Sunday, May 1, 2011

Obama's Birth could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world.

Update: This post will be updated as more evidence comes in...updates will be posted at the bottom of this page. 

With both Houses of Congress and the United States Supreme Court too weak cowardly to do anything about Obama's total disregard for the laws of the United States it is no surprise that the birth certificate recently released by the White House would turn out to be as phony as the guy living there.  The law breaking is so obvious and right out there in the open for all the world to see its no wonder we've become such a laughing-stock. 
Is Obama testing the heartbeat of America just to see how much he can get away with before he takes over completely? ...or does he have some weird death wish for he should know the people would hang him for his sins against America? ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: here's that reminder I've been repeating so many times that I've lost count:
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies in the heart of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear. The traitor is the plague..." Marcus Tullius Cicero, speech to the Roman Senate.
The Bogus Certificate
By the way...why did he spend over a million dollars not to show this birth certificate?
And why did he send out a threat letter in his million dollar defense? (see threat letter below)

The following text from: YouTube
As we originally noted and has been mentioned by a number of electronic image experts, one of the most glaring details demonstrating Obama's purported birth certificate is a fraud is the presence of digital artifacts.
Digital images often contain unwanted information known as artifacts. In the blow up below of Obama's supposed birth certificate, we can see digital artifacts as areas of white outlining text and graphical elements on the page. I brought a capture of the original PDF into Photoshop and enlarged it and increased the contrast in order to show the artifacts.

Artifacts are created as the result of lossy compression techniques. So-called "lossy" compression is a data encoding method which compresses data by discarding or losing some of it in order to reduce image file size.
Alternately, the white areas may be the result of a sloppy effort to eliminate a white background on the scanned image of the certificate and drop it over the green textured background. In Photoshop and similar image editing programs, it is possible to select areas based on color or contrast and eliminate those areas and make them transparent so a background image shows through. The process is far from perfect, especially when attempted by an inexperienced Photoshop user. It can leave behind telltale artifacts or jagged areas of original pixels, in this case white pixels from the original background.
As a long time user of Photoshop and Illustrator, I believe the second explanation is the likely reason there are white areas around the text and lines. It is a sloppy effort to eliminate a background.
As previously noted, the document is problematic in other ways. There are obvious text font inconsistencies, most notably in regard to the date in the "Date Accepted by Local Reg." field near the bottom of the document. The number "1" in the year "1961" is darker than the rest of the date.
The letter "e" at the end of "none" in the "Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnancy" is also darker and slightly slanted, which is different than the same letter elsewhere in the document, indicating it was either added later with a typewriter of computer. This letter is included in one of the layers when the PDF is imported into Adobe Illustrator.
The date and state registrar stamps at the bottom of the document also break out in separate layers, indicating they were likely added and are not part of an original document as one would expect of an official document.
Other oddities add to the mystery of the document, including "X" marks above the "Twin" and "Triplet" in "This Birth" box. As far as we know, Obama is not a twin or triplet.
Finally, the document does not contain an official imprint seal, as we see on other certificate of live birth documents (see the example from an article we posted yesterday).
Although intended to be sarcastic commentary on the "birthers," BuzzFeed has a list of most of the document's anomalies.
Now that we have established that the document is an obvious forgery, we should ask why Obama's people would release as definitive proof of his citizenship such an easily debunked fraud.

Is it possible Obama's people are so incompetent and lazy as to release a document that was torn apart soon after it was released by people who know what to look for?
Or was this obvious fraud released simply to keep the debate and the political circus sideshow going?
The Obama administration finally laid to rest all the rumors of the place of his birth with the release of his long form birth certificate. But closer inspection has prompted more questions than answers. For starters there are numerous layers. Some of the numerical characters look as if they were added after the fact by a printer rather than a typewriter. Alex Jones and Rob Dew demonstrate that the Obama team is keeping with the trend of being transparent as a brick wall.
Other Evidence of Fraud

Is Obama’s Birth Certificate Real? ~ From Great American Journal
By JR Dieckmann

On Tuesday Morning, April 26, 2011, Barack Obama released what he claims is his
long form birth certificate from Hawaii (PDF here). Since that document was released, there has been a flood of claims that it is fake, a fraud, that it has been altered, and so on. Understandably, many people are skeptical with mistrust of Obama and the constant stream of lies coming out of the White House. Additionally, there are all of the claims, rumors, and evidence that he may have been born in Kenya.

The issue with the long form birth certificate stems around the fact that multiple graphic layers have been found in the document, indicating that some of the information has either been added or altered. This is a natural first reaction when a document that was supposed to have been photocopied is disassembled in a computer graphics program. You shouldn’t be able to do that with a photocopied document. Everything should all be on one layer.

First, we have to understand that the document was not released as a photocopy, but was in pdf format. Some people are claiming that when a photocopy is scanned, optimized, and then converted into pdf format, that layers can be automatically created, then unlocked with Adobe Illustrator. I don’t know if layers can be created in this manner or not, but even if they can, this is not all that the critics are seeing in their graphics programs.

In my investigation, I have found that the document was created with two basic layers, then several more layers were used for specific areas of the document. I call these two layers the

original document and the template. Click on the links to see the images.

Obama’s birth certificate is identical to another one issued one day later. The difference in appearance is due to the computerized template used today verses the old copy machine template used in the 1960s. See a side-by-side comparison

here. The older one was released in 1966 as a white on black copy. I have reversed the image to black on white for better clarity.

Let me start with the two basic layers. No one really knows how these birth documents are created at the Hawaiian Department of Health. By comparing the Obama document with another one from the same year, I have concluded that the original document as released is created with two layers. The original birth record on file has a black Photostatic background with white lettering. It is basically a negative image of a white paper with black ink. 
This document is then reversed into black ink on white or transparent paper and overlaid onto a template with a green security pattern, which we see as the background in Obama’s document. This template also contains an added section at the bottom where the officials who are releasing the document place their signatures and dates.

When the two layers are separated, the actual birth certificate shows up as a

white document with black lettering and contains all of the original entries from the year it was issued. The template layer will be left with a white ghost where the print on the original birth certificate was and the signatures and dates of the releasing officials.

I have surmised that the original document is scanned into a computer along with the issuing official‘s footer, then overlaid onto the template. The resulting document is then converted into a pdf document, which can then be either printed out or sent over the internet. This explains the two primary layers.

Then there is the issue of the additional selective layers. These layers have been found in three basic areas of the document. The first three letters of the word “None” under the mother’s occupation, the date stamp under “Date Accepted by Local Reg.,” and “Date Accepted by Reg. General." These layers can be moved around the page once unlocked. They are computer generated and definitely not a part of the original birth certificate.

Another item at issue is that part of Stanley Ann Dunham’s signature is part of the original certificate and part of it stays with the template when the layers are separated. This also occurs with the R in Barack and in other isolated letters in the section headers. Examination under high magnification reveals that some points of editing were done by hand, while others were done by computer.

The skeptics make the claim that all of this adds up to an altered document, and I agree. But the questions is, why was it altered and by who? I don’t know the answer as to who did it but in my judgment, it was done in Hawaii when the document was assembled. As for why it was done, the answer to that seems clear to me. Old Photostatic copies are not the best of quality and often can become illegible in certain areas of the document. Someone cleaned it up so that it could be easily read by the public. Someone spent a lot of time to make this document look perfect for the president.

Why do I come to this conclusion? Mainly because the items in the document that were layered are not the critical pieces of information that one would alter if they wanted to produce a counterfeit document. The dates shown in the date stamps match the date hand written by the attending physician. What would be the use in altering them? None of the critical information has been called into question or layered.

All of the critical information (such as names and locations) remains intact on the actual document layer taken from the Health Department vault. In that one single layer we find the “State of Hawaii - Department of Health,” “Certificate of Live Berth,” the document serial number, Obama’s full name and gender, the hospital name and location, father’s name and vitals, mother’s name and vitals. All of this information is intact on the original layer and has not been altered.

I do have one problem in examining the Obama document side by side with the Nordyke document however. Why does Obama’s certificate have the serial number of “61 10641” while the one issued the following day has a serial number of “61 10637”? The final “1” in Obama’s serial number is one of the characters that stays with the template when the original document is removed. This would indicate that it has been altered or touched up. However, if he was born one day before Nordyke, shouldn’t his serial number be below 10637?

Since both mothers signed their documents on the same day, I supposed it’s possible that Obama’s certificate simply was typed up after Nordyke‘s. Maybe they do them in alphabetic order. Could they have had four babies born in 1 day with last names beginning with N? I’m sure Kapiolani can explain that one. In addition, where is the official raised seal? Did they stop using that when they went to computer generated documents?

In conclusion, I cannot say that this document is totally authentic. What I can say is that there is no real evidence here that it is a forgery. And even if it was, who is going to believe it - that is in a position to do anything about it - the Obama administration, Eric Holder, Congress, The Supreme Court? No. No one is going to take action against Obama on this issue, they just don’t care. The complex issues that would be raised if he were proven a fraud, and impeached because of it, would take a decade for Congress to rectify. It isn’t going to happen.

I have seen all of the videos and critiques of this birth certificate and I must conclude that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii based on this document. That is the way it will be seen by the vast majority of Americans. If this document is a fake, it cannot be proven based on the issue of layers and some other minor anomalies. Moreover, if it were faked, it would have to have been done within the walls of the Hawaiian Health Department or possibly by a very good graphics expert in the White House.

The later doesn’t make a lot of sense since he failed to flatten the image (merge the layers) before converting it to a pdf. The Hawaii Health Department wouldn’t be concerned with that. Surely people in the White House know that is was going to be examined under a microscope. Or is Obama just trying to distract us from the real issues? Or, is this just a trick to stop the investigations by Donald Trump‘s lawyers? In the end it doesn’t really matter.

It’s time to put this issue to rest, stop wasting time on it, and get on with the more important issues of Obama’s Marxist policies and the destruction he is doing to our country and the world community. For all any of us really know, he could have been born on Mars. It won’t make any difference. Even if those scars on the back of his head were proven to be from the removal of his antennae or horns, it still wouldn’t make any difference. Those on the left and those in power just don’t care.

He will remain in the White House until someone kicks him out in 2012 by beating him at the ballot box. That’s just the way it is - we’re stuck with him until January 20, 2013.

May God help us

Professor Charles Rice on Obama's 'eligibility'
By Matt C. Abbott

There's been a lot of discussion in certain circles on the topic of President Obama's "eligibility." (Incidentally, Dr. William Oddie cogently argues in a recent commentary that Obama is an enemy of the Catholic Church. Click here to read it.)

Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School — and author of the book What Happened to Notre Dame? — argues that it's "time for a new approach" on the eligibility controversy. His essay is reprinted below.
Obama Eligibility
By Charles E. Rice
The speculation about President Obama's eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.
The Constitution provides: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Art II, Sec. 1. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law defines the term "natural born citizen." Nor has the Supreme Court provided a definition that covers the questions presented in the Obama case.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: "[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).
The Obama "Fight the Smears" website has published a digital photograph of a short-form "Certification of Live Birth" issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health that lists his place and date of birth as Honolulu on August 4, 1961. At that time, Hawaii's practice was to issue also a long-form Certificate of Live Birth which contains more information, including the name of the hospital, or address of the place, where the birth occurred; the identity of the physician or other "attendant" at the birth; and the signature of the parent or other 'informant" certifying the accuracy of the information, etc. Obama has not given the permission required by Hawaiian law for release of that long-form certificate.

Numerous lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility have been rejected by every court involved, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Some are still pending. The rejections have been based on various grounds, including the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue and other specified and unspecified procedural grounds. No court has agreed to decide any of those suits on the merits.

The lawsuits have presented a bewildering array of claims, including, among others, that: Obama was born, not in Hawaii, but Kenya; if he was born abroad, his mother, an American citizen, was legally too young to confer that citizenship on him at birth; the Hawaiian short-form certification of birth published on the Obama website is a forgery; that short-form certification could have been legally issued in 1961 to certify a birth occurring elsewhere than Hawaii; Obama is ineligible because, wherever he was born, he had dual-citizenship since his father was a British citizen and the British Nationality Act of 1948 made his son a British citizen at birth; Obama identified himself as a foreign student at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School; when Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he did so on an Indonesian passport at a time when Indonesian law forbade dual citizenship, etc., etc.

There is no reason to analyze those lawsuits here in detail. Their lack of success cannot be ascribed simply to a hyper-technical evasion of judicial responsibility. For example, the rule requiring a plaintiff in a federal court proceeding to have a sufficient personal interest, or standing, to bring the suit provides needed assurance that suits will be seriously contested and will seek more than merely advisory opinions. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.

I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as "birthers" have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama's curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.

The courts are not the only entities empowered to deal with such a question. A committee of the House of Representatives could be authorized to conduct an investigation into the eligibility issue. The classic formulation of the Congressional role is Woodrow Wilson's, in his 1884 book Congressional Government:
    It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function...[T]he only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. (p. 198)
Wilson later retreated from his affirmation of Congressional supremacy. He said in 1900 that the President, rather than Congress, "is now at the front of affairs." (Congressional Government, preface to 15th edition, 1900, p. 22.) In his 1908 book Constitutional Government in the United States, four years before he was elected to that office, he described the president as "the political leader of the nation." (pp. 67ff.) Wilson's second thoughts on congressional supremacy, however, do not negate Congress' "informing function." The investigatory power has remained as an essential role of Congress.
    The Constitution nowhere expressly grants to either House of Congress a general power to investigate in aid of legislation, or in aid of overseeing the Executive Branch. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized that such a power is implied as an essential concomitant to Congress's legislative authority. John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law (2004), 280. See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927).
The investigative power of Congress has multiple purposes. "The ability to gather information has been regarded as a predicate to effective legislation and as important to providing a legislative check on executive actions. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress thus may conduct 'inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.' The power to investigate also includes 'probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste'..... The authority to investigate necessarily requires the power to compel testimony." Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law (2006), 310. (Internal citations omitted).

It is difficult to imagine, to borrow Wilson's phrase, a more pressing "affair of government" than the question of whether a sitting President obtained his office illegally, and perhaps even by fraud. An investigating body must not prejudge the case. Its concern must be, first, to put the facts on the record and then to consider whatever legislation or other remedy might be appropriate in light of those facts.

The House of Representatives is an appropriate body to inquire into the facts and legal implications of a President's disputed eligibility for the office. The House itself has a contingent but potentially decisive role in the election of a president. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution governs the counting of the electoral votes as certified by the states:
    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
The power to investigate can be exercised by a House committee provided that the investigation is within that committee's authorization as determined by the House. An investigation into Obama's eligibility by a committee or subcommittee of the House could have several legitimate objectives, including among others:
    1. To ascertain the facts, compelling by subpoena the production of all the available records relevant to Obama's eligibility, including the complete Hawaiian records of his birth; his passport records to ascertain whether he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an American or other passport; the records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School to determine whether Obama described himself as a foreign student; and such other records as may be relevant. The disclosure of such information to the public would be an appropriate exercise of Congress' "informing function." 2. The consideration of legislation to require candidates for a federal elective office to produce, at an appropriate time, evidence of their eligibility for that office. There is now no federal law or regulation that requires such disclosure. 3. The consideration of legislation to define the constitutional term, "a natural born Citizen."
The American people do not know whether the current President achieved election by misrepresenting, innocently or by fraud, his eligibility for that office. I neither know nor suggest the answer to that question. But it would be a public service for the House of Representatives to employ its authority to determine those facts and to recommend any indicated changes in the law or the Constitution.
© Matt C. Abbott

Threat Letter From Obama's Lawyers

Update #1 by Ben

Obamination: The Birth Certificate That Ain't

Both documents purported by the White House to certify that he was born in Hawaii have one indisputable fatal flaw: neither one bears the seal of the Hawaii Department of Health required to authenticate them. They lack probative value.
The original image of the short form remains at Snopes , lets take a close look at it.Original Sort Form with defects noted.
Observe that I have annotated the image to point out three defects.
  1. The Certificate # has been obliterated. Why would Obama obliterate it? It discloses nothing, it serves only as confirmation. A forgery could be discovered by revelation of a real certificate bearing the same number. Also, if the real certification of Obama's birth was revealed, and the numbers did not match, the forgery would be exposed.
  2. The embossed seal of the State Health Department is not present. Only a few indecipherable characters, which appear to be inverted numbers, appear where it should be.
  3. The document declares that it is invalidated by any alteration. That includes obliterating the serial number.
The White House blog hosts another image of the purported short form, without the watermark. White House version, short form.
Short form on White House Blog.
While this version lacks the embossed seal, there are some pixels showing through the redaction. Lets take a closer look. Redacted Serial #.
If those last two digits are 12, and the form was real, then the recently released long form can't be, the numbers should match.
Long Form, where the Seal should be.
Where is the embossed Seal? Where is the explanation of alterations (box 23)?
Do real birth certificates bear embossed seals? Lets examine some examples. This example was found here.
Real short for with seal.
Sue Nordyke's birth certificate is on display, the largest and clearest image of it is in this Scribid file. Note that the document appears to be copied from a microfiche record, which explains the white text on black background. The embossed seal is barely visible.
Real certificate with embossed seal visible.
The first arrow points to the outer edge of the seal, the second, shorter arrow points to a ring of text. Here is a closer, enhanced view of the seal.
Enhanced view of the seal.
The short arrow points to a ring of text, the two longer arrows point to indentations made by the ring of radial bars in the edge of the seal. If you get close to the display, and have myopia as I do, you can see that the paper has been stretched by the seal.
Obama's purported certificates are defective: they lack the state seal with which the real certificates are embossed. Both have been altered, which would invalidate the genuine document.
This is my third post on this subject, because one of my Muslim critics needs a good slapping down. This one's for you, Ema. Diversion, distraction, obfuscation & Tu-quoque do not cut the mustard. Try to come up with some relevant, verifiable facts to support your fantasy.

Note from Norm: Obama's so called birth certificate is not in numerical order with the next issued (legitimate) birth cerificate...unless the entry clerk made several errors and had to toss out a few of the pre-numbered forms. ...just an observation, that's all. 
Update # 2
Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:00:24 PM by trueamerica
says on page 231 under the section "Race and color" the following:
"Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."
"The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used."
Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" shows father's race as "African". That word was not used in 1961 to describe race.
You can draw your own conclusion.

Update # 3

Update #4

Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro is currently using Social Security number 042-68-4425.
This number was issued to an individual who resided in Connecticut and who was born in
1890...Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro never lived in Connecticut and he sure isn’t 120
years old! This is identity theft and Social Security fraud at the very least!!!
Neil Sankey was hired to investigate, here is part of what he found (excerpts from an
article at ):
It appears that Obama has multiple identities in term of possessing numerous Social
Security numbers. In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different
addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was
known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one
beginning with 042 and one starting 364.
In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed
for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social
Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with
999. (from another source: current SSA documents claim no numbers above 799 have
ever been used. Some universities have assigned nine-digit "temporary" Social Security
numbers to foreign nationals beginning with 999.)
There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but
there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number
beginning with 485. In Massachusetts – where Obama attended Harvard Law School –
we find three addresses, all using the 042 number.
After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an
apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that
address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security
number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of
his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was
verified by the government in 2008. (note, now he is back to using the 042 number!)
At most, Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro was born a dual citizen (his father was a
British subject of Kenya and never an American citizen) so he is NOT a NATURAL
BORN citizen and he is NOT eligible under our Constitution to be President! Now here
is evidence that he is involved in identity theft and Social Security fraud as well. HE
WILL be exposed and YOU MUST STAND UP NOW!! This is FRAUD, this is
TREASON, this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!!!

Update #5
----- Original Message -----
From: JW
To: n H
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 7:21 PM
Subject: Fw:

Update #6

Corsi Told About Fake Obama Birth Certificate Months Before Release
May 26, 2011

From Moles alerted investigator of planted Obama birth certificate months before release, posted on May 25:
Speaking today on the Alex Jones Show, investigative journalist Jerome R. Corsi dropped a huge bombshell. Dr. Corsi provided proof that he was alerted to an on-going plot to release a fake more than two months before President Obama released his purported long-form birth certificate.

Update #7 Probably the most convincing that fraudulent means were taken to manufacture the Obama birth certificate.  Click here

What have we learned in 2,064 years?
from an earlier post

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero - 55 BC

So evidently, nothing...
Psst, In case you didn't know.
Cicero was a lot smarter than Obama

1 comment:

Ben said...

Take a close look at the Certificates, Norm. Neither of them has the embossed state seal required for authenticity. Others have it. See images in my post Sunday evening.