"We
will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor
you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your
healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
(Barack Obama, June 15, 2009, with variants repeated many times since).
Today, any American who isn't willfully blind knows this "promise" is a very big lie.
A lie which was deliberately told by fundamentally-dishonest pushers of
Obamacare, because if the truth were widely known at that time the
Affordable Care Act would never have become law.
It's
a lie that is so egregious, even the dinosaur media can't ignore it or
cover it up. In fact, the dinosaurs are increasingly upset that they're
being continually abused be "the most transparent administration in
history" and they now seem to be more willing to shed light not just on
this lie, but also on some of Obama's other lies.
Do
you suppose we could get them to take another look at the big lie of
April 27, 2011? The lie that is central to Barack Obama's identity? The
lie the dinosaurs not only glossed over, but for which they
excommunicated from the human race anybody who dared to point out it was
a lie?
I
refer, of course, to the long-form "birth certificate" forgery for
Barack Obama released by the White House to the world as a digital image
on April 27, 2011.
Before
you say, "Oh no, here we go again -- the guys with the tinfoil hats are
on the loose", let's dispense with the easy part. Here is the irrefutable proof that the Obama long-form "birth certificate" is a forgery.
Shown
in Figure OFS (below), side by side, are two images, each measuring 8.5
inches wide by 11 inches high (in their life size), against a black
background. On the right is the digital scan of Obama's genuine
short-form birth certificate, as released by the Obama presidential
campaign in 2008. On the left is the long-form "birth certificate"
forgery released in April 2011. I call it the "green thing".
Genuine
Hawaii birth certificates are printed on borderless green basketweave
security paper, as you can see on the genuine short-form certificate
image. They do not have the white border that you see in the "green
thing" on the left. That white border is like a picture frame for a
(borderless) photograph that you hang on the wall. It masks (covers)
part of the security-paper pattern at its outer edges.
So it is immediately obvious
to the naked eye that the "green thing" is not a simple scan of a
genuine, borderless paper birth certificate. It is a computer-generated
fake -- a forgery.
Figure
OFS. Obama PDF forgery (with white border) and genuine short-form
birth certificate, side by side, each measuring 8.5 by 11 inches.
The
White House released two versions of this fake: The "green thing", and a
much clearer (higher-resolution) black-and-white paper copy with no
security-paper background, which was passed out to reporters on the
morning of April 27, 2011. This paper copy was digitized (photographed)
by The Associated Press, and that image is shown in Figure MP1, which
follows.
The
second irrefutable proof of forgery was developed by Christopher
Monckton (Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an Englishman),
who has done a thorough analysis of the forgery's pitch -- that is, the
spacing of the supposedly-typed monospace text -- by drawing a uniform
grid on the AP-digitized image of the forgery (red lines in Figure MP1).
Figure MP1. Monckton's "typewriter pitch" grid superimposed on the high-resolution Associated Press photo.
Enlarged,
look at the "typed" line of text on Lord Monckton's grid, as shown in
Figure MP2. We see that "August 4" is actually shifted slightly left of
true pitch, and ", 1961 7:24 P." is shifted about a third of a
character to the right of true pitch.
Figure
MP2. The column containing the comma is where there is a right-shift
of about a third of a character in pitch for the rightmost third of the
forgery.
If
you look back at Figure MP1, you will see that the column containing
the comma is where the forger "lost" horizontal pitch. While the
leftmost two-thirds of the forgery (mostly) has one typewriter pitch,
the right one-third (mostly) has a different pitch, with the column
containing the comma being (about) an extra third of a character too
wide. This pitch-shift is very abrupt and cannot be accounted for by
lens distortion in the AP photographer's camera, nor by any conceivable
behavior by a real typist at a real typewriter. A true, and obvious,
forger's mistake.
In
Figure MP1 Lord Monckton also drew baselines for the "typewritten"
text. (The baselines are for double-spaced lines on a typewriter, when
the typist pulls the carriage-return lever twice after typing a line.)
You can see that some lines of "typewritten" text are on the baseline,
some are close, and others are off, with no consistency from line to
line. While the forger tried to maintain consistent pitch horizontally,
vertical pitch was lost.
Courtesy
of Lord Monckton, shown in Figure MP3 is a very-beaten-up genuine
Hawaiian birth certificate for the summer of Obama's birth, on which
Monckton has superimposed a pitch-grid (blue lines) showing that a
genuine typewritten Hawaiian birth certificate of that era maintains
horizontal and vertical pitch on a form designed to accommodate
double-spaced typewritten lines (as one would expect.) (The items
"Waihee", "Negro", "Porter Service" and "6-13-61" are later
modifications made with a different typewriter.)
Figure MP3. A genuine Hawaiian birth certificate from 1961 which maintains perfect horizontal and vertical typewriter pitch.
To summarize:
If
Obama's long-form "birth certificate" were genuine, then the White
House would have released a simple, borderless digital image resulting
from the scan of a genuine paper document, in a widely-used graphical
format. (The 2008 certificate image was released as a JPEG.)
But
because the "birth certificate" is a forgery, what we wound up with is a
mess. Paper black-and-white copies of the forgery, with the basketweave
security pattern digitally "turned off" before printing, were passed
out to the White House press corps. Then a much-poorer-quality color
image, inexplicably masked with a white border, was deliberately
digitally damaged by the forger to confuse Internet sleuths before it
was released to the public in PDF format (generally used for documents,
not stand-alone pictures) as the "green thing".
If
you would like more detailed evidence of forgery than is contained in
this brief summary, I urge you to download and read my complete research
report, Barry Soetoro's Birth Secret, available at:
This
is a "public domain" document (uncopyrighted, except for "fair use" of
certain graphics), so feel free to pass it around among your friends.
For
the two years that I have been analyzing and writing about Obama's
long-form "birth certificate", I have not done any of this research to
score political points. (I think Obama is a terrible president, but that
is irrelevant to my research efforts.) I have only been trying for my
own satisfaction to solve the maddening, real-life mystery of Obama's
origins and of what's being hidden that's on his real birth certificate.
In "Secrets Revealed" (American Thinker,
June 15, 2012) I compared the short-form birth certificate, the
forgery, and the "Verification of Birth" sent by the Hawaii Department
of Health to Arizona secretary of state Ken Bennett -- line by line --
and concluded that all of the information on the short-form birth
certificate and on the long-form forgery that was released to the public
is true, but the genuine long-form image cannot be shown because the
certificate in Hawaii's possession "looks different" or contains more
information than what was released to the public.
At
this point we progress from known fact -- the "birth certificate" is
fake -- to theory: If all the information shown is true, why was the
fake, instead of the genuine birth certificate, released?
For me, there is only one likely possibility: Adoption. Specifically,
Barry was legally adopted by Obama's mother's second husband, Lolo
Soetoro, in a way that caused the Hawaii birth record to be visually
altered.
Is
there any evidence that Lolo Soetoro legally adopted Obama after he and
Ann Dunham (Obama) were married in Hawaii on March 24, 1965?
Yes,
there is, though it is sketchy. (Adopted children don't usually go
around telling people they were adopted, nor do parents typically
advertise that their children are adopted, though it may be obvious
where the child's race differs from the parents'.)
There
is a Facebook posting made in 2011 by Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's
half-sister, in response to a critic where she wrote in part, "You
mentioned the adoption laws of Indonesia that you saw as related to my
brother's legitimacy (you were suggesting that because my father, his stepfather, had adopted him, that
my brother was no longer American) and I said that I had no idea about
Indonesian adoption law and what you were saying didn't make any sense
to me but that the law that mattered was the law of this country [that
is, U.S. law] and the fact that he was born in the United States."
(Italics are mine.) It would seem that Maya thinks that Barry was
adopted, believing it to be an Indonesian adoption.
Figure SFA. 1968 Indonesian school registration for Barry Soetoro. (Associated Press photo by Tatan Syuflana.)
Also
relevant is young Barry's registration for the school term beginning in
1968 at Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi Catholic) school
in Indonesia, as shown in Figure SFA.
The translations for some of the line items are:
1. Name of the student - Barry Soetoro
2. Place and date of birth - Honolulu 4-8-61 [August 4, 1961, date in European format]
3. Nation: a, citizenship - Indonesia
b, foreign descent - (left blank)
c, race - (left blank)
4. Religion - Islam
5. Student's address - Ment[eng] Dalam R007/R1003
7a. School term beginning date - 1-1-1968
7b. Placed in class - 2
8a. Parents' names: Father - L. Soetoro M. A.
Mother - (left blank)
Indonesian citizenship (which comes through the father under Indonesian law) would be conferred to Barry by legal adoption.
Chapter 2 of ghostwriter Bill Ayers' eloquent composite biography of Obama, Dreams From My Father, covers Obama's time spent in Indonesia.
On Page 38 we read,
"So it was to Lolo that I turned for guidance and instructions. He didn't talk much, but he was easy to be with. With his family and friends he introduced me as his son,
but he never pressed things beyond matter-of-fact advice or pretended
that our relationship was more than it was. I appreciated this
distance; it implied a manly trust." (Italics are mine.)
And on Page 41 we find,
"My mother watched us from inside the house... She really was grateful for Lolo's solicitude toward me. He wouldn't have treated his own son very differently. She knew that she was lucky for Lolo's basic kindness." (Again, italics are mine.)
Dreams From My Father
is revealing not just in what it says, but in what it omits. Nowhere
in Chapter 2 is there a reference to Lolo Soetoro as "father",
"stepfather", "adopted father" or any reference at all to his
formal/legal relationship to young Barry. He appears as just "Lolo",
with an apparent unwillingness on Barry's part to shed the Kenyan
figment of a father in favor of a man who clearly was reaching out to be
a real father to him.
Finally,
we have Stanley Ann Soetoro's 1968 application to extend her 1965
passport (now destroyed) for an additional two years, as shown in Figure
PPA.
On
the second page of the application, Ann moved to exclude her son Barack
Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the item has been
crossed out -- perhaps on the advice of the consulate in Jakarta, as
this would have left seven-year-old Barry passportless -- so it didn't
happen.
The
appendage "(Soebarkah)" has never been satisfactorily explained by
anyone, and I certainly don't know what "Soebarkah" means, but it does
seem to indicate a name change or change in citizenship status for the
boy.
Figure PPA. Ann Soetoro's 1968 application to extend her 1965 passport.
If,
as I think is likely, Barry was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, was
the adoption in Indonesia or Hawaii? Most observers (like half-sister
Maya) have assumed that it would have been in Indonesia, but if we look
at the timelines and circumstances of the Soetoro family's piecemeal
return/emigration to Indonesia, we see that a timely Indonesian adoption
would be very unlikely, while there was ample time for the parents to
put in place a Hawaiian adoption before settling in Indonesia.
Stanley
Ann (Dunham) Obama and Lolo Soetoro were married in Molokai on March
24, 1965, while they were both still graduate students at the University
of Hawaii. Lolo was in the U.S. on a student visa scheduled to expire
in June 1965. But because Indonesia was in turmoil following a failed
military coup in September 1965 which resulted in the purging and
killing of communists in 1965-66, Lolo stayed in Hawaii for as long as
he could, until the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service forced
his return to Indonesia in July 1966. On his return to Indonesia Lolo
worked for the government, mapping western New Guinea.
Finally,
in 1967 it was safe for Americans to go to Indonesia, so Ann Soetoro
emigrated there in October 1967, with Barry in tow, to join her husband
Lolo, where they lived in a district of south Jakarta. Barry was
enrolled as an Indonesian citizen for school beginning in 1968, as we
have seen; Indonesian citizenship was a requirement for students
attending Indonesian state-supported schools.
Under
Indonesian law of the time, if Lolo adopted Barry before he turned age 5
(that is, before August 4, 1966), Barry would automatically become an
Indonesian citizen, subject to the approval of the Pengadilan Negeri
(district court) for the district of the father's residence. A Hawaiian
adoption of a U.S.-citizen child by a foreign-nationality father would
pose no U.S. legal problems, and it would be recognized in Indonesia
under international treaty. (Under U.S. law, Barry would hold triple
citizenship -- U.S., Indonesian, and Kenyan.) And since the parents knew
they would eventually be living in Indonesia, it would make sense for
Lolo to adopt Barry in Hawaii, and take advantage of the automatic
Indonesian citizenship for the child, as part of the preparations for
emigration and Barry's schooling there.
If
Lolo had adopted Barry in Indonesia, he would then be adopting a
six-year-old foreign-born child under Indonesian law, in less than four
months' time, so Barry could go to school at the beginning of January
1968. Unlikely.
In
1965 and 1966 the only kind of Hawaiian adoption available for young
children was a sealed adoption, where the pre-adoption birth certificate
of the adopted child is sealed under court order, and a new birth
certificate is issued showing the adopting parent(s) as the birth
parent(s). When a Hawaiian birth certificate is thus amended, a document
file containing the sealed record of the original document and
supporting documentation that authorized a change to the information
contained in the original document is created. The amended certificate
is "distinctly marked" alerting to the fact it was altered. (Today, most
adoptions can be "unsealed" and the pre-adoptive birth information
restored to the vital records, but this does not "undo" an adoption --
nor a change of surname, if there was one.)
Whatever
that "distinctly marked" alteration to Obama's birth certificate is, it
must be obvious enough that, if shown to the public, people would see
that Barry had been adopted.
Do we have any concrete evidence that Lolo adopted Barry in Hawaii?
Yes, we do.
First
is the forgery itself -- it was released in lieu of a genuine long-form
birth certificate so the public would not know that Lolo Soetoro had
adopted Obama (as would be evidenced by the amending of his
hospital-generated birth information).
Second, we have a myriad collection of official statements by various Hawaii officials.
In
the English language there are (at least) two different meanings of the
word "original" when referring to documents. It can mean "master",
rather than a copy or facsimile; or it can mean "first version," rather
than revised or subsequent versions.
The
section of Hawaiian state law (578-14) which covers birth certificates
being issued as part of the adoption process refers to the pre-adoption
birth certificate as "original" and the post-adoption birth certificate
as "new." So when bureaucrats who are following the law refer to an
"original" birth certificate, they most certainly mean the master, but
they could also be using the legal meaning, the certificate generated at
time of birth, before it was amended by adoption of the child.
In this light let's take another look at some of those carefully-worded statements by Hawaii state officials:
"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."
Again, on July 27, 2009: Fukino indicated she had "seen the original
vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of
Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a
natural-born American." (One can disagree on legal grounds with the
additional qualifier of natural-born, but her statement does identify
Obama as native-born.)
On April 11, 2011, following a telephone interview with Dr. Fukino, NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff wrote, "the original
so-called 'long form' birth certificate -- described by Hawaiian
officials as a 'record of live birth' -- absolutely exists, located in a
bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state
Department of Health. Fukino said she has personally inspected it --
twice. The first time was in late October 2008 -- taking with her the
state official in charge of vital records. She found the original
birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and
signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She
then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity.
She later put out another public statement in July 2009 - after
reviewing the original birth record a second time."
On
April 22, 2011, President Obama wrote to then-Director of the Hawaii
Department of Health Loretta J. Fuddy, "I am writing to request two
certified copies of my original certificate of live birth."
On April 25, 2011, Fuddy wrote to the president, "Enclosed, please find two copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies."
Finally,
we have State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka's (rubber-stamped) Verification
of Birth letter to Ken Bennett of May 22, 2012 in which Onaka writes,
"Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the
Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your
request [that is, a printout of the "green thing"] matches the original record in our files."
(Italicized emphasis of the word "original" in all of these statements is mine.)
So you see, these folks have been telling the truth all along. Moreover, they are adhering to state law by not indicating that an adoption had taken place, because they are not authorized to release that information.
Was
there anybody else telling the truth? Oh, yes -- President Obama on
the morning of April 27, 2011, before the release of the "green thing:
"As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information
today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for
two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the
campaign. And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I
have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree to which
this thing just kept on going. We've had every official in Hawaii,
Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this,
confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in
Kapiolani Hospital. We've posted the certification [short-form birth
certificate] that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for
everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact,
have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on
going." (The rest of his comments were political talking points.)
"We provided additional information today about the site of my birth" -- yes, he did. The information is truthful -- though incomplete -- but it was revealed via a forged document.
Just
when Barry reverted from using the surname Soetoro back to the surname
Obama is not clear. It was sometime after his return to Hawaii in the
summer or fall of 1971, alone as a ten-year-old boy with his own U.S.
passport. And we know that he graduated from Punahou School in 1979 as
"Barry Obama."
Does Barack Obama still legally carry the surname Soetoro? Perhaps somebody should ask him that question.
We
can now say beyond all doubt that Barack Obama (Soetoro) was born in
Honolulu on August 4, 1961, and is a native-born U.S. citizen. All
"official" evidence prior to the release of the long-form "birth
certificate" forgery told us this -- his short-form birth certificate,
statements by Hawaii officials, the contemporaneous birth announcements
in the Hawaii newspapers, his (birth) father's correspondence and
dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization service,
Obama/Soetoro's registration form for Fransiskus Asisi school. Now we
have the "birth certificate" forgery itself to seal the deal, because by
knowing what was being hidden with the release of the forgery -- his legal adoption -- we know what was not being hidden -- his place and date of birth.
About
the author: Nick Chase is a retired but still very active technical
writer, technical editor, computer programmer and stock market
newsletter writer. During his career he has produced documentation on
computers, typewriters, typesetters, headline-makers and other pieces of
equipment most people never heard of, and he has programmed typesetting
equipment. You can read more of his work on the American Thinker website and at contrariansview.org.
The theory that Barry was adopted in Hawaii is not a new idea, nor is it original with me. In Suborned in the USA (National Review Online, July 30, 2009) NRO editor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote:
"Obama
and the media worked in tireless harmony to refute any indication that
he had ever been a Muslim. It's now apparent, however, not only that
he was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world's
most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a
naturalized citizen of Indonesia.
"Shortly
after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham,
married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met -
just as she had met Barack Sr. - when both were students at the
University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted
the youngster, who became known as "Barry Soetoro." Obama's lengthy,
deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was
adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in
all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to
Jakarta.
"Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six [Correct age is five - Nick] by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father,
Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro
shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he
and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company
executive and liaison to the Suharto government.
"That was in 1966 [Correct year is 1967 - Nick], when Obama was five [Six
- Nick]. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in
Suharto's police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and
students were required
to carry identity cards that matched student registration information).
The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three
years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably
obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in
Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission
of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said
"the parties" (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no
longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted
Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama
as their child - he'd have been only Ann Dunham's child."
When
McCarthy wrote this, Obama was not under intense political pressure to
release his (genuine) long-form birth certificate, and at that time it
probably did not occur to anybody that he would be unable to do so
without also revealing that Lolo Soetoro had adopted him in Hawaii.
Share
Print
