Obama Forged Birth Certificate: Lawsuit News

Controvery continues to swirl around the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. I began researching this story  a year ago, after I locatedan article on the Israeli Insider website in which their own experts seriously questionsed the hasty job that Factcheck.org did  in looking into the veracity of his birth certificate. One of the most suspicious things I ran into immediately was that not a single USA media outlet would touch this story with a ten foot pole.  I sat for days emailing every major media news outlet in the USA, and not one newspaper, magazine, reporter, or Tv station would look into the allegations of fraud regarding his birth certificate. It was the erriest “this cannot be America” feeling I have ever had. I actually privately wondered even then, whether or not we were already living in a police state without knowing it.

Here is the link I found last year on the Israeli-insider websitethat got me looking deeper into the forgery of Obama’s birth certificate. I wrote a whole page of RED FLAGS that I was finding out about Baack Obama at the time. By October the red flags were piling up so fast I literally could not keep up with them. Here is the link top that RED FLAG list on Obama.

Sections of Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii have been redacted, or blacked out. This fact has been suppressed in all USA news media outlets. The document also clearly lacks a state seal, which must be present to verify authenticity. A state seal will show up in a photocopy, and in scans of a document.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm

PA based Attorney Phillip J. Berg deserves our support.  He has been pursuing justice on Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate for over a year now. On his website he has audio recordings from Obama’s Kenyan blood relatives that clearly state that Obama was born in Kenya.  They were there and they were eye witneses. Here’s the link. See http://www.obamacrimes.info/

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005 (610) 825-3134 (800) 993-PHIL [7445] Fax (610) 834-7659

Contact Phil J. Berg by email



Update: More Hard Evidence Comes to Light Regarding A Forged Obama Hawaii Birth Certificate in 2009

The birth certificate on Barack Obama’s website from the 2008 presidential campaign was forged using  Photoshop.

I was a graphic artist for over 20 years and I have used Photoshop for over 10 years. Graphics professionals know that digital documents which are altered will include a hidden time date stamp showing they were altered with photoshop. A youtube user has run a software analysis of Obama’s birth certificate, the digital version that appears on his site, and the hidden time date stamp appeared. There are numerous other irregularities about the digital document. One of the glaring red flags is that the state seal of Hawaii is simply NOT on that document. A valid birth certificate would clearly show the state seal, even in a photocopy or a scan.

Even more damning, the FED employee who doctored up a fake birth certificate for Obama’s website last summer has now come clean. He has confessed to what he did. See image and url below

Friday, July 04, 2008

OMG — BLOGGER ADMITS TO OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY

riday, July 04, 2008

OMG — BLOGGER ADMITS TO OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY

WTF? Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims. What the hell is going one here? It’s  a damn birth certificate. He is running for President. Release the hounds!

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider’s revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists (led by JimJ and Texas Darling) and imaging professionals such as Polarik in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate The Daily Kos, a “progressive” blog site, and the Obama campaign’s “Fight the Smears” website, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance. Moreover, the blog and the campaign have been negligent in allowing the promotion of obviously forged and fake official documents together with the purported image of Obama’s birth certificate.

Go and look at the extensive research that was done — lots of screen shots too.

Previously at Atlas: The “Missing” Obama Birth Certificate Seal 6/29/08

SUCH A LIAR: OBAMA’S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE 6/26/08

RELEASE OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 6/10/08

Chad wrote me with these questions, apparently he received this from came from a USNA alumnus. It’ll be interesting to see how the media handle this

Barack Obama is not a legal 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. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be 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 USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

Look, this is on the bottom of my list of things wrong with Oybomba but if he is ineligible …..

UPDATE: Crazie Annie in the comment section makes a good point — Can anyone verify the aspect of length of residency? If yay or nay let me know.

That notwithstanding, can we see the real birth certificate please? Enough already.

UPDATE: Apparently, the above is wrong. Larwyn consulted with legal and she clarifies the law for us: The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 says:

“…a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person…” [Section 301e, {8 U.S.C. 1401} emphasis mine]

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  On August 21, 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the union as our 50th state, which means Barack Obama was born IN the United States.

Section 301a, {8 U.S.C. 1401 says “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.  Obama could have been an anchor baby of illegal aliens and could still be President.

Plain and simple Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

OK, so why the forgeries and all of this sturm and drang? Is this some diversionary tactic to keep us busy and off the scandals of  real import, Auchi, Rezko, Ayers etc.

STOP THE DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.

Release the certificate.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, July 04, 2008 at 03:05 PM in Obama’s Birth Certificate ForgeryWHITE HOUSE: THE RACE TO NOVEMBER | Permalink

TrackBack

» About Obama’s Citizenship from Rhymes With Right
I’ve seen it buzzing around the internet for several weeks now — suggestions that Barack Obama is not actually an American citizen at all. In the last 24 hours, I’ve seen that suggestion appear again, on two websites that I… [Read More]

Tracked on Saturday, July 05, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Comments

Israel Insider is still on this story and they make the point that the seal on the questionable certificate is not visible to the naked eye and to see it at all one must go through the equivalent of a cyber epsom salt bath.

Posted by: UnderzogFriday, July 04, 2008 at 05:27 PM

As a real forensic computer investigator (board certified, investigated thousands of cases, access to a full forensic computer lab, yadda yadda…) I decided to jump into the fray over the fake vs real discussion a week ago when a friend of mine challenged me to see what I could find (since according to him, the document was clearly a real one). He is what one would call a slightly rabid Obama supporter – he even has the tattoo to prove it.

First things first…I used the latest online KOS version (downloaded 6/29/2008) as it was supposedly the first released digital copy and the Decosta certificate from Israel Insider’s blog (also downloaded 6/29/2008) as an exemplar of a real certificate.

Of forensic interest on the KOS version is the EXIF metadata (encoded in the digital image data) showing that the KOS certificate was modified or created with “Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh” on “2008:06:12 08:42:36”. Assuming the EXIF data was added after the document was scanned (assuming it is real) and the document modified only by placing a black-out section over the Certificate Number or if it was converted and saved for web use this would not be too unusual. The Daily KOS released the story on “2008:06:12 08:44:37” which would be 2 minutes after the graphic’s EXIF stamp was created.

Before I became a forensic geek I worked for [a herein nameless publicly traded company] that designed counterfeit detection hardware and software for the banking and retail industry. The company was very high profile and we received training from [a certain herein nameless department of the Federal government that knows a thing or two about counterfeiting] – but I do not claim to be an all around expert in Questioned Documents but after several years of working with them I do know what to look for to spot an obvious fake.

That being said…I too was able to see “something” that looked like a seal – however even using highly specialized software (specifically designed for law enforcement and forensic examiner use for cleaning up digital images and video) I was unable to recover anything more than what others have previously released using a basic find edges and modification of the contrast. Even when the background security paper pattern was removed there was not enough of a “seal” to view anything usable or verifiable which is a bit odd but still might be possible if the seal had been completely flattened out in the mail, etc. There is also a fold which runs vertically across the top of the certificate which is close to the same location on the Decosta certificate.

At this point I was beginning to believe the certificate was real until I resized and overlaid the Decosta certificate on top of the KOS version. All things being equal there was a 3.82% difference in the size of the KOS version vs the Decosta certificate – but again depending on the optical distortion from the scanner this too was explainable. But upon manually stretching them to match edge to edge I caught a glimpse of what I and apparently everyone else had simply not noticed. The security borders do not match. Literally. They are not even close to identical. For instance “Decosta” contains five 10 pixel wide “diamonds” per vertical row while the “KOS Obama” contains 2 to 2 1/4 36 pixel wide diamonds per vertical row. These differences can clearly be observed even with the naked eye although you may need to enlarge the graphics on your screen. Taking the measurements further – Decosta’s “Certification of Live Birth” heading is centered between security diamond pattern and is 762 pixels wide @ 0% angle while Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” heading is not centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 794 pixels wide @ 0% angle. Decosta’s “Any Alterations” footer is centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 1244 pixels wide @ 0% angle while Obama’s “Any Alterations” footer is not centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 1294 pixels wide @ 0% angle. I kept the comparative screen shots in case anyone wants them.

I am unable to explain the differences between the security diamond sizes and counts and the un-centered portions (meaning the diamond pattern ends on an odd pattern instead of even where it meets the edges of the header and footer boxes). Looking closer at the KOS certificate (magnified to 400%) clearly shows inconsistencies in the security border such as cut and paste marks and overlaying of the side borders where they meet the top and bottom. This effect is not observed in the Decosta certificate at any magnification. Another point of interest, removing the background security pattern did not remove the background area from underneath the security border on the KOS certificate. The color and hue values of the background pattern located and viewable through the security border are also not a match to the rest of the certificate background. I can not explain these discrepancies. I then noticed there were some indications that the background pattern had been duplicated and placed in various locations to clean up the document. Now at some point I just started to laugh and went out for a smoke and gave up looking for more.

I am convinced that the certificate is a fake (and not really a very good one) and I went into this with a completely open mind (something the Obamanationalists seem to have lost). I also have to say that everyone who has been looking into this federal crime (and it is a federal crime even if the certificates were never meant to be used for identification) have done a stupendous job and I wish they all worked for my lab. Talk about a winning team.

Posted by: techdudeFriday, July 04, 2008 at 09:19 PM

Atlas,

I can’t verify the aspect of length of residency. If someone can find the definitive “must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.” I will shout it from the rooftops.

from:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”

U.S. Nationals

A “national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

Posted by: crazieannieFriday, July 04, 2008 at 10:55 PM

I went through all of this when my kids were born in the early eighties overseas and to a non-American mother (at the time). If Obama was born in the U.S. all of this is moot — he is a natural-born citizen. If not, based on what I have read of the age and whereabouts of his mother, I don’t think he is one based on the law in effect at the time of his birth (the same law when my kids were born). I had all of this explained to me by consular officers when getting what are known as “Certification of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the USA” documents.

I had friends and acquaintances in similar circumstances except that the American parent did not meet the time test as mentioned in the post. Their kids did NOT get certifications of birth as my kids did and, in fact, had to get visas and/or temporary minor passports to enter the U.S. A couple of them were in very difficult situations because unlike the U.S., most countries do not grant citizenship to children in their countries except via parentage. They, in effect, had no legal citizenship (e.g. my boss 25 years ago: American father who failed the U.S. residency requirement, Peruvian mother and child born in Germany; the child had no German parentage and thus no citizenship, and wasn’t American by birth and thus no citizenship).

@crazieannie:

Unfortunately I doubt I have any of the old documents, but the “must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16” sounds like the law in effect when my kids were born. It is my understanding that it was changed a number of years after their births to a shorter period of time which fits in with the rules you quoted. As I previously stated, I personally knew several people (children at the time) who were not given U.S. citizenship at their birth. My boss (who I previously mentioned) moved to Germany when he was 18 or 19, so he was definitely in the U.S. more than one year (but less than five) after he was 16.

Posted by: Don MiguelSaturday, July 05, 2008 at 03:25 AM

There is a problem with your analysis.

Provided Obama was actually born in Hawaii, it doesn’t matter if EITHER parent was a US Citizen. After all, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution would have settled the matter quite definitively in favor of his citizenship.

And while you are correct about the statutory language in question, it applies only to those born abroad, not to those born in the United States itself.

Obama can settle this issue very nicely by releasing a copy of his actual birth certificate, as completed at the hospital where he was born and filed with the state of Hawaii in 1961.

Posted by: Rhymes With RightSaturday, July 05, 2008 at 09:00 AM

If Obie was born in Hawaii then he meets the Constitutional requirement for citizenship.

If he was born in Kenya, as many suspect, then he is disqualified under the provisions of the citizenship laws in effect at the time of his birth.

All of these antics and the ensuing odd behavior over such a basic issue leads me to believe that they are concealing something.

What that something is remains unclear at the moment but my intuition tells me that something’s up.

Obie needs to step forward, man up, and come clean.

Of course, that would be the first time we got a truly straight answer out of him.

Posted by: Aye ChihuahuaSaturday, July 05, 2008 at 09:31 PM

I think the answer is clear: Obama was born on Aug 4 1959, not 1961. This would make him a non-citizen and ineligible to run.

Posted by: pteranodonSunday, July 06, 2008 at 05:06 PM

If HUSSEIN O’bummer was born in 1959 that would make his mother 16 – unlikely. Regardless, he would have become a US citizen by default when Hawaii became a state. The fact that the original hospital certificate is not available (or won’t be shown) is the obvious problem. I doubt he is a citizen and is most certainly a muslim. Once a muslim……

Posted by: johncuriousThursday, July 10, 2008 at 08:13 AM

Friday, August 22, 2008

THE ANNENBERG FACT CHECKERS

As Donald Luskin said back in 2005, “it’s a sad commentary on the state of public discourse when you have to fact-check FactCheck.org“. And the Economic Policy Institute  wrote on a different matter, “ How Factcheck.org got it wrong”.

So, I wouldn’t jump on the Annenberg Fact Checker’s assessment of Obama’s birth certificate certification. But if it keeps Hillary off the ticket, I’ll pipe down. How curious, a zillion experts looking at the same scan for months on the Obama’s Fight the Smears website (after the KOS scan was an admitted forgery)……….. they waited so long and then presto!

I mean, really. The man just comes back from Hawaii and voila! A new and different COLB.

Annenberg Factcheck.org is playing their part :

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

My tech expert says, “look very carefully at the document. It is the same one “scanned” but the scan is not an exact match. Too much border on the short left side now and too much at the bottom. “Extra paper”. Could it have been a bad scan where the side and bottom were cut off? Perhaps. But now look at the border…it now has a pretty hatch pattern inside another hatch pattern but still has a weakline flaw. Odd that all did not show on a 300dpi scan and still odd there are no matching borders found any place else. I guess we know what Obama was doing in Hawaii on vacation. It also looks like it was printed in an inkjet not a laser (bad pix hard to really tell without seeing it in person and using a 20x loop to see the printing).”

I mean really. The man just comes back from Hawaii and voila! A new and different COLB.

OT: Annenberg and Obama have a history ……….. this from the Stanley Kurtz article Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?

When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago DefenderHyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. and the  Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”).

UPDATE: Texas Darlin makes some very good points here:

Interesting, indeed. I have the following questions for Factcheck. Since they are so on-top of this story, I’m sure they have answers:

1. What took the campaign so long to show an actual document to the media?

2.  What other media did the campaign offer to show the COLB to, and have any others seen it and touched it, handled and photographed it? Or only Annenberg-owned Factcheck?

3. Why did the campaign go to such trouble to digitally black out the certificate number when it could have stuck a piece of solid black tape over the number, especially since, as Factcheck reported, they were in such a hurry?

4. Why did Janice Okubo tell a reporter that the COLB was ordered “this month” (June 2008 ) if it was ordered in June 2007?

5. Since Factcheck is seemingly in the business of helping the Obama campaign fight smears, did Factcheck ask the campaign about the rumor that Republicans are holding Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate? If so, what was the campaign’s response? If not, why not?

And finally…

6. How did end up getting this access? Did they ask the campaign, or did the campaign offer to show it to Factcheck? The article is mysteriously vague on that point: “FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate.”

UPDATE: And one last thing (uh, probably not), all of the points that the Annenberg Fact Checker’s cite (below) were not the basis of the argument put forth by my digital forensic expert (his report here):

Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

  • The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.
  • It isn’t signed.
  • No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
  • In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.
  • The certificate number is blacked out.
  • The date bleeding through from the back seems to say “2007,” but the document wasn’t released until 2008.
  • The document is a “certification of birth,” not a “certificate of birth.”

The contention made at Atlas is far more technical and indepth.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, August 22, 2008 at 01:09 AM in Obama’s Birth Certificate Forgery | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c60bf53ef00e55428f5ba8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Annenberg Fact Checkers:

» Fact-checking The Annenberg Fact-checkers from Hyscience
Gradually, we’re all learning that when it comes to matters relating to Barack Hussein Obama, one needs to do a lot of fact-checking. But when facts are claimed to have been fact-checked by factcheck.org, and we know that factcheck.org is funded primar… [Read More]

Tracked on Friday, August 22, 2008 at 09:11 AM

About CKH888

Not much to tell. Um.... I author news and art blogs now & then. :-)
This entry was posted in Grassroots Reporting, New World Order Agenda Exposed, Obama News Stories and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Obama Forged Birth Certificate: Lawsuit News

  1. Pingback: Pregnancy Dates Calculator

  2. Dana says:

    Please see this video before it’s pulled off the net. Michelle Obama admits Barack is from Kenya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJYfa2KhaA

Leave a comment if you'd like:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s