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


by WTPOTUS, ©2011, blogging at WTPOTUS

(May 13, 2011) — On April 27, 2011, Jay Carney, White House (WH) press secretary, held a “Press Gaggle”  to introduce the media to President Obama’s  original, certified, long-form birth certificate. Carney gave “paperwork” to reporters: a packet containing copies of Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the so-called long-form birth certificate, and four pages of correspondence between the Hawaiian Dept. of Health (HDOH), and Obama and his attorneys.

Since then, many have analyzed the documents, but I decided to analyze the words spoken at the birth certificate rollout.  So I read the gaggle transcript more closely, and noticed some curiosities.  Below are excerpts, not the entire transcript from the WH website.  Names of reporters were inexplicably excluded from the transcript.  Carney began the discussion:

Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we’ll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.

Off camera? Only pen and pad? Why?  This is supposed to be the “most transparent” administration ever.

No photos, so nobody can zoom in later to more closely examine the document they planned to quickly flash at reporters, from the podium? No audio, so any unfortunate or illogical statement made by Obama’s lawyer or spokesperson could later be explained away as something a reporter “misheard”? Pfeiffer spoke next:

What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.

They were COPIES, not originals of anything. Copied on a machine, from a stack of documents, as demonstrated by butterdezillion. A stack of papers that could not have contained either the allegedly certified long-form or short-form birth certificate, because text bled through onto each page from the page beneath, which can’t happen when copying documents printed on security paper.

PFEIFFER: In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

This cannot be true if the COLB is legitimate; the COLB is stamped 2007, not 2008.

PFEIFFER: We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

And yet, magically, these “independent fact checkers” came there in March 2008, before the COLB was ever posted online, so they were clairvoyant time travelers as well as self-proclaimed “fact checkers”.  But that settled it! Self-proclaimed, unnamed fact checkers, with no forensic experience whatsoever, declared it was “proof postive” that Obama was born in Hawaii. (These “independent” fact checkers worked for FactCheck, a blog funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, with which Obama was once associated.)

However, even if legitimate, which remains in question, that same COLB would be proof positive that Obama is not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the presidency, by virtue of having a foreign father.

PFEIFFER: To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.

At the time it was posted, in June 2008, even the state of Hawaii did not consider it to be his “birth certificate”. To be clear, it’s a digital image on the Internet.  It’s not a 3-dimensional “document”. It’s not a piece of paper. It’s a digital image.

Only now does Hawaii consider it “the birth certificate,” because for some reason the state of Hawaii redefined their definitions, after this COLB was put online and was questioned by a discerning public. That COLB is not sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, because it does not state the citizenship of the parents. That “birth certificate” might be sufficient proof to obtain a driver’s license or a passport, but only when presented as a state-certified PAPER DOCUMENT, not a digital image on a blog, or in a campaign ad, or even as a photocopy handed out to the media.

PFEIFFER: That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was –

Read: for those who were in the tank, not paying attention, complicit, brain dead, ignorant, or afraid, that “solved the issue.” Even if the campaign didn’t spend time talking about it, which I seriously doubt, Mr. Robert Gibbs said plenty; it’s on You Tube. Note: Those who were talking were “very fringe”.  Alinsky 101.

REPORTER: When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

An intelligent question! The response. Wait for it . . .


Astoundingly audacious!

REPORTER: Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

From this we know that the copy of the COLB given to the media was one-sided, as it’s ALWAYS BEEN. Doesn’t the WH have a copy machine that can copy both sides of a document at once? Luddites! So the media didn’t get a copy of the reverse side of the COLB and at least one unnamed reporter was smart enough to ask why not.

Why wouldn’t they have copied both sides of the COLB? Maybe because Pfeiffer got his copy from SNOPES. Click that link and roll to the bottom of the page; read what’s printed there.  Snopes!  This comes from the WH blog, within a story written by Pfeiffer on April 27, 2011. Why wouldn’t the WH Director of Communications have an in-house, two-sided copy of the document?  Now even our government relies upon BLOGS for “facts”?  But what about what Pfeiffer said–that they posted both sides of the COLB on the Internet, back in 2008? Pfeiffer doubles down:

We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. …

So he didn’t misspeak. This is astoundingly audacious. The campaign NEVER posted the reverse side of that COLB ANYWHERE, nor did FactCheck blog, Fight the Smears, the LA Times, or Daily Kos blog.

FactCheck blog, which cannot by law be among Pfeiffer’s “we”, posted a tightly-cropped image of a registrar’s certification and date stamp (see above) that they implied came from the reverse side of the COLB that they examined in Chicago; but they NEVER posted the entire reverse side of the “document.”  They posted these carefully cropped, out-of-context images in August 2008, two months AFTER the campaign supposedly “posted” BOTH SIDES of the COLB. It’s important to remember that FactCheck blog is (Pfeiffer said so) INDEPENDENT of the Obama campaign and his administration.  So when and where did the campaign post the reverse side of that COLB?  Never.  Nowhere.

PFEIFFER: Bob [Bauer, the lawyer] will explain why — the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to — essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country.

Allow me to welcome our readers to the “nether regions.”  According to this administration, the issue had become “a distraction.”   A distraction for Obama and his minions, who were closely following his sinking poll numbers. However, putting the issue to rest was apparently not important enough for them to take these steps much earlier, such as before consigning LTC Terry Lakin to Leavenworth PRISON. Riddle me this: If this long-form birth certificate–the version put out for public consumption–is indeed real, legitimate, authentic, and certified, then why, instead of showing it long ago, did Obama spend millions on lawyers and send a patriot to prison, rather than to bring it forward before now? There is no logical answer.

CARNEY: I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this – not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know….

Why wouldn’t the POTUS take questions?  True to form, he lectured, hectored, and ridiculed those who merely expect him to prove that what he says is true.

BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.

The HDOH gave out certified copies of long-forms as recently as March, 2011; some indications are that this “waiver” may have been considered as early as August 2010, per the creation date on the pdf, which would put it right around the time that Obama made his infamous comment about how he can’t walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead.  Pay attention to the curious focus in those letters on the many requests made to the HDOH for Obama’s records.  Odd timing, considering that the issue was put to rest in May, 2010, by passage of the ”vexatious requestor” bill, yet another example of Hawaii bending the rules to help Obama.

REPORTER: Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

BAUER: I’ll let Dan –


REPORTER: I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)

PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

So who was that reporter? Lester Kinsolving of World Net Daily or Jake Tapper of ABC?  Those are my guesses.

PFEIFFER: I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

No, it wasn’t resolved, and LTC Lakin was sent to PRISON as proof. I believe Mr. Kinsolving asked many times.  It was certainly an issue in the many lawsuits that challenged Obama’s eligibility, since that COLB was produced.

REPORTER: And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there.

Of course people will say that because it’s TRUE. It’s logical, and it’s true, and not without precedent. It’s entirely possible that someone did “type anything in there,” as forensic document experts have alleged. (Scroll down to find a collection of links to various analyses of this long-form birth certificate.)

People will say this so long as the actual physical documents are not subjected to forensic examination or presented to a court of law.  In Corley’s letter to the HDOH, she requested a waiver to “allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available.”  And yet, no certified copy IS publicly available. The HDOH granted the waiver; the client did not hold up his end of the bargain, nor does he intend to, as you will see next.

REPORTER: Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any – (laughter.)

I had to enlarge that for emphasis. Will the ACTUAL CERTIFICATE be ON DISPLAY OR VIEWABLE? Thank you, anonymous reporter!

Why did they LAUGH? Because they ALREADY knew the answer? The answer: a big FAT NO.

REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?

PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.

Pfeiffer implies that what he holds is the actual certificate. But Obama will NOT hold it; will not avow it; will not recognize it; and Pfeiffer will take it with him before Obama arrives to speak. Why?

PFEIFFER: But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. …

Obama’s spokesperson has just given the HDOH permission to speak on this issue. He’s given permission to ask them to “attest that that is what they have on file.” But even if someone asks, Pfeiffer refers to that OBJECT in his hands, which reporters cannot examine and which will NOT be “on display or viewable.” So the HDOH will not attest to the authenticity of the online pdf or those document copies handed out to the media (as with the COLB).

BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to –

Ms. Fuddy’s letter attests that she oversaw the copying of whatever is on file in that book in Hawaii and that she saw them create and certify two copies of something. But her letter does NOT attest to the authenticity of whatever was handed out to the press or whatever was put into that pdf on the WH website.

REPORTER: But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

This reporter advises Pfeiffer that putting the ACTUAL documents on display would end all controversy. Pay careful attention to his non-response.

PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

REPORTER: You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical –

PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

See what happened there?  Pfeiffer would not answer WHY they won’t put the actual documents on display for examination, even after the reporter pointedly spoke about “physical” items–physical certified copies, that they will not put on display to tamp down “conspiracy theories.”  Why not?

Why did Pfeiffer flash “just one” of the alleged certified documents at reporters? How well did he show it to them? Not well, as you can tell by their remarks.

Could there be two copies because one is a copy of the actual, original birth certificate and the other is a copy of a second, amended birth certificate, neither of which exactly matches the information displayed on the version released to the public?

Perhaps, if there was an adoption, there’s a first version (ordinarily sealed, now waived for disclosure to the POTUS and his lawyers), with the biological parents named, and a second version, showing adoptive parents.   Let’s speculate further:  Pfeiffer has only the amended version, which is why he showed “just one” to reporters. Perhaps there’s some indication on the document that it’s been amended, as required by Hawaiian law, which is why reporters can’t examine it closely.  The other version, Pfeiffer is never going to see, perhaps because it contains that “potentially embarrassing” information.

REPORTER: You showed us a photocopy of one.

PFEIFFER: No, I showed you –

Pfeiffer disagrees, implying that what he’s holding and what he showed reporters is the actual certified document. Read closely what follows:

REPORTER: Does that have a stamp?

This anonymous reporter cannot see the paper well enough to know whether or not there’s ”a stamp” on it. Therefore, he can’t READ what’s typed on it. He hasn’t a clue whether it matches the copy in his packet or not.

PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. …

Not an answer to the question asked; the reporter asked if it has a STAMP on it. The reporter refers to the certification stamped by Onaka, the registrar who thereby swears to the authenticity of the data. This is what is required; this is Onaka’s testimony that the data is true and authentic. But Pfeiffer avoids saying anything about a stamp. Instead, he says there’s a seal, although one savvy reporter specifically asked about the STAMP. So the question remains:

Did Onaka stamp and authenticate whatever was hand-carried to the WH by Obama’s lawyer?

Could one copy be the original document filed but not accepted by the registrar in 1961, while the other is the amended document, finalized after affidavits were given in 2008?

Why were these hand-carried instead of mailed, like other copies? Is it because whatever is on those two certified, physical documents can’t fall into other hands, at any cost? Is this also why Pfeiffer waved the document around in front of reporters, but would not let them see it well enough to determine if it’s stamped or to read what’s on it? Is this also why he will not put it on display for examination? Is this also why won’t he let the POTUS hold it, lest Obama be seen “owning” it? Does Obama himself know what it says? If this is a truthful version of what’s on file in those vital records in Hawaii, then why is the book containing Obama’s record locked away in a special vault, accessible to just one person–Onaka?

CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. …

The only fallacy here is that they claimed they produced a “legal document” years ago. It’s not even a document (it’s a digital image) and if it’s “legal”, why didn’t they present it to any of the judges in the ineligibility cases? Why did they fight discovery?

PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate …

There are no FACTS presented to ANY court of law; therefore, there’s NO EVIDENCE to settle the issue. Until there is EVIDENCE presented under oath in a court or to another officer of the People, like an elections official, it will remain an issue.

REPORTER: Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. …

So what’s missing? We already know that the receipts for payment, referred to as enclosures in Fuddy’s letter, are missing. (h/t Papoose)

BAUER: The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 …

Not true, unless he’s admitting that the COLB posted online, which is DATED June 2007, is bogus.  Or could it be that the one posted was from 2007 but they requested another version (not posted) in 2008, after Granny submitted affidavits, and after amendments were made to the “vital records”, around August 2008?  Could both Pfeiffer and Bauer be confused about which COLB was posted and when?

BAUER: So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver.

Likely only true if there was another reason, like an ADOPTION, for sealing Obama’s original long-form birth certificate.

In sum, given every chance to put this “conspiracy theory” to rest once and for all, by allowing the two certified long-form birth certificates to be on display, to be examined by the media and the public, the WH declined, even though Obama’s personal lawyer used disclosure to the public as the excuse to obtain a waiver.

On cue, a member of the media, Sonny Bunch, while reviewing a book about 9/11 “Truthers”, invented a new Alinsky-style epithet for those who (logically) look askance at that “document” presented to the public at an opaque “press gaggle”.  The epithet?  FORGERS. Mr. Bunch began his review of a book that had nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

The most disheartening aspect of the 2012 election cycle (so far) has been Donald Trump’s effort to press the “birther” argument, claiming that President Barack Obama may not have been born in Hawaii in 1961 but somewhere else—Kenya, perhaps. A survey in February recorded that 51% of GOP primary voters believed Mr. Obama to be a non-native son. In a victory for common sense, support for the position plummeted with the recent release of Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

He concluded his review of a book that has nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

After Mr. Obama released his birth certificate in April, Forgers came forward to claim that it was a photo-shopped fake. Mr. Trump has yet to join their cause.

Do We the People have the audacity to hope that Mr. Trump will join this cause?

We the People deserve employees who are transparently willing to prove their eligibility for the job that they are hired to do.

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. Why Obama’s Birth Documents are not Valid!

    Scanned documents aren’t valid evidence of anything even if they are legitimate. The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Much, much less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images are like people studying animals by examining imitation scat.

    We the People will never know if Obama is a fraud unless the original documents are submitted to a panel of court approved certified document examiners. Certified Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
    # # # # #
    KJCT-8 News: Graphic Artist Questions Obama Birth Certificate
    # # # # # #

    Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines,

    http://www.asqde.org/SRLines/SandraRLines.htm a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:

    “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.
    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” – Barack Hussein Obama – August 21, 2010

  2. I never played chess, but I believe this is called a check-mate. Order by judge Wilkinson from Hornbeck v Salazar and evidence of forgery of Obama’s BC is in front of judges of the 9th Circuit

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I will check on this, because I read on Scribd that the Motion to Intervene which contained the affidavits stating that the BC was a forgery was denied.

  3. “I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.”

    That one sentence speaks volumes.

    “After Mr. Obama released his birth certificate in April, Forgers came forward to claim that it was a photo-shopped fake.”

    How I wish that those who forged that document had come forward to claim their handiwork a Photoshopped fake. But, of course, we all know that that’s not what the FAITHER meant when he wrote that sentence. No, he didn’t mean that those who’d forged the document had confessed to having done it. Instead, by calling those who believe the document presented is a forgery “forgers,” he just took us all – those who doubt the authenticity of the digital image as well as all who read that review – deeper into this new Orwellian America. At this higher level of Newspeak, a forger isn’t one who forges; rather, it’s one who suspects forgery has been committed or that s/he is looking at a forged document or file.

  4. It appears that Trump is accepting the new bc as genuine, as he is silent. As the GOP decided not to touch the issues of bc and dual-citizenship, the Judiciary Branch is protecting the Executive Branch, and the Tea Party is not interested, therefore Mr. O’s reelection is certain.

    No opponent can win over a sitting Prez possessing $1B campaign money and full support of the media. The only way to win against O, is disqualifying him before election.

  5. have ya heard of carlos slim world wealthiest man from mexico passing gates and buffett,and giving a lot of money to the socialist new york times.

  6. I can see plausible deniability from my house!

    I like the Urban dictionary found at urban dictionary dot com because it contains little snippets of the collective wisdom of the American people. Here is one definition from there for PD.

    “A condition in which a subject can safely and believably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist because the subject is deliberately made unaware of said truth so as to benefit or shield the subject from any responsibility associated through the knowledge of such truth.”

    But here is part of what someone going by Cynical Patriot posted on April 25th, 2010 :

    “Plausible deniability actually is a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving a allegation. Standards of of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “more likely so than not” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true.

    Because many lawyers are in politics, they brought this lower standard of ethics and integrity with them. This is why they rarely put anything controversial in writing. This is also why they most often have you talk to an underling or an agency bureaucrat so they can plausibly deny knowledge of the conversation or be able to say the underling or bureaucrat misstated their position.

    Before the blue, stained dress was found, Bill Clinton’s position was plausible deniability with regards to having s** with that woman.”

    Yup Cynical Patriot you nailed it.

    Obama was setting himself up to have plausible deniability with the BC. should he need to use it later.