If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Dr. Polland created this mosaic out of the 1,500+ scans, photographs, and test images he made from genuine COLBs and Obama’s COLB over the last two years. The person pictured in it has relentlessly attacked Dr. Polland, calling him a “fraud” who has “zero skills in digital imaging.”

(Jul. 21, 2010) — Dr. Ron Polland recently completed a comprehensive research investigation into the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. On June 12, 2008, nine days after Obama was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President, a scan image claimed to be his “original birth certificate” was posted on the Daily Kos, an ultra-liberal blog. It was also on this date that Dr. Polland looked at the image and thought, “This is not a genuine scan,” setting into motion the most intensive and exhaustive scientific evaluation ever conducted on a birth certificate facsimile.

Dr. Polland gave The Post & Email an exclusive interview during which he discussed his formal education and on-the-job training in scientific research and evaluation, film and digital photography, digital scanning, and the design and development of media for computer-based instruction. He discussed the two years of scientific inquiry and analysis that led him to his current conclusions about Obama’s Certification of Live Birth and the controversy surrounding it.

What Dr. Polland concluded was that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth does not exist and that the images and photographs posted online are fabricated fakes. The so-called COLB scan was made from two or more COLB images belonging to other people, he said, and that the COLB object shown in the photographs taken by Factcheck is a physically-fabricated “document” made from the Photoshopped COLB that was laser-printed on film and then attached to “security paper.”

Polland’s ongoing work includes writing a book on his research and producing videos in which he shares his discoveries and experiences with the rest of the world. Currently, there are a dozen videos compiled in a playlist for people to watch, either one at a time or all of them in one sitting.

His two-year long investigation began with a simple question: “Is the image posted on the Daily Kos a genuine scan of a genuine, paper Hawaiian COLB?” His immediate response was, “No, this is not a genuine scan.” Proving that, however, turned into a Herculean task as other pro-Obama groups came out in defense of the COLB image. Their stance was that the burden of proof rested with the people who doubted the veracity of the scan image – a rather ridiculous claim that is analogous to a person who makes a color copy of a $20, bill hands it to a shopkeeper who recognizes that it’s counterfeit, and when confronted, tells the shopkeeper that he has to prove it’s bogus before calling the police.

Factcheck.org posted its own image copy, virtually identical to the Daily Kos copy, which they also claimed was a genuine digital scan of Obama’s original birth certificate. Dr. Polland maintains that the document image shown on the Daily Kos, Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, and Obama’s Fight The Smears website is a fabricated scan image of a COLB, and that the document photographed by Factcheck.org is a fabricated mock-up of a COLB and shares his theory about how these were created.

Dr. Polland’s biographical statement is as follows:

Both of my parents were professional graphic artists. My father started his own graphic design studio, and for over 35 years, he created hundreds of new typefaces, many of which are still used in computers today.

My mother was an artist and innovator in photography. She and my father invented a revolutionary industrial camera, Statmaster, that could copy anything, from transparencies to objects, directly onto a wide range of media using photo paper, film, and even offset plates. Statmaster is a derivative of Photostat, which is still the standard for making accurate copies of important documents. The white-on-black images you see below are photostats of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates.

Introduction to the Statmaster brochure written by Dr. Polland’s father, Alvin Polland.

Thanks to my family, I developed an interest in photography at an early age. I also helped out at trade shows by demonstrating how easy it was to use the Statmaster: you know, “So easy, a child can do it?” Long before I got into digital imaging, I acquired a lot of experience in the world of analog imaging. My father gave me his Roliflex camera to use when I was eight. The Roli was a professional, dual-lens reflex camera that was pretty advanced for its day. I started taking pictures at eight years old and never stopped.

In 1970, I received a BA in Psychology. Back then, there were no jobs for psychologists with only a Bachelor’s degree, so I decided to return to college in the fall quarter and get a Master’s Degree in Psychology. The problem was that a lot of people had already applied to the program and I would have to put my name on a waiting list. I did not want to wait, and after doing some searching, I learned about a new, joint program between the Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Educational Research, Design, and Testing in the College of Education. This was a straight-through program in which I could earn a PhD in Educational Psychology. They had just started the program in the fall quarter. I applied and was admitted for the winter quarter, January 1971, marking only the second person to ever be enrolled in this program.

I spent the next four quarters taking the Psychology core curriculum, as all Psychology majors program were required to do, along with courses in Educational Research. Upon completing my coursework in Psychology, I was sort-of abandoned by my program adviser. I had no guidance as to where to go from there. I decided that I wanted to get out of the program with a Master’s Degree and start working in the real world.

My first choice was to teach undergraduates at Tallahassee Community College. To be accepted as an Instructor, I was told that I needed to become certified in Community College Instruction. I took an additional 18 semester hours for the Certification, which I was to learn afterwards meant absolutely nothing. The community college does not hire any instructor who does not have community college experience, certified or not. I had taught college students at FSU, but that, too, accounted for nothing because it was not “community college teaching.” After restarting my search I found a Psychology professor who provided the first real guidance I had ever had as a graduate student.

He suggested that I become certified as a School Psychologist.

A well-worn Statmaster brochure cover

Fifteen semester hours later, I became qualified and certified as a School Psychologist. Basically, at that time, I had the equivalent coursework for two Master’s Degrees: one in Education and the other in Arts & Sciences, However, I could  receive only one physical degree no matter how many hours of coursework I had.

Officially, I was awarded a Master’s Degree in Educational Research with a focus area in Statistics. Unofficially, I also had the equivalent of a Master’s Degree in Psychology with a focus area in School and Counseling Psychology.

My first job as a School Psychologist was an itinerant one in which I split my time between Jefferson County and Wakulla County. Eighty percent of the county populations were low-income families. From there, I wrote a grant that established the Adolescent and Child program at the Apalachee Community Mental Health Center, and I left the school system to become a Counseling Psychologist and Program Evaluator. While there, I developed the first training program for mental health paraprofessionals with 24 joining the pilot program. After working a few years in Mental Health, I decided to get my PhD in Psychology.

Once again, however, the slots were already filled up and I would have to be placed on a waiting list. That is when I checked back with the Department of Educational Research, which had reorganized and become the Department of Instructional Systems. I chose Instructional Media and Instructional Systems Design as my focus areas. The program in Instructional Systems was like being at home for me because of their strong emphasis on psychology and learning theory. The program had consistently been ranked in the top three nationally. At the time I attended, the Department was populated by some giants in the fields of Psychology such as Bob Gagne and Les Briggs; in Instructional Systems Design, Walter Dick and Walt Wager; and Program Evaluation with Roger Kaufman. Not to sound like an elitist, but my doctoral degree program was far more intensive, more demanding, more scientifically rigorous, and more comprehensive than any comparable doctoral programs offered today.

Since receiving my Bachelor’s Degree in 1970, most of my adult work life has been in providing direct services to low-income and minority communities, first as an Adult Education Instructor, then as a School Psychologist, a Mental Health Counselor, a Health Care consultant, and finally, as a Grant Writer and Program Evaluator for government and nonprofit organizations. I started my own international consulting firm and most of my professional consulting work has been with local, state and federal agencies and nonprofit corporations providing services to under-served and at-risk populations.

At the time I began writing about Obama’s COLB, I was working for a federal contractor, and it was for this reason that I chose to call myself “Polarik” after an old family name that was changed to something more anglicized upon arrival to America. Name-changing was a common practice among Europeans immigrants, especially those of Jewish descent. My work for the government would have been placed in jeopardy had I used my full legal name. Thus, “Polland” became “Polarik,” and most people were unaware of the depth and breadth of my professional expertise.

Everyone creates a user name when joining a blog or forum. No one is required to use his or her legal name in a forum or blog and virtually no one does. Nevertheless, the liberal contingent on blogs and forums went absolutely nuts when they could not find the name “Polarik,” on Google. One thing I learned about the people seeking to know my background is that they discount any useful skills learned while on the job. They say, “A job is where you go to apply a skill, not to learn one.” I could not disagree more. I became proficient in over 100 computer programs specifically because my daily work tasks required their use at an expert level.

In addition to learning new skills, I also acquired far more on-the-job knowledge of under-served, low-income and minority populations than I ever learned in eight years of college. For example, I knew nothing about Haitians and their culture until I started working with the Haitian Community in Miami as a Grant Writer and Program Evaluator for over two years. One thing I can tell you is that they are the most persecuted minority in Miami where they are disliked by whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

MRS. RONDEAU: Dr. Polland, you’ve spent the last two years conducting this exhaustive scientific investigation into Obama’s birth certificate, or rather, the images purporting to be copies of it. What got you started on this? When did you first believe that there was something wrong with the purported image of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth?

DR. POLLAND: From the first moment that I saw it posted, which was June 12, 2008, on The Daily KOS. I looked at it and said, “That’s not a genuine scan.” I immediately contacted Chelsea Schilling, a writer for WorldNetDaily, and asked her if WND would be interested in running a story on the birth certificate being manufactured. I knew Chelsea from the many Letters to the Editor I’ve sent over the years. The response I got back was that WND was not interested in running it. I did get a video of mine published in December 2008, but the Publisher still refuses to believe that the online COLB is forged.

MRS. RONDEAU: What led you to that conclusion?

DR. POLLAND: It was the appearance of the text relative to the border and the background that set off the alarm bells. The text in Obama’s COLB image is overly pixelated with white and grayish pixels between the letters and virtually no greenish pixels at all. The text itself has sharp, jagged edges and is much blacker than the other areas of black on the certificate. A real COLB is a laser-printed document consisting of green paper with a darker green pattern in it. Normally, when a real COLB document is scanned, there will be a preponderance of greenish pixels between the letters of text, and not gray and white.

These jagged edges of text are caused by two factors: one is that the text cannot be made by laser-printed text – which is vector text (text made from lines) but by bitmapped text (text made from pixels). The second is that the bitmapped text had been first blurred, and then sharpened by a process known as Unsharp Mask.

This is a trick that began in the old days of film cameras. The idea was to make one negative slightly out-of-focus and then place the original negative over it and make a positive from the two negatives. The blurry part of the subject appears as areas that are brighter than the original subject itself.

In other words, when these brighter areas created by blurring are combined with the darker areas of the slightly smaller original, and subject, it visually creates more contrast between the background and subject, and thereby makes it look sharper. The digital method basically does the same thing, but without the negatives. Too much sharpening creates what are known as “ringing artifacts” where the subject of the original image has what looks like blurred outlines ( “rings”) surrounding it. Instead of creating areas that gradually change from one brightness level to the next, there are abrupt changes.

The overly pixelated text in the COLB cannot be there and the artifacts that appear were caused by deliberate oversharpening of just the text. This artifact is not the same as ringing or “halos,” as Factcheck intentionally mislabeled them and called them “scanner artifacts.” These “artifacts were not caused by any naturally-occurring process – not from the scanner, not from the text, not from the background, and not from being a compressed JPG image. The pixelation shown is not a naturally-occurring artifact, but an intentionally manufactured artifact put there for specific reasons. You would never see this in the real world as a genuine scan.

In genuine scan images made by genuine scanners, you do have the ability to apply sharpening to the image – but that sharpening is applied to the entire image. There is no way for a scanner to make the text ultra-sharp, the border ultra-blurry, and the background somewhere in between.  The only way this can be done is by using a graphics editor, and that is why this COLB image was manufactured –which is what I said back on June 12, 2008.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long had you been studying or analyzing documents before the Obama image was posted?

DR. POLLAND: Let me answer your question in this way: the research problem created by Obama’s COLB image requires the application of specific skills and work experiences that go beyond what most people would call “document analysis.” Since we are talking about Obama’s COLB, we are really talking about a nonexistent document – that was my biggest conclusion. As far as analyzing actual document scans against their originals, I did that more than 35 years ago. There were two part-time positions I held while in college which are not listed on my professional resume for obvious reasons, in which I repetitively scanned documents pretty much the entire time I was working. In one of these positions, I was also extracting text from thousands of scanned document images using OCR (optical character recognition). In the early days of OCR, the text in the original documents had to be in a monospaced font, like Courier or Letter Gothic, for the program to correctly recognize it. I remember that I was constantly reviewing the scanned copies against their document originals and then to the text output for any errors. If I had a dollar for how many times the letter “B” was read as being the number “8” and the number “8” was read as the number “3,” I’d be a rich man.

Today, OCR can handle just about any font and pitch; however, there will always be misinterpretations of letters that the scanner copied incorrectly or incompletely.

My doctorate is in Instructional Systems with a focus area in Instructional Media. Scanning laser-printed documents and materials certainly qualifies as being media as well. Added to these are my experiences in photography that began in my childhood and continued on throughout high school and college in Photography classes. However, the research problem created by the COLB image goes way beyond the domain of document analysis.

Here is where I need to explain why there is more to this image than meets the eye.

To those who defend Obama’s birth certificate as being real, I remain an enigma. They do not believe that I am an expert qualified to analyze images because they define an expert according to the titles of one’s graduate degrees and their correspondence to his stated or imputed area of expertise. In other words, in the minds of the opposition, a person’s demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities has less to do with his expertise than the title of his degree program. Additionally, they may also insist that an expert must be “certified” by a professional accreditation agency for the same area of expertise, assuming that one even exists. In this case, there is no accreditation for image forgery experts.

Here is where Obama’s apologists go astray: they believe that a person’s paper credentials imply both credibility and capability. The broader the title of the expert’s graduate degree, the broader are the expectations for that expert to meet. For example, the Obama defenders declared that Dr. Neal Krawetz is a “real” expert in image analysis based primarily (or solely) on the title of his PhD, which is “Computer Science.” They never visited his website and examined his credentials and any professional work products available, whereas I had. Basically, they have no idea where his expertise lies, but they automatically assume that having a PhD in Computer Science gives someone the ability to do anything involving computers.

Conversely, when they encounter an unfamiliar degree title, they will arrive at all sorts of conclusions about the degree program, except for the right one. I am a person who does not fit their profile of an expert because I have excelled in several fields of study over a 40-year professional work history, earning Masters’ and Doctoral degrees covering several focus areas, and two certifications in separate fields of practice as well. However, because the pro-Obama defenders are convinced that the research problem only requires document analysis or image analysis, and that since they did not find the phrase “image analysis,” or “document analysis” in my resume or affidavit, then they concluded that I am not qualified to assess the authenticity of the COLB images.

They rely on the perceived typology of the research problem and my degree titles to judge me, rather than looking at my expertise based on my extensive knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired and applied in past situations that are analogous to the present situation.

Here is what I mean as to how they select a “credentialed expert” based on the topology of the problem and not on the skills required to solve the problem:

Because Obama’s birth certificate is a document represented by an image – therefore, only an image analysis expert can tell us if the birth certificate image is a genuine scan. In addition, since the original is a document, only a document analysis expert can tell us if it is a genuine document.

When I concluded that the COLB image was not a genuine scan and that no such COLB document exists in the “real world,” it took the crux of the problem from out of the realm of document analysis and out of the realm of image analysis and thrust it into the realm of “How can a nonexistent document in the real world exist only in a virtual world yet be accepted as if it is an existing document in the real world?” Once you conclude that Obama’s COLB is a nonexistent document, then everything based on it also becomes nonexistent; that is, a fallacy.

When I came out with my first report entitled, “Was Obama’s birth certificate manufactured?” with the hypothesis that it was not a genuine scan irrespective of the content, other people around the blogosphere also identified anomalies in the image which discounted it as being genuine. For example, about a dozen people on the Hot Air blog identified the same anomalies as I did. In fact, there was somebody very intrepid on The Daily KOS blog who voiced the same concerns and was run off immediately by the pro-Obama Cossacks.  What it does show is that I was not the only one who saw the anomalies. Unfortunately there was a pair of experts who made people think that they had the answers to the question of “Is Obama’s COLB a forgery?” only to be uncovered as a prankster and a fraud.

The prankster was named Jay Mckinnon, and he initially claimed responsibility for making the forgeries. Basically what he did was to take the COLB image, cover up the text with copied pieces of the background – that were crudely cut and easily detected – and then admit later that he had lied about making the forgery. Other people have also used this method and claimed it as the method used to create the forgery. However, the only thing that people had done was to make a forgery from a forgery. It is like telling someone that you can make him a millionaire if he brings you $2 million first.

Then there was the infamous TechDude with whom I was urged to work by a Hillary supporter whose blog name was TexasDarlin. Techdude reneged on his promise to work with TexasDarlin and me and went off on his own to do an “exclusive” story for AtlasShrugs on July 20, 2008. He disappeared for awhile after claiming that someone stuck a dead rabbit in his mailbox. When he popped up again, he paired himself off with TexasDarlin to do their own “exclusive.” After making a promise to post his final-final report, his credibility was blown by Israel Insider and others. It turned out that he was trying to pass himself off as a real computer forensics expert by using the credentials of someone else. Then, he simply disappeared. The last nail in the coffin for TechDude was when I finally received a copy of a real 2007 COLB and posted it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Didn’t you help Orly Taitz, Esq. early on by doing some analysis?

DR. POLLAND: Yes, I was helping out all of the eligibility lawyers.  I had sent affidavits to her, to Apuzzo, to Thomas Smith, to Alan Keyes, so everyone had my affidavit.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did your affidavit go in with their lawsuits?

DR. POLLAND: Yes, it did.  However, there was only one that actually had my real name on it, and unfortunately, I regret sending that one out, because that was how it became revealed.

MRS. RONDEAU: Could you have signed the affidavit with a pseudonym?  Is that acceptable to a court?

DR. POLLAND: What people did not know is that there were two sets of affidavits produced:  one for the courts and one for the internet and public consumption. The agreements that I had with the lawyers were to submit, under court seal, my genuine credentials along with my notarized signature. I stated on the first line of the affidavit that I was using the name “Ron Polarik” because of security concerns. I signed my full legal name on the last page and had it notarized on all affidavits submitted to the courts. The others posted on the Internet were unsigned, and in one case, the attorney asked me to place “X’s” on the signature line – one X per letter in my name. I knew that I would catch some flak over it.

When the first affidavit was posted on Phil Berg’s site, the Obots were going over it, line by line, like vultures stripping a carcass, trying to literally interpret every jot and tittle on there. They were trying to discredit me and put me in the same little box as they had Techdude. So, I decided to have a little fun with them. With each successive online affidavit, I made little changes to my degree titles to jerk them around. I also did this to prove how they were basing all of their assumptions and conclusions on a literal reading of my actual degree titles as I described above.

I fully expected them to say, when they saw the different degree titles, that I was lying about my credentials. What is particularly amusing is that I was not making outlandish changes to them, but ones that could have been awarded had I made some small course corrections in my career. For example, in one I said that I received a PhD in Educational Psychology, which was not that far from the truth because that is the doctoral program I was in when I completed my core curriculum and comprehensive exam. I also said that my Master’s was in Statistics – which is more descriptive of what I studied than “Educational Research,” which is a program title. Some of my critics, in fact the most vocal, have never been to college, let along know the differences among a program name, a program major, and a focus area.

Needless to say, the critics did not disappoint me with their mindless literalism.

After WND turned me down, I created a blog, http://polarik.blogtownhall.com, and started posting my reports on it. I chose to use the name “Polarik” because it was simple and easily recognizable.

A few days later, I searched for a forum to join to discuss the birth certificate issues raised by images posted on the Daily Kos, Fight the Smears, and Factcheck. I joined the Sean Hannity forum on June 16 and posted my “Manufactured” report. Almost immediately, three members cracked on me, saying that the only reason I joined was to publish my report. That was probably the best thing to happen to me, forum-wise, because I discovered and joined Free Republic where they welcomed me with open arms.

When the Obots asked me who I am, I said, “My first name is Ron, and my last name is my father’s family name.” The Obots immediately rushed to look up “Polarik” on Google, and when they could not find that name listed, they came back on and called me a fraud. They said that “I don’t exist!” I replied, “Cogito Ergo Sum” (I think, therefore I am). Believe it or not, in the two years during which I was writing under the name “Ron Polarik,” not a single individual had ever asked me the very simple question, “Is this your legal name?” I would have said, “No, it’s not” In turn, I never said that Ron Polarik was my legal name at any time.” I was asked if “Polarik” was a real name, and I answered in the affirmative. Of course it was a real name – it just was not my legal name.

These libelous liberals acted as if it was mandatory that I post my full legal name, my personal data, my work history, and everything that I’ve written that was peer-reviewed! Now, if I really wanted to hide my identity, I would have chosen a really cool username, like, say, Dr. Conspiracy, Sluggo, Curiosity, or Koyaan, for example, but they were already taken, and coincidentally, by the same people cracking on me for using my name.  The bottom line is that my Obot critics were trying to dig up any dirt on me to discredit me. They could care less about my expertise, assuming they could find it using their mental models.

All of them, however, pale, by comparison, to the most clueless, irresponsible, deceitful, egotistical, and flat-out fraudulent person in the history of the Internet. He’s the one who made himself out to be a folk hero by claiming that he “outed” me. Had I never written my legal name on that one affidavit, my identity would still be unknown. Once my legal name was made public, a monkey could have Googled it and found out all that I have done in my 45 years of adulthood.

MRS. RONDEAU: I remember seeing his name on some of the blogs…I believe The Right Side of Life?

DR. POLLAND: If you saw the name “Loren,” then you did. Loren is Loren Collins, aka Mosaic Man.  He claimed I was a liar and a fraud on the basis of what someone else told him, but passed it off as being his own discovery. A person whose sole motive is to discredit someone else is a person who will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it – especially when that someone thinks he is way smarter than I am. Those on the Left who wish I were a fraud have resorted to fabricating images and claiming I made them, to misinterpreting my research, to pulling my words out of context and attaching their own spin on them, to attributing words and deeds to me that were never said or done. Mr. Collins, here, has done all of those things and also crossed the line into hate speech, character assassination, and outright fraud. He had someone else write all of the posts attacking me. He made readers think that he wrote them all, when in reality, he had a ghost writer do them.

Loren has no graphics skills whatsoever and his knowledge of the birth certificate issue comes directly from Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, and others. You might think that Loren would pick someone with credentials and capabilities to critique my research, but you’d be wrong.

Loren’s choice to be his ghost writer was my Internet psychostalker, Steve Eddy. From late in July 2008 onwards, Eddy had been tracking me, seeing which blogs and forums I joined, and then getting on them just to trash me. On some which I did not join, he was already there telling people “to watch out for him” because I’m “dangerous.” The nine nasty and libelous posts that he created for Loren – which Loren portrayed as being his own – were just like the dozen or so nasty and libelous posts Eddy made between July and December 2008. Loren, who has no knowledge or skills of any kind in graphics or photography, turned his blog over to someone who has no credentials of any kind – no college degrees, no formal training in graphics, no formal training in photography – and who launched a personal vendetta against me that has been going on for the last two years. Besides the lack of any credentials, Eddy has never made a single, original digital image that he can claim as his own. He used my images with abandon, but he never created a digital scan or a digital photograph, let alone scan and photograph a real COLB of his own. He makes custom cables for a living, so if anyone needs to get wired, he’d be the one to see.

MRS. RONDEAU: I noticed that there were other people on the internet who were trying to discredit you – someone frequently mentioned on other blogs.

DR. POLLAND: That person is Dr. Neal Krawetz and the link you provided goes to my other blog. He’s the “image analysis expert” I mentioned above. He has a PhD in Computer Science but his expertise is in computer security, according to the credentials he posted on his website. What he does not have listed in those credentials is the word, “image,” or the word, “forgery,” or the phrase, “image analysis.” He proclaimed himself an image analysis expert, and is worshipped by liberals as the Image god who can lay waste to all those terrible “Birthers.” The irony of that is if Krawetz had used the same criteria on his own credentials as he used on mine; that is, looking for keywords, he would have to call himself a fraud! Krawetz had a field day with Techdude’s final report given how many things in the report were obviously false or near impossible, or was simply a bunch of baloney. Krawetz had a lot of company, however, from other TechDude critics with far fewer credentials and fanfare.

Krawetz thought he could do to me what he did to TechDude, but he was in for a rude awakening as I totally destroyed his “analysis” of my final report – which he never read – nor have any of my other critics. The second time around, he did read some of it, but he still interpreted it all wrong. I mean, you don’t have to know anything about graphics to know this is not right: he made a scan of black and white text on a magazine page and presented it as being comparable to a scan of laser-printed text on green-patterned, security paper. It’s like comparing apples to tennis balls. His entire knowledge of the birth certificate controversy is Politifact, Factcheck, and Hawaii, Chapter and Verse. The liberal double-standard extends to this realm as well.

Krawetz began his screed by stating that “true researchers should show all of their work to the public and have it peer-reviewed.” However, all that Krawetz provided in his analysis of the Daily Kos image were his opinions, not facts or any physical evidence.  In his critique of my research, Krawetz offered this highly scientific conclusion: “What can I say except that Polarik is wrong.” I knew that PhD of his would come in handy. It took months of prodding by people on his forum for him to reveal the output of his black-box analyses – you know, you run an image through a software program and it spits out the results. Been there, done that.

There is something definitely different in the way liberals process information versus conservatives, and discovering what those differences are proved fruitful in my analyses of Politifact and Factcheck.

MRS. RONDEAU: One of the things that fascinated me about your research was the recent statement on your video that Janice Okubo’s Certification of Live Birth was used to create Obama’s.  What made you come to that conclusion?

DR. POLLAND: (Laughs) That’s something I reveal in my book, but I can tell you that it came to me after re-discovering that the COLB image was the product of at least two COLBs. I say “re-discovering” because in the process of reverse-engineering the COLB, I confirmed that the border was made separately from the rest of the COLB. Not only was the border separate from the background, but the background was also separate from the text, and vice-versa. I also hypothesized that none of the COLBs used belonged to Obama because Hawaii refused to confirm that they produced one, and my analyses of Factcheck’s photos confirmed that Obama’s COLB only exists as a fabrication. I decided to reverse-engineer the COLB to determine the steps taken to produce it and then to follow those steps in recreating the actual forgery. None of this was easy at all. People who think it’s a horrible forgery have no idea how hard it was, although they would get a sense of it by watching the videos I made. It took six intensive months to figure out how to reproduce this thing.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did you complete that process?

DR. POLLAND: Yes.  In fact, I just put online the second part of my instructional video, which only about 430 people have watched.  I suspect that’s probably because it’s too technical. The third in the series will be posted soon.

MRS. RONDEAU: I have to admit that I haven’t watched that one, although I’ve seen all of the others.

DR. POLLAND: The basic steps in creating the COLB are contained in the following process:  You create individual text layers that are combined to make one layer that is transparent everywhere except the text. It is analogous to printing on a film transparency that will be used in an overhead projector. The next step is to create the background, the “security paper,” and lastly the borders – which is the hardest step of all. When the fake COLB was made for Factcheck’s photos, it was like repeating these basic steps but without the need to make a background.

The background would be the security paper, and I have theorized that the forger scanned a blank sheet of security paper and used that as the background. Since I do not have a blank sheet, I created the next best thing. That is a story by itself just as the creation of the border was a project by itself.  Once the Photoshop was complete, it was printed on clear film, a special laser film that has an adhesive backing, and I demonstrated the process in two of my videos. I showed how to recreate the Photoshop image, print it onto the film, pull the film off its vinyl backing, and then stick it to paper. When it dries, it looks as if it’s a regular laser-printed sheet of security paper.  The seal in the photos looks like a real seal, but it has a noticeable defect in it. Someone on the inside of the DOH provided the security paper and also the Seal. The Seal looks genuine but it is defective – if you look at the “N,” there is no crosspiece.  It looks like two “I’s. ” The fact that Factcheck deliberately cropped it out of the photos on the reverse side should convince people that the Seal shown on the back is not the same one shown on the front.

As for who is the mole in the DOH, I had suspected Fukino of being such, but I said, “It has to be Fukino or Okubo, because they’re the only ones who have spoken for the Health Department.”  Of course, Alvin Onaka has to be involved in this, but he has remained silent.

MRS. RONDEAU: You may have read a few months ago that The Post & Email received records of some emails between employees of  the Hawaii Health Department which indicated that they had been “checking people out” on the internet before they decided whether or not they’d answer them.

DR. POLLAND: Hawaii has circled the wagons and no one is getting in. They are looking for ways to shoot down public inquiries any way they can. I had called Onaka back in October 2008 and posed as a genealogist. They were tight-lipped back then as well. The only way I got any information was to not talk about Obama. I wanted to find out about COLBs, what things mean, and…will somebody stop with this “Date Accepted” vs. “Date Filed”?  The answer to that is plain and simple, and I’ve said it a million times, and people keep going back to it.  So that was one question I asked him, and then I asked him at the end, “Is it true that Janice Okubo confirmed that you produced Obama’s COLB?” and he said, “No.  No one has confirmed that.”

MRS. RONDEAU: And you spoke to Dr. Onaka directly?

DR. POLLAND: Yes.  I had this information, but I had nothing else to go with it. The way I work is that I collect evidence until I have a comprehensive picture of what’s going on that has redundancy, then I’ll release it, because I know I made a lot of mistakes early on by jumping the gun. These two years have been a learning experience. I started out with no comparable COLBs and now I have nine. Getting the information I needed was next to impossible because people are so afraid of being found out in Hawaii; it’s a small place. So I was lucky to get the samples that I did.

Early on, I knew that someone else’s COLB had been used for everything below the first fold line.  There’s something else, too, because people were approaching it as if this was a terrible forgery, and at some point, I realized, “No, this is actually a very cleverly-designed thing, designed to frustrate people.”  It intentionally has one fold in it, which does not exist in the real world.  But there’s another reason why, and that is because the second fold goes right across the father’s name, either above it or below it or right through it, and the forger had to use an unfolded COLB.  The only place to get an unfolded COLB is in Hawaii.

MRS. RONDEAU: Because they print them there?

DR. POLLAND: Yes.  Here’s where the “Date Accepted” and “Date Filed” come in:  They went to a computerized system whereby all of their branch offices tie in directly to the mainframe, to the main computer.  So they can get online, make an entry directly into the mainframe computer – it doesn’t have to go through any other bureaucratic procedures – they have authority.  If, for example, somebody wants a birth certificate, they’ll go in and get that and pull it back out, so you won’t find any COLBs made today that say “Date Accepted.”

I believe they started this in 2004. They were one of perhaps 11 states that were part of this new system that was being pilot-tested where you could actually have drivers’ license offices get into the mainframe and find out if the information presented matched the person’s birth certificate information on file.  So the system changed; there was no more “accepting,” because it’s going directly into the birth records themselves.  All they have to do is “file” it, and once they file it, it’s automatically accepted, as long as it matches what’s on the record.

MRS. RONDEAU: So you think there’s really no difference between “filed” and “accepted?”

DR. POLLAND: It is a procedural difference only.  It has to do with the centralized system of database connections that made the change so that the outlying offices in the islands could all tie in to the same mainframe, and, as I said, so that people could get same-day service on birth certificates, and those who work in drivers’ license offices can tap into the mainframe and check, for example, your name against your birth certificate.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think the officials in Hawaii appear to be protecting Obama?  Are they protecting themselves, him or both?

DR. POLLAND: They’re protecting a lot of people. Obama must have something on Fukino. Or, it could just be a matter of money. Are you familiar with Neil Abercrombie?

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes.  He was a U.S. representative from Hawaii and is now running for Governor.

DR. POLLAND: He’s been doing a lot to get monies for native Hawaiians by getting them declared a “tribe.”  By doing that, they would be treated as a separate entity and be able to negotiate with the federal government.  We’re talking about a lot of money and a lot of land on which they would receive kickbacks. I think a couple of things are going on:  One, there may be blackmail because there are people in Hawaii who maybe had parents who never were naturalized.  They brought in a lot of immigrants from Asia to work on the plantations and not everyone went on to be naturalized.  I have heard from several sources that when they became a state, they started making citizens out of all the people who went there as immigrants, but who never bothered to go through the cumbersome naturalization process. Why? Federal money, that’s why. When the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed, Hawaii’s welfare rolls swelled accordingly.  In 1961, they had four different types of birth certificates.  You know about those, right?

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, I do.  I believe in 1982 they added a fifth way to get one.

DR. POLLAND: Yes, they did.  What I know from other people is that Obama was never born in any hospital anyplace in Hawaii.  He was not born in Hawaii, for starters.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you know that for a fact?

DR. POLLAND: If you follow everything that has happened to date and every bit of information gathered, you come away with the conclusion that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. never were in Hawaii at the same time – certainly not between February 1961 and August 1961. I know that for a fact and some other things which I can’t say right now.  I’m working with other people, so I have to maintain confidences.  But now that Tim Adams has come out and said that there’s no long-form birth certificate, what bothers me is that there may not be a long-form, but there might be one of these other forms of birth certificates. Or, a birth certificate from another country.  The official birth narrative has less credibility than some of the narratives that liberals call “conspiracy theories!”

MRS. RONDEAU: Didn’t Tim Adams also say that he is sure Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii because of the lack of a long-form birth certificate?

DR. POLLAND: Yes, he said that, but what he said afterward was that if Obama was born in Hawaii in a hospital, he would have a long-form birth certificate.  But, then he concludes that Obama could not have been born anywhere in Hawaii – which is patently false. If Obama was delivered by a midwife at home and it was reported as “delayed” or “late,” he would not have the long-form birth certificate – he would have an abbreviated form instead.

MRS. RONDEAU: Because there wouldn’t necessarily have been a witness?

DR. POLLAND: Not an actual eyewitness – Madelyn Payne could have claimed that she was a witness to the birth. By August 1961, Madelyn was well-known in the community. And the other thing, too, is the amendments made to the birth record. Any amendment that becomes a part of the permanent record gets printed every time a birth certificate is produced from that record. Those amendments are damning in and of themselves because they would show that Obama had a name change at least twice. Also, the big deal is “Are they his parents or not?” A lot of people have speculated about it, and I created a morphing of Obama’s face with Malcolm X’s face to show the similarities. I notice the similarities in the way they speak.  For that matter, I’ve noticed the similarities in the way Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright preach. It is rather remarkable.  It’s as if they all came out of the same school for proselytizing black liberation. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense.

So there are people who don’t believe that Obama Sr. was his father because, as I said, he and Ann Dunham did not hook up in Hawaii. There are people who have come forward and said that they never saw this woman, Stanley Ann, around the time of Obama’s birth. In fact, I don’t think anyone saw her after February 1961.  There is a photo of Stanley Ann taken on the beach in the Summer of 1961, and she does not look the least bit pregnant. I looked at the so-called divorce papers that they put online, and I noticed that the signatures were forged.

Someone sent me a copy of Stanley Ann’s social security form, and that was forged, too.  The way it’s looking, to tell you off-the-cuff, is that not only is the father not who he is supposed to be, but also the mother.

MRS. RONDEAU: I’ve heard that theory as well:  that neither one of them is actually his parent.

DR. POLLAND: Yes.  I’ve felt all along that that’s probably more of a deal than the place of birth thing.  I distinctly remember Obama or one of his operatives saying that “It would be embarassing to Obama if the original birth certificate were made public.” My response would be, “Ya Think?”

If that’s the case, that his parents are not the same as he has said, then he wants to keep that hidden at all costs. That would be the thing that would bring the house down if it ever came out, because his entire birth narrative is built upon them.  If it turns out that his real father is someone who was a controversial figure, that is certainly motivation to hide it, too.  If he has a fraudulent history, which he does, obviously, since he’s hiding all of his records, he’s trying to do as much as he can before it’s found out, I guess.

MRS. RONDEAU: You have said that you absolutely know for a fact that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

DR. POLLAND: I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii –nor is it my intention to do so. What I’m talking about are crimes. Felonies. About the commission and conspiracy to commit government document fraud, interstate commerce fraud, wire fraud, and forgery.  If I were a state’s attorney, I would not need absolute proof of his birth somewhere else because the crimes have been committed regardless. All I would need is probable cause to charge him, and I have that. If this were a genealogy project, then I would need proof of birth. As an aside, I have no interest in seeing Obama’s long-form, short form, or any form of birth certificate because the crimes have already been committed and all the evidence collected.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that there’s any record that he was born in some other state in the U.S.?

DR. POLLAND: If he was born on U.S. soil and there was proof of it, there would not be this controversy. I don’t believe that he was born in any hospital in the United States. If he was a home-birthed baby, then it would damage his birth narrative but not seriously enough to derail it. If his birthplace were controversial, something as explosive as having parents other than who they are said to be, then, sure, the birth place would be something that you’d want hidden as well.

The way it looks is that he was not born in a hospital.  We can rule that out.  I also doubt that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, because I doubt that Obama Sr. is his biological father. Fifteen days after Obama is born, Stanley Ann takes him to Seattle where she starts college classes and does not return to Hawaii until after Obama Sr. has already left. So, the story about his father leaving him after two years is garbage – yet, he’s gotten away with it. Neither hospital in Honolulu will confirm or deny that Obama was born there, yet Obama and his handlers claim that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital after previous claims that he was born in Queens Hospital.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think he was born anywhere in Kenya?

DR. POLLAND: No, I don’t. Did you catch a part in my video (or maybe see the post) where I show a screen capture taken of Snopes.com in April 21, 2008, where they say he was born in Kenya? They had also listed Queens Hospital, too. One thing is certain – there is nothing that actually proves Obama was born in Hawaii. As far as I’m concerned, I can posit another place of birth for Obama and there will be no absolute proof that I am wrong.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any ideas of where that could be?

DR. POLLAND: My first choice is an Arab country in North Africa. Second choice is Ghana.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why is that?

DR. POLLAND: Because of where this individual was who may be his father.

MRS. RONDEAU: Have you done some research into that?

DR. POLLAND: Yes, but the bulk of that research is being done by other people.  If, in fact, the father wasn’t Obama Sr., whom could it be, and what about the timing and everything?  The preponderance of evidence collected so far will allow us to say, with 95% certainty, that he was not born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  The whole charade that went on with the Senate’s non-binding resolution for John McCain was a setup for Obama. This was a way to get the natural-born issue off the table in the coming election. That was totally staged for his benefit.  I recently read the resolution itself and there were two statements in it that I flagged:  one was “and Senator Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4 and it would be terrible for him not to be president if…”— that sort of thing — if, for example, Hawaii wasn’t considered a state in 1961, or if he was born two years earlier. They were using this hypothetical scenario to plant the idea that Obama was born in Hawaii on the date known.  Then, there was the last part of the resolution addressing the 14th Amendment, which created a new class of citizens, “native-born,” and does not apply in any way to the meaning of “natural born Citizens” vis-à-vis Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Then, of course, the whole attack on McCain that I highlighted in my first video was preplanned as well, beginning in February 2008 and lasting all the way to September 18.

MRS. RONDEAU: That was an excellent video.  Before I saw it, I didn’t know there were so many articles written questioning McCain’s eligibility.  I knew there were a few, including Jonathan Turley’s, but not as many as you showed.

DR. POLLAND: WND loved that, too. Unfortunately, that was the only part of my videos they wanted to run. I declined the offer. How is it that so many people had no idea McCain’s citizenship was being challenged, and at the same time as Obama’s? How is it that they missed it in 1998 and again in 2000?

MRS. RONDEAU: If this came up about McCain back then, why wasn’t anyone allowed to bring up anything about Obama who arguably had more questions about his “natural born” status than did McCain?

DR. POLLAND: The media had already fallen in love with Obama going back to 2004 and maybe all the way back to 1995 when he ran for the U.S. Senate. I’ve heard journalists mention that. Obama was the up-and-coming star in the Democrat Party and everyone wanted to hitch a ride on that star. Journalists are liberals with few exceptions. Journalists are also nostalgic for communism, so they were really hoping and praying that Obama would be elected – that and being a part of “history” in the election of the first “African-American President.”  They did everything they could to make that happen. They intended to squelch every single negative story about Obama, no matter how newsworthy they were. The MSM predominantly attacked McCain and Palin, casting them in the most negative light possible. They glorified coverage of Obama so much, there was more gushing in the newsroom than in the Gulf of Mexico. The MSM engaged in deliberate voter suppression, posting early results with false numbers, exit polls with false numbers, knowing full-well that people on the West Coast had not voted yet. They were doing everything possible to keep people from not voting for Obama.

(Editor’s Note: Just yesterday, various reports surfaced that many “liberal” journalists might have conspired to prevent airing footage about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former controversial pastor, which supports Dr. Polland’s contentions stated above.)

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the big media knew that Obama did not qualify constitutionally?

DR. POLLAND: If they did, then they sure did not care. Not one iota, I can tell you that.  He could have been born on Mars and they still wouldn’t have cared because he would be the first black president, and they wanted to be a part of that history – revisionist or not. Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that listening to Obama sent a thrill up his leg and that it would be his job to help Obama.

Obama would have had to have been something really horrible, like a serial killer, for the media to lower that pedestal  on which they placed him. As I said, the liberal media love communism. They think Mao is a genius.  They bought into this whole liberal utopia idea that somehow everybody else who’s tried socialism and failed did it wrong…that if we can get it right, then everyone will live in harmony because there won’t be any disparities among people anymore. You won’t get rewarded for doing a better job than the next guy – no incentive to do so also because he’ll be getting your tax money as they “spread the wealth around.” Why is it that Obama and his Demo’Rats want to spread your money around but not theirs?

MRS. RONDEAU: History has shown that that’s not the way the world is.  Communism seems to have permeated the media, hasn’t it?

DR. POLLAND: It goes back to the McCarthy Era.  At the beginning of the Cold War, they were all over the place, in journalism and Hollywood. However, they were successful in demonizing Joe McCarthy and the hearings he held, when, in reality, he was helping America, not destroying it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think they were using the Saul Alinsky method against McCarthy even back then?

DR. POLLAND: Absolutely!  Alinsky was born in 1909 in Chicago – where else? – and he was greatly influenced by Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and Stalin in the ’40’s and 50’s.

MRS. RONDEAU: Was Rules for Radicals published then?

DR. POLLAND: Rules for Radicals came out in 1971, one year before his death. I have the book and read it twice.  Do you?


DR. POLLAND: It should be required reading for every conservative in the country because with it one can see how the media has used some of his “Rules” against conservatives. The pejorative “Birther” is straight out of Alinsky’s Rule Book. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense for it.” Liberals got that part but failed to read the caveat that followed it:  “Never laugh at those you ridicule.”

MRS. RONDEAU: You mentioned the website Politifact quite a bit in one of your videos.  Why did they focus on Obama’s middle name not being “Mohammad”?

DR. POLLAND: They didn’t just focus on it; they invented it. They used it to hide the truth about Obama.

MRS. RONDEAU: On their website, they showed what was purported to be his marriage certificate and his driving record.  Do you think those two documents are authentic?

DR. POLLAND: A birth certificate is a “breeder” document.  With that, you can get a driver’s license, a social security card, and a marriage license – you can do pretty much anything with a birth certificate.  That’s why it’s one of the first things that identity thieves try to get.  Hawaii has the worst security measures for preventing that kind of theft, especially when they came out with the 2008 COLB.  It was the easiest one to copy. It had none of the advanced security features that other states have incorporated in their certificates. For example, one with the security features used in other states causes a watermark to appear in any copies made of it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why hasn’t Hawaii implemented such a system?

DR. POLLAND: I don’t know why.  They have been ranked in the top four, nationally, for identity fraud. They’ve been using the same green paper now as they did in 1961.  The background pattern tends to break up, but not to the point where it indicates it’s a forgery. I’ve printed off a laser copy of just the background because I had to create my own for reconstructing the COLB.  So I printed just the background pattern onto a sheet of green paper on the laser printer, and after printing a Photoshopped COLB on it, it looks close to the real thing. The paper they used in 2007 and 2008 was very thin.  They have since thickened it for 2009 COLBs; I say “2009” even though they sport a revision date of 10/08.
Hawaii does not issue new COLB formats in mid-year – they begin at the start of the calendar year. From 2001 until 2007, the only thing they changed was the border patterns, and not every year – it is more like every two years. But, this new “Certificate of Live Birth” first came out in January 2009, and Hawaii made a few significant changes to it. They changed the thickness of the paper, they added the birthplace of the mother and father, and they shifted the headers in the masthead.

MRS. RONDEAU: We published an article based on a Certificate of Live Birth which had come from Hawaii to a requester to us, and it stated the birthplaces of the parents.  I know Obama’s did not have that.

DR. POLLAND: The only COLB produced for Obama was one fabricated for him.. There’s something else, too.  They radically changed the 2008 COLB.  They radically changed it, and there was absolutely no reason for them to do so unless they had a particular problem with a forgery in 2007.  Why would you change a design that you’ve used successfully for seven years?  They had been alternating borders; they essentially kept the format the same, and then in 2008 they changed the positions of the text; they made the border wider, and they put in a simple open hatch pattern, a black thing that copies exactly.

What kind of security measure is that?

Why they did this in 2008 does not make a whole lot of sense unless they already knew that a forgery was going to be made in 2007. I’ve never heard an alternative reason for “Why this? Why now?”

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think they knew something was up and they changed it?

DR. POLLAND: To really understand everything that has gone down with the birth certificate, it’s time to throw all logic out the window. I do see a logical reason for the change, but when liberals do something, they follow a much different system of logic.  One of the government offices came out with a study of birth certificates which said that there are something like 20,000 or more forms and very susceptible to forgery.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it was difficult for whomever produced Obama’s COLB to do it?  Did it take that person as long as it took you?

DR. POLLAND: Definitely, it did not take them as long as I because I began by doing all of the ways that the COLB could never be made! I started out eliminating all of the possible ways to make it until all that was left was the actual way to make it. I think they thought if they made it look too good, people would get suspicious.  I have pretty good theories as to why the border, background, and text were made the way they are, BUT, the forger could just as easily have decided that he was going to make a one-off that nobody would be able to reproduce – because if you cannot create a forgery like it, then you cannot call it a forgery. I came to view this COLB as a Gordian Knot – one that only I have untied.

MRS. RONDEAU: Perhaps they were confident enough that people would accept it as a birth certificate and not give it a second thought.  It appears that millions of people did.

DR. POLLAND: Yes, because no one had ever seen one, so nobody knew what they looked like when it first came out.  Then somebody found a COLB on the internet.  Before that time, nobody outside of Hawaii knew what it looked like.

MRS. RONDEAU: Well, Hawaii is way out there, 6,000 miles away from some of us and 3,000 from those who are closest.

DR. POLLAND: Yes, and they really act like that, too.  So no one had ever seen any, and that’s why I was kind-of led astray because I figured, “OK, they didn’t have one.”  But then I began thinking about it, and I said, “What if the Department of Health had been directly involved in creating this forgery?  Then they could get hold of anything:  they could get hold of the paper, which is what happened.  The forger had a sheet of security paper, which fact was confirmed to me by Jess Henig (of Factcheck.org).  When I say “confirmed,” liberals have a bad habit of sometimes telling the truth when they’re lying.  In fact, when they do that, it’s kind-of like reverse psychology when they say “No, it’s not a conspiracy” when it is a conspiracy.  So they did this, too, and I hadn’t seen it anywhere, but then she went back and put “to some” in parentheses as if text had been pasted on a scanned sheet of security paper.  And I was thinking, “I know she’s talking about my research; Amy was talking about my research because I mailed it to her, and I said, “I never said anything about scanning a blank sheet of security paper.”  So I said, “OK, there you go; that’s how they did it!”

MRS. RONDEAU: I wrote to Jess Henig three times and she didn’t answer me when I asked if she’d allow a new photography session with members of the press, an idea suggested by The Post & Email’s photography expert, Mr. John Sweeney.

DR. POLLAND: I started asking my questions with Brooks about the photo shoot.  I said that I was a Poli Sci professor in Florida and that I was writing a book on the “Birther” phenomenon, and I asked him if he could give me information about the different photo shoots, and that’s what he forwarded to Jess and Joe Miller.  So I was writing to them and asking questions so that I would know if they knew what they were looking at and touching.  One of the questions is highlighted in my new video, “Hail to the Cheats.”

So I wrote to her and I wrote to Joe and I asked them both, “What does the paper feel like?”  Well, Joe described it exactly the way the mock-up feels.  The mock-up does not feel like the real thing; with that film on it, it’s very slippery, whereas the regular sheet of paper is just kind-of rough and thin, very thin.  So when I asked that of Jess, she said, “Well, it looks like a standard sheet of security paper.”  So she knew what was going on.

MRS. RONDEAU: I never heard of the term “security paper” until I watched your videos.  Where did she hear of it?

DR. POLLAND: The early sleuths called it “security paper.”  However, Factcheck did say “security paper” in their “Born in the USA” story.  Basically, they were working with Politifact and they came out with their copy on June 16, 2008, and then they just sat back, tagged out and let Politifact take over, and they didn’t come back until August 21st with the photos.  Then when I saw the photos, I thought, “What a stupid thing to do, because they just confirmed my theory.”

That was one of the things that she’d gotten from Amy Hollyfield; she called them “pixel halos” in regard to those pixillated areas between letters.  I knew they weren’t real, naturally-occurring artifacts.  Initially I went through all the wrong ways to make them, and after doing all the wrong ways, I said, “OK, let me try it this way, by making layers,” and then see if I would just intentionally make these pixellation anomalies.  Normally they would occur if you’ve oversharpened an image, but in that case, you would see more white or blank areas.  You would not see grayish areas; you see just blank or white.  So when I looked at it, I said, “Whomever did this:  1) was using a text layer, and 2) is trying to hide the evidence of pasting those text layers on there.  Pasting is all electronic, but you get the idea.  If he had a sheet of security paper, then it wouldn’t be a problem to scan it and use it for the COLB composite image, but he also changed the background; he dropped out the green in between – there’s a light green background and a darker green thatched pattern; he dropped out that light green background, so it was like, “This guy is insane, but he’s clever!”

MRS. RONDEAU: You mentioned something about the border of the COLB, that “no laser printer could have created the border.”  What makes you say that?

DR. POLLAND: Because of all the steps that it took me to recreate them. The true border used in 2007 COLBs is brown in color (actually grey on white) and never, ever scans in that greenish color. A very slight, greenish tinge is in the border caused by the border being partially transparfent. The fact that the pattern of that border was so impossible to reproduce is what led me to conclude that this is made by Man, and not machine…I have it as close as possible, but there’s still something else that he did to it that took so much effort.

If this border were really printed on a laser printer, and let’s say they did some modifications to the image, there’s no such thing as making just the border blurry while making the text overly sharp and making the background moderately sharp.  You don’t have that kind of selective ability with the printer or scanner.

MRS. RONDEAU: Because you’re just asking it to either print or scan, and it applies to the whole document?

DR. POLLAND: Some scanners have control over, let’s say, the sharpness and the color, but it has to be across the entire face of the document.  You can’t single out an area, mask it off and say, “OK, I’m going to do only the border, and I’m not going to touch the rest of it.”  You can do that in Photoshop, absolutely.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that’s what they used to make the COLB?

DR. POLLAND: Yes, definitely.  That’s what my instructional videos do: I show viewers, step by step, exactly how it was reproduced.  The first part was getting them to put everything in except the date stamp and the seal; that’s in the new video I uploaded.

MRS. RONDEAU: What do you do with the videos after you release them?

DR. POLLAND: I have a Screencast account which is Screencast.com, which is owned by TechSmith, which makes the editor, Camptasia Studio.  That’s the software I use to compile my videos.  Screencast.com will allow you to upload them and works together with the software, and I purchased a professional account for $10.00/month; I have 250 gigabytes of storage and 200 gigabytes of bandwidth.  So that’s where I’m uploading all of my videos.  The ten-minute time limit on YouTube is hard to meet.  I’m going to put my videos together as one entire movie.  Parts 2 and 3 are critical, Part 3 especially, because it shows what Politifact was doing with that “Mohammed” thing.  The dropoff is pretty severe.  So the two videos that are the most watched are the ones I introduced last week, the bombshell…

MRS. RONDEAU: The one called “Blue Hawaii”?

DR. POLLAND: Right, the Blue Hawaii.  And then the second one to that was the first video, and then, of course, “It’s the Conspiracy, Stupid!”  So those were the three which people were watching.  The others are being watched about one-fourth the number of those views.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you garner any income from the videos?

DR. POLLAND: No.  People are making income off of me because I’m using some music that’s copyrighted and they can play fads on there, but no, I’m not making any money from it.  I don’t want to junk it up.

MRS. RONDEAU: Are there any closing statements you’d like to make, Dr. Polland?

DR. POLLAND: First of all, one of my two biggest discoveries that I made in the two years that I have been researching this birth certificate controversy has nothing to do with the birth certificate. It was discovering that Politifact had started the false rumor that Obama’s middle name is Muhammed, and used it to endlessly “debunk” it in conjuction with facts about Obama. “Conjuction” being the operative word – more specifically, the conjunction, “and.” To top that off, I also discovered that they did this throughout 2008, and when they “received” a copy of Obama’s “COLB,” they only used it to further “debunk” that same rumor – they did not use it to prove, or even discuss, Obama’s citizenship!

If people were to derive just one thing from my videos, it’s how totally deceptive Politifact has been in its so-called “fact-checking.” Also, as for where the forgery was made, my money is on Politifact. They had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to do it. I demonstrate that proof on video as well.

One reason that Politifact’s fraud has not sunk in is that this only comes out in all its ramifications in Parts 2 and 3 of Chapter One. At last count, I had over 9,000 views on Part 1 of Chapter One, but only about 1,800 and 1,400 on Parts 2 and 3.

Secondly, and lastly, scientific research is an ongoing process. It is more precise to say that I have been doing this for two years and counting, because this is still uncharted territory, and each day brings another revelation.

From the very day this forgery was posted, Obama supporters took the untenable and patently absurd position that this image is a true copy of his actual birth certificate and the burden of proof is not on Obama, but on us, to show that it is not genuine.

How tough is it to say, “It’s real,” sit back, and let other people like me not only perform the very authentication that Obama and the Federal Government should have done before the election, but also to endure the ceaseless attacks on my person and my reputation because of their crimes.

Every time someone said, “Forget about the birth certificate,” and that has been said continually for the past two years, it only steeled my resolve to pursue it. To what end? I wish I knew. What I can tell you is what I have concluded, and others as well, that Obama was not born in the U.S. and was not named Barack Hussein Obama at birth because his biological father was not Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

There is no valid concrete evidence to support his birth narrative and biography. There is, however, plenty of valid concrete evidence to negate it, and that is why it is being actively withheld from the public.

I am something of an enigma to liberals and have figured out why they called me a fraud. They have enough trouble in their lives trying to excel in one area; so, when they run across someone who has excelled in several areas, they can’t even begin to fathom it, and naturally think I have to be a fraud!

Upper: Dr. Polland’s father, seated at end in background, left, and mother, at end, meeting with key corporation personnel. Lower left: Attending a trade show. Lower right: Dr. Polland’s mother being interviewed by NBC Studios

Editor’s Note: Dr. Polland’s latest video released on July 31, 2010 can be viewed here.

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. I have now spent over 21 months reading about the usurpation day and night, but there remains one contradiction I can’t explain.

    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.

    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.

  2. Sharon, Great interview. Maybe you could pursue an interview with those two employees at Factchek I have seen mentioned as “verifying” and let them explain their side of the equation and would they be willing to step into a court of law to stand by their statements, or would they sign a notarized letter to be used in a court case, standing by their statements. Maybe also, could they send you a copy of their document? Could be interesting!
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I have tried repeatedly to reach Jess Henig at Factcheck but have received no response: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/20/is-factcheck-org-working-with-obama/

  3. Another home run interview, Sharon! Great job.

    Curious question. Where is Politifact located, their actual offices? I’d really appreciate a response either from you or the good doctor.

    I’ve followed this saga since the day it appeared first at Daily Kos then at TexasDarlin’s site. When Techdude popped up, I smelled a rat but wasn’t all that confident in my blogging skills then. TD never told us what happened so it’s nice to learn how things came down.

    Additionally, I have followed Polarik’s work from the beginning. Hard to refer to him as Polland. Anyhoo, read the reports, affidavits and comments Dr. Polland made throughout the summer and fall of 2008 and then into 2009. Always found his work credible and factually based.

    It’s nice to see the work in video now. Haven’t watched your most recent one so need to get over to your site to catch up.

    You’re doing incredible work and trust we patriots are most grateful. Looking forward to learning even more from you.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you, Helen.

  4. Dr. Polland said,
    “The forger had a sheet of security paper, which fact was confirmed to me by Jess Henig (of Factcheck.org). When I say “confirmed,” liberals have a bad habit of sometimes telling the truth when they’re lying. In fact, when they do that, it’s kind-of like reverse psychology when they say “No, it’s not a conspiracy” when it is a conspiracy. So they did this, too, and I hadn’t seen it anywhere, but then she went back and put “to some” in parentheses as if text had been pasted on a scanned sheet of security paper. And I was thinking, “I know she’s talking about my research; Amy was talking about my research because I mailed it to her, and I said, “I never said anything about scanning a blank sheet of security paper.” So I said, “OK, there you go; that’s how they did it!”

    If anyone can clarify further what this part about Jess Henig and Amy Holyfield means, I’d appreciate it. Where, for example, did she (Jess or Amy?) add “to some” in parentheses? This isn’t to dispute what Dr. Polland says–on the contrary, I want to see where/how these people were tripped up. I can’t follow the story. Can anyone fill me in? Thanks.

    1. This is my response to the question of how are Jess Henig and Amy Hollyfield linked to the issue of the security paper being scanned and used for the forgery..

      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!

  5. If what Dr. Polland has presented and published is so completely wrong then a number of people should be lining up to file lawsuits since he has very, very directly called out actions that would have be considered slander if they are not true – but they do not.

    An open court setting with discovery and true expert witnesses and actual, real documents may be a terrifying scenario to them. Like vampires, those involved hide from the sunlight. The sunlight of truth.

  6. It is NOT in anyway plausible or believable the ‘advanced’ technology at the finger tips of the FBI, CIA, SS, etc etc etc….have not prior conducted comparable research. They all know! Its an insult to your intelligence that the entire Federal Government, State Governments, Media, Industry, believes that WTP are ‘so stupid’ that they would believe the ‘story-line’. From the very first moment, I smelt the stink of ‘con-game’.

    Here again, the MEDIA serves as the GREAT WALL making sure the facts and the truth are kept from the masses. The solution is figuring out how to by-pass the media and those elected/appointed/employed in government, to get the information at this site, into the minds of the masses.

    The left, the right in media, together have (and continue to this date) conspired to empower this POTUS, and his entire corrupted government. To turn to those in the media, at this point, is futile.

  7. Good morning, Mrs. Rondeau,

    My sincere compliments on your interview of Dr. Polland. It is, indeed, a “page turner”. While I have yet to watch his videos, I read Dr,. Polland’s original work when it first came out and it held my interest….. more-so since I was a pure novice at computer “desktop publishing” at the time and I was eager to see how the pro’s do things.

    On two different occasions, I sent e-mail to my Senator, Saxby Chambliss, attempting to have him understand what Dr. Polland was saying regarding the pure fallacy and fantasy of this fabricated C.O.L.B. but the Senator’s only response on these two e-mails was a “boilerplate” form letter that he had seen the “birth certificate” and was satisfied it was authentic…. proving without doubt he is one of the many millions of my fellow “citizens” blind and naive acceptance of what was to become one of the first of countless lies and subterfuge…………

    If one were to go to the dictionary and look up the phrase “liberal logic” they would most certainly find it under the description for “Oxymoron”.

    Thanks again and compliments to both you and the good Doctor Polland.

  8. Sharon Rondeau:

    Thank you for another wonderful, meaningful in-depth interview. Ron had been (and is still being) attacked frantically by the tribe of Flying Monkeys trying to show (without valid evidence) that Obama is somehow (anyhow) eligible.

    In fact, that’s exactly what Obama should do himself and his lawyers (the DOJ now) should advise him of that if they had an honest, ethical bone in their bodies – but that seems to be a very big IF!!!

  9. Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.:

    … and that’s just the point.

    Obama has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies in a rigorous way in any properly-constituted court of law.

    If he cannot do so then he (and enablers, if any) should face the full force of the law unless politicians are now freely allowed to choose the laws they’d like to follow (and I guess I must have missed that in the United States Constitution).

    1. For JTX- that is the major dilemma facing the nation- “THERE IS NO LAW” at this level of government. Only you and I have to walk the line. What agency will enforce his arrest to the full force of the law? Which one is trustworthy? DoJ? Ha! That won’t happen.

      1. 2discern:

        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.

    1. What is the time zone — for this “9:00 pm” – ?

      Even the blogtalkradio website does NOT tell the time zone……

      Need more information!

    2. James,

      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.

  10. Probably overwrought & wrong. My operating assumption is that there is a COLB that is genuine, official, and truthful as far as it goes. But it is an abstract. And it does not disclose whether the information abstracted is from an original birth certificate showing the true birth parents or an amended birth certificate showing adoptive parents. So even if, as I assume for the sake of analysis, the COLB is genuine, it is ambiguous. If the putative parents in the COLB are birth parents, then Mr. Obama (not President Obama until he proves eligibility) could not be a natural born U.S. citizen, for the father named was an alien. I suspect his real birth parents were Stanley Armour Dunham and a predominantly Polynesian wahine (hence his warm mahogany complexion – aloha!).

    We can’t know for sure who Mr. Obama’s birth parents were until his DNA and birth records are produced. I strongly suspect that he refuses to allow this because their disclosure would prove he’s not black; his whole political career has been based on a big lie, that he was born of a Luo tribesman and has kith & kin in Africa. (I can imagine Robert Gibbs: “But his mother was a person of color!”)

    While Mr. Obama was very possibly a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, he probably lost U.S. citizenship altogether later in life and, incredible as it might seem, is an illegal alien. If he can explain away the many possibilities of a loss of citizenship, we can take comfort in not being duped into electing an ineligible lying communist despot, but rather duped into electing an eligible lying communist despot.

    The states appoint presidential electors. Their investigation of the constitutional eligibility of Mr. Obama is long overdue. Official investigations should uncover the relevant scientific and documentary evidence that has been inaccessible to private individuals, even as litigants.

    1. Albert, I have seen the whole “Who are the parents?” questioning go on and come back, beginning with Andy Martin and continuing with people who question Obama’s [half] brothers. One of the reasons why I didn’t buy the Nsedanjo (sp) idea was that Barack, to me, REALLY looked like his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham. Search his name and google images. Check the one of Barack on his “grandfather’s” shoulders on the beach. Look at his face. That is Barack’s face. It’s all in the rounded chin and the nose/mouth. Stanley Ann takes this characteristic after her father, so it is confusing/believable. I’ve been following this for some time and the more and more I think of it, the more likely it does become that his parents are the reason why he isn’t showing the certificate. I’m personally favoring Stanley being the father but I can’t rule out the possibility that Ann is the mother with some other father being on the birth record. Of course, it’s clear that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. We indeed shall find out one day. When the levee breaks …

      1. I’m also convinced by Oilbama’s strong resemblance to Stanley Dunham that they are related. As for me, I don’t doubt that old man Dunham man is Oilbama’s grandpa.

        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.

  11. Thank you, Dr. Polland, for your amazing research. I don’t think anyone could more credibly dispose of the COLB. Godspeed with the rest of your research.

    Thank you, Sharon, for a great interview to add to your list. This is the one I was waiting for. I hope P & E will post on Dr. Polland’s future work.

  12. Dr. Polland is a treasure who will be better known in the future for his dogged patriotism. I salute you, sir.

    Now that we are 95% certain Obama isn’t who he is made out to be and 100% certain he is a fraud, a felon and as such, a usurper and traitor, all the evidence generated amounts to so much ink unless there is a court still operating respectful of the Constitution someplace in this nation. Many believe we are already beyond having to do any more to prove the danger is beyond the courts to arrest it. Too many eggs are going into this election which is going to be a fantastic display of corruption, intimidation and fraud. Hopefully we will live long enough to see Dr. Polland testify. I’ll be on the edge of my seat watching.

  13. I asked an independent expert in digital photography (whom has provided expert testimony in a court of law) as a personal favor to do an analysis of the online COLB, shortly after Ron Pollard said it was a fake. He came to the same conclusion, but had further insight. He noticed that the lettering (as Ron Pollard) noted was crisp, so crisp that there was no background noise in the digital signal. Apparently, you can do a statistical analysis on the background noise for various edges of any scanned document. You get ‘background’ noise in any scanned image, but the lettering was without such noise. That means, in his opinion, that the lettering was NOT SCANNED, but typed and added to a previously scanned digital image. That made the online COLB a ‘composite’ or at least ‘altered’, not a valid document in his opinion.

    I still believe that Dr. Ron Polland was correct, the original online posted COLB was a forgery, or at best represents a digitally altered document. The person whom provided me with the analysis has declined to be made public, in part because of what has happened to Dr. Ron Polland, but also for significant ongoing health issues.

    Much like the Gulf of Tonkin, someday the truth will be known.


    1. Thanks, Pete, and thank the person who independently corroborated my finding. If he has not seen my video in which I demonstrate how to recreate the COLB in Photoshop, I would very much like his reaction to it.

  14. Wow, what an interview and what a great researcher. Ron is incredible and it so good to hear him speak in an interview format. Great questions and I will have to go back and look at all the vids again. There is something about this issue that feeds into the natural inquisitiveness of people and is why it won’t go away.