Sorry. The Canada Free Press article below was from September of 2009, not this year. So it’s old news except for an interesting coincidental reference from a current article in WorldNetDaily.
The Democratic National Convention’s documents certifying the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate in 2008 caused a flurry of interest in birther circles when they first came out. The claim was that unlike the statement in prior years, the 2008 statement for all 50 states omitted a phrase stating Barack Obama was eligible to be president. Nancy Pelosi, the DNC chairperson and signer of the document (along with two others), they said, was unwilling to commit perjury. That quickly proved a lie when the properly-signed statement to Hawaii was found containing the eligibility language. The story quickly changed from 50 states to 49 and birthers tried to make that somehow significant. The number 49 is no better documented than the number 50 was.¹
The Canada Free Press blog, has revived this old story with a new twist, citing an unnamed “document and handwriting expert, a graphologist,” saying that the signers of the Hawaii document intentionally lied, as evidenced by qualities in the signatures. The graphologist wrote:
All three signers of the certification that included the constitutionally eligible clause were aware that it was not true at the time they signed it. Each of the two certification documents was signed by the three subjects.
Who is that masked graphologist?
This brings to mind another “handwriting analyst” who claimed he could tell that two individuals wrote the Obama Indonesian school registration. That was the all-purpose expert Ron Polarik, PhD who made the claim at the Free Republic forum in August 2008. It would not surprise me in the least that Dr. Ron Polland (aka Ron Polarik) is the source of the pedantically written paragraph on the Canada Free Press blog.
Some people do claim to be able to detect deception in handwriting, such as in the article “How to Detect Lying with Graphology” at eHow.com. The marks discussed in this article cannot be applied to the CFP claim because the actual analysis was not provided in the article.
We agree with the several caveats against graphologists being permitted so to testify and the attendant problems stated by Osborn (supra, p. 351): “If general human character qualities could be correctly inferred from all these variations, then what is called graphology would indeed be a science, but when the graphologist connects with a particular single quality a definite character value, the unscientific and ridiculous nature of the performance is readily seen. Writing does indicate manual skill and certain artistic qualities, or lack of them, but does not show honesty, or dishonesty, or disease and other important phases of human nature.”
The interested reader may enter the following terms in a search engine to read more on this topic: graphology pseudoscience. See also the Wikipedia article on graphology.
A WorldNetDaily article last week also recycles this old news in its article: WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status. That article says:
It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. [emphasis added]
The hyperlink in that article goes to an earlier WND article, which itself says:
A commentator at Canada Free Press who earlier exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president has heard back from readers and research – and now reports Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.
The hyperlink goes to the very Canada Free Press article discussed here! And here we see that WND lied about what the Canada Free Press said, for this is what they said:
At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.
WND cites the Canada Free Press as having checked all 50 states, but the very article the link to says no.