I do so much enjoy stumbling on really good information, and today is a superb example. Some of you may remember Dr. Neal Krawetz, who is a real credentialed forensic image analyst perhaps best known for his finding alterations in terrorist propaganda photos, and who came to my attention for his work eviscerating the crank image analysis of Dr. Ron Polarik. What is great about Krawetz is he has the tools and the knowledge to get to the bottom of claims about images.
Krawetz looked at the long form imaging question in detail and wrote up his results in an article on the Hacker Factor blog titled “The Afterbirth.” He wrote:
The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.
Learn more:
- PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate – National Review
- Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit – Fox News
- Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis – The Hacker Factor blog
- Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II– The Hacker Factor blog
Is there any place to find Dr. Krawitz’s curriculum vitae for when the birthers attack his credentials?
The problem is not Dr. Krawitz’ credentials. The problem is that, as a recognized expert, he’s already been bought or threatened with bodily harm by the Obama thug squad.
/sarcasm off
I wish I could understand this stuff better. We always attack birthers for having their world views dictated by confirmation bias, so it concerns me that I only nod and say “ooh, this is good stuff” at articles like those linked here, but I don’t really understand them. Make no mistake, my confidence that President Obama’s birth certificates are genuine is unwavering, but I worry that I’m not holding myself to the same standards of honesty I demand of birthers.
There is his short bio from his website:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/about.php
I know he has also been used as an expert in court.
It does not matter. If anything it will only make them double down and shove their head further in the sand.
Thrifty: I look at it this way. The standards of proof for a wild, improbable claim are different from those required for an everyday, run-of-the-mill story. If I claim I saw a rabbit in my back yard, my word would probably suffice.. Perhaps a photo. But suppose I claim I saw a 6 foot tall purple rabbit that spoke fluent French. Well, you’d want video, you’d want the video analyzed for veracity, and you’d want probably confirmation from several neighbors and maybe an official police report.
The President being born in Hawaii, a peaceful, prosperous place, where his parents lived, where there are good hospitals, where he is known to have lived as a small child, is a rabbit. A plain old b.c should be more than enough. The President’s mother travelling halfway around the world to a place where she knew no-one with inadequate hospitals, political violence, etc. is a 6 foot tall purple rabbit that speaks fluent French.
The difference being, Dr. Krawetz isn’t hiding his identity, has the actual bona fides, and has provided testimony as an expert in court. I know nothing about the ins and outs of anything computer related, but he is the only genuine expert I have seen come out with an opinion on the subject.
Thanks, that helps. Even if birthers attack his credentials, at least I can post them on birther web sites (where I’m not yet banned).
In addition to Krawetz, I would point to these articles:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/
has Ivan Zatkovich been discussed yet?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293421
i work in adobe illustrator every day and altho i know what it does i would not consider myself an expert on why it does.
that being said……. anyone with a basic knowledge of AI who has reviewed the BC would see that the anomalies make absolutely no sense in the context of a forgery.
That is why I keep telling birthers that the “forgery” claims will never take off with the general public- There are millions of people who use Adobe software on a regular basis who would know that there is nothing to the “forgery” claims.
We are not talking about an elite science here, such as one that depends on experiments with billion dollar equipment and only a handful of experts worldwide.
I should point out that Obama Birth certificate and its layers were not created by Adobe Illustrator or any other Adobe product. It was created by some software bundled with the Mac OS.
Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Dr.Krawetz says he found nothing suspicious in the pdf Birth Certificate. But he also says that the BC was released in a format that would make it very hard to determine if it was fake.
Krawetz says: “I hate PDF files. There is only one way to create a BMP (ignoring different versions). PNG and JPEG files have a little variability, but are mainly limited by the encoding library. But with PDF files, anything goes.” Late, Krawetz writes “There are an infinite number of ways to store an image in a PDF document”
I wonder why Obama chose to release his BC in a format where “anything goes” with an “infinite number of ways to store an image”? Why did he encode the image on a Mac, hardly a common government computer? I’m not saying that Obama is trying to put one over on the American people, but if his goal was to release his “birth certificate” in a format that makes it almost impossible to validate, he couldn’t have done a better job.
First of all, Obama didn’t sit there and personally scan it nor choose the format; a staffer diid it.
Second, reporters have seen the actual paper document and the photos they took of it have been published. The pdf faithfully represents the paper document.
Third, the events testified to by the document are a common rabbit in the backyard. They really don’t require a terribly high degree of proof. Frankly,had no birth certificate at all ever been shown, a Hawaiian birth was 99.99% probable. With the COLB it is 99.99999% probable. At best, the recent document raises the probability to 99.999999%, which statistically is identiical to 99.99999%. Any other set of events such as some have postulated is a 6-foot tall rabbit that speaks fluent French; in other words, so unlikely that it would require multiple documents, multiple eyewiitnesses and exhaustive verifiication to even begin to be credible.
The Adobe PDF format is one of the most widely used software for displaying documents. And since almost everyone has access to an adobe acrobat reader, by making it a pdf, the White House made it available to the vast majority of Americans who wanted to view it. And since probably no one on the White House staff is even aware that pdf can create layers.
It made perfectly good sense to release it that way.
Why? So you would have some fun in your life.
They could have released a pdf without such weird compression: after all there are an “infinite number of ways to store an image in a pdf.” Or they could have released the birth certificate in multiple formats. Instead, as you imply, they seem not have taken the issue seriously, and they assigned a low-level staffer without any particular expertise to create the document. Is it any wonder that so many Americans are reluctant to take the Obama birth certificate at face value?
Again you are assuming that the White House was even aware that there are “infinite number of ways to store an image in a pdf.” Were you aware of that fact, before the BC was released. Or that Adobe Illustrator broke pdfs down into layers. My quess would be no, you were not. Just like most average computer users and even many advanced computer users.
Again, there are photes of the paper document-check Savannah Guthrie’s for one. You can dance all you want; the simple fact is that the pdf faiithfully represennts the information on the paper document. That’s the bottom line.
Because PDF has become the internet standard for display of documents. It can be viewed with software that is free an pre-installed on most computers these days,, and it compresses well for internet display and readability.
Obviously a Mac is what is used by whoever was responsible for preparing the document for upload to the government web site. Mac’s tend to be popular among graphic artists, so it is very common for Macs to be used by web designers, and they are somewhat less vulnerable to viruses.
In any case, it’s generally known that the Obama White House staff prefers Macs:
http://osxdaily.com/2010/07/29/president-obama-white-house-staff-use-macs/
http://goo.gl/EJIZf
Also Macs are more cool. If you want to see PC’s restored to the White House, you’ll just have to elect someone nerdy, like Tim Pawlenty. Haven’t you ever seen the ads?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4
The online image does not “validate” the birth certificate. The certification on the paper document, along with raised seal, is what validates the birth certificate. He allowed media reps to touch and handle the real paper certificate on April 27th.. He posted the letter from the head of the Hawaii DOH and his attorney’s letter to DOH on his web site, along with the PDF of the birth certificate itself, to establish the source of the document.
Only very stupid people would think that they could determine the validity of the document by looking at the compressed online image. Smart people would simply go to the DOH web site at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
There is no reason for Obama to change standard procedures for document handling, press releases, and web site maintenance in order to anticipate what stupid people might do.
It is standard practice to compress documents for web site display. It is very possible that the compression you see was actually done automatically in the process of uploading the document to the web site. That is, whatever software they use for uploads may impose its own compression algorithm to reduce documents for appropriate web site display.
One of the bigger birther fails was when Phil Berg tried to e-file PDF documents without applying appropriate compression. He filed a brief that could not be opened or read in any standard PDF reader, and was roundly rebuked by the judge for that stupidity.
Why? So idiots who have no clue about the difference between formats such as TIFF, BMP, JPG, EPS, etc. could have a field day pointing out all of the differences between pixel display in each of the different formats?
I think you are missing a fundamental point. Partisan denial of the birth certificate image has nothing to do with the image, but with the partisanship of those making the claims. Given the confirmation by Hawaii, no one but a partisan looking for a problem would have even bothered to open the document with Adobe Illustrator.
The method of production relates to the shape of the denial, not the existence of the denial.
First off, there aren’t “so many Americans [] reluctant to take the Obama birth certificate at face value.” There are a handful of malcontents that will never be satisfied, and are merely looking for any excuse to justify their irrational refusal to accept the legitimacy of a President that more Americans voted for than any other President in US history. A person who rejects the COLB, the official birth record of the State of Hawaii, and prima facie evidence of the facts on it, the statements of the Republican governor of Hawaii, and her staff, the statements Democratic governor, his staff, a copy of the vault copy, released as an exception to the DOH policy, the further statements of the state of Hawaii, will never be satisfied. Like we said before, contrary to the “why doesn’t he just release it, if he has nothing to hide” birther comments, they’ll just create an excuse not to accept it. Secondly, no one ever said it was a “wierd compression.” Just that it is are an infinite that a pdf can be stored. It got the attention it deserved, and actually a whole lot more than it deserved. Pdfs are probably the most common way of releasing a document electornically. Why would they do anything else? Some staffer plopped it on a scanner, and cranked out a pdf probably at a default setting for the scanner. It doesn’t matter how many different way it is released, bithers will find some anonomous pseudo-expert to claim its forged, and they’ll accept his statements over any logic or common sense.
A simple question for “Mr Stew”. Do you believe the information (DOB, hospital, etc.) that an ordinary viewer would get from the pdf is the same as the information they would get from the paper document? The identity of information is vouched for by the State of Hawaii and by a number of reporters who have viewed (and photographed) the paper document.
If your answer is yes, then the layers, etc. are irrelevant, since it is the information that matters.
If your answer is no, what is the basis to say that?
If by “a handful,” you mean “over 50 million,” then you are exactly right. That’s how many malcontents think Obama was definitely or probably born in another country according to the most recent — post long-form — poll posted by Dr. Conspiracy.
First, that’s “Mr. Spicy Stew” to you, bud.
But yes, the pdf is perfectly sufficient for an “ordinary viewer.” But it’s basically useless to an imaging expert, which is a fair summary of the conclusion of Dr. Conspiracy’s preferred expert.
Oh, and I googled Savannah Guthrie’s long form photo that you’re so excited about. Perhaps she’s posted a better image somewhere, but the one I found was an extremely low-res jpg (about 90K) — also useless.
You’re missing the most important part of that poll….
The part where most of those you are pinning your hopes on are really saying…. “Probably born in another country but I really don’t give a rat’s ass either way.”
That’s because the image is irrelevant.
The proof is in the original, and in the certification by multiple official’s of the issuing authority.
Who care’s if Bob the barber or John the cab driver doesn’t think it looks quite right?
Nonsense, right click it and save it to your hard drive. Then view it in Microsoft Paint, it is so clear you can even see the embossed seal.
I’m sorry, I think you linked to the wrong story. You quote “over 50 million” yet those words don’t appear anywere in the article. Just an FYI, using quotes, means you’re quoting something.
Anyway, actually quoting the story, 73% are satisfied he was born in the US. 20% still had some doubts, and 6% just weren’t sure. And big surprise, most of those are Republicans, who won’t vote for him anyway. It just goes back that those who are still doubting are only looking for reasons to doubt. A disproportionate number of Republicans have doubt, particularly poor, Southerners on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. So you have a bunch of dumb, poor, Republican, southerners still doubting. Are you trying to tell us something about yourself?
“(where I’m not yet banned).”
i visited a birther site that was so excited about Trump saying Obama forged his BC, I told them this was a false Corsi story and gave links to support. The got really mad, called me really bad names, and banned me. They said Corsi and Trump filed charges with the FBI, I said “wow, you got fooled did you push the paypal?”
They banned me at that one, all my posts went down the rabbit hole.
I am so scared of them, doze brave patriotwits!
The article says, citing a Gallup poll: “Those who say Obama “definitely” or “probably” was born “in another country” dropped 11 percentage points to 24 percent.” 24 percent is over 50 million, as I said.
(As it happens, the article seems to be misquoting Gallup, but that’s hardly my fault.)
No, your fault was you put “50 million” in quotes.
And great, so you have 50 million mostly republican, poor, uneducated southerns that still think that the President probably was born in another country. Like I said, if you still have doubts now, you’ll never be convinced, because you an ungovernable malcontent that will latch onto any excuse not to accept the legitimacy of a President that isn’t the guy you like.
The quotes went around the phrase that you meant to type, not what the article said. It’s a perfectly valid use of quotes. Try reading the sentence without the quotes: it would be ambiguous.
But you’re right: I am an “ungovernable malcontent”!
I did save it to my hard drive. It’s a 91K jpg (right-click on the file’s icon and choose “properties”). And I don’t see any embossed seal.
I don’t know what to tell you. But even well known birthers like butterdezillion and misstickly could see the seal in the Guthrie image.
And you can certainly read all the information on the BC and see that it matches the pdf. Of course, if what you really want is a higher resolution image so you forensically analyze it, well, that would be pretty stupid. Sort of like analyzing the pdf.
I can easily see traces of the seal’s imprint on the Savannah Guthrie image, simply by using the magnification utility of my browser.. It is a circular and serrated imprint above and slightly to the left of the Apr 25 2011 date stamp. The top of the seal runs through the letters Sig in the word “Signature” in field 21,, and actually causes a distortion in the print.
If you can’t see it, I would suggest that you talk to an optometrist.
In any case, the point is that the journalist SAID she felt the raised seal. That statement was broadcast on air as well as posted online. So whether you can see it or not from her snapshot, anybody with an ounce of integrity is going to take Savannah Guthrie’s word over malcontents on the internet.
I’d also point out that Gallup didn’t take a poll of 50 million people or even 50 thousand. They polled a little over 1,000 people, of which 13% said that Obama definitely or probably was born in another country. That gets you to roughly 130 poll respondents, the majority of whom self-identified as Republicans. See:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147530/obama-birth-certificate-convinces-not-skeptics.aspx
Thanks for letting us know that you reject great chunks of modern math and science, but I’ve come to expect that from you Obots. Polling works because it’s based on random sampling. That is, there’s nothing special about the particular 1000 people polled. If another 1000 were polled, we’d expect the same results, at least on average. The same holds true if we surveyed another 10,000, or 100,000, or all US adults. That’s why we can say that those 130 people who think that Obama was probably or definitely not born in the US are representative of about 30 million adults who would say the same thing if the pollsters asked.
For more information about why polling works, see here.
By the way, nothing in the article you linked to says that the majority of birthers are Republicans.
Does your “50 million” number come from using a baseline of: 1) total population, 2) adult population, 3) likely voter population?
Polls are generally useful (assuming the questions use neutral wording) but they are only valid if you like the results, otherwise they are just the opinion of a few malcontents. I’ll be here all week and please tip the waitresses.
Actually, I studied polling in college and I probably know quite a lot more about polling and its shortfalls than you would imagine. I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you; I will suffice to quote directly from the page I linked to:
Basically it’s a poll with an admitted 4% margin of error, plus given the fact that it weighted, it cannot be seen as truly random. Weighting means they massage the numbers to make up for the fact that most people they call don’t want to talk to them. That part is an art, not a science.
> The got really mad, called me really bad names, and banned me.
Well, since WND has started using the Facebook plugin for comments, at least they can’t ban anyone.
Wonder how quickly they’ll turn that off again as I’m seeing quite a few sane people over there debunking the birther fools…
Way to totally miss the point, Mr Stew (sorry Spiicy Stew). We aren’t discussing an image of a formation on a distant planet, we are discussing a DOCUMENT. The question is” Do the pdf and the paper correspond as far as the ACTUAL INFORMATION?”.
They both say he was born at Kapi’olaniihospital on Auguust 4, 1961 at 7 whatever in the evening. They both have the same name for the parents, In fact every line on the pdf and the paper say the identical thing Therefore, the pdf accurately depicts what is MATERIAL INFORMATION on the paper document.
Well, the 69 million that voted for Obama still beat your mythical 50 million doubters.
Now, Ragout dear chap
For the questions asked of the respondents to have YOUR meaning, the poll would need to ask the questions
“Do you believe the President is serving illegally” and
“Do you believe the President is serving un-Constitutionally”
Since neither question was asked, it means your view is arrant nonsense.
p.s. based on the numbers of birfoons posting in “main stream” (Luke Scott of the Orioles is a good example) as well as Birtherstan censored web sites, the actual numbers of Birfoons is probably far nearer to the 250-300,000 max with a hard core in the high hundreds to very low thousands.
The President has provided far more than any President, any elected official or even candidate has ever been required to produce. He has not only produced documents, he has produced the chain of custody and Hawaii has even vouched for the authenticity.
So Ragout, why do you think this President required to have a higher burden of proof than any other American? Why does the burden of proof is different for him than other Americans? Why do you expect him to prove himself over and over again but you would except far less from others? What proof have you or others provided that the President was born anywhere else?
And where were the mythical 50 million at the last birther protests? Can they only produce 0.00012% or less at a given event?
And they would be what, members of the Maoist International Front? Don’t insult our intelligence.
Just as an aside, I received a phone call from Rasmussen last weekend. Rasmussen, of course, does automated phone polling. Ordinarily I don’t have time to talk to machines, but as I have a very low opinion of Rasmussen overall, I thought I’d tough it out to see how they managed their poll.
If anyone is interested, here are links to some of the reports Rasmussen was able to generate from that phone call:
51% Think It’s Bribery When A Company Offers A Government Regulator A Job
http://goo.gl/Ebas1
74% Favor Banning Regulators From Working For Those They Regulate For At Least Five Years
http://goo.gl/iHcwu
33% Rate Personal Finances As Good or Excellent
http://goo.gl/4MSK
19% of Workers Report Their Firm is Hiring, 25% Laying Off
http://goo.gl/Gaow3
40% Say Scotty McCreery Will Win ‘American Idol’
http://goo.gl/KkG2g
There were a whole bunch of other questions I was asked on the phone survey that weren’t reported on. It was one phone call, but as you can see Rasmussen has broken it up into a bunch of different reports.
But one thing you can’t see from the reports is that there were a whole lot of questions asked that I felt tended to influence followup questions. For example, that thing about “bribery” — I didn’t even remember the “bribe” question so I had to go back and look. You can see that series of question here: http://goo.gl/tdqk1
By the time the loaded word “bribe” was used, I’d already had to register my opinion on a whole series of different practices.
I think I was primed to answer “yes” to the bribe question by all the conflict of interest and favorable treatment questions that were asked first. If I had just been asked the bribe question cold, I honestly don’t know what I would have said.
The personal finance question didn’t come until after a whole series of questions about my opinion on the state of the US economy — are we in a recession? are things getting better, or worse? and then there were the questions about whether my firm was hiring people. Finally after a whole series of questions to focus my attention on the crappy economy, there was a question asking about my own finances. All those questions made me feel a lot more pessimistic about my own situation than I had been before the phone call.
I know that it’s pretty easy to manipulate answers with priming questions — so I don’t see how the validity of any poll could be assessed without seeing all of the questions that were asked, in the order that they were asked. I know that in the Gallup poll asking about Obama’s birth, that was question #38…. but I don’t know what questions #1-#37 were.
I think there’s some level of poll exhaustion that takes place as well. I know that toward the end of my call I was just thinking I wanted to get the poll over and done with, and not thinking that hard about the questions. I was especially annoyed when the robocall started asking me about American Idol. If there had been a live interviewer I would have just told them that I didn’t give a flying eff at that point.
My bottom line feeling is that old people and shut ins who don’t have a life are the only ones who are really going to want to participate in this stuff. I’ve gotten a call from Gallup in the past and told them that I wasn’t interested and hung up before it even registered in my mind that the person had said “Gallup” — I get so many junk calls that I usually just tell callers that I’m too busy for their survey from the get go.
So then the pollsters try to tweak things around so that they seem to have a good demographic base –but the bottom line is there is no way of verifying the validity of any poll except for polls taken to register voter preferences immediately before an election. And those are usually stacked by ascertaining likely voters, so they are getting people at a time when they are likely to have already formed a firm opinion on whatever it is they are being asked..
I think the weakness of the birth place poll was revealed when Gallup asked about Trump’s birth place — it made no sense really unless the people who were called were really uninformed, or some answered with stuff they didn’t really believe as a sort of protest vote. I probably would have been tempted to say I didn’t believe Trump was born in the US at the time the call was made. He was being enough of a jerk, I would have loved to have done my part to rattle his cage.
Anyway it’s pretty common for polls to be wildly off the mark.
Actually, the 4% margin of error is for percentages around 50%. Pollsters report this number because it’s accurate for a fairly wide range of findings. But when the estimate is 13%, the margin of error is smaller, closer to 2%.
And sure there could be bias due to nonresponse, but that doesn’t justify your claim that we can’t extrapolate the polls findings to any larger population! And of course the bias could go either way: maybe there are more than 30 million birthers!
It was a poll of the adult population, of whom there are about 230 million in the US. 13% of 230 million is about 30 million. 24% of 230 million is “over 50 million.”
No Ragout, it’s a poll of those people who answer the phone and are willing to participate in the poll.
Horribly skewed numbers by that very nature alone
I also not eyou have still to respond to my point earlier, as a reminder
>blockquote>Now, Ragout dear chap
For the questions asked of the respondents to have YOUR meaning, the poll would need to ask the questions
“Do you believe the President is serving illegally” and
“Do you believe the President is serving un-Constitutionally”
Since neither question was asked, it means your view is arrant nonsense.
p.s. based on the numbers of birfoons posting in “main stream” (Luke Scott of the Orioles is a good example) as well as Birtherstan censored web sites, the actual numbers of Birfoons is probably far nearer to the 250-300,000 max with a hard core in the high hundreds to very low thousands.
I’m sure that a poll would show some goodly percentage of the public either believes the Sun orbits around the Earth or aren’t sure. That doesn’t change the facts. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the evidence supporting Obama’s birth in Hawaii is as strong as that for a heliocentric solar system, but it’s getting close.
Also keep in mind that while I would guess the majority of that 24% are anti-Obama folks, I have littlle doubt that some percentage of them would vote for him because of 1 or more of the following:
1. They think the natural born citizen clause is a foolish anachronism.
2. They think the child of a US citiizen is or should be eligible regardless of where they were born.
3. They think the Ryan plan for Medicare sucks and want a President who will veto it even if he “might” not be born in the US.
4. The kid was crying when the pollster called and they couldn’t really hear the question.
5. They hate pollsters and will say the opposite of what they think.
Hardcore, delusional birthers want to pathetically cling to any desperate, irrelevant crumb to somehow give their pointless bigotry and sad lives meaning.
I get the same numbers; here’s what I did. The poll(s) are based on adult population. U.S. Population = 307,006,550 and U.S. Adult population (75.7%) = 232,403,958
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
“Number of ‘birthers’ is declining, recent polls show”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0513/Number-of-birthers-is-declining-recent-polls-show
This article is a study in ambiguity and contradictions:
“Those who say Obama “definitely” or “probably” was born “in another country” dropped 11 percentage points to 24 percent.”
OK, so 24% of the adult population or 55.8 million.
“ Still,’ Morales adds, ‘13 percent of all Americans and nearly 1 in 4 Republicans continue to say he was definitely or probably born in another country.’ ”
No wait, it’s 13%? What the hay-who? Using that number, I get 30.2 million.
Alternate calculation using unambiguous poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147530/obama-birth-certificate-convinces-not-skeptics.aspx) by party affiliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._party_affiliation.svg); total party affiliated = 169 million.
Definitely/Probably not born in U.S.
Republicans: 23% x 55 million = 12.65 million (57.2% of birthers, which looks like a majority to me but I never got beyond General Relativity/Tensor Calculus so math is not my strong point)
Independents: 14% x 42 million = 5.88 million (26.6% birthers)
Democrats (PUMA’s?): 5% x 72 million = 3.6 million (16.3% birthers)
SUM: 22.13 million; if this value is multiplied by the ratio of total adults to party affiliated adults (232.403958/169), I get 30.4 million which is close enough to the 30.2 above to cast doubt on the 24% in the first article quote. Using 30.4 and 30.2 I get an average of about 1:8 adults.
Imagine 8 people in a room asked if a cube is a cube. Then, one by one each states the cube is a cube except the last person. Person 8 looks at it, handles it and announces:
“It’s a prolate spheroid filled with the eggs of aliens’ bent on conquering the Earth and turning us into their food supply.”
Now it could be that the cube is an egg filled prolate spheroid and 7 of these people have been deluded by massive alien mind control. But fortunately for humanity this one (think hero in a sci-fi movie) brave, sagacious soul is able to pierce through the veil of this evil alien cube plot. It could also be that we have a room full of 7 rational individuals and 1 individual that is epistemologically challenged. I’ll check the Vegas odds makers and get back.
I never denied that a majority of birthers were Republicans. I just said that this couldn’t be calculated from the information provided by Gallup.
It’s true that if you bring in other information, as you did, you can conclude that about 50% of birthers are Republicans, but I wouldn’t try to be more precise than that. Note that the the margin of error on your calculation is at least 10%, so your calculation implies that 57.2% +/- 10% of birthers are Republicans.
True.
Ragout: Note that the the margin of error on your calculation is at least 10%, so…
How did you get the 10%, by summing errors?
50% of responders believe that birthers should get a discount from mental hospitals. The other 50% demand free mental health care, that’s +-25%
Most likely, the scanner and accompanying software was also used to scan any number of other White House documents for electronic archiving. If you want to scan a picture, doing it as a JPEG or BMP or GIF or whatever makes sense. It’s one image. If you want to scan something like a 50 page document…. well you can’t fit 50 pages into one picture. PDF format is the best choice for multipage documents.
I’m sure you’re saying “But the birth certificate is no multipage document. It’s one page.” That’s true, but to scan it as a JPEG or other image format would have likely required a change in process. Most likely it never occurred to anyone to make an exception to normal document scanning procedures.
I’m no image expert, but I do work in I.T. support and I have set up scanning systems for end users. At my current employer we use some convoluted method that scans multipage documents as a series of images, then you use a separate program to turn these into a PDF. It’s horribly inefficient, but it’s what we do because the corporate beauracracy won’t let us install decent scanning software that just scans straight to PDF.
At my PREVIOUS employer, though, we had a straight to PDF format. Users would pile documents into a document feeder, press a few buttons, and the scanner would create a PDF file on a network share drive. It went to PDF by default. The users never gave it a second thought. They just got their stuff scanned.
So this wasn’t some sinister executive decision to screw with people’s minds. It was normal office procedure.
Because PDF is the industry standard for allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to look at your document.
What he said does not translate into what you said. At best, he said that PDF makes image analysis MORE difficult to analyze, not “very hard,” and certainly not “almost impossible to validate!”
As to whether the White House could have done the PDF encoding a different way, the author addresses this, as well:
If you want to produce the document in a way that nearly everyone can access it, you use PDF and you are at the mercy of the encoding software.
Thrifty, Wouldn’t it be a fair statement that whichever procedure one uses, text is faithfully transmitted. I mean, if you scan a sentence that reads, “Our company operates in 32 countries,” that sentence will appear unaltered in the file, whether it’s pdf, jpeg, gif, or what have you, no?
Reporters have looked at and photographed the paper birth certificate and all the information is the same as in the pdf. So the pdf IS a faithful reproduction of the paper document, whether it has 1 or 1 million layers. Another birther fail…
Funny you should say that. One person once scanned a document which on the original said “We operate facilities in Stanford, Ct; Huntsville, AL, and Coatesville, PA.”, but in the scan this was somehow replaced with “We are a front for the mob and 9/11 was a controlled demolition.” I think the scanner was haunted, because after viewing this, I got a phone call saying that in 7 days I would dye my hair.”
You realize it doesn’t take expertise to turn a piece of paper into a PDF document? Anyone with basic office skills can press a couple buttons to run it through a scanner. In my last job, the company I worked for built and repaired helicopters. We had office workers and shop floor workers. The shop floor workers could, with about 10 minutes training, learn how to scan documents. This isn’t setting up a secure file server to store confidential documents relating to top secret military operations. It’s basic administrative office stuff. You don’t need an expert. You need a person who knows how to operate a computer.
I just saved this webpage as a PDF (Print > Save as PDF). Elapsed time: 28 seconds.
And then I opening the PDF in Adobe® Illustrator® and the birther comments weren’t there.
😉
When the “expert” (and there ARE soo many now) can tell us why the LFBC does not match the descriptions of Fukino and Abercrombie, can tell us why the form does NOT match the form ( and it would it if it were a true copy of the original) of the Nordyke twins ( you know, born at the SAME hospital a day apart from Obama…supposedly), why the Uk Le Lee signator does not appear on the Nordykes ( oh those twins again), why Obama’s NOWHERE says that it is a true and correct copy OF THE ORIGINAL record, why the wrong age of Obama Sr. is listed, why it is NOT a hospital generated BC but instead a DOH generated BC, and last but not least, why the name of the hospital is the one that began being used in 1978 – but not in 1961- is on Obama’s form? Let the expert tackle those problems first…otherwise, phhtt.
Katrina
The hospital name on Obama’s LFBC is the same as on the Nordyke’s. Funny how you ignore that.
How do you know the Nordyke’s is real? Who do birthers never question it? Is it because they are light skinned?
And how come Hawaii has never confirmed the Nordyke’s, as they did with Obama’s, or have a web page devoted to it like they do Obama’s?
The state of Hawaii stands behind Obama’s LFBC. That is how you know it is real.
PS- are you seeing hidden smiley faces everywhere? :). :). :). 🙂
You wouldn’t need an expert to answer any of those allegations. Heck, even I could….and I just started paying attention to this birther nonsense.
Besides, the real experts in creating official Hawaiian birth certificates are the folks at the Hawaiian DoH, and they say it is….what it is.
wow…how much more birther nonsense could you cram in there. It does match the descriptions of Fukino and Abercrombie…but then again their statements were so vague, pretty much anything does.
How exactly is it different from the Nordyke twins?
You know there probably was more than one person working in the registrar’s office in 1961…can you show us that Uk Le Lee didn’t work in the registrar’s office in 1961?
I guess you missed the stamp that on the bottom that says “this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.” You know, the same stamp they use on everyone elses’ birth certificates. Sorry, but you’re just not important enough to dictate the exact words a state uses to certify their documents.
What evidence do you have that Obama Sr.’s age is wrong? Can you show his long form birth certificate? I didn’t think so. Fact is, you have no idea when he was actually born
It is not a hospital generated BC because hospitals don’t generate birth certificates in hawaii. Guess what….same form as the Nordyke twins. So why exactly do you rely on the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates if they’re not hospital generated?
And no…it is the name of the hospital in 1961. Guess what. The Nordyke twins’ birth certificate even uses the same name. Funny how you only point to that document when it suits you.
But hey….feel free to spew birther lies.
I can tell you, though, as an administration manager, a few of my staff have had trouble in the past… No longer with us, though, luckily.
So, Katrina, where was Obama born and how do you plan to prove it??
The Hawaii certificate is the only one out there, so it wins the contest.
You know, whatever…
Did you even look at the Birth Certificates?
that name of Kapiolani Hospital is wide spread in berfoon land, though a number of 1961 certificates clearly show Kapiolani, including the birfirs favorite, the Nordyke Twiins, so why this deep rupture from reality. Mybe Katrina can answer that, although I don’t think she is even aware she is wrong, a hit and run Birfoon.
Whatever.
Oops. Quoted the wrong post. But I think you get my point.
I think that the reason that some don’t think the LFBC matches the statements of Fukino and Abercrombie is that they are reading things into what these two said. Remember, just a few weeks ago, the birthers took Abercrombie’s statement (falsely) to say that there was no long-form certificate at all. As for Fukino the “half handwritten” description was an impression she described, not a measurement of the form. We know from numerous examples that Obama’s form looks just like all other period birth certificates from Hawaii, so this objection is spurious.
The Obama certificate looks like the Nordyke certificate. Mr. Uk Le Lee (sounds like a musical instrument) signed other period certificates. The person who signed the Nordyke certificate was the Deputy local registrar (“deputy” was stamped on the Nordyke form) and Mr. Lee was the local registrar himself and his name appears on other period birth certificates,
INCLUDING that of Stig Weidelich, born the day after Obama (and the same day as the Nordyke twins).“why Obama’s NOWHERE says that it is a true and correct copy OF THE ORIGINAL record?” It’s because the current registrar’s rubber stamp says on all certified copies issued nowadays says: “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record in file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.” Any normal person understands these statements to be consistent.
The Nordyke certificates prove that the name of the hospital was correct on the Obama certificate, because they are the same. The 1978 date was a mistake that briefly appeared in the Wikipedia. Ample evidence exists (see references in Wikipedia article) to show the correct hospital name.
So pffft to you too.
Whatever.
I have seen Mr. Lee’s signature on other period certificates but I do not remember hearing about his name on the Stig Waidlich’s certificate, since it was a COLB. Am I missing something here, Doc? After a while, I started to turn off to the birthers forgery screams so I may have missed the registrar information for Stig.
FR post of the article linked above.
“AFTER BIRTH – LFBC Digital Document Analysis
The Hacker Factor Blog ^ | Thursday, April 28. 2011 | Dr. Neal Krawetz
………………..
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2011 11:54:29 AM by Tex-Con-Man”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2726467/posts
Many of the comments exemplify the fallacious epistemology of birthers.
Post # 4 has this observation:
“That seal is debossed not embossed. In other words, it’s completely the opposite of what it should be.”
Hospital generated BCs ( the doctor had to sign it ya know and doc didn’t saunter over to the regional office to do it)) were sent to a regional office and IF Obama’s came from the same hospital as the Nordyke’s, U K L LEE would NOT be on Obama’s BC – all 3 forms would have been sent to the same regional office and the same signature would appear on the BCs that came from the hospital for births that took place on the same weekend. I see you dragged out the apologists favorite person, Stig. Oh my. You guys cling to this Stig fellow like mice in glue traps! Are you saying that U K L lee was written On Stig’s COLB?? How many registrars do you suppose were in one tiny regional office?? Did thousands of births pass through on any given weekend to justify mutiple registrars in one regional office?? One BC does have a Uk L lee in… 1962. And that birth was not a Kapo birth.
I realize ya’ll have puppy love for Obama, but really…are you so easily fooled, hmm? I can just imagine the neck veins popping and the spittle frothing out of mouths that someone like me would dare imagine putting a toe over the line into your little circle of Obama love and post here. Haha, I love it!
Hawaii issued BCs to babies born out of state or out of the country in 1961 and merely on say so of relatives. That is a fact you will have to face at some time. I don’t care if you do or not however.
Obama still has not released a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL and I am so glad you have admitted that and that Hawaii has also admitted that what we were given was NOT a true and correct copy of an original and they have modified the stamp to attest to that. It was not a copy of the original BC but a “made in the USA” ( O got that right) fabrication by someone…
Fukino surely knows what half- written and half- typed means and she doesn’t need a ruler to know it. The description does not match. Plus she spoke of vital records (plural)… how many BCs do you have? I have one. Name call away, the hider in chief has no clothes and apparently no original BC that he can share 🙂
Double ouch.
Still, Obama has never ever claimed to be a natural born citizen ( required btw for the office), never has said it, never has written it, can’t say it in fact… and lordy, the gyrations he goes to figure out exactly what kind of citizen he is is comical, it changes and has changed on his website!
When he is booted out of the people’s house, I’ll bet he high tails it to Kenya to live and run for office. After all, he inserted himself into the affairs of Kenya and was helpful in the changes to their new constitution that will allow him to qualify for office. All through the beneficence of our tax dollars. How lucky can we get?
Sweet dreams.
to Katrina
whatever
It takes 2 seconds to ascertain on the internet that there is only a single health department office on Oahu — in Honolulu, which happens to be the SAME AS the state health department — and that if Obama were born in Honolulu, his birth would be registered via that office. And that UK L Lee was the registrar there in 1962 when signing the birth certificate for Oahu-born Edith Costa. While Costa was born in an different hospital, it was nonetheless an Oahu hospital, meaning the registration would be handled by the Honolulu office.
Obama’s certificate was signed on August 8th. The Nordyke twins had their certificate signed on August 11th by a “Deputy” registrar. Different day. August 8 was Tuesday. August 11 was Friday. The Friday part is a little bit significant, because sometimes people go home early on Fridays, and sometimes Fridays can be a day when the people who run an office set aside time to work on administrative matters.
But there doesn’t have to be anything special about Friday, because it may just be a matter of who happens to be available to deal with something at a given time. The Deputy signed the Nordyke twins’ certificate because she happened to be the one who was manning the front desk when they came in, or because she happened to be the one who picked them up out of the in-box where they were stacked.
If you ever had a real job instead of spending your time trolling the internet, you’d understand the concept of shared responsibility in the workplace..
I’m not seeing the sense of what you said.
Yes Lee signed Stig’s long form birth certificate on August 5. Watch the CNN video at full screen.Now where did you get this “tiny regional office” thing? Honolulu is the largest city/county in Hawaii. The county of Honolulu had 14,906 births in 1961. If you look closely at the Nordyke certificate, you will see the word “Deputy” stamped next to the Local Registrar’s name, indicating that he was not the actual Local Registrar, and that the volume of work required the registrar to have a deputy.
No that isn’t.
That is an absolute lie and a total fantasy made up by birthers without even the slightest iota of evidence or support.
It is also a totally implausible lie, which is specifically refuted by the book excerpt recently posted that makes it clear that an efficient and accurate birth registration was one of the requisites for statehood, coupled with the fact that home births in Hawaii were extremely rare in the 1960’s.
Labeling a lie a “fact” doesn’t make it true or even arguable. It just demonstrates that the person making the statement is either very, very stupid or else a deliberate liar.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
It didn’t pass by unnoticed that you didn’t attempt to prove this lie.
Nor this lie.
Obama signed a candidate statement for the state of Arizona in which he swore he was a natural born citizen – before God and man, he swore. You can see it here.
We get it. You come on here and repeat BS that you believe but cannot prove. You call us Obama-lovers, as if people like Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter hadn’t called birthers nutjobs just like we have.
You’ve got nothing, Katrina, except lies and BS.
Lies and BS!
Whatever!
I do my best to have high quality information on the blog, both in the articles and in the comments. This particular remark of yours is simply not true, and it detracts from the discussion.
The law allowing out of state registrations in Hawaii was not passed until 1982. And in those rare instances where unattended births are registered (14 in Honolulu city in 1961) , it is not just a matter of “say so.” It is a crime to file a false birth report.
However, such a discussion might have made some sense a month ago, but as we have all seen, Barack Obama’s birth was witnessed by the doctor that delivered him in a hospital.
Look at this and tell me what you think. Start at 4:00.
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/04/25/ac.tuchman.birther.part1.cnn
I am reminded of the closing section of the movie Time Bandits where they were cleaning up the charred remains of Satan, pure concentrated evil.
Post long form, we’re dealing with a more dedicated and more concentrated form of birther, ones who have shed the last vestiges of evidence-based thinking with only their hatred of Obama as guidance. You can see this in the unceasingly crazy statements of Jerome Corsi.
While that looks like the Lee signature, it is not Stig’s BC. It is someone, the reporter calls “another man”.
Is this from the first or second night of the AC 360 show? I still have both on my DVR. I will check it out.
OK I found it and took a screen shot. The registrar is definitely U. K. Lee.
http://i53.tinypic.com/hv8dgw.jpg
Edith Coates’ BC was also signed by Lee.
http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/edith_front.jpg
Note also that it is a 1960 birth — so with the Edith Costa bc, we’ve got a UK Lee signature from both a year before and a year after Obama’s birth.
Plus parents who are “Japanese” (not “Asian”) — to address another typical birther talking point.
Cursed bad memory again. Sorry about the mistake.
Given the amount of data you have gone through, an error will likely slip through from time to time. I had already forgotten part of the information on this other “long form” so it was good to go and review.
This form actually helps as well since it not only shows Mr. Lee was in the office before and after Obama’s birth but that the office covered a large area, as noted that the forms were for births in different hospitals. A deputy or two would have been in order.
According to the 1955 “Vital Records in Hawaii” article, in Honolulu, the local registrar is a full-time employee of the Bureau of Health Statistics. Also, prior to 1950 government physicians were used as registrars but after 1950, they reduced the number of registrars from 35 down to 4.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/vital-records-in-hawaii/
Please note that the public discussion of the name of the “other man” on the CNN certificate is not allowed on this website. I have removed 6 comments.
Sorry about that.
Sorry, a Hawaiian BC or COLB could be issued on the SAY SO of a relative WITHOUT any corrroboration of an unrelated third party for a birth – for those who have trouble in critical thinking – that means Hawaii would, WOULD issue a BC to a child born out of the country or state on the say so of a realtive that the baby was born in Hawaii! They didn’t require hook ups to lie detectors. Pity that.
Looks like it is time to update your “high quality” information. You left out some pertinent laws in place in 1961.
Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:
§57-8 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth, or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-9 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:
Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided (referring to 57-8), is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
DID YOU SEE>>>ANY PERSON?????
(b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.”
Hawaiian law of 1955 proves what I said.
As far as Barry saying he is a NBC…ssnort. He isn’t one since he was born a Brit. Hmmmm, he also declared to have never gone by any other name other than Obama for his IL law license. Tsk,tsk, so many lies.
Still haven’t seen any original BC – his latest makes to no claim to an original. Oh my, the details are sooo hard to understand. Haha.
The fact of the matter is that the standards for filing a home birth or a late registration are not in the legislation. Prior to the current legislation there was a “Hawaii Public Health Regulations ‘Rules of Practice and Procedure,'”” a copy of which is not available. There are also Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules. Until you have all of the rules and procedures to consult, you cannot make the claim you are making about what was or was not required before an out of hospital birth report was accepted. We have an example from later rules: “the director of health may require evidence to establish the authenticity of supplementary information” and for a delayed certificate: “…at the discretion of the director of health, additional evidence may also be required.” That shows that evidentiary requirements were in the rules, and belies your claim that it was just the parents “say so.” Neither you nor I know precisely what standard was in force.
See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/rules/prac_proc.pdf
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx
But that is a diversion. The State of Hawaii has certified that Obama was born in a hospital attended by a physician.
You were proven to have provided false information in your claim that Obama had never said he was a natural born citizen. Rather than saying “snort”, a more appropriate response would be “I’m sorry.”
Law license. More false information from you. Reading the instructions to the Illinois application, that item is for another name under which the applicant practiced law, not a general name they went by. So say, “I’m sorry again.”
Finally, as to the “original birth certificate”, the Obama certificate is a certified copy of the original. Meditate on the word “certified.”
Your “details” a collection of nonsense, either false, or irrelevant.
Maybe the poster known as Foreigner should be directed to Katrina’s post as an example of how no amount of objective evidence or previous debunking are ever enough to expunge the patently false claims of birthers.
This is a LIE. Under Hawaii law and procedure, the Health Dept. would conduct an INVESTIGATION of any report by a family member, as with a home birth. That investigation would include interviewing witnesses and obtaining corroboration. No birth certificate would be issued until after the investigation was complete.
Look in the mirror. You are the one who chooses to believe a preposterous idea about Hawaii’s practices for birth registrations. People with critical thinking skills would take the time to read Hawaii statutes and administrative regulations, and if they were not satisfied, to interview Hawaii officials to find out what the procedure would be in the event that a relative attempts to report the birth of a baby.
A critical thinker is able to identify logical fallacies, and your logical fallacy is a whopper.
You have cited a section of Hawaii law which pertains to unattended births. Others here have already debunked your claim that a birth certificate for an unattended birth could have been issued solely on the “say so” of a relative. However, even if you were correct about that, how do you explain that fact that Obama’s birth certificate says that his birth was an attended birth and identifies both the hospital and the doctor who delivered him? How does a birth certificate for an unattended birth magically turn into a birth certificate which shows an attended birth?
Do you really believe that Obama’s birth was originally reported as an unattended birth, but later they submitted a supplementary report which says that he was born in a hospital? And that Hawaii’s Department of Health would accept that? The critical thinker in me tells me that a scenario such as that would have raised more red flags than the Kremlin.
I see we still some nutjobs clinging to the vine.
Now all those opposing Obama’s eligibility have to do is provide proof of an unattended home birth or proof of delayed filing of birth information with the state of Hawaii. Good luck with that.
Thus far the scorecard of birthers in courts of law has not been too good:
73 original jurisdiction court adjudications, zero birther victories.
41 appellate level decisions, zero birther victories.
15 applications for stays, injunctions or Petitions for Writs of Certiorari heard in Justices’ conferences at the Supreme Court of the United States, zero birther victories.
“The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives (R-OH).
“The president was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. It’s been established. He was born here.” {former]Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009
Still waiting for Katrina’s simple apology for posting
liesinaccurate information…SNORT!
Oooops
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBarak%2BMounir%2BUbayd%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DP1k%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divnso&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&u=http://klarseher.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/die-wahrheit-uber-%25E2%2580%259Ebarack-obama%25E2%2580%259C/#comment-1076
Why oops?
Did you post that steaming pile of bat guano by mistake?
Yeah I’d be embarrassed too.
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Squeeky? Is that you?
Oops (interjection) — used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay.
How does your use of “oops” relate to the linked article in your post?
Simple explanation. What MichaelN meant to say was, “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Did MichaelIN state that was the important part (to him) or is that you stating it for him?
Due to his perpetual, vexatious and deliberate dishonesty and outright lying when butchering historical sources, it was established in another thread that from now on this might be the only pertinent reply to the trolling MichaelN.
Please refer to Daniel’s post and the following thread:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/natural-born-citizenship-primer/#comment-118072
Thanks for this link – did you read this article,
“Attack on the Protectorate moon base foiled”
“From there, the “Endeavour” actually fly an attack on the base of the Protectorate in the interior of the moon. From this lunar station routinely broadcasts of world government to be disturbed at low frequencies, the purpose is not known.”
“But NASA, minions of the World Government in New York were now known to be at the “space shuttle” a damaged pipeline was discovered hydrogen. This is of course nonsense: the Endeavour, as well as other space combat pilot in the world government, has a nuclear power, hydrogen is not used.”
This would be a good site to publish your analysis of the Calvin’s Case, just remember to include “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Love that Google Translator
World Government in New York anagrams to Not now, Worm! – Kindly Revenger.
Coincidence?
(“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”)
Yeah, Mikey’s site’s home page has a fascinating story about how the Beatles (except McCartney) were murdered in the Bahama’s in 1965 by agents of The Brotherhood. Plus Michael Jackson was killed by the Brotherhood. MJ was, of course, a longtime employee of the propaganda department of the World Government in New York. The site says: “Michael Jackson’s death is not a loss. He was from the perspective of a typical slave races, decadent and cruel member of the elite and a bad singer.”
I think the veracity of President Obama’s name change is right up there with the rest of the site’s.
I was going to post your link at Dr. Kate’s AS A JOKE! It’s already there but they think it makes sense.
Facepalm
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/name-change-for-obama-found-in-british-columbia/
Oops, that was intended for MichaelN
No problem and of couse Kate’s monkey asylum thinks it makes sense!