Earlier on April 29, 2011, Mr. Stanley reported the breaking news regarding the forensic fraud in Mr. Obama's newly released birth certificate on Washington Times investigative radio's America's Morning News while being interviewed by reporters John McCaslin and Amy Holmes, also a commentator for CNN.
LISTEN TO BREAKING NEWS
http://www.unicusmagazine.com/MP3/breaking%20news.mp3
During his ExopoliticsTV interview Mr. Stanley indicated that the White House has in fact taken down Mr. Obama’s alleged recently released birth certificate from the White House website overnight (see here), although the White House has left a copy of the alleged birth certificate of Mr. Obama here.
As of this writing, Mr. Stanley stated there had been no overt comment from the White House other than the taking of the birth certificate offline. Neither officials of the Hawaii state birth registrar nor of the Honolulu hospital where Mr. Obama allegedly was born have, as yet, commented.
Mr. Stanley stated that the headquarters of Donald Trump had put him in touch directly with Mr. Trump, and that he had forwarded the evidence of forensic forgery in Mr. Obama’s birth certificate directly to Mr. Trump.
Donald Trump, a possible contender for the 2012 Republican nomination for U.S. President, stated on April 27, 2011 that he considers himself instrumental in forcing Mr. Obama to release the alleged birth certificate, and now apparent forensic fraud.
View Interview with Robert Stanley on forensic fraud on Obama birth certificate
Readers can view the interview of Robert Stanley by Alfred Lambremont Webre on forensic fraud and the Obama birth certificate in the video embedded in the article above or at the following URL:
VIEW INTERVIEW
During his 25 minute ExopoliticsTV interview, Mr. Stanley graphically demonstrates using copies of various of the nine overlaid digital layers within the forensically fraudulent birth certificate of Mr. Obama that the birth certificate was assembled as a forged document, using components of many other documents.
Robert Stanley’s conclusions congruent with other independent research on forensic fraud in Obama birth certificate
Robert M. Stanley’s conclusions are also congruent with other independent analyses of Mr. Obama’s alleged birth certificate released April 27, 2011, including the following:
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Digitally Layered Photoshop Fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj8wNnB_gew
Proof Obama's 4/27/11 "Long Form Certificate of Birth" is Forged!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJfdKClbH4
Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c
Other anomalies in the forensically forged Obama birth certificate
Researchers have identified a number of anomalies on the alleged birth certificate of Mr. Obama, apart from the evidence of forensic forgery provided by analysis of its nine layers.
One researcher states, "Look at the hospital name on this document [Mr. Obama's alleged birth certificate]. The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children's Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged. Kenya was not called "Kenya" in 1961 it was called "The British East Africa Protectorate" at the time Obama was born and this document was supposedly printed. Then in 1963 it became "The Dominion of Kenya." Then later on became the "Republic of Kenya."
Another researcher states, "I’m not going to say that the information on the document is bogus, but I can definitely, without hesitation, say that the document was originally a two-layer piece. The top layer is the ‘black’ part that came from a scanner as a grayscale scan. It was converted to black and white and the white part was made transparent.
"That was dropped onto a generic green watermark background, which is what makes it look official. But that was NOT on the original document as scanned. This is very evident by the white haloing around everything black. It is also extremely evident that a layer was dropped onto the green background because the green marks are very crisp in the areas around the edges of the image, but are very blurred where the black image block covers it.
"Now keep in mind that before the green background was added, the original scan could have easily been altered, dates or names changed. I’m not saying it was. I’m just saying it’s a 100% fact that it could have been. So, this document as we see it is still not proof of anything. I could easily recreate this document with someone else’s original Hawaii birth certificate and a generic watermark background."
Another researcher writes, "Jerome Corsi writes that the issue represents the 'Rosetta Stone' of deciphering both Obama’s previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.”
"It centers around the fact that two twins born in the same Kapi’olani hospital listed on the Obama document the day after Obama was purportedly born actually have birth certificate numbers lower than Obama. The number should be lower on the Obama certificate if he was born before the twins.
As Corsi explains, “Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
“Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.”
“Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.”
“Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.”
Why was a forged Obama Hawaii birth certificate necessary?
The forgery of Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate appears to have been made necessary by U.S. immigration and naturalization law in the period between 1953 and 1986.
Between Dec. 24, 1953 and Nov. 13, 1986, an individual born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent married to an alien could be a “natural born citizen” only if the U.S. citizen parent had lived in the U.S. continuously for 10 years, five of which were after their 14th birthday.
Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born on November 29, 1942. Obama was allegedly born on August 4, 1961. Thus, by prevailing U.S. law, Barack Obama could not have been a “natural born U.S. citizen.” If he was born in Kenya, Mr. Obama's mother was only 18 and could not have lived in the U.S. five years after her 14th birthday at the time of his birth.
Thus, it became a political necessity for Barack Obama to have a U.S. birth certificate. A forged birth certificate may have been produced in this case on April 27, 2011 because a genuine one does not exist despite the fact that the President was born in Hawaii or does not exist because he was born overseas.
For Barack Obama to have become a U.S. citizen under prevailing U.S. law at the time of his birth in 1961, his mother would have had to petition a U.S. immigration court for a naturalized U.S. citizenship status, which would have been readily granted to him because he was born of an American mother.
However, by the tragic timing of his birth taking place a few months short of his mother’s having lived in the U.S. for five years continuously after her 14th birthday, Barack Obama never achieved “natural born citizen” status and was as a matter of law constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency.
It is an established fact that Mr. Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian national Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Mr. Obama and moved his family to Indonesia in 1967. Indonesia requires that its citizens renounce all other citizenships.
There is no record, however, that after she sent Mr. Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971 or divorced Mr. Soetero Mr. Obama’s mother ever petitioned for U.S. nationalization of Mr. Obama. Thus, it is most plausible that Mr. Obama was an Indonesian citizen when he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971; when he matriculated to Occidental College in Hawaii in 1979; when he ran for the U.S. Senate in January 2003; and when he declared for U.S. President on February 10, 2007.
The link still works. It's just that at the source they changed "rss_viewer" to "rss..." so you get a 404 error.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Ping to desktop
Argument about the validity of the proffered Obama birth certificate is just more obfuscation, and the result of ill-placed focus on the birth certificate instead of the Constitutional question of the Framers’ intent of the ‘natural born’ language. The birth certificate was never anything but a red herring and it seems at the moment to be working perfectly in Obama’s favor.
With all due respect to Mr. Corsi(and I am looking forward to reading his book), the sequence of numbers of the registrations is irrelevant. It is only a matter of when the documents were submitted, and the order in which the registrar’s clerk entered them.
August 4, 1961 was a Friday. According to the released BC, Obama was born that evening after 7pm. Even assuming the paperwork at the hospital was completed immediately for both Obama and the Nordyke twins, which is a function of the hospital staff, the attending physician, and the mother, it would not be handled by the registrar’s office until the following Monday at the earliest. By that time they would all be backed up on the data entry clerk’s desk, and just taken one at a time without regard to the date/time of the child(ren)’s birth. It’s really that simple. We don’t need to conjure conspiracies.
I would point out from personal experience, my twin sons’ registrations are out of sequence. The older twin has a higher registration number than his younger brother. The information for both certificates was provided by me in the hospital; then typed in, either by hospital or the OB’s staff; then signed by the attending physician (four days after the birth), then forwarded to the Dept of Vital Records where they were received and entered (two weeks after the birth). So it is more than probable that children born after my own, whose paperwork was completed more quickly, have lower registrations numbers.
False and false. I just searched for Kaokiolani Hospital in Google's news archives and nothing showed up. The Kapiolani name shows up even for dates before 1961. Same with Kenya. No matter what the Brits called it, the name Kenya seems to have been popular even in the media.
I am sure there is a reason he wanted it suppressed, but the above two claims seem to be false.
Thanks!
Obama's dirty tricks team is more stupid than Nixon's.
Who'da thunk it.
Wrong. One parent U.S. Citizen baby born abroad, baby is not a citizen.
Between Dec. 24, 1953 and Nov. 13, 1986, an individual born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent married to an alien could be a “natural born citizen” only if the U.S. citizen parent had lived in the U.S. continuously for 10 years, five of which were after their 14th birthday.
Wrong. It is impossible for him to have a "natural born citizen" status no matter where he was born. His father was an English subject and was never a U.S. citizen. The definition of "natural born" citizenship is both parents being U.S. Citizens at the time of the child's birth. It requires no divided loyalty among the parents.... End of story.
Thanks for the detailed info you provided.
BTTT for later slow reading.