Grassroots Commentary

The Unmasking of a Counterfeit President: Part III

Adrien Nash · Aug. 20, 2012

Barack Obama’s White House released an image on the internet that is purported to be a scan of an official Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. That certificate image is an abstract version of a supposedly real hospital birth certificate whose text was digitally extrapolated into an abstract version, printed, certified, embossed with the state seal, and then picked-up by Obama’s lawyer and then scanned by the White House. But in fact, all that really exists is a manufactured computer image of an abstract version of a real birth certificate. With that pdf image being purely digital, it’s origin is unknowable, and if it were from within the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, its original was and is vulnerable to digital alteration.

Who wants to bet their life, (or that of their wife or mother or daughter) that what is in the computer data-base of the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics is completely beyond fraudulent manipulation by those within the office? Nothing that is not beyond manipulation can be trusted when the fate of an entire administration and political party are at stake, (not to mention Supreme Court appointments and health care legislation that will radically transform America) when those trusted as guardians of the original vital record may be (are) partisan political acolytes of the person in question, i.e., their knight in shining armor in the White House, -the prez. himself?

No confirmation of the unverifiable “facts” stated by an Obama-supporting fellow-socialist Hawaiian official is worth the paper it’s printed on.

To them, lying for Obama would be like lying for Jesus. Why would that be out of the question?

The history of politics is a history of lying, and the so-called “certificate” image of Obama’s birth facts is the most political document (image) in modern American history.

Another problem is the claim of verification of point #1. “A birth certificate is on file with the Dept. of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

But above the Registrar’s stamped signature is the stamped statement: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Dept. of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.” That’s a standard statement if ever there was one. It and the signature are part of a single rubber stamp , (-one more bastardization of true certification, -stamped by a clerk with her initials added next to it).

[How do you discern if the signature is a forgery or not if the signature is not even a signature? No actual signature = no actual certification.]

First the record “on file” in their data-base is called a birth certificate, but lastly, in the stamp, it’s called a “vital record.” “Vital record” is accurate. “Birth certificate” is not accurate, -unless they have an actual birth certificate issued by a hospital or a certified copy from another jurisdiction and surrendered to them in exchange for a Hawaiian birth certificate issued to Obama’s mother.

But there is nothing to prevent the Hawaiian DOH from calling anything and everything “on file” a birth certificate, -meaning that they can be factually wrong, (lying) and no one has any way of knowing what is actually “on file” in their computerized data-base.

What must be acknowledged is the fact that “on file” is a totally ambiguous term, -and deliberately so. What they intended and expected people to assume is that that term means:

“An original birth certificate is stored in the Dept. of Health’s document archive and its recorded information states that Barack Obama was born in such-n-such Hawaiian hospital.”

Yet their statement to Bennett says no such thing, even though he foolishly accepted it as meaning what they wanted him to assume that it meant. No statement was made that an original paper Hawaiian hospital birth certificate was accessed and it confirmed the information shown in the White House pdf image.

By not making that statement, they verified nothing regarding original facts. They merely “verified (in a bastardized manner involving no required signature) that their computer file shows the same information as the White House pdf.

Historically, a true certified birth certificate was always a certification by a state office that the copy of the vital record they released to a parent was a true replication of the original. That always meant the original record and not simply the original information. But certified true copies are no longer issued because of the more labor-intensive effort of producing them.

Instead, imitation "copies” (abstracts) are issued, and the state uses its constitutional authority to “certify” them illegitimately. See: The Bastardization of Certification.

Believing in the information alone requires faith that there was no error nor manipulation involved in producing a birth record. Whereas “a true copy” image replication requires nothing other than the ability to see and read and think. Faith was not involved other than believing your own lyin’ eyes. Which would you prefer to trust, -your own eyes or some dubious conflict-of-interest statement about information of an unverifiable nature held “on file”?

What level of authentication should be required to verify information pertaining to the highest office in the nation?..-a minimal, short-cut riddled level, or an infallible level?..-a digital abstract version, -or an optically-captured original version?..-a version requiring total faith in the truthfulness of people you can’t trust? Or a version reliant on only your own lyin’ eyes?

But hey, we’re only talking about the presidency of the United States. What difference does it make whether or not “Hawaii” truly verifies anything? Answer: Only all the difference in the world.

The gullible liberal sheeple will continue to embrace the fake pdf and the deceiving statements from Hawaiian government socio-crats, but folks who haven’t out-sourced their thinking to others will recognize a con job when they see it.

It's Right. It's Free.