One of the biggest promoters and defenders of Obama's bogus
birth certificate is FactCheck.org -- another organization that
bills itself as "non-partisan," but which is a part of the
Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and facilitators.
FactCheck.org has published a
web page entitled, "Born in the U.S.A. -- The truth about Obama's birth certificate."
The information on FactCheck.org's webpage is 100% bovine excrement,
and was produced by individuals who have no background or
experience as forensic document examiners.
The simple fact is, the paper version of this
"COLB" has never been examined by any controlling legal
authority. The only people to have ever seen the document
supporting Obama's claim to the Oval Office is Obama's
operatives in his campaign and at FactCheck.org.
1. "In June, the Obama campaign
released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate..."
This statement is false -- the campaign released a digitally scanned "Certification
of Live Birth." The document presented on this website is not now and
never has been a birth certificate, and FactCheck.org knows it. So
why did they publish this lie?
staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original
This statement is also a lie --
no FactCheck.org employee has ever "...touched,
examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
-- becauseFactCheck.org does not have a copy of Barack
Obama's original birth certificate.
conclusion, "We conclude that..." is false, because its conclusions are
based on a false premise -- that its employees have seen Obama's birth
certificate -- they haven't, because the State of Hawaii won't release it. What
do you think is going on in the 48 lawsuits against Obama. These
suits are all trying to get to Obama's birth certificate and 48 times,
judges have said, "I can't go for that, ohh, no, I can't go for that."
3. "Update, Nov. 1: The director of
Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in
Complete fabrication and bold-faced lie --
what Fuikino wrote was, "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the
State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has
statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records,
have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of
Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures."
Nowhere in that
statement does it say Obama was born in Honolulu, and
the complete statement: -- check it out yourself.
nowhere does FactCheck.org identify the militantly partisan website that
released the "Certification of Live Birth" -- The Daily Kos -- one of
the wackiest websites extant. This FACT alone makes this entire
scenario suspicious, if not patently ridiculous.
1. FactCheck.org's own analysis
confirms what I wrote above, under Summary.
FactCheck.org presents a photo of a
"Certification of Live Birth," captioned, "The Obama birth certificate,
held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller."
That's a lie,
as well -- the document in this photo is a "Certification of Live Birth"
(getting tiresome, isn't it) -- not a birth certificate. They are
different documents, and the folks at this mendacious organization
know the difference -- Joseph Goebbels would be proud of FactCheck.org's
FactCheck.org presents a photo image of the document
further down the page, under Analysis -- That document is not a "birth
certificate." It is a "Certification of Live Birth," again,
FactCheck.org knowingly misrepresents the document as something it is
not, and it's not even the document that was released.
Here is the document that was released to The Daily Kos. The
original document released had its Certificate Number blacked out -- and
if one looks at the document, it says at the bottom, "ANY ALTERATIONS
INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE" -- even if the document were genuine -- it
The biggest point is that the document FactCheck.org
is proferring as a genuine birth certificate is, in fact, an altered
computer printout. It's a completely bogus document.
4. In late
July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth
announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on
Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
A birth announcement could
have been easily phoned in to the newspaper from anywhere in the world.
This "fact" is inconclusive, unless you know who provided the newspaper
with the announcement, the means they used, and where they were
physically located at the time.
FactCheck.org identifies their analists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK,
that's fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are
they qualified to make an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a
couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org's office, or are they
political operators? What are their bona fides?
FactCheck.org doesn't say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out.
The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama's
C.O.L.B. are NOT document experts.
Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy -- so he's a
political operative -- while
Henig has an M.A. in English Literature -- I'm not sure her dye-job
is a political or esthetic statement.
Clicking the links
will display their photos -- just what you'd expect -- Jess took
the photos and did all of the writing while Bob basically held the COLB
open for Jess to shoot it.
are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination
of the COLB document, and FactCheck.org knows it -- so do they.
FactCheck does say
their, "representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth
certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and
three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago."
In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama
Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.
Lie? Hell, this is a conspiracy and FactCheck.org boldly admits
their part in it.
I prefer to give credence to Dr. Ron Polarik,
who holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer
graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and
typewriters, who provides conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the
Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) image created and distributed by
Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's FactCheck, and the St.
Petersburg Times, and Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false
Here, is his final report.
A second expert forensic document
examiner Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has filed an
affidavit associated with one of the lawsuits, stating the
1. I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an address at...
I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer. I
began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. I am a
Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American
Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern
Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the
Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and
Materials. My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit
I attached hereto.
2. I have reviewed the attached
affidavit posted on the internet from "Ron Polarik." After my
review and based on my years of experience, 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.
Since the title of the FactCheck.org web page is, "The truth about
Obama's birth certificate," everything on the page is a bold-faced lie,
because FactCheck.org has never, ever seen Obama's birth certificate and
every image and reference on their page is to a Certification of Live
Birth -- and they refer to it a "birth certificate" every time.
Hawaii is notorious for its issuance of COLB's.
see a large copy of a beautifully printed Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
(If you click it, it will get bigger or smaller). It belongs to
Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China.
This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, dated March 14, 1904, was
issued after Dr. Sun signed a
raggedy type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii
on Nov. 24, 1870. Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a
peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou
prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not
Hawaii, as this document affirms.
Obama's sister is reputed to have a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she
was born in Jakarta, Indonesia.
None of this is
surprising, since FactCheck.org is funded by
the Annenberg Foundation, which
funded Obama's buddy, the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers,
who, in turn, hired Barack Obama. They represent themselves as unbiased and non-partisan. That, of course,
is just another lie.
This "birth certificate" controversy is
in addition to the fact that
Obama is not a "natural born" citizen. There's at least
two reasons Obama shouldn't be in the Oval Office -- election fraud and
his constitutional ineligibility.
"To tell deliberate lies while
genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back
from oblivion for just so long as it is needed..."
Wrong With This Picture?
There were enough alterations in
this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the
signs of forgery." Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five
weeks later, FactCheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they
claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan
What's wrong with this
picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in
FactCheck's photos must also be bogus. We already knew that FactCheck
was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document
fraud. So, we were not surprised when FactCheck launched an all-out
assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories"
along with the photos they posted on their website. FactCheck's COLB
photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not
shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These
COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the
scan image under any conditions.
FactCheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB
document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately
for FactCheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was
bogus. For if this document object, with its pronounced second
fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan
image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent
features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of
FactCheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the
entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides. FactCheck's photos taken
from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was
deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the
Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second
Rather than lend
credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported Polarik's
conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document,
but was fabricated from other images. A top, forensic document examiner
also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth
certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only
underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from
ever being known.
If the Obama
narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are
there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School
records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records,
Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia
thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records,
Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice
client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
The FactCheck Link Between The Obama
Campaign And Passportgate
This technical analysis was provided by John F.
Sweeney, who reminds us that the two-year anniversary of "Passportgate"
was this past Monday, March 14. Passportgate was the covert
"accessing" of passport records by three contractors at the State
Department. Two of the contractors were fired. The contractor who was
not fired, but only disciplined, worked for The Analysis Corporation.
John O. Brennan
was the president of The Analysis Corporation. He is also
a former CIA official and is now Deputy National Security Adviser for
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
dates of access are
January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008. The initial reports indicated
only a breach of Obama’s records. Later it was reported that Clinton and
McCain’s records had been accessed. The names of the individuals,
including the one still working at the State Department, have never been
released. Officially, it was a simple matter of snooping; no criminal
charges were filed and it was handled only with "disciplinary" action. For such a serious breach, the penalties were light.
So what is
the relevance of Passportgate and March 14, 2008? One must go back two
days to March 12, 2008 for the answer. This is because from all
available information, background, verifiable data and facts, March 12,
2008 is the first verifiable history of the now infamous Obama internet
COLB, exactly two days prior to the last passport break-in. Specifically, the first documentable record of the COLB starts at the
hour of 22:41:37 on March 12, 2008. This is the date and time stamp from
the digital photo that is shown on the
FactCheck.org website dedicated to
Specifically, it is the photo named
"birth_certificate_3.jpg." FactCheck has removed the original embedded
data, known as EXIF data, from its website, but an original version with
the EXIF data can be found at the
[discussion and amplification
known about this photo named "birth_certificate_3.jpg"? As stated above,
the date/time stamp digitally recorded when the photo was taken
indicates the photo was taken March 12, 2008 and the time is recorded as
22:41:37 or 10:41 p.m. Other data available from the EXIF data indicates
the camera used was a Canon PowerShot A570IS. It was in Auto mode with
red-eye reduction mode on, the flash did not fire during the photo, the
exposure time was 1/60th (relatively slow), and the F-stop (aperture)
While these values are shown in the EXIF data, we know
they were automatically selected by the camera and not the photographer
because we can also see the camera was set to full auto mode -- simply
point and shoot. The result was a slightly blurred, overexposed photo of
printed, greenish-tint document.
In the photo, a document is
being held up to a light source. The light source is behind the
photographer since the shadow of his arm is over the document. The light
source is also the predominant lighting since the background is dark and
the overhead office lights are off in the background. Analysis of the
background finds: a) the overhead office lights off, and b) no natural
light coming in from the large windows that can be seen. The conclusion
is that that photo was taken at night. Was it at 10:41 p.m.? There is
nothing in the photo to contradict that digitally-captured time.