State programmer identifies template for Obama 'forgery'

1) There’s no good reason to believe Obama was adopted in Hawaii. The FOIA records show that he wasn’t adopted just a couple of months before he moved to Indonesia, after Lolo had already left.

There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so. If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law. I do not know if Hawaii respects Indonesian adoptions, but it is quite possible that some sort of legal process might be needed to rectify the problem of having been adopted in Indonesia. There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him. Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document. Adoption may have been the method used.

2) When states create new birth certificates for adopted children, they don’t change the birthplace. And Obama’s says he was born in Hawaii.

One would think that would be the case, but Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. Born on Ship can claim "Hawaiian birth." I believe I read in the Hawaiian laws, that "home births" have up to a year to be examined by a Doctor after birth. We do not know WHAT type of birth document was the original record for Barry. A "born at home" affidavit type of Birth record followed by an Adoption would be indistinguishable from what we are currently seeing. Until THAT possibility is eliminated by evidence, we can't ignore it.

It is axiomatic that Hawaii will not admit to an adoption even if there was one. Do you have any way of proving there wasn't? It certainly fits the available data, and better explains why there are so many peculiarities with his current birth document.

Birthers can't seem to find any Constitutional professors who are willing to vouch for their claims about the President needing two citizen parents. But I'm sure that's because of some kind of conspiracy of silence, because the Birthers' conspiracy is real, you know.

Dr. David Ramsey.

Apart from that, you are arguing the "Fallacy of Authority." Look it up if you do not know what that is. (An Argument isn't valid because of WHO agrees with it. It must be accepted or rejected on it's own merits. The Church didn't agree with Galileo, yet it was Galileo who was correct.)

I didn’t modify anything. I just blew it up really big. I’d planned to make an animated gif alternating between the two, hence the opacity comment, but I didn’t go with that.

I hadn't wanted to get into this silly argument, but i'm getting a little tired of your attitude. Explain Bit depth and pixel size in this image if you have a clue what you are talking about. Then explain how such an image can be created other than by incompetent pasting from different file formats.

This one image shows you everything you need to know to conclude the document is a paste up. You just have to have sufficient knowledge of the machine level aspect of computer graphics.

Somebody should tell Congress and the Supreme Court. Those 544 folks didn’t get the memo.

So they are ignorant. I'm not surprised, are you? Obviously half the voting public is brain dead stupid because they thought an inexperienced nitwit was the answer to something. The notion that a LOT of people are wrong about something is completely plausible to me. The Church didn't get Galileo for several hundred years either.

It's no wonder Boehner said what he said. But he knows, at does every logical thinking American, that obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. It's really quite simple if just think about it.

It's simple in perception, but it is completely unworkable in logistics. How did Barack Sr. (who could barely afford to cover living expenses according to the newspaper accounts) afford a trip to Kenya and back for him AND Stanley Ann?

We are already in the election cycle and the Tea Party has been mum on Obama’s eligibility. For example, Governor Sarah Palin: “Do you question his faith and citizenship?”

Occam's razor. Simple explanations are best.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. Ovid "

Same thing with Obama. None dare point out what a fool he has made of everyone. Much easier to proclaim: "What problem?" Emperor's new clothes and all that.

My cousin has outtakes on 35mm film of the “moon landing”, which I have seen myself on his editing table.

Yeah? So? My recollection is that they did suit up Astronauts for practicing with their equipment for moon landing conditions.(In a terrestrial mock up version of the moon.) So they filmed it. Why WOULDN'T they film it? NASA filmed everything.

Again, you have to explain the mirrors and Foreign Satellite photos of Apollo equipment on the moon's surface. Those are pieces of evidence that completely contradict any and all contradicting claims.

When we Look at Abercromby's activity prior to this document being published, it becomes obvious what has happened. He didn't send a person to find Obamas document. They were there to set this composite up and put it in place.

Don't make it needlessly complicated when a simple explanation will do. If Obama were adopted at any point in his life, Hawaii would have to create for him a new birth certificate. There are two prominent points in his life that make an adoption appear likely. When his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and when his Grandparents assumed custody of him in 1970. They would obviously need some sort of legal guardianship document, and an adoption would have been a simple way to do it. Afterwards, Obama could have appealed to the court at any time to restore his Original name, thereby also requiring the LEGAL creation of a new fake birth certificate.

All of the sign's point to Hawaii fabricating a LEGAL fake replacement birth certificate. That's why they are standing by it and not crying foul. The Artifacts on it demonstrate that it is a paste up, but it is a paste up produced by the Hawaii Department of Health under a judge's order.

As I said, you can't call it a "Conspiracy" when it is a normal and ordinary common practice in all the states.

“There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so. If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law. I do not know if Hawaii respects Indonesian adoptions, but it is quite possible that some sort of legal process might be needed to rectify the problem of having been adopted in Indonesia. There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him. Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document. Adoption may have been the method used.

One would think that would be the case, but Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. Born on Ship can claim “Hawaiian birth.” I believe I read in the Hawaiian laws, that “home births” have up to a year to be examined by a Doctor after birth. We do not know WHAT type of birth document was the original record for Barry. A “born at home” affidavit type of Birth record followed by an Adoption would be indistinguishable from what we are currently seeing. Until THAT possibility is eliminated by evidence, we can’t ignore it.

It is axiomatic that Hawaii will not admit to an adoption even if there was one. Do you have any way of proving there wasn’t? It certainly fits the available data, and better explains why there are so many peculiarities with his current birth document.”

The names and signatures of Barack Hussein Obama Senior and Stanley Ann Obama are on the 1961 birth certificate, the 1961 birth announcements in the newspapers and the son is referenced by name in the 1964 Obama divorce decree: “That one child was born to said libellant and libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a son, born August 4, 1961.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12234409/Divorce-Decree-1964-13-Pages-Merged
Ann Dunham was an undergraduate student at the University of Hawaii until August, 1967 and she first arrived in Indonesia after her marriage to Lolo Soetoro, in October of 1967.

The current Hawaii Health Department Director was a bit more explicit: “The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate. “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”

She is not under oath, so she can insinuate or flat out lie if she wishes.Public statements are like swearing with your fingers crossed. It doesn't count. What is stamped on the certificate itself is that it is a copy of an "Abstract of the Record on file." Earlier stamps on other birth certificates said: " A True and Correct Copy of the Original Record." Note the lawyer weasel language of the former? The language on Obama's certificate grants no assurance.

Either a grand jury investigation or a congressional investigation along with a judge’s court order for release of any and all original birth records might well provide answers to your questions and doubts, however no one seems very interested in either of those approaches to final resolution. From what I can tell, the judiciary and the legislative branch have taken the comments of Hawaii officials at literal face value. For example: “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Speaker John Boehner

“I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all. It is not an issue that even needs to be on the policy-making table right now whatsoever.”—Majority Leader Cantor

You are neglecting the political angle of their pronouncements. Hillary dared no bring the issue up for fear of alienating her black constituents, without which she could not possibly have won. McCain failed to bring it up because people would have perceived HIM as having the lesser claim to citizenship. After Obama got away with it, people would look like fools if they suddenly said "but...but...but... He's not eligible!" I can safely say most people are more concerned with their political livelihood and not inviting scorn from the Media than they are on what they may very well regard as a trivial and outdated Constitutional provision that they don't even understand very well. It really is the "Emperor's new clothes" phenomenon. They would all just prefer that Obama go away without anyone pointing out that they were ignorant fools.

I guarantee you with 100% metaphysical certitude that they will send a short form COLB identical to the one Zero posted on his web site in 2008.

And that's why the states must reject a document that does not constitute actual proof. There were 13 states contemplating laws to require this. They were well aware that that trick would be attempted, and specifically wrote prohibitions against it into the proposed laws governing ballot access.

We should not be TOLERATING these stupid lawyer games. If the man cannot produce an actual copy of the original document, EVERY state should refuse to let him on the ballot. That is their DUTY. If he produces an Original, and it shows his father to be an Alien, He should not be permitted on the Ballot. That is Also their duty.

What was her motive?

The child WAS her grandson. Her flesh and blood. Were he born in Canada by the idiotic action's of her daughter, she would have a powerful motive to fabricate American citizenship for him. In 1961, American citizenship was the envy of the world. A Grandmother would be remiss in not securing it for her Grandchild.

The probability that Stanley Ann Dunham was in the Upper West part of Washington state prior to his birth makes more sense than that she flew there on an impulse shortly after his birth. In 1960, it was quite common for pregnant your women to be sent to live with a distant relative to avoid embarrassing the family. The incentive for this might be even stronger for a bi-racial child in 1961. In many states that was a felony in and of itself at that time. She did have an Aunt Eleanor that lived in Washington, though it hasn't been nailed down exactly where she was in 1961. Aunt Eleanor is listed as living in both Blaine and Bellingham Washington, so a trip to a Canadian hospital for free medical care is not out of the question. Aunt Eleanor was definitely living in Newfoundland Canada in 1959, based on the grave markers of her children.

Examine these links.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=34618044

http://radaris.com/p/Eleanor/Berkebile/ (Look for Eleanor *B* Berkebile)

Note the proximity of Blaine and Bellingham to White Rock Canada?

This theory actually makes more sense than what we've been told. Another piece of information that reinforces this theory is that Madelyn Dunham's co-workers claim that she never told them she had a grandson. This implies that she was ashamed of him at first.

That's unfair. The poor woman never said Obama II was born in Kenya. She answered "yes" when asked, through a translator, whether she was "present" when Obama was born, but it's clear from the rest of the interview she misunderstood the question. She thought the interviewer was asking her whether she was in Kenya while Obama was born in Hawaii. It's all there in the transcript.

I have to agree with you. The statements by the Grandmother are really terrible evidence. Without having them nailed down better than that I would be ashamed to bring them up. That being said, I am certain that Obama has told people in the past that he was from Kenya, and I believe this is because he wanted to create an exotic allure when he was a nobody trying to become a somebody, so he just made that up.

It doesn't matter. The only items that can change on a BC upon an adoption are the parents' names and the child's name, none of which is relevant to a candidate's eligibility for office. The only items that matter are place of birth and date of birth, and those don't change.

And you know this how? Just because that's the way it may work in your state (or most other states) does not necessarily mean that is how it will work in Hawaii. They have STRANGE birth certificate laws. Ship born children can Claim birth in Hawaii.

Your point is beside the point anyway. If Obama has a "born at home" affidavit as his original record, followed by an adoption (By Lolo Soetoro OR his Grandparents) it will create a fake replacement birth certificate that looks exactly like what we see. Do you have some piece of evidence that proves this didn't happen? The circumstantial evidence implies this is a very credible scenario.

“And that’s why the states must reject a document that does not constitute actual proof. There were 13 states contemplating laws to require this. They were well aware that that trick would be attempted, and specifically wrote prohibitions against it into the proposed laws governing ballot access.

We should not be TOLERATING these stupid lawyer games. If the man cannot produce an actual copy of the original document, EVERY state should refuse to let him on the ballot. That is their DUTY. If he produces an Original, and it shows his father to be an Alien, He should not be permitted on the Ballot. That is Also their duty.”

Under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, a state certified copy of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth should be accepted since it contains the constitutionally required information that can be found on a birth record: Name, date of birth and location of birth. The other constitutional requirement is 14 years residence in the US. No birth record documents that. At least that’s what Zero’s Perkins-Cole lawyers will argue.

If any state should reject Zero’s COLB in 2012, that will be an interesting entree into having a real, official, judicial discussion of the two citizen parent theory.

New Hampshire is the only state so far to pass Presidential eligibility legislation to date and their law is a “sign that you are natural born” type bill, along with producing “a birth certificate.”

It’s an honest mistake, folks in Hawaii get Queens confused with Kapi’olani since the name Kapi’olani comes from another Queen of Hawaii.
Here’s a link to the original high school newspaper article: http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/obama/re040523.pdf

But all this is irrelevant. Under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Consititution, whatever the state of Hawaii says is an authentic birth record is all that will ever be needed.

I'm glad you found that and posted it. One more piece of the puzzle that can be put to bed as far as i'm concerned.

The names and signatures of Barack Hussein Obama Senior and Stanley Ann Obama are on the 1961 birth certificate, the 1961 birth announcements in the newspapers and the son is referenced by name in the 1964 Obama divorce decree: “That one child was born to said libellant and libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a son, born August 4, 1961.”

So, I have a birth certificate with THREE Signatures that were not on my original birth certificate. My Adoptive Parents, and my Original birth doctor. 6 YEARS after the FACT!!!!!

Apart from that, I have no doubt whatsoever that a birth document with the above information was created in August of 1961. What I do have doubts about is whether it was an ordinary birth document, or a "born at home" affidavit filed on behalf of a Stanley Ann Obama possibly living in Newfoundland, or North West Washington state at the time. I have further doubt that Barack Obama Sr. is actually the father, despite what a piece of paper filled out by the mother or grandmother says. (They couldn't even get Barack Sr.'s birth date or home Address correct.)

Ann Dunham was an undergraduate student at the University of Hawaii until August, 1967 and she first arrived in Indonesia after her marriage to Lolo Soetoro, in October of 1967.

Oh, that explains it! It was 1967 and she was a University Student, so Obviously there could have been no adoption! It would defy the laws of physics or something. Can you spell N-o-n S-e-q-u-i-t-u-r?

Under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, a state certified copy of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth should be accepted since it contains the constitutionally required information that can be found on a birth record: Name, date of birth and location of birth. The other constitutional requirement is 14 years residence in the US. No birth record documents that. At least that’s what Zero’s Perkins-Cole lawyers will argue.

No doubt they will. The counter argument is that said state is not refusing to accept Hawaii's document, Hawaii is just refusing to produce the CORRECT document, one known to be in their possession. They will further correctly argue that until very recently, Hawaii itself would not accept the document they are now attempting to foist off on other states. I am willing to bet a Judge will tell Hawaii to bring the original to court so he can look at it, then tell them that they will have to admit it as evidence in the proceeding. Or do you know of a reason why Hawaii would refuse a Federal judge?

Once declared evidence, said state will be able to examine it and the whole issue goes away. (If it is all legit) The very idea that a Presidential candidate should be permitted to withhold his actual proof of eligibility is ludicrous. We should not even be having this discussion. Again, it is the tail wagging the dog.

No doubt they will. The counter argument is that said state is not refusing to accept Hawaii’s document, Hawaii is just refusing to produce the CORRECT document, one known to be in their possession. They will further correctly argue that until very recently, Hawaii itself would not accept the document they are now attempting to foist off on other states. I am willing to bet a Judge will tell Hawaii to bring the original to court so he can look at it, then tell them that they will have to admit it as evidence in the proceeding. Or do you know of a reason why Hawaii would refuse a Federal judge?

Once declared evidence, said state will be able to examine it and the whole issue goes away. (If it is all legit) The very idea that a Presidential candidate should be permitted to withhold his actual proof of eligibility is ludicrous. We should not even be having this discussion. Again, it is the tail wagging the dog.

Full faith and credit means that whatever Hawaii says is an official birth record in their state is accepted in every other state plus the federal government.
Hawaii COLBs are valid for passports and every other official purpose.

There have been well over 100 judges who have presided over pre-trial and trial hearings and appeals for Obama eligiblity lawsuits. No judge or panel of justices has requested that Hawaii present an original birth certificate.
I just don’t see that happening. If either Obama’s attorneys or a plaintiff suing Obama’s attorneys want to get a court order for a copy of the original document, that is permissible under Hawaii law.

Zero’s position is that he is the first candidate to ever place a copy of his birth certificate on the web and its been there since April of 2008. If anybody wants to see it, click a mouse. And now if anyone wants to see a copy of his long form, go to whitehouse.gov

If you are right, then he is intentionally hiding his Indonesian citizenship. He is admitting his Kenyan citizenship, and that should be enough to disqualify him anyway.

Thanks, you make some very good points.

The fact that our president was an Indonesian citizen as a child explains his style of governing. He has contempt for the people. This is the most disgusting trait that I see in him. He's an un-american POS.