Now Obama's birth certificate is 'irrelevant'

A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!

On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.

It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.

Did you catch that? The president’s birth certificate is not relevant to the case.

I don't think Joe gets how lawyers operate (or he does but conceals it).

A lawyer's first gambit is to deny that his client has to produce evidence.

If the lawyer gets away with that he wins a battle. If he doesn't he moves to his next line of defense.

It's understood that the opening gambit is only the lawyer's first move, not an admission of the final truth in the matter.

If Joe were a defendant his lawyer would behave in the same way. It's the way the game is played (and for lawyers it very much is a game).

This I do not believe.

And I do not wish to believe it, either. However, as each round of evidence surfaces, I am forced to confront it.

It is painfully obvious at this point that the WH used digital data from the abstract to create a new digital document. The only way that could be in any way mitigated is if they were to claim that the data they put in their "document" was 100% complete and 100% accurate.

Since what they originally received from HDOH is an "ABSTRACT," that cannot be legally maintained, nor indeed is it possible.

I also am coming rapidly to believe that because of the enormity of the issue, they believed they could get away with it forever.

Start with the basic fact of the matter. There is no legally certified copy of a Birth Certificate that is on file in Hawaii in anyone's possession, including the WH. Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.

Nothing personal (and I mean it, because I really don’t know you) but I think that anyone with even a smidgen of abilty who has ever had the curiousity to take the time to see how things work in general, could fail to view that document and come to any other conclusion.

It isn’t even close.

I used to be a jet mechanic, and now work in imaging and have done so for a couple of decades, and while I have my faults, I can look at something and figure out how it was put together, and for the most part, how it works.

I have used Photoshop since 1992 and Illustrator since 1988, so I understand those technologies well enough to be conversant in them and create content from them as needed.

This is not bravado on my part. It is certainty, or as certain as I can get about anything like this. I am old enough to have struggled to repair malfunctioning typewriters, and have disassembled them, so I have a pretty good idea how THOSE work.

It is a fine document if you are going to flash it to get past a checkpoint or to use to get a job as a cook, if they needed a birth certificate.

Once one knows the problems with that particular document, is is impossible NOT to see them sticking out of the page.

Really. I am pretty angry because this guy now sits in the White House and is dismantling sectors of our economy and our society right in front of our eyes, and there isn’t a thing we can do about it. When I see this crappy forgery, and that is exactly what it is, it makes me even angrier, because if certain parties had done their damned job, we might be in the same place, but it wouldn’t be that terrorist-loving SOB doing the deliberate dirty work.

Again, if I seem angry, and I AM, it is directed at the parties that LET this happen and do nothing about it now.

I don’t know everything, and I am just as capable of being intellectually lazy and susceptible to incorrect information as anyone else. But because I accept up front that those are weaknesses, it helps me avoid falling into that pit, even though I still occasionally do.

But I take my responsibility as a citizen seriously, because if I don’t want to accept a spoon-fed conclusion from the likes of Dan Rather, I have to spend the time myself to view things critically, everything. That is what I have to do to stay informed without watching CBS or reading the Boston Globe. It is MY responsibility to do so, and I take it seriously.

It is one of the reasons I donate a monthy to FR, and when the money-raising is lax, I will kick in more. And then more.

Because, the truth is, there are all types on here. Some are sharp, some aren’t. Some are lazy, some aren’t. But we help each other view the issues of the day, and this issue is one of them.

I didn’t jump into a thread, read it and jump on the wagon. I have spent the better part of two years remaining impartial about certain issues as this forgery and viewing them on my own, coming to my own conclusions.

You either don’t think it is a forgery, or you don’t think that if it is, that it is important.

May I ask which it is?

It is indeed amazing that many here on FR, some imaging experts, some like myself not, reached the same conclusions as Sheriff Joe's expert, Mr. Zullo, who conducted months of arduous research and thorough experimentation.

But The non-imaging evidence is well established:
(a)A Team Obama Attorney traveled to Honolulu, and was handed ... not a document ... but a digital file described at the time as an "ABSTRACT" of data "on file" with the HDOH.
(b)What would normally be required was a "Certified Copy" of a Document on file with the HDOH.
(c) Many Americans have closed Real Estate Transactions and large loans, many more have registered cars, boats, airplanes, etc. in all of the states. What is required to close deals is "A CERTIFIED COPY" of a "DOCUMENT" (Titles, Deeds, etc) on file. One cannot "ABSTRACT" information and recast it oneself as a legal document of another kind.
Abstracts of titles, deeds, debentures, etc. are valid legal documents insofar as they are useful in arranging a transaction and for general information. But in order to be complete and certain, a "Certified Copy" or the original documents themselves are always demanded.

Why would an attorney travel to Honolulu to pick up a digital abstract, when a Certified Copy could have been made, and either electronically telefaxed or to be ironclad in certainty, couriered to DC overnight? This drama was part of the mysterious fog that has settled over this issue. What is the mystery here? This is done everyday! Ask your broker. Your bank. A clerk at DMV!

After this at least suspicious non-imaging information available to any non-expert, none of which is in dispute .... experts can take over to quite easily show exactly how The WH Team took the abstracted digital files transferred from the HDOH and recast them as if that data were a certified copy of the Birth Certificate. They even went so far as to reproduce the carefully culled data onto digital "Safety Paper" to make them "look more official," cutting and pasting as they went along.

It is wonderful that experts in digital imaging can confirm this trail of deceit and demonstrate how it was done. However just as one need not be a chicken to judge a rotten egg, some of the tricks are also painfully obvious to any non-expert who ever bought a copy of Photoshop, or Corel Draw, or Illustrator.

One damning fact wraps this up: There is no "Certified Copy" of the LFBC Document because all the evidence tends to point toward the conclusion that there is no LFBC Document. None of which proves of course, that the man was not born in Hawaii, but that the proof he offers is suspect.

The entire charade was orchestrated, IMHO, to divert the attention of the American People away from the fact that since the man's father was a foreigner, he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.We cannot prove he was not born in Hawaii while the charade continues, just as he cannot prove that he was!

I came across people trying to tell me that because the letters (the r's, or p's, or t's, etc.) weren't all exactly the same it was the sign of some kind of photoshop forgery with letters cut and pasted from other documents.

They didn't realize that the amount of ink a letter key of a manual typewriter left on the paper can vary so the letter may look different. They didn't realize that with documents written with a manual typewriter the instances of a given letter had better not all look exactly alike.

An FBI expert can tell the difference between letters typed with the same key and those from another make of typewriter, but if one letter looks thicker to you or me that's not in itself a sign of forgery. It may just be a matter of a little more ink on the key.

It certainly isn't a sign of an inept forger who took images from obviously different documents and pasted them together on photoshop. Wouldn't a half-way intelligent forger, someone even of modest intelligence know not to do that?

Then there were people who assumed the signature was a poor imitation of a modern felt-tip pen. They didn't know about fountain pens and the traces they left behind.

There were people who assumed that curvature on the image was a sign of forgery, rather than the result of copying a document that was bound in a book, and people who said letters didn't line up in a place where they did.

It matters if it's a a forgery. I personally don't know if it's a forgery or not. Perhaps it isn't. But if it is, it's a better forgery than those people thought.

Having seen people fall for all kinds of erroneous theories, I discount all this "obvious forgery" talk. It comes across as arrogant bravado, if you've followed the story up to now.

Nothing personal here. If you are an expert, fine. But you'd better have a knowledge of all those old manual or analogue technologies, as well as the modern digital ones. You should recognize that talking about "obvious fraud" leads people to assume that they don't have to acquire that knowledge.

You seem like a decent person, and I thank you for the civil response.

I can see that you don’t see this the same way I do, and I will leave it at that,

But I DO understand the vagaries of typewritten documents, and I do understand the mechanics of how typewritten text appears on a page. I understand spread, bleed, kerning, pitch, etc. I understand the physical interactions between paper, ink and the machinery.

I also understand imaging, image compositing, noise, compression artifact, etc. This is knowledge I acquired over the years. Am I an “expert” on these things? No. Do I understand the concepts enough to be able to apply them to this particular issue? Absolutely.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not approaching this from that angle. As far as I am concerned, this all might be because he simply cannot find his birth certificate and felt something had to be done.

It might.

Or it might be some secret cabal with George Soros.

But I don’t care either way. All I know is that document is a lousy fake, and as my mother used to say, “I hate a sneak and a liar more than anything else.” If someone has an excuse, fine, let’s hear it. But the foisting of this fraudulent document gets my dander up.

If it was just the birth certificate documents being looked at, and NOT the social security number and the selective service registration...

I guess it boils down to this question:

How does somebody that was adopted via a “closed” adoption prove whether or not they are a natural born citizen?
Do they go get a court order to unlock the info?
Then go and research their biological parents’ citizenship?

What if nobody can find the documentation?

If the adoptive parents were staunch Constitutionalist conservatives, would that avoid foreign entanglements?

Not apologizing in any way here, just looking a possible real world situation on just the birth record.

If it was just the birth certificate documents being looked at, and NOT the social security number and the selective service registration...

I have mentioned many times that I make no claims regarding whether or not his social security number or selective service application was forged. I HAVE pointed out that THOSE documents are under the control of the FEDERAL government, and Obama has complete control of that.

His Birthcertificate is not. It is under the control of HAWAII's Governmental officials, and he cannot simply order them to do this or that. He has to work with them in such a way that they have no concerns about going to jail.

I guess it boils down to this question:

How does somebody that was adopted via a “closed” adoption prove whether or not they are a natural born citizen?

By getting the records unsealed. It is doable, it's just very uncommon. I personally think that Obama's original record in Hawaii won't likely prove he was born in Hawaii, and therefore are no help to him.

Do they go get a court order to unlock the info?

Yes, exactly right.

It is axiomatic to me that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in 1965, and then had his adoption annulled or was readopted by his grandparents in 1971. They kept him for 8 years, for crying out loud! They certainly had to have SOME sort of legal papers regarding him.

And I do not wish to believe it, either. However, as each round of evidence surfaces, I am forced to confront it.

And what evidence leads you to believe it is a White House forgery? I see none for that.

It is painfully obvious at this point that the WH used digital data from the abstract to create a new digital document.

How is this obvious? From my perspective this is completely NOT obvious. What is obvious to me is that the people who POSSESS the appropriate digital image files created the document, (and who do so routinely in the normal operation of their jobs) and those people are the employees of the birth certificate record keeping repositories in the Hawaiian government; The Department of Health in Hawaii.

Since what they originally received from HDOH is an "ABSTRACT," that cannot be legally maintained, nor indeed is it possible.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They had to put the words "Abstract" on it because they cannot legally claim that it is the original document. Any birth certificate which is created by the DOH for an adopted child is NOT an original, so it cannot legally be identified as original. Saying that it could be an original OR an Abstract is just a means of getting around the fact that if you refuse to identify it as an Original, you by default identify it as a replacement.

Start with the basic fact of the matter. There is no legally certified copy of a Birth Certificate that is on file in Hawaii in anyone's possession, including the WH.

We do not know this as a basic fact. We only surmise this based on what we HAVE been able to learn. Sure, Tim Addams made the claim that there is no document, and rumors have circulated that there is no document, and Governor Abercrombie seemed to indicate that there is no document, but none of this is actual proof. On the other hand, we have two DOH directors assert that there *IS* a document. My point is, you cannot accept something as a fact until it has been shown to be an actual fact.

I am certain that there is SOME sort of document in Hawaii's files regarding Obama's birth in August of 1961. I suspect it is not an ordinary birth certificate, but I do not know this to be true.

Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.

There is SOME sort of document. We do not know what it is, but we can safely assume that there is some sort of problem with Obama showing it to the public. My guess is because it doesn't prove he was born *IN* Hawaii. Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.

The "White House" didn't do this. DOH did it. The 50 states do it 120,000 times every year.

Does it not occur to you that the Chicago thug in the White House could hire a competent forger? The Department of Health in Hawaii simply uses a regular bureaucrat, thereby easily explaining the poor quality of the forgery.

You are also overlooking the fact that the DOH in Hawaii is not claiming the document is fake, which they would have to do if it were. (Misprision of Felony)

WE know it's fake, and THEY know it's fake, but it isn't a felony fake because THEY created it. (DOH Hawaii.) No one else has access to that digital file information, and one only need take a look at it to realize it is pasted together from bits and pieces of digital file image data stored in different resolutions and different pixel formats.

Who else would have access to multiple old (and different) image files that happen to be stored in different file formats? DOH Hawaii! (who have been changing their digital record storage systems off and on since the 1980s.) They probably went through several different digital document systems prior to today. THAT is why there are different image file formats contained in the document. Here is an example of what I mean.

Notice the gray scale character "R" is of a lower resolution than is the binary character "A". I've moved them closer together so the pixel size can be compared.

The reason they are different resolutions and pixel bit depths is because the letter "R" was copied from a document which stored the data in low resolution gray scale, while the other characters were copied from a document which stored the data in a higher resolution binary format.

Who has multiple copies of old typewriter characters stored in multiple resolutions and pixel formats? The people who have access to all the other original birth certificates; The Hawaii DOH.

I am a first time poster and here are some thoughts regarding this issue.

The United States constitution states......

“””” No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.””””

In 2008, because candidate John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and not on US soil, Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution requesting the affirmation of the U.S. Senate that as required in article 2 of the United States Constitution, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to run for President of The United States.
When asked, John McCain promptly provided all necessary documentation. Further, he was well-known. His life was an open book.
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. Chertoff replied……..
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.” “That is mine, too,” said Leahy
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy said “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
And so it was…… the resolution signed by every single member of the Senate concluded that John McCain was a natural born citizen because at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal zone, he was born on a U.S. military base and both of his parents were U.S. citizens.
Even though the senate found it expedient to analyze John McCain’s eligibility, the matter of Obama’s eligibility was also in doubt. Why the Senate never took up the issue of Obama’s birth status, we can only speculate.
There is no doubt of one thing however…. Obama’s Father was NOT a United States Citizen and never even applied to achieve that status. So, statements from Sens. Patrick Leahy and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that supported and resulted in the Senate resolution concluding that senator John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen largely because both his parents were American Citizens, can in no way apply Barrack Obama.
Since assuming the office and becoming president, in terms of his history and who he is, Obama has become very secretive. He has used manipulative tactics, abused his power and arranged through executive orders to prevent the release of relevant records that would reveal to the American people who really he is. In addition, the one document that he did finally release (after months of pressure) The Long form Birth certificate, is not a copy of an original document at all but rather according to almost every document and computer expert who analyzed it, a digitally generated fraud and a bad one at that.

There are those who say that since Obama has a non- U.S. Citizen Father, insisting to see the original birth certificate is a red herring and just a diversion. But I submit that if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, even considering the fact that he has a non U.S. Citizen father, there are many who would still insist that he falls under the definition of Natural Born Citizen. BUT there is no debate of one thing. If Barrack Hussein Obama was proven to be born overseas, to a non a US Citizen Father, he in no way could be a Natural Born Citizen. Rather he would be a usurper and not qualified to remain in office or to run for re-election.

No Debate…… even from the Far Left.

This is why we need to continue to insist that he produce his Original document Birth Certificate or micro- film.

Be strong….. Save the union

Your reasoning is certainly congruent with mine.

However, we are not members of the Supreme nor any other court, neither are we Republican members of Congress, nor states' Attorneys General.

We belong to a group, perhaps about 20% of the electorate, that is concerned with the issue. That is, the 0ne in five who understand the problem.

If that is correct, whether or not this person was born in Hawaii, or his father was a foreigner, matters very little, especially to those in authority who have the power to correct the constitutional anomaly.

I have always had the the sneaking suspicion that the reason those in authority are in denial of even the existence of the issue is their deep-seated fear of "urban unrest."

The craven, illegal, and nonsensical behavior of the government and the media in regard to the Trayvon Martin shooting only confirms it to me.

I think you are familiar with my theory. Any further thoughts on it?

That Obama was adopted and his birth certificate was changed to reflect that? It's certainly possible.

If a politician can get elected without revealing anything about himself or herself, he or she probably wouldn't reveal anything.

Because of the lack of media scrutiny, Obama's been in that fortunate position, so he can keep a tight lid on all information about himself, whatever it is he has to hide.

But say he was adopted by Lolo. Would a new birth certificate definitely be created to reflect this?

It wasn't a situation where his (presumed) father was going to be airbrushed out of the family album. Though Barack Sr. had abandoned him, Barack II still bore his name.

His mother was still (presumably) his mother and maybe adoption papers would have sufficed to reflect his new status. I don't know how these things are done.

If a new BC was created, what would have happened to the original? Would it have been destroyed? Or kept in files somewhere (which would make forgery easier)?

According to info at the bottom of the more complete image, it is an image of a certified copy dated April 25, 2011 and signed "Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D". That gets clipped off in many of the online images.

It looks like you have been posting about this for a long time, so you'd know more about it than I do. I don't actually know the difference between a "certified copy" and a "digital abstract."

Would I be right in assuming that the earlier "Certification of Live Birth" was an abstract of Department of Health data? Something that contained information but not in the form of the original document?

The later image of the "Certificate of Live Birth" that you are calling a "digital abstract" -- is it called that simply because it is not in paper form? Presumably it is a digital image of some certified copy, or it pretends to be that, but because it's not on paper, they can't call it a "certified copy."

I notice you saying that this "digital abstract" may have contained the original fonts (not sure that's the right word) of the birth certificate. Why would that be if it were not a copy of the original birth certificate?

For all I know, it could well be a forgery. Team Obama could have reworked the file they were given to alter the information, but it looks a bit like you're playing word games here. I can see you've got a lot invested emotionally in this, though.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.