Obama's birth certificate



Joseph Farah has got a spate of articles up at the moment in which he presents evidence against the authenticity of the "photocopy" of Obama's original birth certificate. He is also dropping heavy hints of big developments to come shortly.

From the beginning I have been one of the skeptics about Barry's nativity so I think I should say what I think of the present state of the controversy. Opinions are all you can get about the matter at the moment and I do think that there is something that most of the skeptics have overlooked. So let me start at the beginning.



Obama's mother (above) was clearly a sexy chick with a liking for dark skin and all that went with it. But she would certainly be well aware of the advantages of American citizenship and would have wanted it for her son. So when Barry popped out a bit early in Mombasa, an enterprising lady like her with little respect for the rules of the day would have hopped onto a plane as soon as possible and done what needed to be done to get Barry registered as American-born -- and inserted an appropriate birth-notice in the local paper. And Barry has profited from that deception more than she could ever have dreamed of. So it is possible that we are looking at a deception that was initially devised by Obama's mother.

Now I want to say something about government bureaucracies. I worked in two of them in my younger days so have a good feel for how they work. They can be enormously inefficient but they are also set up in a way that is hard to circumvent. And I think that whatever Barry's mother did to achieve her deception was not perfectly done. There would be signs in the documentation that it was a deception and Barry has been covering that up ever since. His refusal to release ANY documentation from his past is certainly inexplicable otherwise. Do all his documents list him as Kenyan-born?

And the YEARS it took for him to release an alleged copy of his original birth certificate suggests that he had offers from early on to do a forgery but in his typical indecisive way it took him a long time to take up that offer. Only the Trump megaphone pushed him over the edge. Whatever else The Donald is good at, getting lots of publicity in the popular press is something he seems to do effortlessly.

So we come to the indications that the recently released document is a forgery. The premier indication, according to all the skeptics, is that the serial number on the certificate is out of sequence. Unfortunately, from my experience of bureaucracies, I see that as no smoking gun at all. Certificates are issued according to the order that the clerk finds then in his in-tray. They may not at all reflect the exact order in which the events that they certify happened. I would therefore suggest that skeptics greatly downgrade their emphasis on that point.

So I think that there are many indications that both his birth certificate and Obama himself are one big fraud but proving it decisively is at the moment impossible. We will just have to wait and see what Farah's bombshell is. Or maybe Mossad will release a real copy of the original certificate if Obama gets too dangerous to Israel. I imagine that Mossad went to Kenya fairly early on -- long before the Kenyans started to wipe their records

Update:

I received from a reader the following comment on the above:

You are right to question the Obama “Certificate of Live Birth”. It contains a forged signature. The mom’s signature has been tampered with. You can see this for yourself, simply by zooming in on the certificate on the government web site. You will see that the “Ann D” part is handwritten and the “unham Obama” part has been drawn in by someone else on the computer. Here is a reference to this.

“Additionally, if you zoom in using Acrobat with your browser on a lot of the text, you’ll notice that it appears jagged and a single color. That’s not original. A pen doesn’t write in a single color; as you write lighter, the color is lighter; as you press harder, it’s darker than everything else. So writing in pen is not a single solid color, and when it scanned, anti-aliased, which means that the square pixels on the edges fade to make it appear smooth. Most of the text in the document including a large portion of the signatures is just a single blotch of color. The likely explanation is that someone just drew them in using a tool similar to “pencil” in Adobe Photoshop.”

I don't necessarily agree about the signature of Ann Dunham. The break between the A and the n is certainly unusual but could just be style. So I offer the above as a sample of the many criticisms that have been made -- often by very expert people -- JR

13 comments:

  1. First, it should be obvious that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. This is true today, and it was also true in 1961--and, since there were a lot fewer travelers, officials checked the documents more carefully.

    Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

    Second, there were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

    So, Obama’s parents would have had to have:

    (1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya);

    (2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother’s US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed;

    (3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);

    (4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;

    (5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama’s files verified that he was born in Hawaii.

    ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.

    And, by the way, the Director of Health of Hawaii has certified that she saw the certification being copied and that the copy is exactly the same as the original.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ann,
    Itis, and has always been, Obama's duty to provide the evidence that he meets the Constitutional requirements to be president. It was his duty to do this *before* the election. He refused, and still refuses, to prove that his Constitutionally quilified for the office.

    And your "argument" is "Well, no one has proved that he isn't ... so, therefore, no one should question whether he is."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Given her apparently dubious morals, Barry's mother would have had the means to bribe officials

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: "Itis, and has always been, Obama's duty to provide the evidence that he meets the Constitutional requirements to be president."

    He did, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by three Republican officials in Hawaii.

    However, you are wrong that her had to. There is no legal requirement that a candidate prove that he is Natural Born, and no president other than Obama has actually proven it. No president before Obama ever published his birth certificate (Eisenhower had his [which was not actually the original BC] placed on file at an election office.)

    Re bribery. Are you saying that there was a reasonable chance that Obama's parents (1) tried; and (2) were successful in bribing BOTH the federal officials who checked passports and the Hawaii officials who checked the place of birth?

    Well, if so, that would have been (1)risky and (2) expensive. So, why do it when if your child actually were born overseas, all you would have to do would be to get him naturalized, and he would have all the benefits of citizenship except the right to run for president? Do you seriously think that she ran the risk and expense of bribery simply because she thought that Obama would run for president more than 40 years later?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    ReplyDelete
  6. The *deliberate* (and prolonged) absence of evidence when there is a duty to provide evidence is certainly fishy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We are yet to see any credible evidence he wasn't born in Hawaii. You're making the claims so the burden of proof falls on you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: "The *deliberate* (and prolonged) absence of evidence when there is a duty to provide evidence is certainly fishy. "

    Answer: That is CRAP. Obama provided the Certification of Live Birth, the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that THOUSANDS of people in Hawaii use to get their US passports every year. Three Republican officials confirmed the facts on it. There were notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. Those notices came from the government of Hawaii, which only sent them out for births IN Hawaii, and which could not have been fooled by a lie about a birth at home---because in those cases it insisted on witness statements.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ann,
    You're being as illogical as the Anonymouse (*); you're just trying to hide your illogic in a thicket of verbiage.

    (*) the thought occurs to me that I ought to write a small essay on the Anonymouse's short post, for so well illustrates the "liberal" disability/disinclination to reason properly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ilion said that I was being illogical.

    So, Ilion, how do you explain this:

    A child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. This is true today, and it was also true in 1961--and, since there were a lot fewer travelers, officials checked the documents more carefully.

    Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

    HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

    Then, how do you explain this:


    There were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

    Then how do you explain both of them happening, meaning what are the odds for Obama being taken to Hawaii from a foreign country without a document being found AND that his parents were able to convince the officials in Hawaii that he was born in HONOLULU despite evidence that the officials in Hawaii checked claims of birth outside of a hospital by demanding witness statements?

    In addition to those two things, there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it. Obama's Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii. And, three Republican officials have said that the Hawaii birth certificates are accurate when they said that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ilion,

    You can't refute the evidence provided by Ann, and provide no credible evidence to support your claims.

    You have lost the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymouse,
    You're a fool (whioh is worse that merely dishonest), and I have no patience nor use for fools.

    Ann's "evidence" is primarilty question-begging, buttressed by self-conatradiction. Ann appears either to be ignorant or to be willfully ignorant (which is another form of being a fool).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ilion did not reply to me; he just called names.

    So, Ilion, how do you explain this:

    A child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. This is true today, and it was also true in 1961--and, since there were a lot fewer travelers, officials checked the documents more carefully.

    Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

    HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

    Then, how do you explain this:


    There were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

    Then how do you explain both of them happening, meaning what are the odds for Obama being taken to Hawaii from a foreign country without a document being found AND that his parents were able to convince the officials in Hawaii that he was born in HONOLULU despite evidence that the officials in Hawaii checked claims of birth outside of a hospital by demanding witness statements?

    In addition to those two things, there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it. Obama's Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii. And, three Republican officials have said that the Hawaii birth certificates are accurate when they said that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.

    ReplyDelete

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them