HOW A CRUDE FORGERY WAS PASSED OFF AS AUTHENTIC TO GET AN UNKNOWN ELECTED AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA
by John Charlton
(Jan. 27, 2010) — Most know that there are doubts about Obama’s Birth Certificate or eligibility to be President of the United States, but few are aware of how his supporters passed off an obvious forgery of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth and used cleverly crafted quotes of apparent authorities to establish its authenticity for the purpose of committing election fraud upon the entire nation.
The notion that it is a forgery continues to be squashed by the Main Stream Media. Consider the transcript from Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” program from last night during his interview of J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging John McCain for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona (note that Matthews is attempting to belittle McCain’s opponent):
Matthews asked Hayworth: “Are you as far right as the birthers?” Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?”
“Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football in youth sports,” Hayworth responded matter-of-factly. “Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are?”
Matthews referred back to some of Hayworth’s past statements. “I’m reading your letter that says the president should go back and get his birth certificate from the governor of Hawaii,” said Matthews, who then added: “I’m just asking, do you stand by this letter?”
“Yeah, sure,” Hayworth responded.
“Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?” Matthews asked. “Do you think that’s a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?”
“No, I — look: I’m just saying the president should come forward with the information, that’s all,” said Hayworth. “Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?” (Source & Video)
That Matthews should ridicule such a common-sense request is absurd on its face; but his approach is pure Alinksy-esque tactics.
However, what the Main Stream Media doesn’t want you to remember or recognize is that the highly flaunted electronic image of the COLB which the Obama campaign puts forth to defend his claims to be eligible for office was recognized as a forgery from the beginning.
This is the little-known chronology of forgery and deceit which this article will highlight for the sake of national security.
In June of 2008, public interest in and doubt concerning Obama’s claims to be a U.S. Citizen resulted in a flurry of Internet activity over demands to see documented evidence of such claims.
In early June, supporters of Obama began to display their ability to use image editing software to create plausibly authentic birth certificates.
After about a week of experimentation, they began to forge birth certificates for Obama citing places of birth such as Alaska and Korea (cf. Israel Insider‘s report of June 24, 2008). Then a few days later, the famous COLB which Obama and his supporters have used to support his personal claims and candidacy for president appeared at the Daily KOS website (high resolution image of COLB c/o Israel Insider). The Israel Insider wrote in its report:
The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider’s revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website — including one listing the location of Obama’s birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack — one of which has a “photo taken” time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image were posted on the left-wing Daily KOS blog.
Israel Insider was one of the first news agencies to cover the story of the forgery. In an unsigned report dated June 21, 2008, Israel Insider wrote:
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
The nearly immediate acceptance of the forgery by the Obama campaign signifies that these Obama supporters who were experimenting with document forgery were acting with the implicit approval of the campaign.
One of the early reporters to work with the Obama campaign to establish the authenticity of the forgery in the eyes of the public was Amy Hollyfield of the St. Petersburg Times. Writing on June 18, 2008, she said:
To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy.
Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested this month, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get one in April, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.
In emails to other citizens, Okubo would completely undo this interpretation; denying to the Israeli Insider on June 26, 2008, that she had seen the original Obama certificate, and thus could even authenticate the online image, which electronic image the Department of Health did not release. Note she did not even authenticate the information on the electronic image of a COLB; she merely said the document’s form was apparently that of a Hawaiian COLB, which of course it is, to the untrained eye. Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo comment and her paper’s promoting of Hollyfield’s enlargement of its significance all point to motivation to make Obama’s alleged COLB appear authentic in the eyes of the public.
Campaign of Misinformation Mobilized to Defend Forgery
However, it was precisely at this time the coordinated manipulation of information began to show itself in regard to Obama’s birth certificate. Because whereas the denial of Okubo of having seen the original and of having released the electronic image was published by the Israel Insider, it was not reproduced by major media outlets, which instead highlighted and repeated Amy Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo claims. The St. Petersburg Times report, however, remains an authoritative record that the image was released by the campaign, since the image which appears in the report bears the caption: “[Courtesy of the Obama campaign]” (at least as of the time of this report).
Omitted in the reports were the claims of the Israel Insider in their June 24, 2008 report that a 2003 COLB belonging to a Patricia DeCosta contained a field which the Obama COLB lacked: the all-important “accepted by Registrar”; and the criticism that agency leveled against the Obama COLB genuineness on grounds that it lack proper accompanying marks of authentication:
So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama — because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a “Certification of Live Birth” — must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.
Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date “filed by registrar”, the certified DeCosta document provides the date “accepted by the registrar.” The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.
The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document — notably in very low resolution — on its “Fight the Smears” website, with campaign officials vowing that it’s authentic, sending the image around as “proof” to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama’s birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the “Certification of Live Birth.” Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.
Subsequent research by citizen-investigators has found that “accepted by Registrar” was the common terminology used to indicate that the claimed or submitted facts of a birth were accepted by the State Registrar of Vital Statistics as being credible. “Filed by Registrar” meant simply that the claims had been made and had not been verified.
In the same report, the Israeli Insider opined that the reason for the forgery was that Obama was not born in the U.S. and thus was not even a U.S. Citizen or that he was not a natural born citizen. Most damming of all, in their June 21 report, they cited the claims made by the Obama Campaign through its “Fight the Smears” website, which in debunking what Obama’s campaign considered “lies,” openly claimed he was a natural born citizen (and thus eligible for the presidency):
Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”
The problem with this explanation is that not all those who are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment are natural born citizens because the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling, Minor vs. Happersett, years after the 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, said that to know what a “natural born citizen” is, one had to have recourse to sources outside the Constitution — an evident denial that the 14th Amendment defined such. Indeed, those born on U.S. soil of a foreign parent were always recognized to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power; moreover, a “natural born citizen” has always been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be “one born in the country to parents who are citizens.” Neither of these conditions prevailed for Obama, according to his claimed birth facts, since Barrack Obama Senior was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1961, when Obama claims to have been born. Indeed, Obama Junior is still a British citizen.
On June 26, 2008, Pamela Geller summarized much of the Israel Insider reports in a post entitled, “Such a Liar: Obama’s Fake Birth Certificate,” which she published at her blog, Atlas Shrugs. Her introduction was prophetic:
O-liar will merely say he had nothing to do with KOS releasing the fake doc but we know what a BOLD FACE LIE that is because KOS would rather chew off his arm than do anything to hurt the hate America candidate. My question is this …… does it matter? Even if he’s mom is American born, “Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama’s birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother’s youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a “natural born citizen.” Even if he were naturalized later — and there is no evidence that he was — he would not be eligible to run for the office of president .”
If he is hiding the doc, what is he hiding? C’mon….. give it up Obamendacity. I can’t people the Clintonostra did not uncover such a bombshell.
In fact the original KOS image would later disappear from the net, as well as the Fight the Smears website. Factcheck.org, another Obama disinformation network, would later join the fracas in an attempt to uphold the authenticity of the image, using claims of two “experts” who had no credentials whatsoever according to The Obama File.
July of 2008
On July 20, 2008, Pamela Geller published an exclusive report, detailing the research of a citizen who went by the nick, “TechDude”. In that report numerous images were shown, explaining how the Obama COLB image was a forgery and how it appears to have been produced by someone using Photoshop software on a MacIntosh computer. That report concluded thus:
There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border.
So as I have been saying repeatedly since I first compared the KOS images to the Decosta image using the same tests and measurements – the image is a horrible forgery.
Like the work of Polarik, TechDude’s analysis was ignored by the Main Stream Media in 2008 and heavily attacked by Obama supporters in the winter and spring of 2009. Attorneys Philip Berg (in summer of 2008-2009) and Orly Taitz (late 2008-2009) would be among those who would champion the cause of disseminating information regarding the forged COLB. In October 2009, Attorney Leo Donofrio would sue the Secretary of State in New Jersey on the grounds that Obama, McCain and Roger Calero, a candidate admittedly born in Nicaragua, were not natural born citizens and therefore should not be allowed on the ballot for president. His was the first lawsuit to avoid entirely the question of the forgery in lieu of a direct attack citing the claims of Obama to a father who was a foreigner. Attorney Mario Apuzzo in 2009 would file a case against Obama and Congress using both lines of attack.
The New Truth
It is interesting to note what Geller herself reported on July 14, 2008, that Wikipedia immediately joined the Obama campaign action by altering its article on Obama, replacing mention of “Obama Jr.” with “Obama II” based on the forged COLB:
Is there anything in Obama’s books? I notice that the NYT back in 1990 referred to both father and son as simply “Barack Obama.”
An excerpt from a noteworthy 2007 Obama speech:
There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.
I wonder what news organization was the first to use “Jr.” and whether there is any use of “II,” by the press or Obama, prior to the COLB.
The irony of what Geller found is this: that Obama in 2007 claimed his name was “Barack Obama Jr.”, but after the release of the forgery, Wikipedia forgot that and claimed his name was “Barack Hussein Obama II”.
From henceforth, the forgery would become, in the eyes of Obama supporters, in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, and in the eyes of many politicians, the historical truth; but the actual history and truth of it being a forgery would be tacitly omitted from all further mention.
Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984!
One Democrat is so sure of the revised history that he intends to make believe it is a litmus test of political credentials for his Republican opponents, according to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. Andrea Shea King, who hosts a popular internet Radio program quoted Taranto in her email missive this morning:
Menendez, who is from New Jersey, plans to “distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early–and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives”:
The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions:
“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? . . .”
If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”
If you want to read the rest of the questions, click through to the link atop this item. We truncated the list because the first item is absolutely jaw-dropping. Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?
That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.
So if you hear any Democrat using such a litmus test, just hand him a copy of “A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit” and ask him, “If Obama was born in Hawaii or was eligible for office, why go to such lengths to defend a forgery and refuse to show original documents for the next two years? Moreover, are you not concerned that the evidence cited in this article indicates that Obama has not only refused for two years to show a real document to the public, but even refused to do this to his most ardent supporters? How can you expect, therfore, that “belief” in his place of birth be a litmus test of political correctness? How about the documents, or are you in favor of politicians who don’t want to show supporting documentation for what they claim?”
See Andrea Shea King’s article for a political analysis of why the Democrats believe pushing the birth issue is a way to separate the Tea Partiers from the GOP.