We need Polarik to verify the forgery of the 1900 Federal Census schedule that claims Prescott Bush was a son of Samuel Bush, a Ohio steel company president and thus an American natural born citizen.
http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/CensusBushGenealogy1.htm

We all understand that Lolo Soetoro had to have adopted or acknowledged Barry Soetoro in order for him to attend the government schools, or any school in Indonesia except for the International School. Without adoption/acknowledgement papers, Barry Soetoro could not have received the Kartu Tanda Penduduk (KTP, the Indonesian ID card) required to enter a government school.
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartu_Tanda_Penduduk
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7791

I assume that the Indonesian adoption authorities reported this adoption/acknowledgement to their counterparts in Hawaii, as one would certainly expect. If they did not, then why not? And if they did, how could there be any State of Hawaii Certification or Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama II in 2007 without an amendment documenting his adoption?
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Some believe that Lolo or Ann simply put down “Indonesian” next to the question “Citizen” to get him into school and that he was never legally adopted. I don’t believe any adoption papers have ever surfaced, although they might exist.

At least a few of Oilbama’s Kenyan aunts and half-siblings have remarked on how much he looks like Barack Hussein O. Sr. Just because that’s not apparent in their photos, that doesn’t mean that Oilbama didn’t inherit from his father some of his mannerisms and expressions. Some of these we pick up when we’re small by mimicking our parents Sometimes, however, people who never knew one or both of their parents learn later in life that they share some of these qualities with them anyway, which indicates to me that they can be genetic, just a part of who we are, nature instead of nurture.

Anyway, I’ve decided not to waste any more time questioning his parentage. The only parents that matter are the ones listed on his birth certificate. Until we see that, public speculation or wondering aloud who Oilbama’s parents might be just gives the Obamatons reason to accuse us of slandering and making up crap about their Obamessiah. I don’t want to add fuel to that fire.

I suggest you keep your eye on the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case from Mario Apuzzo, Esq. as it goes on soon to the United States Supreme Court.

That will indeed tell us whether “there is no law” or not. If not, why get driver’s licenses, pay taxes, etc.? Just choose the ones we wish to follow as the politicians are now doing.

NOTE: this is a lengthy reply. I need to provide some background first:

The first big discovery I made about Politifact was their backdating their first “birth certificate” story from June 25, 2008 – the actual date it was posted – to a published date of June 13, 2008 (“Obama’s birth certificate. Really!”)

I sent two letters to Amy Hollyfield – and one later on to Bill Adair, Executive Editor of Politifact, calling them out for posting this bogus story.

I asked Amy in my first letter if she was a willing participant in this fraud or was she duped.

My second letter to Amy asked her if she saw my research report.

Bill did not respond but Amy did to my second letter, confirming that she had seen my research via a friend who had sent it to her.

She did not comment on the first letter.

Factcheck was AWOL after they posted their COLB copy on June 16. Politifact came out with their first, real story on June 27, titled “Obama’s birth certificate – final chapter” in which author Hollyfield listed – intentionally worded wrong – what were alleged to be reader complaints about the COLB; e.g., that it had no creases from folding, it was the wrong color, there are strange halos around some of the letters, and so on.

After a two-month hiatus, Jess Henig wrote “Born in the USA” which featured her photos. In the body of Henig’s story, she included the list of reader complaints that Amy Hollyfield had compiled in her “Final chapter” story.

Henig said that,

“Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

•The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.
•It isn’t signed.
•No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
•In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.
•The certificate number is blacked out.
•The date bleeding through from the back seems to say “2007,” but the document wasn’t released until 2008.
•The document is a “certification of birth,” not a “certificate of birth.”

Henig made it seem as if she had gathered these complaints from her own research of the “forums, blogs, and e-mails.”

I contend that Henig got most of these from Amy Hollyfield who had posted this list in “Final chapter”:

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

“Then the firestorm started.”

• Where is the embossed seal and the registrar’s signature?
• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.
• Isn’t the date stamp bleeding through the back of the document “June 2007?” (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)
• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.
• It’s clearly Photoshopped and a wholesale fraud.

Henig and Hollyfield have collaborated before, and given that Factcheck and Henig sat on the sidelines while Politifact and Hollyfield went after COLB critics, it is a fair assumption that Hollyfield shared her list with Henig.

Hope you’re still with me.

OK, five paragraphs after listing the “most frequent objections”, Henig directly addresses them.

Guess which “objection” is the very first one she tackles?

#4 on the list:

• In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.

That’s a direct reference to my research finding about the text – albeit an incorrect description of it.

Henig continues:

“The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper.

That parenthetical qualifier “(to some)” changes the whole meaning of her statement, and it appears to have been added the original statement:

“The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper.”

In this form, the reader might conclude that Henig is offering her own theory as to why the halos appeared. The reader might also conclude that she’s giving credence to the method of forging by pasting text “…on top of an image of security paper.”

By qualifying it with “to some,” Henig makes it clear that it is not her idea and that she’s not the originator of this theory. Following this statement, she tosses out a reason as to why the “halos” were there:

“But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.”

“We conclude that…digital artifact from the scanning process” is a statement that is patently false, and even if it were true, neither Henig or Miller have the ability and experience to make it. I know from where it came, however, as that has been one of the stock excuses offered up by the opposition going back to June 2008.

I got their ditigal artifacts right here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwahEXpySM

From the website you posted:

“Original Air Date: July 22, 2010

Reality Check Radio

My guest was to be Tim Adams the former temporary election clerk for the city of Honolulu who has made the claim that “no long form birth certificate exists” for President Obama. However, Tim decided not to show for unknown reasons. We we still have a wonderful discussion of current events.”

I hope Tim is OK.

Pete