Main Menu

Archive | May, 2011

Reply to Douglas Vogt

Dr. Conspiracy

Douglas Vogt, president of a company that sells scanners and scanner software, published a letter claiming to have proved that Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate is a forgery, and for that matter that Barack Obama is a criminal. I wrote about it in my article” “Expert” claims: birth certificate fake.

I was mildly surprised when Mr. Vogt appeared and left the following comment here on the blog:

Dear Kevin, You called me a liar without even reading my report and then told your readers that I was “just a salesman.” I have 11 years in the typesetting business and 18 years selling scanners, designing document imaging software and installing such systems in city and county offices here in the Northwest. All the scanner manufacturers and distributors know be very well. I was consulted by the Justice Department regarding the Kodak purchase of Bell & Howell two years ago. Your only experience seem to be working as a bureaucrat in vital records for the State of South Carolina so you should know that what Obama presented to the public was only a PDF of a Certificate of Live Birth and not a birth certificate. There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone! My expanded 22-page report is downloadable here: http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_Certificate_Forgery.html. I bet you cannot prove me wrong that the Obama COLB is a forgery. You also owe me an apology for unfairly calling me a liar and defaming my character and good name.

Our personal squabble is probably not of general interest, but since Mr. Vogt is the closest thing to an “expert” the birthers have, it’s worthwhile to look at what he says; however, I can prove Mr. Vogt “wrong” in his contention that the long form is a forgery quite simply: The State of Hawaii’s web site says: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” QED. So there is no need for me to prove that Vogt is wrong, but I will explain why he is wrong.1 Continue Reading →

Report on birth certificates from the Congressional Research Service

The Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, is the research arm of the United States Congress. CRS legislative attorney Jack Maskell wrote a previously unpublished report in March of 2010, titled Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility. Maskell’s previous report, Qualifications for Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate, was featured on this blog last year.

Clearly members of Congress were getting letters from constituents. Once again we see good research and sound conclusions from a qualified attorney such as:

Since the officially certified document [Obama’s 2008 Certification of Live Birth] is prima facie evidence of United States birth and citizenship, and there appears to be no actual documentary evidence of any nature to the contrary, such certificate would most likely deemed conclusive of “natural born” citizenship by a state official or court if any such review were commenced or required.

I was interested to learn that Congress has in the past refused to count Electoral College votes for an ineligible presidential candidate. We also learn what had been conjectured before, that no state requires a birth certificate from a presidential candidate.

Get the popcorn and enjoy: Continue Reading →

Call for birth certificates

If you have a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth printed since 2001, I would appreciate hearing from you! Please leave in the comments the following information:

  1. What is the date your certificate was printed?
  2. Does the registrar’s stamp have the words “OR ABSTRACT” on it?
  3. Is the registrar’s stamp on the face of the certificate or on the back?
  4. When viewing the seal so that the words “Department of Health – State of Hawaii” appear normally (not reversed), are you looking at the face or the back of the certificate?
  5. When viewing the seal so that the words “Department of Health – State of Hawaii” appear normally (not reversed), is the seal embossed (raised above the paper) or impressed (lowered into the paper)?
  6. Is the word “OF” in “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH”  on the seal centered at the very top of the seal or a little to the side?

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Chicken v egg

Why do some people believe Barack Obama was born in Africa?

Well, there are some who believe it because they have seen what they believe is a Kenyan birth certificate. But there were birthers before that!

Some believe it because they think his step grandmother in Kenya says so. But there were birthers before that.

Some believe it because they believe they think remarks by certain African persons about “homeland” and “son of the soil” mean he was born in Kenya. But there were birthers before that.

Some believe it because they think they have found flaws in Barack Obama’s 2007 birth certificate. But there were birthers before that, too.

In fact, there were birthers before there was any reason for them to be. The egg came first.

The strawman strawman argument

This one made me chuckle. It’s from an article by Mario Apuzzo that I found over at ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com: Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”.  Apuzzo says, after defining a “straw man” argument:

In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a “natural born Citizen.” This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance.

Only no one I have seen, nor anyone whom Apuzzo cites, has ever described the birthers in this way. So by asserting that others have made a straw man argument which no one is making, Apuzzo is himself making a straw man argument — or a double straw man argument.

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

The Hollow Men
T. S. Elliot

Is the seal bassackwards?

Update 3:

After further study, I will agree that Miss Tickly is half right. While there are optical illusions that make an embossed seal appear to be an impressed seal, I asked folks with real Hawaiian birth certificates what the real seal looks like. The answer is that the seal, when viewed with the text normal is impressed into the paper, not raised.

However, that is just how regular Hawaiian birth certificates are. Miss Tickly is an extreme literalist when reading regulations, and if you follow her, you would conclude that Hawaiian birth certificates are all illegal and invalid. One person’s impressed seal is another person’s embossed seal; it just depends on how you look at it. So yes, the seal is impressed, and no, there’s nothing special about Obama’s seal.

Following is the text of the article.

This one is courtesy of MissTickly from the Obama’s Garden blog and her article, The Audacity of Seal. I don’t know why birthers have to ramble on and on to make a simple point, but let me save you having to click the page down button 28 times and tell you what her article says (my words):

The caption (“State of Hawaii – Department of Health”) on a birth certificate’s embossed seal, when viewed from the raised (embossed) side, should read normally, but on Obama’s it is a mirror image.

OK, did everybody understand that? The rest of the Obama’s Garden article, and particularly stories of threats against their children, doesn’t add much to my one-sentence explanation except to spin an atmosphere of intrigue and to suggest that she’s come upon a bombshell error in the COLB that threatens the Obama administration to its foundations.

Part of the argument hinges on one essential detail: which side of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is raised. Obama’s Garden helps us figure that out with the following convenient illustration:

Seal images from Obama's Garden blog

That picture makes it crystal clear which is which — or does it? Here is the same image, rotated 180 degrees (turned upside down).

Preceding imaged turned upside down

What happened? The raised and lowered portions seem to have been switched, but all I did was show the same picture from a different direction.

Continue Reading →