On April 27, 2011, after the White House had claimed for more than two years that the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) Barack Obama had released during his presidential campaign was the only available government-issued proof of his birthplace (which, of course, was a mantra echoed by the media—both liberal and “conservative”), a new, and different, image was released to the world. So, regarding those claims, were they lying then or are they lying now? The answer is, “yes.”
The first image (COLB) has been thoroughly debunked by professional forensic document examiners as being a poorly forged image. It has also been disparaged by most thinking people, who readily observe its lack of typical information supplied on every form of birth certificate or certification in the United States. So, yes, they were lying then.
Within minutes of the release of this second image, there began a barrage of internet offerings pointing out the visual and technical discrepancies in it. The issue that has probably gained the most traction is that the PDF file released by the White House was comprised of nine individual layers (while the one the AP released had been “flattened”). I have read the competing arguments on the matter, and both sides seem to have some compelling evidence to support their respective cases.
Next, there has been much scrutiny over the textual images it contains, as it appears some characters don’t match the general appearance of other characters within specific strings (e.g., the “1” at the end of the certificate number 61 10641). For those, the quest for the truth will likely continue for quite awhile.
Unfortunately, there have also been easily explained “problems,” which are actually the types of claims that make us look like lunatics. In that category would be the purported “issue” that, where the time is entered, the upper-case “M” is smaller than the “P,” and that a 1961 typewriter would not have been able to accomplish that. Of course, those making that claim must not be familiar with the universe of forms, for with many forms, data that is constant (such as the “P” in either AM or PM) is fixed within the design of the form so that whoever is entering the information needs to enter either the “A” or the “P” only. Obviously, the appearance of the font used to design the form will be vastly different from what is entered manually—especially when that entry is done by a typewriter.
I’m quite certain that elemental problems will continue to be found on the image as it is further scrutinized, and for that reason alone, I think we all need to have our heads examined!
Here’s my point: Look at the image! Let me repeat: LOOK AT THE IMAGE! I’m not speaking of what the image contains, but the image itself. There is no possible way that image is an actual scan of a decades-old document that was still in a bound volume (as suggested by the skewing on its left side). The image is simply too perfect to be what it is purported to be.
Think about it. Have you ever tried to scan a page from a book? First, how many times has such a scan been perfect, horizontally and vertically? I’m guessing the answer to that would be, “Never.” Next, where the page is bound (the spine side of the page), what kind of shading is always there? Look at that shading on this document. Additionally, have you ever been able to scan a page from a book and have a bizarre matching border around the page, with the page itself sloping unnaturally within that border? That alone is proof that the image was computer-generated, for it is not as if Hawaii has a standardized way it provides scans of such images, as no other document has ever been released that looks like this one.
We have already spent far too much time and effort looking at the trees, when the forest is sitting there right under our noses. The White House is claiming that it received an exemption from Hawaiian officials (who have been nothing but forthright with us all along) to have the bound version of the long form birth certificate copied and released—something that, just the week before, Hawaii stated could not be done—not even for the messiah himself. And, obviously, they still have not done that. This image is unquestionably a computer-generated abstract of information either Hawaii or the White House has supplied. It is still not a scan, copy, or photograph of any paper document that was created in 1961, or even in 2011, for that matter.
While it would completely confound me for anyone to state honestly that they believe this is, as the White House claims, a scan of Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate, I suppose I have witnessed enough of his faithful followers’ illogical and bizarre blanket beliefs to expect at least a little of that in response to this.
So, I have a challenge for you—any of you: scan a page out of a book or some other bound volume, and show me that it is possible to arrive at something that looks even remotely similar to the latest blatant lie the White House has released. I’ll gladly post it everywhere I can to prove myself wrong.
Yes, this forest vs. the trees issue has continually kept us scrambling and looking like the idiots those in the media repeatedly and arrogantly report us to be. Obama openly told us during his campaign that his father was never a US citizen, which sufficiently disqualifies him under the Article II “natural born citizen” requirement (according to the historic definition of the term—“born on US soil to citizen parents”), and we brought out the flashlights and decoder rings trying to find his birth certificate—just as he wanted us to do.
We MUST be nuts.
Dean Haskins is a freelance writer, professional musician/producer, and the former chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic, one of the original “birther” organizations.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement