Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

Obama's purported "birth certificate" from his "Fight the Smears" website clearly has no raised seal, contrary to Factcheck.org's claim

(May 20, 2010) — The Post & Email has tried on several occasions to reach the staff at Factcheck.org, an organization which describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.”

However, Factcheck refuses to answer questions about its August 2008 coverage of the “Certification of Live Birth” which it claimed “resides” at Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago.  Obama’s attorneys have not claimed that  the original has been revealed as they filed briefs in answer to the numerous lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility; rather, they have attempted to keep Obama’s records hidden by trying to establish that the plaintiffs did not have “standing” or that the jurisdiction was incorrect.

On April 26, 2010, The Post & Email sent the following message to Factcheck.org:

From: editor@thepostemail.com
Sent: April 26, 2010
To: editor@factcheck.org

I have a question regarding the COLB which you posted during the presidential campaign.  Our website has posted two analyses of that document finding no raised seal on the document, as you claim there is.  Could you provide a photograph of the whole document which shows that seal rather than a close-up which cannot conclusively be connected to the document?

Our website is www.thepostemail.com.

Also, could you provide proof that the Registrar’s stamp is on the back of the document?  Why is the color different there than on the photo of the whole document shown above it?  Do you have any record of when the document was requested from the Hawaii Department of Health?

Thank you.

Sharon Rondeau
Managing Editor
The Post & Email, Inc.

Factcheck did not respond to the email.

On May 2, The Post & Email sent another message to the same address using an email system which shows if and when a message has been opened:

From: Redacted
Date: Sunday, May 02, 2010  10:46 AM
To: editor@factcheck.org

Hello, Jess, I understand you are the editor, or one of the editors, at Factcheck.org.  I contacted you last Monday regarding some research The Post & Email has been doing into the document purported to be Obama’s “birth certificate” which you have displayed on your website from back during the campaign.  I am using this email address to write to you again since my editor’s mailbox is nearly full.

Please also feel free to copy this email to Joe Miller at your organization.

My questions relate to the article you published on August 21, 2008:  http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Our research has resulted in many articles, but two of them were written or contributed to by Mr. John F. Sweeney, who is a photography expert.  These can be found here:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/ and http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/21/obamas-forged-certification-of-live-birth-the-evidence/

My initial question was if you could send me, or display on your website, a photo of the purported Obama COLB with the raised seal.  Your article claims that there is one and shows a photo of a close-up of a seal, but it appears to be on a different-colored background and there is nothing clearly attaching it to the document with Obama’s information on it.  Can you supply such a photo?


Do you have the letter that Obama would have written to the Hawaii Department of Health requesting that this document be released?  As you know, Hawaii is a closed-records state when it comes to birth records, and a request for release of information must be received in order for them to open any records.  So far, no one has been able to locate the letter of release that Obama would have had to have sent to the Health Department if in fact this document belongs to him or was generated from the Health Department.  If he never wrote such a letter, then how did this document enter the public domain?

We would like to see the original digital photos of the COLB.

We also have the following questions relating to your article of August 21, 2008:

1. “Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”  When, exactly (precise date and time window) was ‘Recently’?

2. You indicate the document ‘resides’ in the Obama headquarters in Chicago.  Where and at what time did you take the photos?  Can you indicate exactly (room, office number) where the photograph session took place and provide additional photos of that location?  There are reports that Tommy Vietor, a member of Obama’s current staff, took the COLB to the White House “for safekeeping.”  How could it be in two places at once?  Are there two copies?  Is one the original and the other a copy?

3. Who owns the Canon Powershot A570 used for the photos?  Did they take the pictures?

4. Who is holding the document in the photo named birth_certificate_3.jpg?

5. Is there a complete list of people present when the photos were taken?

6. Many people have claimed that the photos are frauds.  Why have you not pursued them for defamation or slander?

7.  Would you be willing to set up another session to inspect the actual COLB again with additional reporters and document experts present?

Thank you very much.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Sharon Rondeau
Managing Editor
The Post & Email, Inc.

No answer was received; in fact, the message was never opened.

Regarding the birthplace and eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States, Factcheck posted an article dated May 13, 2010 which focused on the law passed recently in Hawaii which allows a state agency to ignore multiple requests for information from the same person over a one-year period.  However, the article contains a link to a story from the BBC which is inaccurate in that its subtitle is not supported by the law’s wording.

The subtitle reads:

Hawaii has enacted a law allowing officials to ignore repetitive requests for US President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The actual law reads (newly-approved material is underscored):

SECTION 1.  Section 92F-11, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:

“(b)  Except as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours[.]; provided that an agency shall not be required to make government records available or respond to a person’s subsequent duplicative request, if:

(1) After conducting a good faith review and comparison of the earlier request and the pending request, the agency finds that the pending request is duplicative or substantially similar in nature;

(2) The pending request has already been responded to within the past year; and

(3) The agency’s response to the pending request would remain unchanged.

There is no mention of Obama in the amended wording of the bill.

The BBC article also contains other errors, such as “The new law was requested by Republican Governor Linda Lingle.”  There is no evidence that Governor Lingle “requested” the legislature to pass the law, although the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) and Office of Information Practices (OIP) supported it with testimony.  At that time, the proposed changes to the existing law were quite different from what actually was passed in April.

Another statement by the BBC which is incorrect is “The state of Hawaii has released a computer print-out of the birth certificate information and officials have vouched for its authenticity, but that has failed to satisfy the birthers.”  The state of Hawaii has insisted that it is prevented by law from releasing anything from a birth record except to a person who “has a tangible interest in the record.”  In the case of Obama, despite the fact that he is a public figure, the American people are not considered to have a “tangible interest.”

No one in Hawaii has vouched for the authenticity of the document released by Factcheck, The Daily KOS, or even the document which White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed was released by the state of Hawaii.  In fact, regarding the online COLB displayed by Factcheck, Daily KOS, and later, the Obama campaign, Janice Okubo, Health Department spokeswoman, stated that she doesn’t “know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

The May 13 Factcheck article links to another story in the Honolulu Star Bulletin which contains false statements, one of which is a question posed by an unknown person regarding “certifications” and “certificates” from the Hawaii Department of Health.  The exchange reads:

Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

and the answer is given:

Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

The article then goes on to explain that “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past,” and attributes the statement to Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo.  She is further quoted as having said, “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii.”

However, that statement is not true.

The Post & Email published an article displaying a “Certificate of Live Birth” from a person born in Hawaii in 1981 who had requested a copy of his birth certificate in March 2010 from the Hawaii Department of Health.  The form sent to him was not a “Certification”; it clearly said “Certificate of Live Birth” and noted the parents’ birthplaces as well as the child’s, unlike Obama’s.

On May 12, the following letter was sent by USPS to Factcheck.org’s office in Washington, DC, as provided on their website:

May 12, 2010

Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have tried twice to reach you by email but have not received a receipt or a response.

I have some questions regarding information you posted on your website during the 2008 presidential campaign. I have enclosed a copy of my last email of May 2, 2010 with the questions to which I am seeking answers.

The Post & Email would also like to know if you have vetted the statement of the Kenyan Minister of Lands, Mr. James Orengo, who on March 25, 2010, stated clearly that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in his country: http://www.christianforums.com/t7457653/

Mr. Orengo’s statement, which became part of the official Kenyan Parliament “Hansard” of that day, was reported by many newssites, including The Post & Email (http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/16/kenyan-parliament-restores-march-25-2010-minutes-declaring-obama-born-in-kenya/), WorldNetDaily, and others. A PDF of the document can be found here: http://www.wnd.com/files/kenyanparliament.pdf. Have you reported this development on your website?

We would appreciate a reply from you on this important constitutional issue.

Thank you very much.


Sharon Rondeau
Managing Editor
The Post & Email, Inc.
P.O. Box 302
Stafford Springs, CT 06076

To date, no response from Factcheck has been received.

Mr. John F. Sweeney, The Post & Email’s photography expert, submitted the following as his final analysis of Factcheck’s initial report on Obama’s alleged “birth certificate”:

I believe the document in the photos is the source document of  the scan image.  The primary reason is the folds seem to match.  If it were the other way around, then the printed document would have had to be folded exactly like the scan image.  But the match is too close.  I think the folds in the photos match the folds in the scan.  With that, I believe the document in the Factcheck photos is the original source.  I believe the scan images are from that document and that they have been cropped.  Obviously the top part that is blank has been cropped in the scan images.  If they did that, they probably took some of the edges as well.

Image showing double dots on Obama's COLB

So if the document in the photos was the source, then that is where the dots come in.  The dots are part of the document.  They are not digital artifacts from the photo shoot.  They appear in all the photos at the same place on the document.  They also show up in the scan image as well.  Since the image is a digital photo and not a scan – the dots cannot be typical scanner dust.  So if they are not camera artifacts and they are not scanner dust, they are part of the printed image on the paper.  My suspicion for a long time was that the Daily KOS image was used to create the document in the photos.  But, as explained above, I now believe the document in the photos came first.  If that is the case, then that document must be forged since the state of Hawaii probably does not print documents with random dots on the document.  If they do, they do not show up in other authentic COLBs.

I believe this indicates that the photographed Factcheck document source was still a scanned image of an actual COLB.  The border and cross hatch have the same angle differential that is present in authentic COLBs (they are not both perfectly horizontal and there is a drift from left to right).  So I believe the cross-hatch pattern and the border to be from an authentic COLB that was scanned and not hand-crafted in Photoshop.  But the original scan (not the one producing the Daily KOS, Politifact, Fight the Smears image) also had some scanner dust artifacts.  They are undetectable to the eye on an actual document.

But they do show up if the printed document is photographed close-up with high resolution.  I tested this and it worked.  I printed the Daily KOS document on ordinary copy paper using a Lexmark inkjet.  I could only see the big dot at the top (and I believe this to be actual scanner dust from the second scan process) , but the others were not visible at all.  I then took a photo of the document.  The dots show up in the photo.  Sample attached.

So scanner dust can become part of the image and be seen in a photographed version of the document if the resolution is high enough.  Thankfully, Factcheck posted the original images – at first.

The net is that I believe the origin of the Factcheck-photographed document was a scanned COLB, but not the Daily KOS/Politifact COLB scan.  It is the undetectable-to-the-human-eye artifacts of that scan process that show that the document is not authentic.

Back to the Timeline:

The photos were taken in the Obama headquarters at night almost surely, as indicated in the EXIF data.  That would have been March 12, 2008 at night.  The last passport break-in was March 14th.  It is too much of coincidence that photos of a forged document were being taken two days before that final break-in and access.  It looks as if they were working at night after everyone was gone.

They got the COLB ready that night.  Then it was reviewed on the 13th and it passed it over the people at the State Department on the 13th.  Then records were updated on the 14th.  This is all conjecture.  But the timeline makes too much sense.

I always knew the #3 Factcheck photo was taken in a call center-type environment, as I have designed and implemented many open-landscape call centers.   So I am familiar with Steelcase furniture and typical tile-type carpet.  But I did not make the connection to Obama’s Chicago headquarters until I came across photos of the environment from his websites.

Without a doubt, the photos were taken in the Chicago headquarters location and at night; hence, Factcheck’s story of “spending time” “recently” is bogus.  That would explain why they did not give specifics.

As the heat turned up, those who worked on the document in March gave a scan to Daily KOS.  But when the heat did not go away they then gave the photos that were likely meant to be trophies of their late-night work to Jess Henig and Joe Wilson at Factcheck.  Henig and Wilson just posted the raw photos.  Henig and Wilson probably did not even know there was such a thing as EXIF data stored in the photos until it hit the forums and blogs.

Then they tried to cover their tracks by removing the EXIF data while re-compressing the photos.

This was under the guise that the large original photos took too much bandwidth.

Internet service providers do not charge for every byte sent out.  They charge on average and peak usage.

Reducing the size of the photo almost certainly had no impact on bandwidth charges for a popular site like Factcheck.org. Wilson is gone from Factcheck now.  He left in December, no reason given.

Last August, Joe Miller of Factcheck.org wrote an article defending and supposedly debunking criticism of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother, who had expressed support for rationing of health care based on a person’s age and state of health or infirmity.  Miller puts the “spin” on Emanuel’s written work which clearly state that he was an advocate of health care rationing here.

Miller has written about Obama’s exaggerations and misstatements of fact, referring to the Congressional Budget Office for which he now works in the Obama regime.  Is this a reward for declaring the Certification of Live Birth an “official document”?

Factcheck.org is clearly not non-partisan.  Its coverage of an “attack ad” which the McCain campaign launched in October 2008 defends Bill Ayers as a different kind of terrorist than those who attacked America on 9/11/01.  It also fails to say that people died as a result of Ayers’s bomb-making activities in an apartment in Greenwich Village, and that a San Francisco police officer also lost his life due to a Molotov cocktail which was hurled through a window where he was on duty, with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn considered suspects in the case.

Factcheck’s answer to a question regarding Michelle Obama’s vacation in England with her daughters and mother is also misleading.  The question asks if taxpayers’ footed the bill for Michelle’s extended stay, and Factcheck cleverly responded that “no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.”  However, it admits that the cost of security was paid for by the American taxpayer, stating that the Obamas paid for “personal expenses” themselves.  There is no corroboration of Factcheck’s statement through a copy of a press release or reputable news report.

Last year, an article written by Jess Henig of Factcheck appeared in Newsweek which criticized Obama for making misleading statements during a news conference.  Henig, whom The Post & Email tried to contact on three occasions, has also written that Obama has misrepresented the “savings” purported in his health care proposal.  However, Factcheck is refusing to respond to our questions about the “birth certificate” it claimed was Obama’s or his constitutional eligibility to serve.

Factcheck’s summary of the “malarkey” about the health care bill passed in March is false when it states that “the legislative debate is over.”    More than 20 states are suing the federal government over the health care bill, some against the wishes of their own attorneys general, contending that it is unconstitutional, which Factcheck fails to report.  Factcheck also does not report the negative aspects of the bill which some analysts have predicted will increase, not decrease, costs for the individual or family.

Facthcheck also denies that Muslims are exempt from the mandate to purchase health insurance, when the wording on pp. 273-274 seems to allow for that exemption.  Contrary to what Factcheck reports, there is nothing that indicates that the exemption “is intended for Old Order Amish” only.  Newsweek also has cited Factcheck articles which make statements but provide no links to supporting documentation.

An AOL article parrots Factcheck’s claims without supplying any sourced documentation.  A website detailing Muslim beliefs  explains why Muslims could be exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance.

Why was the purported certificate number visible in Factcheck’s article about the COLB, but Obama’s website has shown it only with the certificate number obliterated?  How many versions of this document are there?

Is Factcheck truly “looking to reduce deception”?

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The investigators claim they have a name and information of someone born in 1890 that they believe had the SS# Obama is using. Have they or anyone else completed the Request for Deceased Individual’s Social Security Record form https://secure.ssa.gov/apps9/eFOIA-FEWeb/internet/main.jsp ? You don’t have to have all of the information. If we had a copy of this form for this deceased person, it would be great information for our cause to get out there on the internet. Please see if they will give you the information to request the form. I’ll cough up the $29 bucks.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I know that at least one person has sent in a FOIA request for the deceased person’s information and the Social Security Administration has not answered after almost three months. So evidently Obama has ordered a lockdown there as well. It wouldn’t hurt, however, for more FOIA requests to be sent for the same thing to see what happens. If they don’t comply, we have the law on our side, just as Ken Allen does.

    1. Were you able to get the name, DOB, etc. from the investigator, so that we can submit requests? I think we should complete all of the info. except the SS# on the request and see what we get.

  2. Bob1943 wrote:

    ………… I will then ask the DNC to explain why there were two different letters, one for Hawaii and one for the 49 other states.

    Think they will give me an answer? I wonder if anyone has called and ask this before?

    Epi Wrote; HI election law requires both the national and state party to submit a certificate/sworn statement that states the Presidential and VP candidates are “constitutionally qualified” before being allowed on the General Election ballot. It may not be required elsewhere. None of the statements for Gore or Kerry sent to the other states include this language either. The DNC HI Gore statement was updated and quite obviously it was typed in after the fact, while the Kerry statement looks just like what the other states received.

    What is interesting, is the HDP, purposely gutted the “constitutionally qualified” language from its 2008 certificate for Obama. I will not write it verbatim, but it effectively said that Obama was qualified simply because he won the HI caucus and the majority of the DNC delegates. Nowhere in the statement does it say he or Biden are “constitutionally qualifed”. The HDP statements for Gore and Kerry are identical and include this critical requirement.

    The big question thus, is what did the HDP know about Obama and when? Everyone is focused on the DNC certificate which complies with HI law when we should instead focus on the HDP statement. Both require the language and the latter should have been rejected by HI election officals and was not.

    The other obvious question is why create a separate certificate just for HI? What is the harm in sending an identical certificate to the states regardless of the language. Also, I do not believe the DNC sends this certificate to every state, just those that have such requirement. My state received no such statement; only a signed declaration from Obama and McCain prior to the primary election. One, I might add clearly states the candidate is criminally liable for pejury for providing a false statement.

    The HI elections officials and the HDP IMHO should be gone after in quest for the truth. There should be no privacy concerns. I do know the HDP has rebuffed all attempts to obtain clarification and the HI election officials have no logical explanation as to why it was not rejected. They broke their own elections laws by accepting something that clearly does not comply with its requirements.

    1. Thanks epicurious, that is very interesting. It should be pursued, and be a part of any lawsuit involving Obama’s eligibility. I think I will send an e-mail to Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo to see what they say about it. Sometimes I assume that the people who are bringing forth these lawsuits already have all the information that I obtain, I don’t think that is always true.

    2. Hawaii needs to either confirm that the COLB presented by Factcheck is valid and exactly matches the information within the vital records OR they need to declare an illegal forgery. The dancing must end. While the corrupt media can ignore facts and fail to investigate, government officials cannot. Government officials have a legal and fiduciary responsibility that cannot be ignored when open corruption is taking place. The officials from the DOH in Hawaii have stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obviously they are parroting what is in the official vital records that were filed in 1961. Unless they were physically present at the birth they have no other source on which to base that statement. No hospital, no doctor, no attending nurse – nothing. So the DOH’s statement obviously mimics what is in their records. What is in the records may have the appearance of fraud (‘filed with’ vs. ‘accepted by’) and maybe the backup documentation is highly suspect – no hospital records, likely just a sworn statement from Grandma. But the DOH is sticking with its statement that can only mimic what is on file in their records.

      But they know whether the Factcheck photos and document in those photos are authentic or not. And since they refuse to confirm the authenticity, it can only lead to the conclusion they are playing the “plausible deniability” game. But as government officials they should not be allowed to. They should be defending the records management and laws of the state of Hawaii by either declaring the document in that image completely authentic or state that it is a fraud.

      If you have records at DOH in Hawaii you should demand this of the officials. If they can play this loose and ignore forgery at this scale for this high a profile case, think what they could do with the mishandling or intentional releasing of information that is kept in your records. If someone forged your COLB and used it to steal your identity would the state of Hawaii care? Would they take action? Based on there action in this case the answer is probably not – they seem to not care if the law is broken and that official state records are forged under their watch.

    3. The other obvious question is why create a separate certificate just for HI?

      BINGO. Does anyone remember Justin Riggs? He was following it and eventually got the HI documents.

      1. Actually, why create a different certificate for the other 49 states or for whatever states require they receive one? From what I have reviewed, including a bonafide copy of the certificates from the HI election officials, HI has the most stringent requirement.

        Why not make HI the “gold standard” for everyone if that is all it takes to get a name on the ballot?

        Better yet a checklist/certificate:
        Birth Certificate Y/N
        Yrs of Residency Y/N
        Passport Records Y/N
        Military Records Y/N
        Employment Records Y/N
        Civil Records Y/N
        Criminal Records Y/N

        You get the idea.

  3. Mick, good points and, if you notice, they do NOT in their article anywhere tell you who visited the COLB in Chicago. They have two people who wrote about it, but no person that I know of has ever come forward to publicly admit to seeing, touching, examining that document. They took great care to hide the faces of the FactCheck representatives. Why won’t they come forward? You can guess why. Plausible deniability. If the truth turns out to be other than what they’ve stated, no indictment for fraud or conspiracy if it all goes south.

    Of course, these writers could be questioned in a court. It would be interesting to see if a court would rule that THESE bloggers aren’t journalists and so have no “free press” exemption from testifying or identifying sources.

    They’re bloggers. Not journalists. Not document experts. Partisan bloggers. The FACT that they do not respond to honest questions from readers and journalists proves their bias.

    1. The same situation may apply to why the DNC DID NOT certify their candidates as constitutionally eligible in 49 of the 50 states. The only one where they did was Hawaii. And that may have been the deal that led to the “natural born American citizen” statement from the DOH. They can point to the DNC document to back up their statement. The DNC can point to Hawaii’s statement as proof of Article II eligibility. But in the other 49 states that quid pro quo was not available, so why risk it – they ensured their liability of running an ineligible candidate was limited to his (supposed) home state.

      “Plausible deniability” – when you look for in this matter you find it in many places.

      1. I was thinking of calling the DNC tomorrow and telling them I am arguing about the two different Obama/Biden DNC certification letters with some wingnut birthers. I will then ask the DNC to explain why there were two different letters, one for Hawaii and one for the 49 other states.

        Think they will give me an answer? I wonder if anyone has called and ask this before?

      2. Mike,

        Oddly this isn’t that far fetched. I think that although this story has been talked about, it may in fact have the legs that we believe it does. I worry that much of the details of this sham are going to come out well after mattering for this presidency.

        The issue that is as large as Obama’s deception is the indictment of the main stream media. By showing the farce and simultaneously lack (however you’d like to put it) of coverage, we can definitively and finally show how ridiculous and biased the media is — to what lengths they go to be ignorant of their preferred candidates.

        This is probably more important for America than outing Obama. He is just a man that will pass when his time comes in November 2012; but the media is much further reaching and is a lot harder to poke holes in, as its web is spun throughout the world and is generally nameless, faceless.

      3. “Plausible deniability” and hedging – the certifications letters in cause came in two versions – version (A) the one with the “constitutional requirments fulfilled” was kept for DNC, inside circulation, while version (B) without this specification was sent out to states, where they were stamped as received, then filed, and the secretary of state triggered the election process –

        The Burgess bill would make this sort of DNC legerdemain impossible – show the birth certificate, buddy –

        And this is actually the true cause behind the Arizona immigration law brouhaha, which is carried by DNC/ WH proxies – they fear that the Arizona legislature will move ahead and pass the Burgess bill, fact that will cause the collapse of the castle of cards the DNC and the Obama built –
        So, they use the immigration law scandal as an intimidation tool –
        Hope it won’t work –

    2. Quote:

      “They have two people who wrote about it, but no person that I know of has ever come forward to publicly admit to seeing, touching, examining that document.”

      Did O’Reilly say he did…and then change his mind and say it was a “staffer”?

  4. Quite honestly when the birther movement first came out I was very skeptical about the whole thing. I just couldn’t imagine something of this massive significance could possibly have any merit. But as time goes on and the way the White House refuses to just simply release the original birth certificate… I now have my doubts. Why can’t they just release the hospital and attending doctor? The way this administration is readily acting to bring the USA into a socialist society I can see why they would want to hide his original place of birth. If this is proven to be true… Then their whole scheme becomes unraveled and everything falls apart for them. Everything! So please keep up the good fight no matter where it leads.

    1. Keep in mind that the original birth certificate cannot prove his eligibility — it can only further disprove it should it show a foreign birth. Even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama is still ineligible, and this is due to the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Obama was a dual citizen (British and US) at birth. Like a naturalized citizen, Obama was subject to a foreign power at birth.

    2. Oldwolves. glad you came around to recognizing something is wrong with Obama’s official birth story. I have had people laugh and say to me “the FBI checked all this out”, or “don’t you think Hillary would have checked this out”? The answer is basically; no one was doing the job the people thought they were doing. IMO Hillary did know before the election about Obama’s ineligibility. She even mentioned it a time or two…and then…silence. She was bought off, offered a job in the administration and/or perhaps even threatened.

      People should remember this about government in general; much of what you “think” they are doing is not being done, or is being done so incompetently it might as well not be done.

      1. What most people don’t realize is that confirming eligibility for those whose names are to be on the ballots is left to each party’s top dog. In the case of the DNC in 2008, that job went to Nancy Pelousy. Need I say more?

      2. Keep in mind that Hillary was close to winning the primary and probably didn’t think she needed to worry about Obama’s eligibility. Besides, Obama didn’t release his alleged COLB until AFTER he beat her. She wasn’t in a position to come back and try to challenge his eligiblity without it looking like sour grapes, plus she couldn’t have known he was going to release a questionable document.

        The other thing Obama did at the time was shift questions about eligiblity onto McCain. The senate resolution to declare McCain to be a natural born citizen happened about a month before Obama released his alleged COLB. The resolution focused on the question of whether someone born abroad could be considered a natural born citizen. Obama, claiming to be born domestically, completely threw people off track of his foreign national father. The emphasis on native-born overshadowed what it really means to be natural born. By the time anyone figured out that you need to be born of citizen parents, it was too late for Hillary … and McCain obviously didn’t want to focus on eligibility because of his own issues.

    3. This is an excellent post and excellent ending point. Many “mainstream” columnists who even give the concept of usurpation an acknowledgment without ridicule will say “it could lead to a constitutional crisis so let’s let it go.” The good fight must be fought until the actual facts and truth are reveled. To “let it go” would be to accept fraud and deceit and lawlessness as the way to ascend to power in our country. This cannot be tolerated if we are to remain a free republic.

  5. Besides the fact that Barry’s entire career is a fraud, a sort of Potemkiniade, his attitude in this affair shows that he really needs to hide his BC, i.e. he is not a legitimate USA president. Also, it is good to connect other dots in today’s political landscape – all the brouhaha raised by the liberals regarding the Arizona law is just a side move, aiming to intimidate and deter the Arizonians to pass the Burgess bill, bill which, if becomes law, will expose the Democrat party not only to defeat in 2012, but to further, generational despise for their gross disregard for this country’s best interests when inflicting a marionette like Barry Soetero as president –

    Support Arizona!

  6. Where did Mr. Polland’s posts/responses go?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Rather than submitting the information in Comments, he has been encouraged to prepare an editorial or investigative article so that the information is not shared piecemeal, but rather, in a manner which does his research the most benefit.

      1. I hope that Dr. Polland does write this up for us. I missed seeing his deleted comments; I would like to read them, if he doesn’t send an editorial or article.
        Mrs. Rondeau replies: We have invited Dr. Polland to put all of his thoughts and data together in an editorial or technical analysis.

  7. Mrs Rondeau,

    Here’s something more for the soup. I can’t verify the information that Ms Foxx states, but she does name a Fact Check employee, Devorah Adler, with specific ties to the Obama Campaign.

    Please follow the links suggested in the original to note how and when this story was “scubbed.”


    Chanise Foxx, free republic, FreeRepublic.com, March7, 2010, I helped Obama campaign staffer Divorah Adler create a fake birth certificate, Fact Check, COLB
    March 7, 2010 · 285 Comments

    Chanise Foxx, free republic

    *** Update below March 7, 2010, 10:06 ET ***

    The following comment was posted on this blog at 2010/03/06 at 10:13pm.

    “My name is Chanise Foxx. I work at a office supply store in Kenwood, IL. After nearly 3 years of silence and death threats to me and my family to stay quiet, I am compelled to come forward and tell the world my secret.
    “I helped Obama campaign staffer Divorah Adler create a fake birth certificate for use in the famous Fact Check story to prove the world of Obama’s birth in the 2008 election. Divorah approached me in early 2007 and held onto the birth certificate until she released it in August 2008.
    “As I’ve been making fake IDs part-time for local college students for about eight years now, faking a birth certificate was actually quite easy. Our first step was to get our hands on someone else’s birth certificate from Hawaii. We then created the stationary to match.
    “Next, we had to create an embossed stamp and rubber signature stamp for Hawaiian officials. With the help of a high-resolution scanner at the store, I did most of my work at night when the place was vacant…””

    “Devorah Adler
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Devorah Adler is a political consultant and opposition research specialist for the Democratic National Committee in the United States. A former Assistant Director for Health Policy during the Bill Clinton presidency, Adler later served as Director of Research for the Democratic National Committee in the 2006 election cycle, and served as Director of Research for the Barack Obama campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.[1]
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I had thought the Chanise Foxx angle had been debunked, but we will investigate.

    1. For crying out loud. At the original posting of this story, the post writer wrote the following.

      Granted it’s draft version 0.1, but here’s my stab at FICTION:

      My name is Chanise Foxx. I work at a office supply store in Kenwood, IL. After nearly 3 years of silence…


      CitizenWells should either post this information at the top of their blog post in which they helped spread this rumor or delete the blog post. As it is, this lie, debunked at the original by the writer himself and in the comments to the CitizenWells blog post, continues to spread.

  8. You’re kidding, right? You’re asking if Factcheck is honest and not a left-wing den of conspiracy? Factcheck is as corrupt as it gets, they were 100% in on the lie and the cover-up. Factcheck can’t respond to you, because they don’t check facts….they make them up.

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Again, the article was written to provoke thought and questions. Whatever conclusions are reached are up to each reader. I am glad that this is provoking discussion and additional research.

  9. Are the 2 Factcheck employees that inspected the COLB that “resides” at the Campaign headquarters document experts? If not, why is the report that they wrote taken with any validity at all. How do we know who’s hands are in those photos? Could a report by unqualified journalists on a website be taken as proof of anything, especially in a court of law? Are we in the twilight zone?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Good questions, all.

    1. I do not believe that “Factcheck” (lol) even took the pictures; they were taken by campaign lackeys and sent to FC. For this to have any legitimacy at all, the photo op should have included a “independent” media observation, document experts, and the names and statements of all involved.

      Despite the obvious bias, this could be why FC won’t touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. They were merely publishing what the regime told them to publish.

  10. Factcheck refused to respond to me or to correct their “Born-Alive Baloney” article when I showed them the exact agreement (Herbst-O’Malley) in which the State of Illinois agreed to never enforce their abortion law regarding survivors of abortion.

    The questions about the raised seal are vital also, because the “seal” showing on the page where Obama’s information can be seen (not the relief shot) doesn’t distort when the page fold “bends” the image. The “seal” remains round rather than flattening at the top like it should because of the fold. That strongly suggests that the seal was added electronically to the photograph. If so, then Factcheck was actually a PARTICIPANT in creating the forgery.

    Right now the folks at Factcheck should be deposed at the least, and possibly arrested.

    1. And Obama and Ayers worked for the Annenberg Foundation for 5 years together with a huge grant and matching funds, all to develop ways to indoctrinate youth into socialism.

    2. And then who makes contributions to the Annenburg Foundation? This is the org that was set up by Obama and Ayers. The contributions have to come from somewhere… Soros?… and who else is associated with the Tides Foundation?

    3. Sorry Mrs. Rondeau,I should have read what you said before I wrote my comment.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: No problem.


    Obama admits that he changed his name from Barry S. to Barack Obama while his was attending Occidential college. WOULD’NT THERE BE A RECORD OF THIS NAME CHANGE HAD HE DONE THIS LEGALLY?

    As we all know, a person can not legally just decide “I would like to be called Jane Doe” without going through the legal “name change” process. Obama admits that his step-father adopted him and that is how his name changed orginally from Barack to Barry. Something is fishy with this as well!

    1. The name change question should be pursed. School records in Indonesia show his name was Barry Soetoro. Upon his return to the USA, records also show he used the name Barry Soetoro for years. I think Obots are saying he was never adopted, but his parents just changed his name to Barry Soetoro while he was in Indonesia. Does anyone know if there is proof of adoption? Probably if there was an adoption, the records are sealed or destroyed.

      Records have been seached in the US to find a record of a legal name change back to Barack Obama, and none have been found.

      If Barry ever has another real news conference, someone should ask him if he legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama on his return to the States.

      Somehow though, I don’t believe that is going to happen. Of course if he didn’t change his name through legal means, everything he has signed is invalid.

  12. Factcheck is an Obama “truth in fiction” organization.
    Getting them to tell the truth is like “teaching a pig to dance”
    Fred Thompson said it best;
    “It’s a complete waste of time and irritates the pig”

  13. To bring it full circle:

    If what the KGB guy says is true in the Manning trial, then why have Obama and his lackeys been up to their own devices to produce fake documents and really bumble around in handling the whole COLB / DoH thing?

    It doesn’t fit. There’s no CIA conspiracy.

    This guy, Obama, an operative? Just think about it. Gimme a break. He’s a puny smoker who was never mentally mature enough to publish anything for Harvard Law Review, let alone be trusted by the CIA.

    Weak sauce.

  14. It has been my experience, and many other persons I know who have attempted to contact them, that FactCheck is absolutely unresponsive to anyone who challenges their so-called “objectivity” or who points out where they have failed to tell the whole story in any particular area. They absolutely cannot be trusted. They are very dangerous, because they claim to tell the unvarnished truth when in fact they are deeply biased in favor of defending Obama and his cronies at all costs. They do not even admit to the now scrubbed statement from Obama’s website that when he was born he was under the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act. If something is scrubbed from Obama’s website, that’s good enough for FactCheck, and they will tag along.

    FactCheck will continue stonewalling. That is what they do. They are shills for Obama.

    1. Yeah they are “all about Obama” and no they’ll probably never answer. But I love the idea that there are people who stand up to them and just bug em every once and awhile. Ya know? Just to say “hellloooo we’re watching!” Good job P&E.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, it never hurts to try.

      1. A lot of people are only now waking up from the Obamao Kool Aid they drank in 2008. This kind of reporting may be old news or reminders for the rest of us, but for them, it’s news and information they need.

        For what it’s worth, I assumed P&E News didn’t already know all of this but wrote it off to there being so many people and organizations involved and so much to know in regards to The Won. I’ve been following – no, studying – the sordid story since summer ’08 and I still learn “old” news about it often enough. I don’t expect any one source, no matter how informed, educated and involved, to know it all.

  15. QUOTE: (factcheck is) “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. .. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.” end of quote
    Reduce the level of deception and confusion?

      1. For your future reference, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, either, not when it comes to politics and political/politicized issues. The only thing I ever use Wikipedia for, and even then they’re not always correct, is to update the dates, albums, etc,. of my digital music files. Wikipedia’s disclaimers explain why they’re not reliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:About#Disclaimers

        I notice they’ve become aware of the fact that people like me point to their disclaimers as proof of their unreliability and so, in typical liberal fashion, they respond with, “Other encyclopedias have disclaimers, too!” However, they aren’t foolish enough to link to those encyclopedias’ disclaimers pages because the others don’t state this Wikipedia disclaimer: Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia by clicking on the Edit this page tab in an article.