Those codes fairly scream: somebody took parts of many birth certificates and cobbled this one together. Only why did he do it? Why didn't he get a birth certificate as an adult, by showing that Stanley Ann Dunham had been a lawful resident of Hawaii for many years before he was born? Perhaps--just perhaps--because, by doing so, he would have gotten a birth certificate that somehow declared itself to be a duplicate.
Something made him offer this clumsy, amateurish forgery to the public, a document that even some of his own lawyers did not dare rely upon.
And: any judge who said that a Hawaiian birth certificate was proof positive of Hawaiian birth should resign from the bench forthwith, or face impeachment for plain ordinary incompetence.
Obama eligibility: a national security issue?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/19 21:48:13
|
|
|||||
|
14 votes
|
|
9% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
6% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
6% | |||
|
55 votes
|
|
36% | |||
|
64 votes
|
|
42% | |||
Below is an excerpt from my own original article, that you will find at the link at the bottom:
Many layers
Sheriff Arpaio and Detective Mike Zullo, head of the Cold Case Posse, held
a press conference on July 17, 2012. They first discussed whether a modern document scanner would make a PDF file having many layers. Many people, willing to accept the White House Obama
birth certificate file as real, point out that PDF files from their scanners or “all-in-ones” always have many layers.
Zullo gave this answer: Yes, scanning a document can produce many layers. But what kind of layers? Any ordinary scan would produce a file having one 1-bit layer and many 8-bit layers. But the Obama birth certificate file has eight 1-bit layers (six of which held different parts of the text) and one 8-bit layer. In other words: all the text in a file from a document scan would sit on one layer. The background color might break up into more than one layer, but never the text. And the six text layers seem to show changes that someone made, in the order that he made them.
Database codes
Part
of the Obama long form birth certificate. Note the handwritten codes in
the boxes for the father’s race and workplace. Code 9 is for an empty
box, but those boxes are not empty.
The file also has several codes, that someone hand-wrote in pencil,
inside most of the boxes on the form. Zullo traveled to Hawaii to try to
get more answers on the ground. Hawaiian authorities brushed him off,
but Zullo did track down the Hawaiian registrar, now retired (age 95),
who signed documents like this in 1961. Her name is Verna K. Lee, a name
consistent with a signature that looked like “U. K. Lee.”
Ms. Lee confirmed that she wrote codes like that on all birth
certificates that crossed her desk. 1961 was in the early era of data
processing. Before anyone had magnetic disks, data processing
departments stored their data on 80-column cards Typically, the
registrar would convert whatever was in a box in a form to a one-digit
number. A key-punch operator could then type that number in the proper
column on a data card.
The picture at right shows a blow-up of the boxes that hold the
father’s race and place of work. Beside the typewritten entry is the
number 9. The problem:9 is the code for an empty box! It means that
whoever coded the box found nothing in it, and was telling that to the
key-punch operator.
Why, then, do those boxes have anything in them? Why do they show
Obama Senior’s race as “African” and his place of work as “University”?
African is an anachronism. Birth certificates in those days would use Negro or Negroid instead. But University would not be an anachronism. The coding system had a code for University. Why, then, did the coder not use it? Why use Code 9, the code for an empty box?
Zullo made sure of his find by asking Ms. Lee to show him a copy of the coding manual. She did.
This alone would be the most explosive find yet in the Obama eligibility case. It means that someone took a birth certificate that did not give the race or the place-of-work of the father. The Student code for the kind of work the father did is probably good; it carries Code 0, not 9. But the words African and University should not be in their boxes. Someone added those words later.
Adding “African” instead of “Negroid” was probably a mistake. Only
someone 42 years old or younger today would make a mistake like that. He
would never remember anyone calling an African anything but an African.
National security
But this is not the most explosive thing that the Cold Case
Posse found. Zullo and his team looked up the law in Hawaii on getting a
birth certificate for someone born out-of-State:
338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of state.
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child,
the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Note what Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 says: adult or minor. So an adult can get a Hawaiian birth certificate
if he can show that his parents (or one of them, at least) had been a
lawful resident of the Territory or State of Hawaii for at least a year
before he was born (or adopted). Note that all the person need show is that his mother was a lawful resident for a year. He need not show that she gave birth to him in Hawaii.
This alone should throw the Obama eligibility question wide-open. How can a Hawaiian birth certificate prove that anyone was born in Hawaii? Sheriff Arpaio seemed to have a hunch that someone would ask that. He pointed out that no person could ever get an Arizona birth certificate on such flimsy evidence.
But Arpaio also said that this threatens national security. It allows someone born elsewhere than in the United States to get a birth certificate from a particular State, i.e., Hawaii. Hawaii is the only State that has such a lax law.
So now we have two questions here: Was that file tampered with, or wasn't it? And: is it too easy to get a birth certificate in Hawaii?
This video talks about the multi-layering issue:
To play the full press conference, follow this link. (Sorry, but SH does not support the iFrame tag, and ordinary object-tagged flash code is not available for this video.)
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/19...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I bet Sarah Palin could order her followers to commit ritual suicide too.
Birtth in Hawaii be damned. Obama does not meet the requirement that BOTH Parents be American Citizens at the time of one's birth ON US Soil.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes....
quoting:
''...After approximately two minutes on the Internet -- no, we didn't have to blow $10,000 on a trip to Hawaii -- we found this exact theory, and the documentation proving it false, from Obama Conspiracy Theories.
The coding for the number nine in the race meant "unknown or not stated" in the guide for 1968. In 1961, it meant "other nonwhite." "
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/T...
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Do they wear armbands?
Or let me put it another way:
What would an *authentic* PDF birth certificate look like? If you can't answer that, you don't have a case, because you have no basis for comparison.
Birthers, you're grasping at straws. If you want to critique President Obama, there are so many better issues to attack him on:
http://obamascandalslist.blog...
When a duly authorized agent of the State of Hawaii produces an official document of that State in an administrative or judicial proceeding and identifies it to be that document, there is a presumption of regularity regarding the document that survives any of the proof I've seen adduced in this area to the effect that BHOs LFBC is a frau...
When a duly authorized agent of the State of Hawaii produces an official document of that State in an administrative or judicial proceeding and identifies it to be that document, there is a presumption of regularity regarding the document that survives any of the proof I've seen adduced in this area to the effect that BHOs LFBC is a fraud. The presentation made in this thread is far more rational and instructive than the overwheming majority of other treatises I've seen on this subject, but it still fall far short, IMHO. of what a presiding official needs to discount any official of Hawaii who swears to the authenticity of the document.
But there's more going on here. I confess to being puzzled as to why this issue gets people so hot under the collar. If it were to turn out that Obama was born in Kenya, but was snuck back into this country w/o him ever knowing that, what would that prove? And how does any of this affect "the security of the country"? Assuming that Obama's Hawaiian birth cannot be discredited until after 1/20/2013, what would be so incredibly different between four years of Joe Biden and four more years of BHO? Sure BHO would have to resign (or be removed) as POTUS, but so what? Anybody that thinks Biden couldn't have given us a worse Health Insurance Reform package hasn't studied the guy very much. There's nothing morally compelling about whether BHO is or isn't a "natural born citizen", that merely is what the Constitutional requirement to serve happens to be, nobody is really too sure as to why it was there in the first place, and there's no particularly compelling reason why it shouldn't be replaced. What is all the heat about this purely accidental requirement? Don't misread me, if it were shown that BHO was actually complicit in knowingly selling a lie to the American people as to his birth status, that would be something of extremely serious importance, but, what evidence of that is there? If he was lied to by his mother and grandmother, is it really all that awful that he has proceeded to defend what he has thought to be the truth? Not that I think that's the case, incidentally, I don't, but there are plenty of other questions out there in this election whose significance is of more importance to me than a question whose resolution will likely be most significant in regard to how much time, if any, Joe Biden gets to be POTUS.
Let me note that I do see a valid "birther" question. Certain scholars have questioned whether the term "natural born citizen" as used in 1789 required that both parents of an infant be citizens of the jurisdiction of birth parentage. There have been presidents who may have had only one parent who was a citizen (e.g., Hoover), and the 14th Amendment clearly provides that a person born in a State is a citizen of that State, but neither of those factoids necessarily establishes that a person with an alien parent is a "natural born citizen". It seems to me that a person with one parent who is a citizen who is born on US soil is a "natural born citizen', but I'd be interested in a court case discussing the fact.
The one point raised in this thread I've never seen before is that relating to Hawaii's rather overbroad citizenship definition as provided in Hawaiian Revised Statute 338.17-8. The 14th Amendment clearly provides that States cannot place limits on citizenship to preclude certain individuals from becoming citizens, but there's certainly no indication that the birth requirement is intended to be pre-emptive, i.e., is intended to be the only way in which citizenship cam be awarded a newborn. So, given the potential for this kind of citizenship, the question becomes whehter this type of citizenship is "natural born citizenship". I obviously haven't researched the point, but it wouldn't seem illogical that it could be, and, if that's the case, the authenticity of the LFBC would seem somewhat moot - there being ample collateral proof of Stanley Ann Dunham's intentions at the time of BHO's birth. It's things like this that remind people like me that, in our predilection for pushing authority for governance down to the State and local level, we must always be prepared to find rules being made whose wisdom we question (not that my speculation of what the effect in this case would be affects that judgment).
The hole in the regulations is a leftover of when many instances, such as on the outer islands and plantations, where children were born at home without an attending physician. Births would then be registered when the parents or next of kin could travel to a municipal office.
BTW, I was born in Hawaii and the document shown is only a Certificate of Live Birth, not an actual Birth Certificate. All it means is that the State of Hawaii has a record on file but it does not verify a CoLB's accuracy.
The state of Hawaii "facsimile" CoLB doesn't have near the information and that's what I can order online at $15 each from the state. It is the same green card stock with the crosshatch pattern as seen on the Obama CoLB but does not include which hospital, doctor, time of day, etc.