Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Obama's Fake Birth Certificate

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: MonsterMark

Anybody following this?

Simply fascinating.

Democrats will stoop to any low to get elected.

The guy is a total fraud. He needs to be disqualified.

Go Hillary.

Posted by: shagdrum

Hadn't heard about this...any links?

Posted by: MonsterMark

You can start here. There are links everywhere with more info.

Basically, the guy is a fraud and the COLB is a fake.

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

Posted by: fossten

That's a damning analysis. Bring out the real birth cert or gtfo B. Hussein.

Posted by: MonsterMark

This guy going by the screen name Aragon makes the most sense so far...

Aragon...
It’s right there and you all can’t see it.

I am an attorney of 13 years so am used to working with lingo and working my way backwards to figure out which laws and regulations are in play.

What do the two following discrepancies have in common:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

2. There is a black field where the certificate number should be.

The Answer to the discrepancies noted in 1 and 2 above are the same. You get a birth cerficate number when the proposed certificate is accepted by the State Registrar!

There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar).

The black field you see does not cover a certificate number rather it hides the fact of its non existence.

As an attorney allow me to work backwards here. Given my familiarity with legislating I submit that the State of Hawaii had a system in place wherein if a proposed certificate of birth was submitted by a hospital or registered medical facility it would, as a matter of administrative rule, be routinely approved and accepted by the State and a Birth Certificate issued. However, if not born in a major hospital or registered medical facility then further proof would be needed upon submission of the proposed certificate. In the instant matter, while a proposed certificate was filed with the Registrar it was not accepted for any number of reasons.

Where a proposed certificate is not accepted then an applicant can ask for a hearing or otherwise submit proof surrounding the circumstances of birth for purposes of having a birth certificate issued. My guess is that Barrack’s mother never provided adequate proof to the Registrar of the circumstances surrounding Barrack’s birth. This may be because Barrack was born elsewhere, adopted, or who knows.

As further proof of matters as surmised above, the fact that the certificate of birth we see references African as race testifies not to the State’s labelling practices (which practices did not include such a label) but rather to how the mother or father classified themselves as it was they that submitted the proposed certificate of birth. This explains this oddity “African” very well.

So what we have here is a State Summary of a Proposed Birth Certificate which certificate was never accepted by the State. Perhaps Barrack was born in the U.S., however, what he doesn’t want is to have to apply for a hearing with the Registrar’s office for purposes of submitting proof of the circumstances of his birth. This would be a zoo. And it may be too late to ask for such a hearing in which case he would have to apply for the hearing, be rejected, then appeal to the higher court’s for resolution of the matter. Further, the their may be a constitutional requirement of U.S. birth, a birth certificate while likely presumptive evidence of the fact, is not the only means of proving the fact. Here, Obama, if challenged on his place of birth could file a declaratory action with the Federal Courts seeking to establish his birth in the U.S. for purposes of satisfying, not the State of Hawaii, but the constitutional requirements of one seeking to hold the office of presidency. But this again would be a zoo and legally murky.

Anyway, my familiarity with the law indicates that the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things:

1. Why reference is made to filed and not accepted;
2. Why there is a black field where the certificate number should be;
3. Why Obama refuses to state what hospital he was born in;
4. Why there is a discrepancy in accounts as to which hospital Obama was born in;
5. Why there is no attestation and seal on the certificate of birth submitted by Obama; (Note what has been produced is not a birth certificate nor a substitute for same as it was not accepted, therefore, no seal was necessary as it is merely a public document.)
6. Why Obama won’t release his birth certificate.
7. Why Obama can say straight faced he was born in Hawaii (because he thinks he was or can say he thinks he was and can just say the birth certificate was nothing but a mere formality that his family never took care of.).

Posted by: 04SCTLS

A friend sent me this email and I thought you guys would find it interesting.

Subject: Well what do you think?

WOW - This should be interesting if this is true.

CAN OBAMA LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT?

Hi Everyone,

I think everyone should maybe wait until next week to see if this hits the fan. I did not find anything to confirm or refute this story.

Maybe we need to contact the Attorney General or our congressmen, and get them to look at it too!

I received the message below and have searched for something to dispute it. There is nothing on SNOPES to dispute this.

CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between 'December 24,1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen, if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal.

US Law very clearly stipulates: 'If only one parent was a U.S citizen at The time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the Age of 16.'

Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means although she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so, for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not yrs 21 of age. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President***. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia... Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

Interesting!! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped?? Who do you know who you can forward this to who might be able to help answer this question?

Posted by: MonsterMark

This has been going on for 4 weeks now.

Follow my links if you want to go into the rabbit hole.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, it wasn't at a licensed hospital or care center.

His COLB (certificate of Live Birth) has (supposedly) been filed with the State of Hawaii (see his certificate: shows it was 'received') but not accepted because they were never able to verify his place of birth.

I could give you 10 scenarios right now but this has to play out a bit.

Of course, Obama the messiah could put this to rest by actually providing a copy if his certificate, but like all liberals, they feel entitled and above the law and the MSM won't put him on the carpet over it because they are in his pocket.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Obama's tax plan would hit me hard especially if he lifts the 90,000.00 income cap on Social Security deductions as I'm in the top 1% of earners.
More work for the lawyers and accountants to get around this.
Obama's been fumbling around recently but McCain hasn't exactly been gaining.
McCain just doesn't generate passion and/or excitement
so far.
This is not a good year for republicans.

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Obama's tax plan would hit me hard especially if he lifts the 90,000.00 income cap on Social Security deductions as I'm in the top 1% of earners.
More work for the lawyers and accountants to get around this.
Obama's been fumbling around recently but McCain hasn't exactly been gaining.
McCain just doesn't generate passion and/or excitement
so far.
This is not a good year for republicans.

Nor for Democrats! This is some scary stuff going on. Let's see if this is one of the "bombshells" that are brought out in October.

Posted by: Marcus

I read that entire blog page that tries to "prove" the CLB is fake, and all I have to say is this guy is a total amateur. Everything he describes is perfectly consistent with what you get when you start with a less than perfect scan and over-process it to make it look better. Things like sharpness filters do weird things to text (the sharp outlines of the letters surrounded by gray "mush").

The issue with the borders overlapping is simply the result of how the master for the paper was created. Before the advent of graphics programs, everything was done by hand. For the borders, you used adhesive tape with the scrolls and stuff printed on them and applied them to the master. Once the master was done, you'd use a giant camera to take a full-size photo of the paper, which was then transferred to a printing plate via photo-resistive etching.

Also, comparing the scan of Obama's CLB with those of other people, without knowing what kinds of image enhancement (as opposed to alteration) was done is pointless. Different scanners, different resolutions, different image software will produce different results.

If someone from the Obama camp wanted to produce a fake CLB, they could have easily made it nearly perfect. The fact that it's not is good evidence that it's genuine. Which begs the question: Considering how easy it is to fake an electronic image, what exactly would satisfy the nut-job conspiracy theorists? I could just as easily take any of the scanned images of other peoples' CLBs and use the same logic to "prove" they were fake.

Bryan, you're not exactly batting 1000. Do you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? The more you post these ridiculous things, the sillier you look. Do you actually believe that throwing out these shaky, poorly-researched conspiracy theories non-stop does your cause any good? I'd put you in the same category as the 9/11 "truthers". There's no getting through to them either.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Obama as president. You know, policies, experience, etc. Why do you waste your time on this nonsense?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

I read that entire blog page that tries to "prove" the CLB is fake, and all I have to say is this guy is a total amateur. Everything he describes is perfectly consistent with what you get when you start with a less than perfect scan and over-process it to make it look better. Things like sharpness filters do weird things to text (the sharp outlines of the letters surrounded by gray "mush").

The issue with the borders overlapping is simply the result of how the master for the paper was created. Before the advent of graphics programs, everything was done by hand. For the borders, you used adhesive tape with the scrolls and stuff printed on them and applied them to the master. Once the master was done, you'd use a giant camera to take a full-size photo of the paper, which was then transferred to a printing plate via photo-resistive etching.

Also, comparing the scan of Obama's CLB with those of other people, without knowing what kinds of image enhancement (as opposed to alteration) was done is pointless. Different scanners, different resolutions, different image software will produce different results.

If someone from the Obama camp wanted to produce a fake CLB, they could have easily made it nearly perfect. The fact that it's not is good evidence that it's genuine. Which begs the question: Considering how easy it is to fake an electronic image, what exactly would satisfy the nut-job conspiracy theorists? I could just as easily take any of the scanned images of other peoples' CLBs and use the same logic to "prove" they were fake.

Bryan, you're not exactly batting 1000. Do you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? The more you post these ridiculous things, the sillier you look. Do you actually believe that throwing out these shaky, poorly-researched conspiracy theories non-stop does your cause any good? I'd put you in the same category as the 9/11 "truthers". There's no getting through to them either.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Obama as president. You know, policies, experience, etc. Why do you waste your time on this nonsense?

Specious and unconvincing.

I especially enjoyed the part where you said that the fact that it has flaws indicates that it's authentic. Classic.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Specious and unconvincing.

Not nearly as much as the blog in question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I especially enjoyed the part where you said that the fact that it has flaws indicates that it's authentic. Classic.

The point is, there is no way to prove that ANY electronic image hasn't been altered. The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied, even if they were provided with a 60 meg TIFF file. In fact, when it comes to documents, the more "perfect" the scan is, the easier it is to manipulate.

I have no illusions of convincing you or Bryan that I'm right. You made up your minds long before this came out. I'm just saying that not everyone buys this guy's evidence. Politics has nothing to do with it. This comes from my experience as a youth working in a graphics house and from my familiarity working with Photoshop. There isn't a single thing out of the ordinary in those scans other than someone attempting to make it look better by overuse of sharpening filters and futzing with the contrast, size, compression, etc.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Here we go again.

The Obama apologists out in force.

Obama could make this go away.

Simply provide the media with the copy from the State that is stamped and signed.

End of story.

But like the John Kerry story, there is a reason to cover up.

We just haven't exposed the Messiah yet.

I have to laugh. There are several blogs and several sites, all with their own analysis. Have you spent more than 2 minutes looking into it? I doubt it.

Obama is not electable so I don't care about this as far as the Presidency. Exposing lying, scumbag liberals to the world is part of my job however. So I do it with the full expectation of knowing the truth will eventually come out.

We exposed Kerry.

We are working on Obama, the American-hating, socialist Arab.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Not nearly as much as the blog in question.

The point is, there is no way to prove that ANY electronic image hasn't been altered. The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied, even if they were provided with a 60 meg TIFF file. In fact, when it comes to documents, the more "perfect" the scan is, the easier it is to manipulate.

I'll grant you this point; however, the fact that it has been altered begs the question - why won't Obama just produce an original and clear up the controversy?

Posted by: shagdrum

While I am taking a "wait and see" attitude on this, I have yet to see a plausible explanation (in Obama's favor) for the lack of a seal stamped on the birth certificate (which is standard procedure), why it says "date filed" instead of "date accepted", why there is a lack of fold on the certificate if it was mailed and why the certificate number is blacked out.

It is pretty obvious that the certificate was run through Photoshop (or some other photo editing software), but for the sake of argument, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama on that, and assume that it was simply to "clean the image up", and not alter it (except for blacking out the certificate number).

Still, it seems that there are some legit questions about it.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Still, it seems that there are some legit questions about it.

Ya, Like what hospital were you born in?

Pretty simple. I bet 99.5% of the U.S. population could answer that one.

He's lying.
He's been lying.
He's always been a liar.

He's a closet muslim.
He went to Pakistan twice while in college.
He joins the most racist church in the U.S.
He chums up to terrorists who bombed the U.S.
His wife is a racist.
He has no experience.
He refines (the 2008 word for flip-flop) his position daily.
No core values.
Arrogant.
Marxist.
Socialist.
Tree hugger.

Feel free to add to the list.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

He's inept at courting the moderate voters in his clumsy shift to the center.
This in and of itself shows he's not very clever or insightful.
He doesn't understand the people he's trying to widen his appeal to.
Even Jesse Jackson says he talks down to his own people.
It's like forget what I said yesterday, what I'm saying today is what I believe in.

He ran a winning campaign against Hillary which was an impressive accomplishment but since his victory he's contradicted himself so nakedly and amateurishly in his ambition that even the fawning MSM have taken notice.

Now that the elected Iraqi government is demanding a timetable for the withdrawl of American troops which both Bush and McCain said they would honor, the war issue passions may die down as the public sees the troops will be coming home soon regardless of who wins.
Of course this kind of dashes the plans to build 14 permanent military bases that Bush Cheney had in mind all along.

And of course most don't realize that by removing Saddam
Bush neutralized Iran's greatest enemy. Now that Iraq wants us to leave, when (if) we do they can start mending fences with Iran to the benefit of both of them.

Funny how history unfolds.

McCain is not a great campaigner and has his own pecadillos but in light of how Obama has run his campaign since winning the nomination the Republicans are probably better off than if Hillary had won.

It's not over till it's over and there's still the debates which will probably be central to most Americans who traditionally don't pay much attention until after Labor Day.

Remember Reagan's "There you go again" retort to Carter during a 1980 debate which became the defining moment that set most people's minds.

Obama has squandered his opening position, browned off his base, and made a cynical transparent play for the evangelicals and that can
only help McCain.

Personal Loans:MPAA:Money:Buy WoW Gold:Loans