 2009

This is what I'm talkin about.

Obama is provided what looks to be a late birth certificate, according to Jorge Baro, of Elite Legal Services in Florida.

And, Obama's own great grandmother says she was there when he was born in Kenya.

It's common understanding in Kenya, that he was born in Kenya.

And, see the letter below - Obama says himself that he was born at Kap'olini Hospital. But, before, it was Queens Hospital.

Go ahead. Tell me there is no cause for concern.

But you'll be blowing smokie-smokie:

*********************************************

In a subsequent affidavit, he said the much-publicized online image of what the White House says is Obama's birth certificate doesn't prove any birth location.

"On October 31st, 2008, officials in Hawaii released a statement that they had examined the birth certificate, but failed to declare whether it was a Live Birth Certificate generated by a hospital with signatures of the attending physician or a 'Late Birth' Certificate of Hawaiian Birth that could have been obtained (for a child) who is one year old or older after birth by a simple affirmation of a family member," wrote investigator Jorge L. Baro, of Elite Legal Services in Florida.

"Only the 'Long Form' original certificate will answer all questions about the date and location of birth and confirm that it occurred in Hawaii," he said.

WND reported in the April issue of Whistleblower that Obama's step-grandmother in an interview transcript obtained by WND in Africa has claimed she was present at Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

WND is in possession of an affidavit submitted by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, and a second affidavit signed by Bishop Ron McRae, the presiding elder of the Anabaptists' Continental Presbytery of Africa.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join nearly 400,000 others and sign up now!

In his affidavit, Shuhubia asserts "it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya."

Shuhubia further states in his affidavit that he visited Obama's grandmother at her home in the village of Alego-Kogello, on Oct. 16, 2008, in order to conduct a telephone conference interview that would connect with McRae in the United States.

During the telephone interview, McRae specifically asked Sarah Obama two times, "Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya."

"Both times she specifically replied, 'Yes,'" Shuhubia affirmed in the affidavit.

"Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States," Shuhubia continued in the affidavit.

"During the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya," Shuhubia insisted in the affidavit.

The affidavit documents that President Obama's step-grandmother was asked the questions several times, both in her native language, Swahili, and in English, and that the Anabaptists conducting the interview were confident she understood clearly the questions that were asked.

"Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya," McRae swore in his affidavit

McRae affirmed that Obama's step-grandmother had been asked the question several times and a discussion over the conference call with those present with her in her home in Kogello made clear that she understood the question.

WND also reported the office of Hawaii Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of Obama's hospital-generated long-form original birth certificate.

"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 a e-mail in response to WND's request for information Oct. 24.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate included 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.

calfoxwc · July 18, 2009

Oh yeah. Read on...

******************

Hawaiian Hospitals: Obama Not Born Here

J.R.* | December 4, 2008 |SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Hawaiian Hospitals: Obama Not Born Here", url: "http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/12/hawaiian-hospitals-obama-not-born-here/" }); ShareThis

Filed Under General Politics

A few months ago it was claimed that Obama's mother gave birth to him at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu.

After it was discovered that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister, Mary, claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. According to that hospital, Obama was not born there.

Hospital after hospital in Honolulu have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there.

All of these hospitals were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County!

The Queen's Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital

Kapi' olani Medical Center Obama's sister claims Barack Obama born here

Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama

Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama

Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???

Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

Obama's family and the entire nation of Kenya,which is about to have a national holiday for Obama,know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!

Kosar_For_President · July 18, 2009

Wow if Cal would put this energy in fact checking Bush he might not of won that second term.

calfoxwc · July 18, 2009

There you go again. Changing the subject ! SEE? YOU CAN'T STOP YOURSELVES !

ROF,L !

try again. address the SUBSTANCE of the last post, particularly.

July 18, 2009

Wow if Cal would put this energy in fact checking Bush he might not of won that second term.

You're right to not address the trash in the "article" you are shitting on. There is absolutely no proof or supporting evidence of any kind backing up the outrageous lies listed therein.

When an author lists his name as "J.R.*" you know it's time to questionthe source.

How is everything posted to the Internet seen as "fact" by some people? It's downright pathetic. Sad. Scary. Ridiculous. Did I mention pathetic?

July 18, 2009

PS cal, I still have you on ignore. I only got wind of that turd you tossed at us because I wasn't logged in at the time. Lousy, stupid automatic logout!

Toodles!

calfoxwc · July 18, 2009