Just in case you’ve never heard of him, Alex Jones is a talk show host. It’s probably safe to say he’s a third tier talk show host. He’s a conspiracy theorist who’s often nuttier than Aunt Dodie’s fruitcake, but occasionally fascinating.
In this clip, Jones discusses his conversation with author Jerome Corsi, who claims he has incontrovertible evidence that Obama knowingly unveiled a forged birth certificate.
We’re not buying it but, damn, wouldn’t it be fun if it were true?
(Note: Mr. Administrator wants me to say he does think there could be something to it.)
This post was last modified on May 27, 2011
View Comments (45)
Too many facts here. If you don't want to believe them,so what? I believe them. Nobody has yet to prove that Obastard has qualified to be potus. When was the last time that any of this kind of fraudulent bull sh%% took place in government? If you idiots weren't so thirsty for Obastards kool-aid, none of this would be happening.
Sorry Ken, I will use another name.
How stupid are these people? Do you really think that anyone was going to let Obama or anyone else run for office, especially the Presidency, without being certain of his citizenship and place of birth? Get real, Obama is an American, same as me. He's not a white man - hallelujah!!
You are a citizen of where? Stupidland?
It only takes a pea-brain to realize the document is a forgery, I wonder where that leaves the Obots?
Another Ken? I'll have to change my name.
Re: "The thing that BHO doesn’t want us to see may not be where he was born. It may be who his real father is. Some believe that it is really Frank Marshall Davis."
The name of the father on the original birth certificate, which the director of health of Hawaii has certified in writing is exactly the same as the one in the files, is Obama senior. Two Republican officials in Hawaii had said month or years ago that they had seen the original Obama birth certificate in the files. IF there were anything different about the one that was published., particularly if the name of the FATHER was different between the two documents, they would have said, but they said nothing.
Of course, Davis could actually be the father. But the document does not say it. But then anyone's real father might be different from the name on her or his birth certificate. Do you think that future presidents and candidates for the presidency should have their DNA tested, and their legal father's DNA tested, and the two compared (and if the "father" is dead, his remains dug up to be compared)?
In any case, the original birth certificate says that Obama senior is Obama's father.
There is another theory that is floating around. The thing that BHO doesn't want us to see may not be where he was born. It may be who his real father is. Some believe that it is really Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan man credited with siring this poor excuse of a leader.
Why would that be embarrassing and worthy of so much energy and effort to cover up? It means "Dreams From My Father" is a lie, not unlike much of the communications and expressions that flow from this puke's lips on a daily basis. But it would be written proof that the man is a pathological liar. It's very doubtful so many people would have voted for this fraud had this become known.
I am not sure I know if this is really the case or not. But it is something to ponder, when you aren't being forced to take an anti-emetic medication because you were listening to one of his fraudulent teleprompted speeches.
Re: "If it’s legit, it usually has only one layer of graphic information, but if it has more than one layer of graphic information, red flags should go off in your head..."
According to these document experts, one of whom works for the CONSERVATIVE magazine National Review, the normal way that Adobe recognizes a complex document, meaning one with various fonts and a mixture of type and handwriting, is in LAYERS, multiple layers.
: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-l...
Re: "Document verification was a professional hobby of mine while I was in military intelligence.."
Answer: You however, are a birther, whose impartiality cannot be trusted. The National Review is different.
And Dr. Neal Krawetz is a recognized document expert. (http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html)
In addition to these experts, there is the fact that the Director of Health of Hawaii has stated in writing that she saw the original being copied and that the copy was exactly the same as the original. And there is the fact that two Republican officials had stated that they had seen the original. So, if the copy were different from the original, they could have said something. But they said nothing.
These are officials of the government of various parties. The claims of "experts" on birther sites are the claims of birthers.
Not the first time I've seen the so called experts mix and match facts to fit the template. Are you old enough to remember the Warren Commission?
rrichardson, tjames46, what are you two media whore Kool-Aid drinkers doing here? Do either of you know anything about legal documentation other than few tiny and misleading bread crumbs the MSM feed you? Are you familiar enough with certain types of computer software to search for your own answers? It doesn't take a computer genius to figure out if a document is legitimate or not. If it's legit, it usually has only one layer of graphic information, but if it has more than one layer of graphic information, red flags should go off in your head because someone or something has messed with the data. Sure it could be a glitch in the software, and sure it could be some innocent human error when making a copy, and sure it could be winged monkeys flying out of your butts, but I doubt it. Document verification was a professional hobby of mine while I was in military intelligence and while my expertise is not with digital media, I am none the less suspicious about certain anomalies I can see on the so-called original document just from cursory inspection. Certain things jump out at me; ghosting in the signatures, and in certain information blocks, date and time stamps with grammatical errors, use of politically corrected vernacular before 1961 is definitely a give away. Stuff like that.
THREE Republican officials in Hawaii have confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Notices of Obama’s birth appeared in the newspapers in 1961. And they were not ads that could have been purchased by the family. Hawaii newspapers did not run birth notice ads in 1961. They only took their notices from the Hawaii government, which did not issue them for births outside of Hawaii, and which demanded proof whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital.
The birth certificate was not forged. The director of health of Hawaii certified in writing that she had seen the document being copied and that the copy was exactly the same as the original. At least two Republican officials had stated that they had seen the original. So, if there were anything different between the original and what they saw, they could have said, and they said nothing.
The Wall Street Journal said: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."