Quiz : How Long Does It Take To Produce A Fake PDF?

ScreenHunter_198 Apr. 10 13.32

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Quiz : How Long Does It Take To Produce A Fake PDF?

  1. gator69 says:

    OK, that may be. But as we all now know, it takes over three years, and numerous subpoenas, to produce a ‘real’ one. 😉

    • miked1947 says:

      A “REAL” Fake! 😉

      • smrstrauss says:

        It is not a fake.

        Only birther “experts” have called it forged, and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

        One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

        Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

        And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

        Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

        Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

        John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

        Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

        Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

        Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

      • Me says:

        Mike, Me guesses he doesn’t understand the real part! 😆

  2. smrstrauss says:

    Obama’s birth certificate is not forged. Only birther “experts” have called it forged, and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

    One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

    Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

    And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

    Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

    Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

    And it is irrational (to say the least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Oh, and the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.)

  3. smrstrauss says:

    I was unable to post a link to this article:

    Investigating the Obama Birth Mysteries
    Skip to content

    Home
    The Latest!
    Read an Excerpt
    The Questions
    Get the Book!
    Spread the Word
    Get Updates!
    Contacts & Media
    About the Author

    ← Exclusive! “Hawaii Girl” Confirms Her Parents’ Race — and I Crack the Actual Entries, Confirming that Arpaio’s Codes Don’t Match the Hawaii Codes, Either.
    The “Grandfather Clause” Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of the Constitution — Was It Ever Needed or Used? →
    Genuine, World-Class Computer Expert Evaluates Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF
    Posted on September 26, 2012 by John Woodman

    Opinion Solidly Addresses the Second of Two Major Claims Made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Press Conference in July.
    If You Want to Know What A Computer Process Really Will and Won’t Do, Ask a Genuine Expert… Like Professor Ricardo de Queiroz of the University of Brasilia.

    If You Want to Know What A Computer Process Really Will and Won’t Do,
    Ask a Genuine Expert in the Field —
    Like Professor Ricardo de Queiroz of the University of Brasilia.
    On July 18, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) stated, at a press conference, that President Obama’s birth certificate was a “proven” forgery.

    In doing so, Arpaio relied almost entirely on two things. The first of these two major claims has been examined here.

    The second was the opinion of two individuals — Garrett Papit and Tim Selaty, Jr. — that the characteristics of the birth certificate PDF simply could not be innocently explained.

    Mr. Papit’s report was published by Arpaio’s office. But although the Sheriff’s office mentioned Mr. Selaty’s name, they didn’t publish his report or give him much prominence. Instead, Mr. Selaty had to post the report on his own web site. That seemed odd at the time. However, it seems to me that this was probably for two reasons.

    First, Selaty didn’t reach all of the same conclusions that some of the other individuals quoted by the Posse did. It appears that publishing Selaty’s report would have raised questions about why this was the case.

    In other words, the testimony of their “experts” was not consistent (!)

    Secondly, Mr. Selaty is approximately 22 years old. One might easily wonder — with no disrespect intended to Selaty, who seems to have decent enough general computer skills for someone at the beginning of a career — why, exactly, was Arpaio’s Posse relying on a 22 year old for an “expert opinion” regarding the birth certificate of the President of the United States?

    Personally, if I were accusing the President of the United States of having a forged birth certificate, I would rely on real, recognized experts in the appropriate fields. And most certainly, no 22-year-olds would be in the mix. Unless, of course, they were legitimate, indisputable, widely recognized, certifiable geniuses who had finished their first PhD by, say, age 18.

    Again, no disrespect intended to Tim Selaty. But this is not the case here.
    Garrett Papit Claims to Have “Proven” that Obama’s PDF File Has Been “Tampered With.”

    Garrett Papit, Quoted by Arpaio’s Posse

    Garrett Papit, Quoted by Arpaio’s Posse
    It didn’t take long for Garrett Papit, the more prominently-showcased individual, to show up at this blog and proclaim with confidence that he had proven Mr. Obama’s birth certificate PDF file had been “tampered with.”

    He was very emphatic about that point.

    For any readers who are unfamiliar with the background of the issue, my own technical evaluation — published just over a year ago after some 500 hours of completely independent investigation — was that every single characteristic of the PDF file that was known at that time could easily be explained by innocent processes. The most prominent of these was optimization (or compression) of the file.

    In fact, I found the technical evidence to be overwhelming in that direction. In other words, not one of the significant birther allegations — and I examined all of them — stood up under honest and competent scrutiny.

    And going beyond those to test Obama’s PDF in every additional way I could come up with, I was unable to uncover any other genuine evidence that would demonstrate any manner of “forgery.”

    Garrett Papit, of course, claimed that I was absolutely wrong about the technical evidence. In fact, he went further than merely disagreeing with me technically. Bizarrely, Mr. Papit publicly and falsely accused me of having “lied” about myself “on multiple occasions.”

    Challenged to prove his charges, Papit could not do so. He eventually retracted his false accusation and apologized. However, it took several days for him to do so.
    The Essence of Garrett Papit’s Technical Claims

    Garrett Papit Claimed that an Optimized File Can Have Only One Text Layer.

    Garrett Papit Claimed that an Optimized File Can Have Only One Text Layer.
    The gist of Mr. Papit’s paper — the one publicized by Arpaio’s office — was that there are really only two forms of file optimization or compression — and that the characteristics of Obama’s file most assuredly fit neither.

    Probably most importantly, he claimed that “mixed raster content” compression never produces more than one bitmap layer. Since Obama’s PDF file has 8 bitmap layers, this claim — if true — could raise some legitimate questions.

    After reviewing Mr. Papit’s paper, I personally found his technical claims to be dubious — especially in regard to “mixed raster content” file compression. They seemed to be more assertions on Papit’s part than solid statements backed up by any documented technical evidence. And there were other strong reasons (perhaps a topic for another post) to doubt Papit’s claims.

    Nonetheless, I did not have at my hands any immediate and concrete proof that would categorically show his technical claims to be wrong.

    In fact, while I have broad experience in many different aspects of computer technology dating back more than 30 years, I am not an expert in the specific field of mixed raster content (MRC) compression.

    Neither, by the way, is Garrett Papit.

    Papit is basically a computer programmer for JC Penney. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Information Systems, and an MBA with a concentration in Managerial Information Systems.

    In his paper, he states that he is “also familiar with the methodology involved in PDF optimization and compression.”

    I’m sorry, but “familiar with” doesn’t cut it for the type of blanket claims that Papit has made in his paper — and on this site as well. I’m “familiar with” carburetors, but I can’t give you a definitive opinion of what one is and is not technically capable of. And if I were to pretend to do so, I would be far exceeding my level of expertise regarding carburetors. That would be unprofessional… at best.
    Evaluating Papit’s Claims

    In order to evaluate Garrett Papit’s claims regarding mixed raster content file processing, I searched for US patents on the basic technology — and found well over 100 of them.

    It seems that MRC compression is not quite as simple and cut-and-dried a process as Mr. Papit — in the half-dozen sparse pages he wrote about the technology — would have people to believe.

    There were two possible ways to evaluate the truth of Papit’s claims. The first would have been to invest a great deal of time to really learn and understand the various possible ins and outs of mixed raster content (MRC) compression. And the second option was to consult a real, existing expert in the field.

    I chose the second option, for two reasons. First, I’ve invested far too much of my time into this issue already. I didn’t want to invest the time to develop an entire body of knowledge about MRC compression, without any need or intent to apply that knowledge in my own profession. And secondly, I felt that the opinion of a recognized expert in this field would be of far more value than my own opinion anyway.
    For These Reasons, I Contacted a Real Expert. In Fact, I Contacted One of the Foremost Experts in the World.

    As I examined patents and technical papers written on MRC compression, one name in particular seemed to pop up again and again — that of Ricardo de Queiroz.

    Ricardo de Queiroz is one of the primary fathers of this entire technology.

    The very first “mixed raster content” patent in the United States was granted to Leon Bottou and Yann Andre LeCun… But the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 13th patents were granted to Ricardo de Queiroz and his team. That’s about half of the first dozen or so patents. And some of his team members and students have also gone on to further develop the technology.

    In addition, Professor de Queiroz appears again and again as an author of the available technical papers on MRC compression.

    Now there are certainly many other individuals who have contributed to the development of this technology; and several in particular have made really big contributions. But I decided, based on what I read in the patent filings and technical papers, that if I were going to contact one expert in the world on this particular technology, the person I would pick would be Ricardo de Queiroz.

    So I contacted him. And Dr. de Queiroz was gracious enough to reply — for which I thank him. In clarifying what compression technology is capable of, he has rendered a genuine service to all who have held any interest in this controversy.

    Before I present Professor de Queiroz’s response to my inquiries, we should briefly note a couple of other things.

    1) Professor de Queiroz did not simply volunteer an opinion on Obama’s birth certificate PDF. His expression of an opinion was a response to being asked for an opinion.

    2) American politics has little impact on a Brazilian living in Brazil. This being the case, it would be very difficult to attribute any political motive to a technical opinion expressed by Dr. de Queiroz.

    3) In any event, a technical expert of de Queiroz’s stature, generally speaking, gives technical opinions, not political ones. And such an expert, generally speaking, would never risk the reputation he’s built up over decades by issuing an opinion that would be easily shot down by the other top experts in his field.

    4) In terms of expertise in this specific field:

    Garrett Papit is to Ricardo de Queiroz:

    As high school football player is to Tim Tebow.
    As Sunday golfer is to Tiger Woods.
    As high school physics teacher is to Stephen Hawking.
    As…

    Well, you get the idea.

    Now it’s very possible that Garrett Papit might well be a better banjo player than Ricardo de Queiroz. He might even be better at wood carving, or Volkswagen engine repair.

    But when it comes to MRC compression, he doesn’t even approach being in the same league. (Nor, incidentally, do I — or virtually anybody else who’s ever previously commented publicly on the artifacts in the PDF.)

    Professor de Queiroz’s evaluation was expressed in an email letter to me. I have boldfaced some of the most important points. I have also added a few notes of my own, in brackets.
    Evaluation of Obama PDF File by Professor Ricardo de Queiroz

    Dear Mr. Woodman,

    There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not. The forgery can happen before being processed not to mention that the paper document itself could be forged, before the scanning. Thus, this is not the point.

    [Note: This is very similar to what I said in my book on the birth certificate — JW.]

    The question is whether all these artifacts we see after rendering the PDF of POBC are signs of forgery. I do not see that. I see them more likely as a result of inadequate processing.

    The document has poor quality and it has been aggressively processed, no questions about it. The question is whether the corruptive processing was individual with the intent of forging it, or if it was automated within regular MRC segmentation.

    If it was a forgery it was a very sloppy job. Any photoshop-knowledgeable person, of the garden variety, can do a much better job than that. If it is automated, it is a lousy job too, but bear in mind that algorithms for these jobs are not trained on specific documents. They were more likely developed, trained and tested on magazine pages and books. A US birth certificate is unlikely to give good results because it may be an outlier in the big picture of all documents they had in mind when developed their MRC tool.

    MRC is about separating the single-image document into multiple layers, hopefully each one with a given characteristic. This has to be done automatically, in what we call segmentation. What I see in the document are signs of MRC segmentation consistent with strategies in line with the techniques pioneered by DjVu. I (and my students) do not advocate doing the segmentation that way, but that is not the point either. In fact, I would not be surprised if the software which segmented the WH document was derived from some DjVu tool.
    An Illustration From a Technical Paper by Prof. Ricardo de Queiroz Shows Multiple, Different-Colored Bitmask Text Layers. Hmmm. Didn’t Garrett Papit Claim That Was Impossible?

    An Illustration From a Seminal 1999 Technical Paper by Professor and Inventor Ricardo de Queiroz Shows Multiple, Different-Colored Bitmask Text Layers. Hmmm. Didn’t Garrett Papit Claim That Was “Impossible?”
    They first try to “lift” the text to another layer. They can find more than one type of text and place them in different layers. The rest is background and they compress with standard image compression methods. In the POBC [President Obama Birth Certificate] I see lots of signs of that. It missed a lot of text, like the R in BARACK and in many other places. The missed text is aggressively compressed with JPEG for example, which justifies the damage to those text parts.

    About the halos around some text: I am not sure why they do it, but it may be trying to suppress another halo problem caused by “lifting” scanned text that leaves some of the foreground in the background and vice-versa causing trouble to compress the layers. We wrote some papers about it. You can still see background through inside some “O” letters and inside the check boxes.

    There might be morphological dilation around the text mask or the segmentation is block-based. The halo could be caused by the foreground in a dilated mask, or by processing the background. One plausible alternative is that the algorithm finds text as the letters with a bit of the surrounding background for safety. Some Adobe tools do that.

    Furthermore, the text is lifted to the foreground and sharpened (nearly binarized) making the background surroundings to disappear. When the text layer is pushed back onto the background plane the letter surroundings become halo. There is also some grayish lifted text, which was perhaps found to have different statistics and was then treated differently. The mask is binary, the foreground (text) can have any color or texture, or even parts of the background around the text. All these are conjectures; different algorithmic choices might produce similar results.

    I took a birth certificate which has a similar background pattern, scanned and compressed using an older DjVu tool. It has shown the same problems as POBC, like text letters that were missed and sent to background, and multiple text styles. It didn’t have halo, though, because its algorithm decided to obliterate the whole background pattern. Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now.

    In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.

    Sincerely

    Ricardo L. de Queiroz
    Questions and Answers

    Professor de Queiroz was also gracious enough to answer a few questions I asked him regarding his opinion. Again, I have italicized his replies, and boldfaced the more important points.

    1) I understand (and since initially writing you, I have also found an example of this in a paper you wrote) that MRC compression can have multiple bitmasks without necessarily having to have corresponding foreground layers. I also understand that there is no particular reason why a bitmask would need to be more than one color. And it seems to me that having multiple single-color bitmasks is likely a space-saving technique. Would you say all this is correct?

    Yes and no. MRC can have a flat color for the whole foreground layer. This is equivalent of a mask without a foreground plane as a bitmap? Yes. But there is an implicit foreground plane, with all pixels at the same color. If there is a foreground plane/layer or not is a semantic question. Just to add to your confusion, these DJVu like algorithms do not necessarily follow the MRC standard. They are MRC-like. As for the space saving, it depends on what is done. Because of the redundancy of multiple layers there are many ways to generate the same rendered image. This question perhaps needs to be worked a little more before I can give you a good answer.

    [Professor de Queiroz’s comments above highlight a very fundamental problem with Garrett Papit’s paper, and his claims. In Papit’s world, there are only a couple of different compression algorithms, and every computer program in the world follows those 2 basic algorithms. In the real world, there are almost limitless possible variations. There are, for example, adaptive compression algorithms, algorithms that fully follow the MRC standard, MRC-like algorithms, similar DJVu algorithms, DJVu-like algorithms, and so forth.]

    2) You referred to “multiple text styles.” What did you mean by that? (Another person claimed that different fonts were present in the document’s typed information; I earlier analyzed that at length and found no significant evidence this might be the case.)

    What text styles you see in the document? As a human, I would wild guess the following: (a) title is one, (b) the typewritten data is another, (c) the boxes titles like “1a Child’s first name” is another, (d) the signatures are another, and same goes for the (e) handwritten stuff and the (f) stamped dates. Not sure I missed any other. But the segmentation algorithm apparently decided to divide the document into few types of text information.

    First there is what it thought it was black text (a; b with mistakes like the R in BARACK; c with mistakes like the 1 in box number 10; parts of the signatures as the last letters of Dunham’s signature, some handwritten stuff in boxed 18b and 19b). Second, there are a few gray text or whatever quality it thought to make any distinction from the first case. Parts of the boxes 17a, 20 an 22 seems to be put in one pot. The stuff on the bottom is all placed in another pot, even though there are lots of different styles there. But there are a few sub-parts of that that might be yet another text color. I think this is a stamp. Thirdly, everything else is background, which includes a lot of the text and graphics.

    3) I understand your overall conclusion to be that the things you see (including the bitmask layers, etc.) are explainable by MRC compression; and you do not see anything that appears to you likely to have been the product of manual manipulation. Is this correct?

    Yes.

    So there we have it. The bottom line? Not only is it NOT “proven” that the bitmap layers and other obvious artifacts in Obama’s PDF are the products of manual manipulation; one of the fathers of the kind of compression technology used in the birth certificate has now examined the file, and he sees no indication that the artifacts — including the multiple bitmap layers — are anything BUT the result of innocent, technological processes.

    In other words: The Arpaio Posse’s most recent claims, just like their earlier claims, are worthless. And after a year and 5 months of literally dozens upon dozens of such claims by birthers, there’s still no real indication in Obama’s PDF of any kind of manual manipulation or “forgery…” at all.

    Meanwhile, Joe Arpaio / Jerome Corsi / Joseph Farah / WorldNetDaily (and other birthers) continue to studiously ignore and brush aside all real and competent technical opinions in favor of whatever “expert” they can find — whether 22 years old or not — who will back the claims they want to promote.

  4. gator69 says:

    Carney is working overtime today.

  5. squid2112 says:

    Hehehe .. I just love reading comments from idiots that have no fricken clue how computers work, how files are stored, how files are architected. I have spent a great portion of my nearly 30 year computer science career, at times in extremely deep involvement with images and file formats (down to the atomic level, mind you). You (smrstrauss) don’t have the first clue what you are talking about, and neither do most (if not all) of your idiotic resources. I just laugh… I have been a developer and researcher in this field for a very long time, you cannot pull the wool over my eyes on this subject. I will take any of your so-called “experts” to the woodshed. I have made my living (a fairly nice one at that) doing this my entire life.

  6. Streetcred says:

    So, I just want to know how come Obummer allowed the inaccuracies in various authorised books, pamphlets, and sundry documents, that clearly describe him being born in Kenya, to go uncorrected for all of these years ? That’s one hell of an oversight don’t you think ? Either that or he was being deliberately deceptive.

    • miked1947 says:

      Just like now, he was being deceptive when it was to his advantage!

    • smrstrauss says:

      Yes, it was an oversight, a mistake. It was a mistake of his, IF he was told to check it. It was a mistake of the publicist if she did not tell him to check it. Either way, it was a mistake. He certainly was not born in Kenya—or do you think that he was????

      BTW, his book actually says in it exactly the same thing as on his birth certificate, that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii. THAT is certainly not deceptive. So, obviously, it was a mistake caused either by him not checking the blurb or the publicist not sending it to him to check. I believe that there is someone else who posts on this blog who says that he or she has had a publicist “and they always check”—but in fact they make mistakes like everyone else, and one of them is to forget to check.

  7. Blade says:

    smrstrauss … Wow! That’s a whole lot cut and paste for no real reason at all. Why do you feel the need to go to such lengths to cover for the fraud in the White House? Ya know, releasing a PDF of anything is the actual problem, rather than a photograph or scan to a high-resoluton raster bitmap of the actual on-file birth certificate. Not to mention the fact that a COLB is a new way of obfuscating easily settled facts. All he had to do was produce the certificate he says he actually found as described in his autobiography.

    But nothing you write can change the fact that thanks to idiots like you we now have only our 2nd unqualified President in all our history. Chester A. Arthur and BarryDingle, what a pair! Presumably you are a citizen, so congratulations on voting for him and violating your own Constitution in the process. You have shirked your duty and responsibility and as long as people like you exist, the country is doomed.

    I do understand your need to post this type of propaganda, it is part of the rationalization process. At some level within yourself you realize you have commuted soft-treason and will spend an inordinate amount effort trying to convince yourself you didn’t. But you did.

    • smrstrauss says:

      Obama was born in Hawaii, and since the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, he is a Natural Born US citizen. As for him being a good or bad president, history will judge. The Dow and S&P averages are at all time highs, and while employment is not recovering quickly, it is recovering gradually. In any case, Obama was born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born Citizen, and is the president of the United States.

    • smrstrauss says:

      Re: “Ya know, releasing a PDF of anything is the actual problem, rather than a photograph or scan to a high-resoluton raster bitmap of the actual on-file birth…”

      Answer: I agree, but because they have stupid interns making the scans and putting them into PDF in the White House does not prove that the birth certificate is forged. The image of the short-form BC, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii BTW, was put into a detailed jpg by FactCheck:

      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

      • gator69 says:

        You mean the George Soros funded factcheck.org?

        And you think interns were handling Skeeter’s BC?

        You must be an expert genius! 😆

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “And you think interns were handling Skeeter’s BC?”

        Yes. Interns at the White House handle copying and scanning documents. Who do you think does it—software gurus with PHDs?

      • gator69 says:

        You are an idiot. I know you think you are an expert on everything, and this further proves what an absolute fool you are.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “You are an idiot. I know you think you are an expert on everything, and this further proves what an absolute fool you are.”

        Answer: You are simply calling names, and that convinces nobody. The facts are that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii confirm that Obama was born there, as does the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. And the facts are that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have stated in court papers that the facts on the published image of Obama’s birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as on the birth certificate they sent to Obama. And numerous real document experts have stated that Obama’s birth certificate was not forged.

        These are facts. Calling names does not change them. Oh, and the fact that stupid interns scanned Obama’s birth certificate into PDF instead of making a jpg image of it does not change the facts either.

      • Me says:

        WOW! sounds like you know more about nothing than Zero!

  8. Blade says:

    smrstrauss [April 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm] says:

    “That by the way was by John Woodman, not by me, and Woodman is a member of the Tea Party. He says that he hates Obama’s policies, but that there is no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is forged.”

    Hey genius, what is this TEA Party you mentioned? How do you join? Please direct me to it.

    I’m not splitting hairs here, just trying to help you out of your self-imposed anti-factual bubble. Start with these questions please: Can you cite evidence of existence of this “party”? Can you provide evidence that this person you paraphrase is a member of said “party”?

    It’s a strange thing when liberals “appeal to authority”, downright laughable because there is actual evidence of what the Founders meant for everything in the Constitution, like firearms and NBC just for starters. For some strange reason you lefties ignore that actual authority. Go figure.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Blade! Very, very well said. The only thing I would change is the way in which you identify the political ideology of this parrot.

      Liberals by definition believe in liberty, and assisted greatly in the formation of the greatest country in the history of the Earth. What we have here is a “progressive” at best, and a “communist” at worst”. Of course there is very little difference.

      Liberals, turnips, and even weasels do not deserve this slander. 😉

  9. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “I hope you noticed that there are about 7 layers in that so called COLB paper thus proving that it is a forgery:”

    Layers are normal in PDF.

  10. smrstrauss says:

    Further to that. There are NO layers in the FactCheck image of Obama’s COLB. It is JPG.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

    And, duh, for it to be false, the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties who say that they sent it to Obama and that all the facts on what Obama published are EXACTLY the same as what they sent, would have to be lying.

    In fact, officials of BOTH parties and the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH would ALL have to be lying. AND for Obama to have been born in a foreign country, Obama’s relatives would have had to have had enough money and be willing to waste it sending their pregnant only daughter on a trip ALONE to a foreign country (since WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961)—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Hawaii.

  11. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Can you provide evidence that this person you paraphrase is a member of said “party”? The fact that a Tea Party MOVEMENT exists can be shown by the fact that thousands of people joined its rally in Washington (Can you provide evidence that this person you paraphrase is a member of said “party”?)

    He says that he is a member of that movement. I take his word for it.

    Now, for you, is there any evidence at all that Obama’s mother actually traveled outside of the USA in 1961? If so, show it. Is there any evidence at all that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961? If so, show it.

    IF you cannot find any evidence of travel or a passport, and considering that (1) the officials of Hawaii say that Obama was born there and that there were birth notices in the newspapers which at the time were posted to the papers ONLY by the DOH; and (2) that Hawaii is THOUSANDS of miles from the nearest foreign country and travel during pregnancy was risky at the time due to the high incidence of stillbirths—then don’t you think that it is extremely unlikely that Obama was born in a foreign country?

    And, if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and the officials of Hawaii say that the FACTS on Obama’s birth certificate are exactly the same as on the document that they sent him, then why in the world would anyone forge that birth certificate? Answer: It is not forged. There are only people who hate Obama who claim that it is forged. People who claim things like there were layers so it has to be forged, when layers are in fact normal in PDF.

  12. smrstrauss says:

    Further to the existence of the Tea Party movement. Its existence is shown by its rally in Washington, in which some tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people attended.

  13. gator69 says:

    “Answer: You are simply calling names, and that convinces nobody.”

    Idiot, I am not name calling, I am calling your name.

    I have maintained all along that because Skeeter refused to release a BC for over three years and spent nearly a million dollars in legal fees to hide this and other documents, I do not know where he was born. I am being honest.

    You, on the other hand, claim to be an expert on BC’s, document scans, White House intern duties (even where sensitive material is concerned), forgeries, experts, nonexperts, 1950’s immigration laws, 1950’s travel expenses, Obama’s Kenyan relations, birth anouncements, SSN’s, and anything else anyone here happens to mention. That makes you what you are. Ignorant.

    You are an idiot.

  14. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Idiot, these were once “facts”…

    I never call names, but 2+2=4 was ALWAYS a fact. It was a fact, and it still is a fact. And the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii was a fact and still is a fact.

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, both the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties and the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH would ALL have to be lying, AND Obama’s relatives would have had to have had enough money and be willing to waste it sending their pregnant only daughter on a trip ALONE to a foreign country (since WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961)—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Hawaii.

    In other words, not only is there overwhelming proof, many top officials including the former Republican governor would have had to have lied, and somehow they would have had to figured out a way to slip a birth notice for Obama into microfilm files showing the birth announcements in the Hawaii papers in 1961 (and those notices were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii) AND Obama’s grandparents would have had to have been rich enough (and they were by no means rich) and stupid enough to send their pregnant daughter ALONE (since WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) to a foreign country at great expense and high risk of stillbirth.

    • gator69 says:

      Again, I am not calling names, I am calling your name. Idiot.

      I have explained time and time again for days now, that unless you were the midwife or a witness at Skeeter’s birth, you cannot ‘know’ where he was born. You could be 99.9999% certain, or ‘believe’ you know his birthplace through third parties, but that is all.

      If you do not understand this simple logic, you are an idiot. I believe the name will stick. 😆

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “I have explained time and time again for days now, that unless you were the midwife or a witness at Skeeter’s birth, you cannot ‘know’ where he was born. You could be 99.9999% certain, or ‘believe’ you know his birthplace through third parties, but that is all.”

        Answer: I know his place of birth through reliable third parties and documents. That makes me 99.99999% certain—and that is good enough. And add those reliable third parties and documents to the fact that a trip overseas for a pregnant woman from Hawaii (which is thousands of miles from any foreign country) was highly expensive and very risky due to the high incidence of stillbirths, and the simple fact that no birther has even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—and you get 99.999999999%

        It is this enormously high rate of certainty that makes such conservative pundits as Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers “crazy.”

      • gator69 says:

        You have learned nothing. You = Idiot.

  15. smrstrauss says:

    While I never call names. I can quote YOU.

    YOU = Idiot.

    • gator69 says:

      Tired of parroting the Obamabots?

      Polly is an idiot. 😆

      • smrstrauss says:

        Tired of believing the birther LIES?

        One of the most recent lies was a birther site saying that Hawaii Registrar of Births Onaka had told the secretary of state of Arizona that Obama that the birth certificate was forged. But Onaka never said any such thing.

        And the birther sites said that Obama’s lawyer had admitted that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. But, again, she never said any such thing.

        And in the early days of the birther movement they manufactured the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when the tape shows that in fact she said that he was born IN HAWAII repeatedly.

        It is mainly because of such lies and because of the lies of birthers who claim to have shown that Obama birth certificate was forged- —that the birther movement continued. And also there are the forged videos claiming that Obama said that he was born in Kenya, and the forged “Kenyan birth certificates”. And Obama’s selective service card was indeed forged; it was forged by the guy who posted it—who was not Obama, nor was it a representative of Obama.

        Then there are the claims that because Obama’s publicist made a mistake and failed to correct it, that means something.

      • gator69 says:

        Good little useful idiot parrot. 😆

      • Ben says:

        Tired of returning to share strawmen? Nope, I guess not.

        At least you copied and pasted a lot of it.

        We don’t want your fingers to get too tired.

  16. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “We don’t want your fingers to get too tired.”

    I do not post for your benefit but for any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking the facts.

    • Ben says:

      We do seek facts.

      You stated on a previous thread that the publisher wrote that Obama was born in Kenya
      because his father was born in Kenya. This is your opinion.

      It is a fact that there is a difference between fact and opinion.

      Learn the difference.

  17. smrstrauss says:

    The following are facts:

    Here is a short link to most of the documents:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

    That shows the short-form official birth certificate, known as the the Certification of Live Birth, in detail.

    Here is the long form birth certificate in the photographs taken by the NBC reporter Savannah Guterie, and which she stated she had felt the seal on:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=607&tbm=isch&tbnid=foQm3EVc9VfpUM:&imgrefurl=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/06/savannah-guthrie-busted-again-hawaii.html&docid=iT_K26HN6hkJMM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dBWb0nPzjwY/T-0OEMY0QqI/AAAAAAAAFI4/xWAkN5UIo98/s640/SavannahGuthrieObamaLongFormHUWAII.jpg&w=600&h=450&ei=0PHlULPXBcrN0AH414HoAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=184&dur=1419&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=126&ty=85&sig=104976085004652425434&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=182&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:93

    Here is the confirmation that the short form birth certificate is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the only birth certificate that Hawaii normally issues:

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed.

    And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

    Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

    (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

    Here is the Index Data file:

    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

    Re allegations of forgery. It turns out that ONLY birther “experts”—who have not shown that they are even experts, and who CERTAINLY have not shown that they are fair and impartial—have CLAIMED that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and birther sites have not quoted the numerous real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with it. Besides, for the claim that the birth certificate being forged to have any effect, it would have had to have been forged and inserted into the Hawaii DOH files, because that is where the officials of both parties have stated that they saw it (and that document is the one that the clerk in Hawaii used to enter the facts on the form that generated the short-form birth certificate), and what are the chances of that happening? Besides, even that would not account for the teacher who wrote home or the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

    Oh, and there is also this FACT, Hawaii is THOUSANDS of miles away from the nearest foreign country and women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days. Oh, and by the way, Kaiploani Hospital is confirming that Obama was born there (want to see the two citations of that?) and Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii and she said in another interview that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    These are facts, not opinions.

    The publicist, not the publisher, admitted to making a mistake about Obama’s place of birth. This is a FACT, not an opinion.Obama’s father was born in Kenya. That is a FACT. Obama was born in Hawaii. That is a FACT. What caused the publicist to say that Obama was born in Kenya? Certainly not Obama being born in Kenya—since the officials in Kenya have said that Obama was NOT born there and the officials in Hawaii of both parties say that Obama was born there. And it certainly did not come Obama—whose book says right in it that he was born IN HAWAII.

    These are the facts for the benefit of any rational person who may be visiting this site and seeking the facts.

    Obviously the mistake came from Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, being born in Kenya.

    • gator69 says:

      Thus tweeteth the Obamabot parrot, spamming his Anti-Kenyan experts. 😆

      Anyone who argues with hos opinion is a non-expert.

      Idiots are incapable of learning as they “believe” they “know” it all. 😆

  18. smrstrauss says:

    I agree with you when you say: “Idiots are incapable of learning as they “believe” they “know” it all. ”

    That is because you are referring to yourself. I have shown the facts. Rational people are capable of learning from the facts. I do not post for you but for any rational person who may visit this site and is seeking to see the facts.

    • gator69 says:

      Idiot, a flat Earth and geocentric universe were once “facts”.

      “Facts” change moron.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Facts change? I believe you mean that our understanding of what a fact is may change due to the evidence provided and smrstrauss has certainly provided compelling evidence.

      • gator69 says:

        Laz the Liar! Woohoo! A proven prevaricator puts his counterfeit two cents in. 😆

      • smrstrauss says:

        Rational people are capable of learning from the facts. I do not post for you but for any rational person who may visit this site and is seeking to see the facts. For those people, please read the facts and look at the links that I have provided above.

        Here for your convenience is a short link to most of the documents:

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

      • Interglacial John says:

        Note that idiots think if you agree with them, you are “rational”. They are incapable of independent thought, and believe thought must conform to a “mainstream” opinion. And they must have others form their opinions for them, as they are completely cranially helpless.

        See: Spam, alot.

        😆

  19. gator69 says:

    That’s “Sir Spamsalot!”

    • smrstrauss says:

      Re: “They are incapable of independent thought, and believe thought must conform to a “mainstream” opinion. And they must have others form their opinions for them, as they are completely cranially helpless. ”

      I WELCOME independent thinking. I ask that you, the reader, think. Please think. Consider the following facts and then answer:

      What are the odds that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying about Obama’s birth certificate? What are the odds that somehow Obama in 2007, when the short form birth certificate was sent to him, was able to convince a clerk in Hawaii to lie and send a birth certificate that said on it that he was born in Hawaii, when—according to birthers—there was nothing in Obama’s file. Clerks only fill in the forms that generate birth certificates from the documents in the file. So there must be a document in the file and it must say “born in Hawaii”—or else Obama in 2007 (when he was only a junior senator from Illinois) got the clerk to lie.

      How likely is that to happen? What are the odds against it happening? About a million to one–or more?

      Then ask yourself how likely was it that Obama’s mother even traveled outside of Hawaii in 1961. There has never been any evidence shown that she even had a passport. And, Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country. And, Obama’s American grandparents were certainly not rich (the grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was just a low-level employee in a bank at the time). And, WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961—-so, if Obama’s mother had traveled outside of the USA, she would have had to have traveled ALONE. How likely is that? What are the odds against it. About a million to one—or more?

      So, what are the odds against—a million times a million—about 10 billion against it happening.

      Yet birthers insist that there is a realistic chance that it happened, that Obama was really born outside of the USA. Why? Because, the original claim was that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. But, it turns out that she didn’t say that at all; birther sites simply made it up. The full transcript of the taped call is available for anyone who wants to see it. If you do, just ask, and I will post it.

      So Obama’s Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya, and the Kenyan government says that it investigated and that Obama was certainly not born there, and only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and of them only one came by air (and if Obama’s mother was that one, it would have had to have been by air because of the dates when she was attending college and when she had to start college again). So what are the odds that Obama was born in Kenya? About a million to one against?

      Yes, Obama’s publicist did make a mistake and say that Obama was born in Kenya. That’s where the “born in Kenya” story comes from. But it was a mistake; it is not true; it cannot be true considering that the officials in Kenya say that he was not born there and the officials in Hawaii say that he was born there. So, how does the mistake affect the question of where Obama was born? Answer, it doesn’t.

      So here is the question for Independent thinkers—where do you think that Obama was born?

      Still think there is a chance that Obama was born in a foreign country? Well, if so, then answer this: If he was, how did he get from that country to the USA? You know that children cannot just be carried into the country; they require travel documents—such as being entered on their mother’s US passport. So, if Obama had been born in Kenya—or any other country—he would have had to have been entered on his mother’s US passport at a US consulate or embassy in that country. And there would be multiple records of that happening. Not merely the passport file, but the record of applications for changes to the passport, and those file would still exist. And, if they existed, they would have been found back during the Bush Administration, which was in charge of all of those files when it was in charge of the US State Department.

      And yet no such file has ever been made public. Why not? Well either the Bush Administration was in on the plot, or there is no such file, and the latter is vastly more likely, isn’t it?

      So, what are the odds that Obama’s mother traveled outside of the USA when she was pregnant at huge expense and high risk of stillbirth (the incidence of which was high at the time)? What are the odds that somehow she was able to get Obama back from a foreign country without any record of an application to add him to her passport? What are the odds that if all that happened, she was able to get a birth certificate into the files in Hawaii that says on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, or that the officials of both parties (including the former Republican governor of Hawaii) are lying about all that today?

      Independent thinking means recognizing that sometimes people do lie. Perhaps all the officials in Hawaii ARE lying. But isn’t it more likely that the birthers are lying? After all, they did lie when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya. And they did lie when they said that the current governor of Hawaii, Abercrombie, said that he could not find Obama’s birth certificate. (He never said any such thing.) And they were lying when Obama’s lawyer “admitted” that his birth certificate was forged. (She never said any such thing either.) And they were lying when they said that Hawaii Registrar of Births Onaka “admitted” the birth certificate was forged. (He never said any such thing either.)

      The bottom line is that the birth certificate of Hawaii says that he was born in Hawaii, and that is confirmed by the officials and the public Index Data file (want to see it? just ask) and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and only the DOH could send notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers). And there is not a shred of proof that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii, and such a trip for his pregnant mother would have been HIGHLY unlikely.

      Okay Independent Thinker. It’s up to you.

      • T.O.O. says:

        smrstrauss,
        You are asking people to think but you are forgetting that these are the same people who believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists bent on “adjusting” data in order to enslave us to the U.N. and steal our freedoms.

        You might as well asks pigs to fly.

      • Me says:

        Wrong T.O.O.L. Now try again!

      • gator69 says:

        Hey Me! It’s just that liar formerly known as Lazarus. You know, the kook who claimed Steven was getting oil money. It never ceases to amaze me that they think that WE are the stupid ones! 😆

        Chumps!

      • Me says:

        Yep, they censor all decent on their sites to tow the line in their world of debate, and we complained about it. Some started their own sites, like this one that we found and visit now they show up here. 😆 That is the irony of it! LMAO! Sucks to be them! 😆

      • T.O.O. says:

        gator,69,
        You continue to beat the drum that I am somebody else who coincidentally had the same name and someone, evidently, you don’t like. I took another moniker T.O.O. (The Other One) so as to eliminate this confusion.

        And yet, you still remain confused. I must assume this is a permanent condition.

      • Me says:

        Now you sound like Drewski, Is that you thar coolwhip?

      • T.O.O. says:

        me,
        And now I am someone else again? Is there anything that will penetrate into your conciousness?

      • Me says:

        Well how many id’s do you have? err is it personalities you want to try to display, Yowza, Lazarus and T.O.O.L., so how many did you have before thar loopy!

      • T.O.O. says:

        Me,
        You have quite an imagination. And tomorrow I will be Steve and gator69 perhaps?

      • Me says:

        Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

      • Me says:

        Keep trying, ya have yer self convinced! 😀

      • gofer says:

        It was the Clintons would started the whole thing and there was so much mystery surrounding him it wasn’t hard to be skeptical of a lot of things. For such a brilliant man, he refuses to release any school records, for example. He was supposed to be open and transparent but nobody really knew anything about him except what was written in his book that turned out to be a lot of exaggerations and lies. He was a black man who walked and talked like a white man which made the democrats all gaga because that was the winning ticket regardless of all the negatives that surrounded him. That trumped everything else, including his blatant lack of real world experience. Community organizer is not a resume enhancer for president for most people.

  20. gator69 says:

    Idiot says, “I WELCOME independent thinking.”

    What idiot means, “I only welcome people who agree with me.”

    Do not try and discuss any other point of view with this moron, he refuses to consider any other line of thought. Brain dead.

  21. smrstrauss says:

    I have posted my comment above. Independent thinkers are capable of considering it and making their own opinion. If they have questions, I am glad to answer them.

    • gator69 says:

      BS! You do not allow for the possibility of anything other than your opinion. You have shown this idiocy consistently and ad nauseum.

      Small minds are not capable of holding more than one line of thought. The Church of Skeeter has spoken. 😆

      • smrstrauss says:

        A rational person, will be able to read the discussion and decide for herself or himself. If they have any questions, they can post them and I will answer them.

      • gator69 says:

        Oh yeah. I forgot, we are to clear all questions through the all knowing Oz, or idiot.

        Grow a brain and come back, or not. 😆

    • Me says:

      Yep, any rational person\ Independent thinkers could, and that is why people are here because they don’t buy the bullshit anymore or they are looking into it for them selves and it is probably your here to convince them otherwise. Ya know since your own website, if you have one, just isn’t doing it for them anymore.! LMAO!!!!!!!!!
      Remember what I said before, who are you trying to convince, Me err yerself? :mrgreen:

  22. Chewer says:

    You guys are tilting at windmills!
    The only stuff that matter are deeds!
    Words are worthless unless they match the actions.

    • Me says:

      deeds are only as good as to you paying yer tax err rent on them, when ya dont pay you don’t own anymore. Time sensitive of course.

  23. gator69 says:

    Just like Stevens latest post, “Lefties create truth by declaration”.

    Watch!

    “gator,69,
    You continue to beat the drum that I am somebody else who coincidentally had the same name and someone, evidently, you don’t like. I took another moniker T.O.O. (The Other One) so as to eliminate this confusion.”

    This ass, first changed his avatar but not his name “Lazarus”. Then this same ass, when caught lying changed his name. This ass then proceeded to lie and claim he was not obsessed with Steven, and claimed he did not create a twisted bunny boiling website called “Really Sciencey”. Of course we pulled quotes from this ass and proved he is a liar.

    This is how stupid they are. Incapable of opening the cookie jar and hearing the lid at the same time. 😆

    Laz the liar will continue to deny the truth, just like all lefties. Hansen, Schmidt, Gore, Skeeter, Slick Willy, and I could go on for days.

    Lie some more Laztoo! 😆

  24. smrstrauss says:

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (They weren’t. His grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time) and dumb enough to send their daughter to a foreign country to give birth despite the risk of stillbirth (which was high at the time)—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

    • sunsettommy says:

      You need to stop posting endless bullshit and get on with your life elsewhere.

      • smrstrauss says:

        IF you had an answer to these three points, you would have answered:

        For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

        (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (They weren’t. His grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time) and dumb enough to send their daughter to a foreign country to give birth despite the risk of stillbirth (which was high at the time)—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

        (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

        (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

      • Does it take 17 years to figure out that your publicist is promoting your birthplace as the wrong country?

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “Does it take 17 years to figure out that your publicist is promoting your birthplace as the wrong country?”

        Answer. Yes of course it can, if the publicist did not send a copy to you. And, a 17-year old mistake, is still a mistake.

      • It is inconceivable that the expensive pamphlet went to press without Obama proofreading it, much less Obama having supplied the bio. And Dystel repeated the same error over and over again on their web site for the next 17 years, and no one Obama knew ever looked at it? ROFL

        A much more plausible explanation is that in 1991 they thought it would be helpful to market him as Kenyan born.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “It is inconceivable that the expensive pamphlet went to press without Obama proofreading it, much less Obama having supplied the bio. ”

        Answer: It is perfectly conceivable. People and organizations make mistakes all the time. You simply claim that Obama MUST have sent the information that created the bio, but there is no evidence for that. And you simply claim that the publicist who created the bio must have sent it to Obama for checking, but there is no evidence for that EITHER.

        So, just because you say “it is inconceivable that the expensive pamphlet went to press without Obama’s proofreading it” is for sure not evidence that he proofread it.

        You can keep on repeating the claim that he must have proofread it all you want to—but you have no evidence that he either must have or that he did proofread it. Maybe she never sent a copy. Or maybe she sent a copy but he was traveling and did not get it in time.

        More importantly, the fact that the was an error in a publicist’s blurb does not prove that (1) was born in Kenya or (2) wanted to claim to be born in Kenya. It is simply an error.

  25. smrstrauss says:

    More than a year has passed since this article was posted and Obama is still president and there hasn’t even been a call for a Congressional investigation of his place of birth or the alleged forgery of his birth certificate.

    • More than 23 years have passed since Obama first started telling people he was born in Kenya

    • More than a year has passed & you’re still screeching about something you don’t believe in. I would ask you if you’re stupid or unbalanced, but the answer is slightly obvious.

    • _Jim says:

      re: smrstrauss says May 8, 2014 at 6:50 pm

      Yo!

      Genius!

      Why the different layers and containing such strange groupings of the overall ‘image’?

      This has got to be the biggest botched forgery job ever performed. If I provided this to an employer I’d never get the job (and I’d probably get thrown in jail for official document forgery too.)

      And this is independent of some of the elements/writing that seems mismatched with other text/writing.

      Your prior appeals to authority (citing so-called ‘experts’) are for naught, unless someone is able to replicate the result with a different scanned paper original birth certificate and wind up with the same ‘sampling’ appearing on different layers, never mind the text ends up different.

  26. Gamecock says:

    America’s #1 Birther? Barrack Hussein Obama. He claimed he was born in Kenya long before anyone else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s