SITREP Obama Citizenship, Nov 23 08 : “Forged Images, Phony Photos, and Felony Fraud”

By DemocracyRules

The pace of events is intensifying.  More people are doing more and more every day, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to summarize all the breaking events in a single web posting.  Here are two highlights.
___________________________________

From  Ron Polarik, PhD, comes this carefully researched and written report which specifically examines and reviews key Obama documents.

Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy
Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud

This quote gives a taste, but the report itself has much more.

“There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.”

Polarik is alluding to fraud.

Fraud  Function: noun. Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus. Date: 14th century.  1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right  b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting: trick  2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be: impostor; also: one who defrauds: cheat  b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be. – – Webster’s

________________________________

Millions of Americans may think this eligibility issue is not worth bothering about.  Here’s a relevant quote from Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution:

 “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.

It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Pro Patria

Comments

[rrobin]

This is also fascinating, to say the least!
Have you heard the radio interview on this link?

http://www.freedommarch.org/FreedomMarch_Radio.html

"Please listen to the Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes's Legal Counsel interview with Gary Kreep, Esq. Interview PART 2 (last one at the bottom - below)

"The radio host is saying that he has a friend who works at a title research company in Hawaii who HAS seen the original Obama vault Birth Certificate - and it reads and states that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. The statement is at about 17 minutes into the audio.

"The host said they are trying to connect that person (his friend) with Gary Kreep, one of the attornies for Dr. Alan Keyes case here in California to obtain an affidavit in writing."

[B. Wilby]

If the Supreme Court doesn’t pick up the Obama Non-Citizen ball and run with it, the liberal left-wing conspiracy nutcases and the now-in-hiding media together will beat this matter to death.

And, George Soros will finally get his wish- Come January 20, 2009 it will be President George Soros and his Obama Howdy Doody doll.

[Ace]

Forget that Obama is not qualified, the fix is in. Worry more about his corruption. This man's whole life has been a story of corruption on an unbelievable scale.

The people in your blogroll are absolutely clueless, maybe I missed a few, but these people are imagining we are still living in the good ol' honest US of A.

All they should be doing is screaming from the rooftops, while they are permitted, that our whole system is abscessed to the root. This is a joke.Look at them all living in a fantasy world. This election was rigged from the start, and I mean BOTH crooked candidates.

Our government is criminal...you'll see soon enough.

[beth]

It's a damned shame the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii only has _one_ seal with which to certify all the requests it gets each day, week, month, year for legal documents (like a Certification of Live Birth.) On the other hand, if they _did_ have more than one seal for embossing/certifying documents, Ron Polarik, PhD, wouldn't have been able to provide such overwhelming proof as to the forgery, fake, scam, and sham of the Obama document. His photos, overlays, twists, turn, and indepth analysis of the document is incredibly - darn, I can't find the right word to describe it...

Oh, wait...you say there are _how_ many seals for use by personnel certifying documents in the State of Hawaii's Department of Health? Well...errrm...umm... Never mind...

[Kevin]

Polarik is the fraud. I compared his "Obama certificate images" with the other ones on the Internet and they don't match--he faked his data. And while he claims Polarik is his real name, you won't find his name or dissertation anywhere. A REAL PhD looked at Polarik's research and published this:

http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
_________________________________
{From DR -- Sorry Kevin, I disagree. I have scrutinized those photos a lot myself. The evidence is very clearly present on the photos themselves. There is no need to question Polarik's credentials or his authority, when he presents the evidence itself so thoroughly.

Scientists, even forensic scientists, do not normally reason from authority, puffing themselves out like blow fish to make others believe in them.

Instead, the most respected scientist is expected to carefully collect evidence and publish that evidence so that everyone can see it. If the evidence is wrong, then the science is wrong, and the conclusions are wrong. That's it, that's all, end of story. But if the evidence is valid, and the reasoning is valid, then the results are valid, irrespective of who did the research.

There was once a lowly Swiss patent clerk with no real authority who made extravagant claims that he knew the true relationship between space and time. People ignored him until they saw his mathematical evidence. It turned out the guy was right, and now there are pictures of Einstein all over the place.

Just look at the evidence itself. Clearly (1) none of these photos represent legally valid images which would be acceptable proof of citizenship in a court of law. (2) All of these photos have been saved, altered, and saved again in multiple times in multiple ways, which makes it impossible to verify that any of them are valid images of a valid birth record, (3) A photo of a "seal" on a document is not evidence that there is a real document which bears such a seal, especially when the photo itself has been altered in multiple ways. (4) You can see the physically impossible seal yourself, where the same seal image appears on both sides of the document! This is not physically possible, one should be a mirror opposite of the other. (5) This in itself is evidence of fraud.

-- Pro Patria}

[Kevin]

One of your visitors commented: "The radio host is saying that he has a friend who works at a title research company in Hawaii who HAS seen the original Obama vault Birth Certificate - and it reads and states that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. The statement is at about 17 minutes into the audio."

First, the claim is impossible. Hawaii didn't start registering foreign-born births until 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth was registered.)

Second, the claim is impossible. Title searchers don't get to visit high security birth certificate vaults, and such a disclosure (in or out of the vault) would have been a crime.

Thinking people get suspicious when impossible claims are made attributed to unnamed persons. It doesn't get any flakier than that.
_________________________________
{From DR -- Yes, I agree with your main point that hearsay evidence is mainly just distracting. It may or may not be true, but I can't give it much credulity until better evidence appears.

However, I think you're wrong about your minor point. Apparently, at the time of Obama's birth, it was possible for a Hawaiian parent to (1) have a baby outside Hawaii, (2) return to Hawaii, and (3) register the baby as Hawaiian born, by swearing an oath to that effect.

Pro Patria}

[Kevin]

One of your visitor's commented: "Oh, wait...you say there are _how_ many seals for use by personnel certifying documents in the State of Hawaii's Department of Health? Well...errrm...umm... Never mind..."

Certainly more than one. There's at least one for the front office people that produce the walk-in certificates and at least one one for the back-office people that handle the mail.
___________________________________
{From DR -- Yes, good point Kevin. That comment about the multipe seals is irrelevant. Factcheck.org shows a photo of a seal impression on the front of the document. But the photo of the back of the document shows exactly the same seal imression! That's not physically possible, they should be mirror opposites of each other.

Therefore, it doesn't matter how many seals Hawaii has, because all of them obey the laws of physics. The same seal can't be in two places at exactly the same time!

-- Pro Patria}

[Kevin]

B. Wilby wrote: "If the Supreme Court doesn’t pick up the Obama Non-Citizen ball and run with it, the liberal left-wing conspiracy nutcases and the now-in-hiding media together will beat this matter to death."

You know, B. Wilby posted that identical sentence on my blog! Now that is a coincidence. Here's where it fell on mine:
http://www.blogordie.com/2008/11/obama-citizenship-denial-final-summary/

It doesn't make any more sense here than it did there. If the Supreme Court doesn't act (which I predict it won't), the same conservatives beating it to death today will be the ones continuing in the future.
______________________________
{From DR -- Sorry Kevin, I don't follow you. (1) Why would leftists assert that Obama is ineligible? (2) What has reasoned evidence got to do with conspiracy theories? By definition, a conspiracy theory is not supported by adequate evidence or proof. (3) What has conservatism got to do with reasoned evidence?

Facts are facts, they are unrelated to political orientation.

Political beliefs, by definition, are based on opinion. If any political belief is eventually proved by compelling scientific evidence, then it is no longer political. It becomes technical. For example, the orbit of the earth around the sun used to be a political issue. Now it's a technical issue.

Pro Patria}

[Kevin]

DR wrote: "... Factcheck.org shows a photo of a seal impression on the front of the document. But the photo of the back of the document shows exactly the same seal imression! That's not physically possible, they should be mirror opposites of each other."

They should be mirror images, and they are! Take this photo of the back: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg and compare it to this photo of the front: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg. The seal is comprised of a central image surrounded by three concentric circles. Focus on the inner circle. From the back the inner circle is thicker on the right and thinner on the left. From the front it is thicker on the left and thinner on the right = mirror image.

Polarik's evidence is a fraud. I did the same things he claims to have done with different results. Polarik introduced things into the Obama images that aren't in ones posted on FightTheSmears, Daily KOS, PolitiFact and FactCheck. His methodology of comparing documents scanned with different hardware, software and lamps is completely invalid. And if the guy lies about his PhD, why would you trust his data, never mind his analysis of it?

Polarik was completely discredited by a real PhD with a real name and a real dissertation here: http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

______________________________________

{From DR -- Sorry Kevin, I don't think your arguments are cogent and relevant.

I have scrutinized those photos a lot myself. The evidence is very clearly present on the photos themselves. There is no need to question Polarik's credentials or his authority, when he presents the evidence itself so thoroughly.

You are defaming him on this website, where he can't defend himself. The burden of proof is on the person doing the defamation. Don't defame people or I will delete your comments.

Scientists, even forensic scientists, do not normally reason from authority, puffing themselves out like blow fish to make others believe in them.

Instead, the most respected scientist is expected to carefully collect evidence and publish that evidence so that everyone can see it. If the evidence is wrong, then the science is wrong, and the conclusions are wrong. That's it, that's all, end of story. But if the evidence is valid, and the reasoning is valid, then the results are valid, irrespective of who did the research.

Just look at the evidence itself. Clearly (1) none of these photos represent legally valid images which would be acceptable proof of citizenship in a court of law. (2) All of these photos have been saved, altered, and saved again in multiple times in multiple ways, which makes it impossible to verify that any of them are valid images of a valid birth record, (3) A photo of a "seal" on a document is not evidence that there is a real document which bears such a seal, especially when the photo itself has been altered in multiple ways. (4) You can see the physically impossible seal yourself, where the same seal image appears on both sides of the document! This is not physically possible, one should be a mirror opposite of the other. (5) This in itself is evidence of fraud.

There is no need for you to go on with your line of reasoning. Although you may claim that one of these photos is not faked the way Polarik says it is faked, I don't agree. You also seem to be picking at details that are ultimately irrelevant.

For some reason you have ignored my main points. In points (1), (2), and (3) above, I ask you to just look at the evidence itself. Clearly (1) none of these photos represent legally valid images which would be acceptable proof of citizenship in a court of law. (2) All of these photos have been saved, altered, and saved again in multiple times in multiple ways, which makes it impossible to verify that any of them are valid images of a valid birth record, (3) A photo of a "seal" on a document is not evidence that there is a real document which bears such a seal, especially when the photo itself has been altered in multiple ways.

You may dispute my points (4) and (5), but why? If you accept my argument (1) that, "none of these photos represent legally valid images which would be acceptable proof of citizenship in a court of law", then why even bother with (4) and (5)?

On this blog I am discussing Obama's claim that he is a "natural born citizen". The precise methodology by which these internet pictures have been altered is not directly relevant.

And I remind you again, don't defame people on this website.

-- Pro Patria}

[Kevin]

{From DR -- to Kevin ...I think you're wrong about your minor point. Apparently, at the time of Obama's birth, it was possible for a Hawaiian parent to (1) have a baby outside Hawaii, (2) return to Hawaii, and (3) register the baby as Hawaiian born, by swearing an oath to that effect.

Pro Patria}
_______________________________-

From Kevin to DR --

Your description of Hawaiian law is flawed in several ways, but the most obvious is that the procedure you describe did not exist until 1982 (21 years after Barack's birth was registered.) And if you think for a second, the "as Hawaiian born" totally makes no sense. What good is a birth certificate if it doesn't accurately say where you were born? The State of Hawaii has officially stated in writing that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. You can't get around that fact. (You ask where is that? It's on his Certification of Live Birth!)

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

_______________________________________

{From DR to Kevin:

Thanks for your comment.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. Hawaii had 2 loopholes that parents could use to get a phony birth certificate for their baby. You are talking about a special method for Hawaii. But I’m talking about a much older, simpler method that has been in place in most states for centuries.

The old method is quite simple. If you are an American, but you are out of country when the baby is born, then as soon as they can travel, the mother and baby zoom back home. Then the mother can go to the birth records office and swear out a statement that the baby was born at home. Her sworn statement is enough to get a birth certificate for the baby.

Throughout the history of America, tens millions of babies were born at home, often with no official person present. Historically, this has been an extremely common way to register births.

This can still be done in most states, because some parents want their baby to be born at home, and many unsupervised births also happen. Taxicabs, police cars, farmer’s fields, I’m sure you’ve heard the stories, and most are true.

But why would Obama’s mother do this? Well, she said she was in Kenya just before the birth. Airline travel is hard for women in late-term pregnancy because of the pressure changes, and of course airlines don’t want to have babies born in fight if they can avoid it.

So if Obama’s mother was stranded in Kenya, she could have had the baby there. Then she could have waited a few days, and taken baby Obama back to Hawaii. Once she was home, she could register Obama as a home birth, and get a Birth Certificate accordingly. Obama would be deemed a US citizen.

If she didn’t do this, the baby wouldn’t be a US citizen. She was too young, and the father was Kenyan.

If no one saw his Birth Certificate, Obama could claim he was a “natural born citizen”. But he would be in trouble if people saw his Birth Certificate, because it looks fishy. The Certificate would record that Obama was born at home, with no official person, not even a midwife present. Given that Obama’s mother had just returned from Kenya, people would wonder if Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Kevin, you refer to an internet picture which Obama claims is his “Certification of Live Birth”. But of course, an internet picture would have no validity in a court of law, when Obama can order the Birth Certificate itself for $14, at any time.

Thus, the true location of birth will not be known until the original Birth Certificate and other documents are public, and are examined by experts.

As others have argued, this is probably irrelevant anyway, because dual citizens from birth are not "natural born citizens". Obama himself says he was born dual.

– Pro Patria}

[beth]

Maybe this link: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html
to "US Law Relating to Dual Citizenship" might be helpful about now? It uses some Latin terms, but explains them well -- particularly as they relate to the (cases of inherited - or not) "natural-born" US citizenship(-at-birth) status of children...

___________________________________
{From DR -- Sorry Beth. Since the Constitution was enacted, an enormous amount of law has been written about citizenship, in the US and elsewhere. Every country re-writes parts of their citizenship laws from time to time.

These laws often influence each other inside each country, and between other countries as well. This is especially in the case with dual and multiple citizenships.

But the current laws really have no bearing on the text of the US Constitution, with the meaning that it was meant to have by the Framers of the Constitution. That meaning can't be changed, because of course we would have to go back in time to do that.

-- Pro Patria}

[beth]

"But the current laws really have no bearing on the text of the US Constitution, with the meaning that it was meant to have by the Framers of the Constitution. That meaning can't be changed, because of course we would have to go back in time to do that." [from DR]

By that logic, only those born in the 13 original colonies/States could become POTUS under the 14th Amendment? The _text_ of the Constitution, afterall, is _specific_ and no laws passed after its writing (to support, reinforce, clarify that text) have any bearing? I think not.

The Constitution is a 'living' document; if it weren't, it would be relegated to some dusty corner in some obscure library as an interesting artifact from the olden days...right along-side patents for shoe lasts or next to Morse's original telegraph key.

Our laws are _based in_ the text of the Constitution (that is one of their 'tests' - to see if they are Constitutionally upheld); to say they "really have no bearing" on the "meaning" of the Consitution is, I think, plain old silly. For over 232-years, we have been enacting laws -based in/on the Constitution- that clarify, emphasize, and/or reinforce its text; it is only relevent as an arbitrator _of_ our laws _because_ we use it as a foundational document _for_ our laws. To dismiss any of those (subsequent) laws because they are not included in the specific text of the document, kills the document - makes it a relic.

To me, the laws that have been passed on citizenship, immigration, and naturalization, are critical to the discussion at hand...they've all been based on/in the Constitution, and without them, all we are left with is the world (as it was known) of the mid-1700s and with the applicable laws of the times. Now, had all our post-Independence laws been made willy-nilly without any basis in any foundational document, (i.e. the Constitution) that would be one thing; as it is, though...

[Kevin]

Speaking of "going back in time", Leo Donofrio is attempting to do just that. He says that Chester A. Arthur was born of a British citizen, and covered it up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{From DR -- Yes, thanks Kevin, I saw that, and I find it very interesting. I have also looked into Chester Arthur's history. I'm trying to find time to post about it, because the logic is interesting. For example, Donofrio shows that for every President, their eligibility was known and accepted before they took office.

Arthur may or may not have falsified the record of his eligibility, and more research may determine this with certainty.

In the meantime, it's very clear that in Arthur's time (ca. 1880), a "natural born citizen" was clearly understood to be a person who was born to US soil, with two parents who were US citizens at the time of the baby's birth! In other words, in Chester Arthur's time, Obama would not have been eligible.

--Pro Patria}