Under Seal: Document Expert Identifies Obama Birth Certificate Forger; Says Media Executives Invol

reply to post by hellobruce


To tell you the truth, I don't recall his mother ever being referred to, at any time, as anything but a U.S. Citizen. I know Obama was never referred to in any other way. Not even once.

That, from the hundreds of archive documents out of Immigration and other agencies which document dumped by FOIA request in 2010. It sounds like you've read some or all of them. I've read them all. It looks like many others haven't though.

You know, I was a birther myself until I stormed off to go prove that side was right one night, quite some time back ...only to prove myself totally wrong and the birther position baseless with nothing but belief in what is said to go on. I not only found nothing in actual source and REAL documentation to support any of this, it contradicts it. Completely. Without a single exception I ever saw.

Wrabbit2000
...That, from the hundreds of archive documents out of Immigration and other agencies which document dumped by FOIA request in 2010. It sounds like you've read some or all of them. I've read them all. It looks like many others haven't though.
...You know, I was a birther myself until I stormed off to go prove that side was right one night, quite some time back ...only to prove myself totally wrong and the birther position baseless with nothing but belief in what is said to go on. I not only found nothing in actual source and REAL documentation to support any of this, it contradicts it. Completely. Without a single exception I ever saw.

I realize you addressed this comment to someone-else...and, I don't want to interrupt your conversation with them, but would like some clarification, if you don't mind.
What are you defining as "a birther", and/or "the birther position"?
Is it - anyone who is not convinced of the "official" line...which you are apparently espousing (here)?
Or, is it something else?
When you say you found no actual source or REAL documentation to support...but rather, found only such that would contradict "it"... What is "it"?

By the way - congratulations on your Knighthood...I mean Dominatorhood...I mean - your entry into the halls of Moderatordom.

reply to post by WanDash


Okay, I'll be much clearer. Barack Obama was never, at any time, a Citizen of Indonesia. The United States Government never, at any point, recognized him as such while a child. They never, at any time, recognized his mother as anything other than a citizen of the United States.

Hundreds of documents were released in FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests in 2010 on this matter. The White House COULD have made a big deal of that, so everyone knew. They COULD have put it all right on the White House Website, if they'd chosen to. They chose NOT to make a big deal of it, and so, it's utterly amazing how many people don't even know the full immigration files on his real father, stepfather and mother WERE released at that time and for anyone and everyone to read.

It took me a good bit of time to read all that, but I got through it. There ARE juicy things in there. Buried deeply in them. Someone would have to read them to find what I'm thinking of..but few I've run into would ever resist the pull to make a HUGE deal out of a few things. It's usually what makes it so obvious between who has and who has NOT actually put the hours into reading the ORIGINAL SOURCE material vs. the Media's BS.

The Media tends to report each other these days, as common stories show when you have the same ones, word for word in precise copies, appearing in a dozen or more outlets at once. So it's been on this. Rumors become accusations become accepted fact. *I* believed the Indonesian citizen nonsense too. I hadn't taken the time to see that, NO...he didn't HAVE to be a citizen to attend the State School OR the Private Catholic School he went to for the second half of his time in Jakarta.

If you search on here, I and others have spent many many precious posts outlining all this in excruciating detail, fully supported and documented.

I DO think his Original Birth Cert shows something the public versions do not. I DO NOT think it has anything that would be a legal matter though. A man's parentage isn't a crime to lie about, the last I checked. It wouldn't have gotten this man elected, if what I have come to suspect is true...but it won't get him anything but bad press, even if proven, at this point.

The problem, the man was never truly born (if you believe a few things we have read here on ATS)..

He was hatched from a reptilian egg warmed by a jackal.




Regardless of where (or IF ) he may or may have not been born, he has committed enough other impeachable offenses that something needs to be done... but you can say that about MOST every president since since the turn of the 20th century.

It is not difficult to make a forgery of a document such as a birth certificate that is indistinguishable from a real one, especially for someone who has access to government resources designed to do this. The best possibility that I can come up with for this and a lot of other things is that this are being done for the purpose of spurring distrust of the government in the American people. The NWO orders m.o. is to bring order out of chaos and I believe we are seeing the seeds of civil disobedience being planted, this sort of thing is what our CIA does in other nations and it looks just about the same here. Don't be surprised if details suddenly emerge that are so outrageous that people are suddenly up in arms every where, I think creating that scenario is a part of the plan and is likely going to happen immediately before we get shutdown, whether that's through nuclear, collapse of the dollar or both at the same time. It will be a tool used to implement martial law as well as sweeping political change.

neilarm
It is not difficult to make a forgery of a document such as a birth certificate that is indistinguishable from a real one, especially for someone who has access to government resources designed to do this. The best possibility that I can come up with for this and a lot of other things is that this are being done for the purpose of spurring distrust of the government in the American people.
-- snip --

Quite so, and it has done one H*ll of an effective job of making the point that rules no longer matter. It's been said that, "Too often and too willingly government business has ended where the penal code begins." If infuriates me to read of illegal aliens being given drivers licenses and yet I have to drag my 61 year old but out of bed every morning and drive our 33 year old son to work because of a ticket written 13 years ago.

Concerning the OP and the current resident of the WH:
Nowadays "good" does not indicate he who is capable but rather he who is harmless. I consider him a "Miss By A Mile" on both points...

Btw, congratulations and condolences on your new position, Wrabbit,

reply to post by neilarm


It is very easy to make a fake that would pass all checks. But they didn't make that kind of fake they made a bad one.

It could very well be on purpose that the bad fake was released to place a divide in the nation’s people, to make them easier to manage. He could have a real one and thought it was going to be published online for people to see, but had it switched on him.
This would mean even if he came out with the real one he’ll be hanging himself, and who ever published the fake would have control over him. This is just a theory really, a possible cause and effect of the info we have at hand

But that out of the way, look at all the news we’ve been seeing. All of them lead to sub groups being formed in the nation. Sub groups are easier to manage and control then a “one Nation indivisible” (Pledge of Allegiance 1924-1954). Also look at some of the news that never makes it in to the paper that would make good rallying points.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Thanks for the response.
I wasn't "pulling" for what you believe to be 'wrong' with what some people believe or suspect, but appreciate that you did/have.
Will get back to considering the allegations - which - I have found to be kind of weak, so far.

I will summarize my thoughts...

> Why does it matter if someone is born in the US or not? Being born in the US does not prove you are a true American.
> If you follow the rule of "must be born in the US" then you should mandate that all candidates to register with a copy of live birth, and everything, and upon entry to upper stages, further testing would be made to validate your credentials are valid.
> Obama took 2-years to present his certificate of live-birth, why? This should have been presented before becoming president. I don't care who else didn't present it before, it should always be presented and validated prior to becoming president.
> "Birthers" should never let go of the conspiracy until it has been 100% proven, and I don't believe it can be proven. I believe "Birthers" are an important asset to the future of politics, and you'll see within the coming years on what I mean about that.
> Whether you believe or don't believe it doesn't matter. Obama is in the oval office and no matter what, even if it's publicly declared without a doubt that he was born out of country, liberals will side by him anyways, even though it's the law that he needs to abide by.

By the way, birthers didn't start with Obama, it started at least with Bush, because a lot of liberals were claiming he was from Mexico. That is all!

reply to post by madmac5150


Really? Tell me just one impeachable offense. Just one will be fine. But he hasn't committed one offense that he could be impeached for. Nothing at all.

reply to post by Em2013


Sorry Charlie but yes being born in the United States does too make your an American. Even if your parents are not.

reply to post by Em2013


Give it up already. He is an American born on US soil by an American mother . Period. It has been proven but for Obama haters it will never be proven only because the don't want it to be.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


Have you even bothered reading my post? You seem like you're just spewing whatever comes to mind without deep thought. At least think about what I said and realize what I am saying.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



The release of the Divorce records of Lolo and Stanley implies Barack was kind of considered adopted, because they have the line "1 minor child under 18" and "1 child over 18".

Maya is listed as the minor child, and since Barack is now over 18, what other child could they be referring to? and it states, "still dependent upon the parents for education".

What other reason could there be for a child to be listed as a dependent if that child merely just lived in the home? As he was called "a dependent" for both Lolo and Stanley, then it means he was adopted.

This is on the divorce records issued by the FOIA.

WarminIndy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The release of the Divorce records of Lolo and Stanley implies Barack was kind of considered adopted, because they have the line "1 minor child under 18" and "1 child over 18".

Maya is listed as the minor child, and since Barack is now over 18, what other child could they be referring to? and it states, "still dependent upon the parents for education".

What other reason could there be for a child to be listed as a dependent if that child merely just lived in the home? As he was called "a dependent" for both Lolo and Stanley, then it means he was adopted.

Are you ever going to get around to showing us the US law that says Obama or his mother forfeited or renounced their citizenships? Or any documentation that would indicate that they ever did this voluntarily?

How about that claim about Betty Mahmoody and the US consulate? Was that just an error, or did you have some source for that?

neilarm
The best possibility that I can come up with for this and a lot of other things is that this are being done for the purpose of spurring distrust of the government in the American people.

That would also be a reason to disseminate false conspiracy theories.

reply to post by Em2013


Except he had a hard copy of his birth certificate on displays at his campaign headquarters prior to being elected and invited journalists to take a look at it.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The release of the Divorce records of Lolo and Stanley implies Barack was kind of considered adopted, because they have the line "1 minor child under 18" and "1 child over 18".

That's the whole thing. "Implies" means everything in the Court of Public Opinion. It means absolutely nothing in a Court of Law. If we're talking general appearances? Yeah... He sure looked like a split resident during those years. In a legal sense? I simply never saw any reference to him as anything but the Minor child and, where referenced at all, American citizen. I'd note it if I saw a single instance, anywhere, of Indonesian or split citizenship. After all, I was looking to prove the position I held at the time, for supporting the overall push against his National Origin, not disprove.

It's simply that, legally speaking, I ended up disproving it on every level. At least to my satisfaction. It was one of the more ...memorable lessons I've taken from ATS, to be honest. That was one GIANT dose of humility with a BIG side of crow to munch on for awhile. It wasn't pleasant to find I'd actually been arguing with no basis but media and "I heard..." references in support ...with nothing deep down to support THOSE.

Live and Learn tho ..and that's part of what turned my entire online approach to one of linking almost everything with as close to original, top source material as I can ever find for any given topic. That's a BIG part of why I turned that way.

I pretty much swore I'd never be suckered that thoroughly again.

Stormdancer777

Let the games begin,

EXCERPTS:

I. Misprision of Felony

Legal failure right off the bat.

Misprison of a felony is illegal under federal law, but only when it involves a felony under the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

Forging a state document would be a violation of state law, not federal.

Also, with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" standard, you can't even say a felony has been committed in the legal sense until someone is convicted of said felony.