Search This Blog


Thursday, May 2, 2013

Barack Obama is a Fraud! The Birth Certificate is a Fake!

Will Congress deal with the fact that fraud was used to put Obama in the White House? The birth certificate is a fraud. Why issue a fraudulent birth certificate if you're a legitmate citizen? Fraud matters! There's evidence of fraud in everything Obama touches: the birth certificate, getting on the ballot by forging petition signatures, accepting illegal campaign donations from foreign countries. Fraud is second nature to Obama as an Alinskyite. Among Alinsky's principles are the end justifies almost any means, the ethics of an action is determined by its success, pragmatism rules, and always clothe your actions in moral arguments no matter how immoral they are in reality. Sound like Obama? It's the shoe that fits as if it were hand made for him.


smrstrauss said...

Obama's birth certificate is not a fraud.

Only birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate a fraud-----and they have not shown that they are even experts------much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

And it is irrational (to say the least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii. (And the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.)

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

My understanding of the short form birth certificate, which is used in several states, is that a clerk certifies that the long form is on file and contains the information in the short form. No one is disputing that there is a long form on file -- the question is whether the long form is forged.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "My understanding of the short form birth certificate, which is used in several states, is that a clerk certifies that the long form is on file and contains the information in the short form."

Answer: That is partially right. What is accurate is that the clerk looks into the file and fills out the form on the computer that generates the short form birth certificate. One of the spaces to be filled in is the place of birth. So, in 2007, when the short form BC was sent to Obama, there was a document in the files in Hawaii that said on it that Obama was born in Honolulu. Or, the clerk was lying.

But in 2007 Obama was only a junior senator, not even a presidential candidate---so why should the clerk lie? But birthers claimed that the short form was forged, and so the officials in Hawaii in 2008, officials in a Republican administration, went and checked and determined that Hawaii had indeed sent the short form BC to Obama and the fact on the published copy that Obama was born in Honolulu was indeed correct.

Re: "No one is disputing that there is a long form on file -- the question is whether the long form is forged."

Answer. To realize that there is a long form on file in Hawaii and that it says that Obama was born in Hawaii is to accept that he was born in Hawaii--which makes him a Natural Born Citizen. If the BC were forged (which it wasn't) that would be a crime, but you would still have to prove who forged it.

However, the chance of it being forged is absurdly low. How do I know that? Because the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly stated in writing THAT THE FACTS ON OBAMA'S PUBLISHED BIRTH CERTIFICATE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, REPEAT, EXACTLY THE SAME, as on the copy that they sent to him.

Would you like to see a link to those statements?

That plus the fact that (1) some birther "experts" have been shown to be anti-Obama zealots; (2) there are the experts shown above who say that his BC is not forged.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Tremblay did not vouch for the authenticity of the birth certificate. In fact, he has tried to get Fox News to correct their statement that he did, saying he was misquoted. They will not retract.

What he has written on his website is that he could not verify one way or the other based on the PDF document. He also said some of the discussion is outside his area of expertise.

By the way, lifting other people's work and using it as if it's your own without quoting is plagiarism. I found a comment written on April 24th by EHancock at using identical language. So either you and EHancock are the same person or you lifted his work. I'll be honest. If you plagiarized someone else's work that affects your credibility in my eyes.

smrstrauss said...

Ehancock and I are very close, very very close.

You seem to be cherry-picking Tremblay. Well, how about the other five? and, BTW, saying that he could not determine whether the BC was forged or not, is not a statement that it was forged. One thing that he did NOT see was evidence of it being forged.

I can knock off two of the six birther "experts." One, Doug Vogt, claims that he found "the original Altar of Abraham"---(want to see his site?) And another, Paul Irey, has claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, even though Columbia University has said repeatedly that he did attend, and even graduate. It is from such nuts and anti-birther zealots that the birthers base their claims that the BC is forged.

The key point is that Obama was born in Hawaii. That cannot be doubted. If you do, I'll show you the facts again.

And, since he was born in Hawaii, the claims that his BC was forged are simply the lies of anti-birther zealots. Since the officials in Hawaii have said that the FACTS on Obama's published BC are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent him (want to see the citation?), there is no point in forging the BC.

Yes, the document was enhanced for image clarity---but that is not forging.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said... and Hancock are "very close." So essentially you are an anonymous poster who hides behind multiple handles or you made that up on the spot. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about Obama and his background regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or not.

smrstrauss said...

First, I am indeed an anonymous poster. So? And I use multiple handles because birther blogs have at time blocked me from posting. Using multiple handles is not illegal, immoral or fattening.

Re: "There are still a lot of unanswered questions about Obama.."

Answer: You ask them and I will try to answer them.

Re: "regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or not..."

Answer: He was born in Hawaii with 99.9999% certainty. The chance that his mother traveled outside of the country in the last two months of pregnancy in 1961 at the risk of stillbirth and ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii) is close to nil. Her chance of doing that, giving birth abroad and getting her child back from the foreign country without a US travel document (such as having him entered on her US passport) is even lower.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter where he was born he is not a natural born citizen.... Define natural born citizen... Born of 2 citizen parents... Case closed.... Focus on the real issue.the supreme court needs to define the term natural born

smrstrauss said...

Re: "It doesn't matter where he was born he is not a natural born citizen.... Define natural born citizen... Born of 2 citizen parents... Case closed"

Actually, it is only the minds of some birthers that are closed.

It is as stupid to think that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to two citizen parents (or even one) as it is to believe that there is a rational chance that Obama was born in another country.

The chief justice of the USA swore in Obama several times (I think it was four). If the meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to parents, he would have committed a grave error each time---and, you know, he knows the meaning of the US Constitution.

The US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY twice. If the meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to parents, Congress would have committed a grave error each time---and, you know, many of the members know the meaning of the US Constitution, so at least one of the 535 would have voted against or at least said something.

The US Electoral College voted for Obama twice, with the electors casting the exact same number of votes for Obama as he won in the general election. In past elections it was fairly common for one or two electors to vote differently than their states voted, but that did not happen in either the 2008 or 2012 elections.

Obama won 356 electoral votes in the general election of 2008, and 356 Electors voted for him. Obama won 332 electoral votes in the general election of 2012, and 332 electors voted for him. And this was DESPITE a letter-writing campaign to the electors by birthers asking them to either change their votes or not to vote---and not one of them either changed their votes or did not vote. Now many of the electors are lawyers familiar with the Constitution, and you would think that if even one of them thought that Natural Born Citizen referred to parents, she or he would have changed that vote.

So, what does Natural Born Citizen mean?

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

The US Supreme Court has, btw, defined the term Natural Born Citizen, in the Wong Kim Ark case, which btw, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett. And it said that the term comes from the common law (hence not Vattel), and that it refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

"The chief justice of the USA swore in Obama several times (I think it was four). If the meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to parents, he would have committed a grave error each time---and, you know, he knows the meaning of the US Constitution."

Yes and the Dred Scott court declared blacks only 3/4 of a person and the property of their masters. Roe v. Wade made babies the property of their mothers. The Supreme Court has been wrong -- deadly wrong on numerous occasions, especially in this era of activist judges who find whatever they want in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

The question is what the founders meant by "natural born citizens." They did not want the influence of foreign powers.