by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 18, 2024) — Since at least the end of the Obama presidency, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has maintained the image of an unauthenticated copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s purported “long-form” birth certificate evidenced by its lack of an official raised seal.
The seal’s absence was one of a number of items leading many to believe Obama’s “short-form” birth certificate, purportedly released by the 2008 Obama campaign and published by The Daily KOS in June that year, and the “long-form” released by the White House several years later, were forgeries devised to conceal information about Obama’s background which could have rendered him ineligible to serve.
A 5+-year criminal investigation into the origins of the “long-form” birth-certificate image launched in August 2011 by then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio concluded the image to be a “computer-generated forgery” released to the public “with the intent to deceive,” lead investigator, former police detective and former private investigator Mike Zullo said as the probe progressed and afterward.
On Monday The Post & Email spoke with Zullo about the birth certificate displayed by NARA, archived from the Obama White House webpage of April 27, 2011, during which he told us:
Somebody sent me a video on the birth certificate of an analysis they claimed was taken down relatively quickly. I was looking at it, and they pulled down the White House copy. So I went to the White House to pull down the copy, and when I did my Google search, it showed the birth certificate in the Archives. So I clicked on that, and I was looking at it and saying, “Obama never displayed the birth certificate himself; whatever was displayed in the press gaggle had no background to it.” And then when I was looking at the document in all its glory, I realized there’s no seal on it and that the Archives is literally displaying an unauthenticated, fictitious document because the State of Hawaii would not release a birth certificate without a seal.
The way the State of Hawaii does it, when they print it off, it gets the safety paper background. When it’s in the book, there are all white backgrounds. The seal would already have had to be in place, and it’s not, so the Archives is displaying a fictitious document.”
Further, Zullo revealed exclusively to The Post & Email an “enhanced” long-form birth certificate image produced by experts engaged by the investigation seeking evidence of a raised seal and showing none:
In contrast, Zullo pointed out, a long-form birth certificate investigators found was used, among others, as a base document for the creation of the Obama long-form belonging to Joanna Ah’Nee bears a raised seal.
The Obama White House’s long-form image can be accessed directly through the National Archives website by typing in “long-form” in the upper-right search box here, yielding the following result:
https://search.archives.gov/search?query=long-form&op=Search&affiliate=obamawhitehouse
On the morning of April 27, 2011, then-Obama White House Counsel Robert Bauer spoke to reporters in the “gaggle” to which Zullo referred. Present at the session were then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Bauer, who told reporters Obama’s original long-form birth certificate “is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.”
Pfeiffer referred to “independent fact checkers” who “inspected the document” and “declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii,” almost certainly referring to Factcheck.org, which in August 2008 reported its “staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said..”
Factcheck updated its article after the “long-form” birth certificate appeared on the White House website, writing, “The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the ‘Certificate of Live Birth.’”
“The other question is why the National Archives has the birth certificate, because it was considered a personal record when Obama asked for it, and they sent his personal attorney to get it,” Zullo also observed Monday of the events leading up to the uploading of the long-form. “It’s another indication that something was printed out that wasn’t authenticated, and we know the state of Hawaii doesn’t print PDFs.”
Zullo has described the “long-form” as “manufactured evidence to support a narrative.” In a 2018 interview, he revealed that two U.S. intelligence agents informed him it was “an open secret” in the nation’s capital that Obama was not born in the United States.
Curiously, during a trip to Africa after he left office, Obama told reporters he is “from Kenya,” and during the campaign his wife Michelle referred to the nation as her husband’s “home country.”
In a 2007 broadcast, then-“Hardball” host Chris Matthews declared Obama “born in Indonesia.”
After leaving the White House, Pfeiffer wrote a book about his experiences, including a chapter dedicated to the release of the long-form birth certificate. In a June 2018 interview with “Crooked Conversations” host Jon Lovett, Pfeiffer appeared to recall the events of April 27, 2011 differently than they unfolded and opined that presumed Trump supporters continuing to seek answers about Obama’s origins are a “band of racist nut jobs.”
That morning Pfeiffer asserted to “gaggle” reporters that the two “certified” birth-certificate copies in his custody at the time bore a “seal,” which raises the question as to why the National Archives version does not.
During the session, an exchange with Pfeiffer stressed the fact that he was making only “copies” of the purported original birth certificate available to the press:
Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.
Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical —
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.
Q You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you —
Q Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.
Among the dozens of Obama “long-form” birth-certificate images available on the internet today, none appears to bear a raised seal. However, after the image’s release that day, NBC News’s Savannah Guthrie posted her alleged findings on social media (since removed), telling NBC’s Brian Williams she “felt the raised seal” (4:06 in video).
In photos Guthrie posted to UberSocial that day, however, no “raised seal” or insignia of any kind was visible.
During the presser Bauer claimed Obama’s original birth certificate was “in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii,” directly contradicting then-Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie less than three months earlier. Elected in November 2010, Abercrombie, who served as honorary chairman of the 2008 Obama Hawaii campaign, “vowed” to locate the birth certificate within the health department’s records to quiet the naysayers, particularly in light of the upcoming 2012 election.
Documentation of Obama’s birth there, Abercrombie claimed, “exists in the archives, written down.”
However, several weeks later Abercrombie said he would abandon his search because he was told by then-Hawaii Attorney General David Louie that state law prohibited his accessing it.
“Recall that in 2011 Abercrombie had said he wasn’t able to find it; it wasn’t in the bound volume at the Hawaii Department of Health,” Zullo commented.
In 2017, approximately a year after completing the investigation, Zullo referred to a “nexus” involving Abercrombie, a letter posted by the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children in which Obama hailed the facility as “the place of my birth” and quickly retracted from the facility’s website, and the long-form birth certificate image.
As the controversy over Obama’s eligibility grew during the presidential election year of 2008, Factcheck.org acknowledged that some suggested a “forgery” was produced to simulate a Hawaiian “short-form” birth certificate for Obama while at the same time styling itself a competent adjudicator of the authenticity of both the “short-form” and “long-form” images.
Links to the short-form image in Factcheck’s article now lead to error messages. However, in various photos Factcheck provided at the time which are now archived, the “short-form” appears both with and without a purported raised seal.
The Obama White House appeared to believe the release of the long-form image would satisfy the clamor of the “birthers,” purportedly catalyzed by frequent and very public remarks from then-businessman Donald J. Trump, who clearly doubted Obama’s claimed Hawaii birthplace and bona fides.
In fact, earlier that month, Trump predicted the White House would put forth an inauthentic document purported to be Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate, which Trump had challenged Obama to release since the beginning of 2011.
The April 27, 2011 uploading of the long-form image to the White House website, prompting public remarks from Obama himself, was immediately accepted and promoted by the mainstream media as definitive proof of his claim of a birth in Hawaii and, by inference, his eligibility.
Contrary to expectations, however, the release and press conferences did not quiet the clamor over Obama’s background, further amplified by the findings of several analysts who immediately declared the image a forgery, giving way to the Arpaio investigation, the findings from which remain unexplored by federal law enforcement.
DeMaio Reply – “Again, there is nothing in the history of the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) clause to suggest that the Founders intended to rely on place of birth exclusively to assure allegiance in addition to fortifying against foreign influence”
Except the debate in the Convention about limiting membership in Congress to natives as a way to prevent foreigners from intermeddling and insinuating themselves into US councils.
DeMaio Replay – “As Justice Story observed in his tome”
This is a misreading of Joseph Story’s comment in §1473. Story was specifically discussing naturalized citizens becoming President
“It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”
Such a barrier to foreigners becoming President exists using either the Common Law definition of natural born or Vattel’s definition.
Demaio Reply – “the commenter addresses Madison’s remark that “place of birth being the most certain criteria for allegiance.””
DeMaio again ignores Madison’s statement that place of birth is what the United States uses to determine allegiance.
“Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
Place of birth is what applies in the UNited State.
DeMaio Reply – “Finally (at last). the commenter STILL refuses to answer the core question”
The answer is in just about each of my comments. The Framers believed the English Common Law method for limiting eligibility to the legislature or the Privy Council natural born subjects was sufficient to prevent foreign influence. This may not satisfy the 21 Century mind but it was sufficient for the 18th century mind.
The primary framer of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, believed “natural born Citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents not owing any allegiance to a foreign Sovereign or power. To wit:
“All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1862
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1886.
There is much doubt about where the oaf was born. That most likely will be the case for years to come.
However, what is not in doubt, in any way shape or form is that he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro. At that point the guy became an Indonesian Citizen. Period. When he returned to the US to live with his grandparents he had until he was 18 to reclaim his US Citizenship without any questions. He did not do that. There is NO record of him ever reclaiming his citizenship. Either before or after his 18th birthday. This is why he entered Occidental on a Fulbright Scholarship, which are ONLY for foreign students. Americans need not apply. This is also why all of his Occidental records were confiscated and remain hidden from public view. He entered as an Indonesian citizen. He was Indonesian then, he is Indonesian now, he was an Indonesian citizen when he was elevated to the presidency by the Democrat party. Note that Nancy Pelosi, who was required to submit documentation of his eligibility performed some fancy wordsmithing to avoid declaring him a citizen of the United States as she was required to do, by law.
Barack Hussein Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen.
There’s no evidence of any Indonesia adoption records. There’s no evidence of a Fulbright scholarship.
Yes, this fake 44th president is an undocumented alien. No verifiable document exists that proves that this obvious CIA asset is a US citizen.
He was adopted, at that point he legally became Barry Soetoro. As I said above, the Oxy records were secreted, by the FBI and Brennan’s group (the same organization that confiscated his passport in the faux robbery of his/Hillary’s and McCain’s passports) in conjunction with the then president of the University, around the time of, or just before his nomination in 2008. However, classmates knew him to be on a Fulbright scholarship, and have said/written as much.
There’s continues to be no evidence of any Indonesia adoption or Fulbright scholarship records. College records aren’t “secreted”; they’re just private under federal law.
Regardless of his birthplace, as the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. who has never been a U.S. Citizen, Barack Jr is not eligible to be President of the United States.
The results appear to have left him as an eight year de facto President who was not Impeached for his transgression.
Under the de facto officer doctrine, duties performed in the normal function of the position are considered valid, I wonder if they extend to retirement benefits?
DeMaio – “Again, the invitation to the commenter is open-ended, with no time-limit or expiration date.”
English law limiting members of privy council to natural born subjects and persons born outside the dominions to English subject parents.
Act of Settlement, 1701
“That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him”
William Blackstone – “…in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust [the privy council]”
Constitutional Convention proposal to only allow natives to be members of Congress.
Elbridge Gerry – “Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes.”
In the New York debates over ratification it was proposed that an amendment be added that would create a privy council for the President made up only of natural-born citizens or a person who became a citizen before July 4th 1776.
New York’s ratification document included an suggested amendment that limited members of Congress to “natural born Citizens” or “Citizens on or before” July 4th 1776.
James Madison – “in general place [of birth] is the most certain criterion [of allegiance]; it is what applies in the United States”
To the late 18th century Englishman, place of birth was the “most certain criterion” for allegiance. The Founders/Framers grew up in the English system. They understood it to be a check on foreign attachments. More importantly if they were going to change the meaning of the term that had been in use for several years in the states – why would they not say anything to anyone?
From Joseph DeMaio:
———————-
Commenter Leland quotes your humble servant’s invitation to address the core question of why, purportedly, the Founders would have adopted a lower barrier to foreign influence instead of the higher de Vattel § 212 barrier…, then immediately pivots away to an unrelated topic. Mildly irritating, but altogether typical.
The commenter then lays out what is claimed to be the history in the states – prior to execution and ratification of the Constitution – of their various views on the term “natural born subjects” and “natural born citizens.” Those references, while interesting in the context of state laws, are largely unhelpful in determining the Founders’ intent in adopting the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) term in the federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” See Art. 6, U.S. Constitution.
Commenter Leland finishes his offering by quoting – partially – from the remarks of James Madison in the House of Representatives on May 22, 1789. Madison’s remarks came in the context of a challenge to the seating in the House of one William Smith of South Carolina on the grounds that he was alleged to be ineligible because he had not been a “citizen” for the requisite seven years when he was elected.
Commenter Leland omits from his comment, however, important portions of Madison’s remarks. Specifically, Madison’s fullquote discloses that he states: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States….” (Emphasis added)
Allegiance based on place of birth is plainly contemplated and included as one of the two core principles embedded in the definition of a “natural born citizen” found in § 212, Book 1, Ch. 19 of Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758). No dispute. Place of birth is not, however, the only component.
The commenter ignores the fact that Madison recognized that birthplace was one criterion, even a primary one, but in addition that parentage was another. The suggestion that Madison was contending that birthplace alone determined allegiance is belied by the rest of his quote, noting that in addition to being born in South Carolina, Mr. White’s “ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” (Emphasis added)
Madison’s recognition of Mr. White’s ancestors as being relevant plainly injects “parentage” (or, in legal terms, “jus sanguinis” principles) into his ultimate opinion that Mr. White “was a citizen at the [D]eclaration of [I]ndependence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.” (Emphasis added)
The fact that Madison was addressing the question of “birthplace” as one element, even in his view the most important one, as bearing upon the “allegiance” of a person seeking to be seated in the House of Representatives, while relevant to members of Congress, cannot without context be superimposed over the analysis of what the Founders – including Madison – intended in using the more restrictive “nbC” term regarding the President.
Moreover, recall that the suggestion by Constitutional Convention delegates Madison and Pinkney that the President should be merely a “citizen” was rejected, with the Committee on Postponed Matters substituting the “nbC” term instead. That term, it is posited, blends the “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” principles of § 212 of the de Vattel treatise to provide the highest level of exclusive unitary allegiance to the United States alone as a barrier to the insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency.
And, BTW, James Madison signed off on that “nbC” component of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.
DeMaio reply – “immediately pivots away to an unrelated topic”
Not a pivot but the groundwork to show the weakness of the pro-Vattel argument. The English believed that birth in the dominion was sufficient to assure allegiance and the Founders believe they same thing.
The DeMaio reply ignores the key phrase of Madison’s statement on place of birth being the most certain criteria for allegiance. That phrase “it is what applies in the United States”. Place of birth is the most certain criteria of allegiance in the United States, just like in England.
DeMaio reply – “Madison’s recognition of Mr. White’s ancestors”
All of Mr. Smith’s [not White] were British subjects. Both of his parents died before 1776 and thus died as British subjects.
DeMaio reply – “Madison was addressing the question of “birthplace” as one element”
The one element that “applies in the United States.” Madison knew that the parentage element for those born outside the US would have to wait for the new Congress.
DeMaio reply – “recall that the suggestion by Constitutional Convention delegates Madison and Pinkney that the President should be merely a “citizen” was rejected, with the Committee on Postponed Matters substituting the “nbC” term instead.”
So the Committee followed the English legal system model for eligibility in the privy council. As Blackstone explained any natural born subject or a person born outside the dominion to parents who were British subjects.
In October, 1784 the Rhode Island Assemble declared that Amy Allen was entitled to all the rights and privileges of “natural free-born citizens of this state.”
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Records_of_the_Colony_of_Rhode_Island_an/Xt7S5dTCNsEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=natural%20free-born
The term natural born citizen was used by the states and had a meaning before 1787. Its meaning could not be the Vattel definition. The Framers did not use a different meaning than the one used by the states. If they had there would be a record of it.
From Joseph DeMaio:
——————————-
First, commenter Leland disputes your servant’s claim that he pivoted away from the answering the question presented. He asserts that it was instead “groundwork” to marginalize de Vattel, stating: “The English believed that birth in the dominion was sufficient to assure allegiance and the Founders believe[d] they [sic: the?] same thing.”
Again, there is nothing in the history of the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) clause to suggest that the Founders intended to rely on place of birth exclusively to assure allegiance in addition to fortifying against foreign influence. Indeed, without the principles of parentage (jus sanguinis) also recognized, the specter of the insinuation of foreign influence — quite apart from a person’s innate allegiance — would still exist.
As Justice Story observed in his tome, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1473, the nbC clause was included in the Constitution to “cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners” (emphasis added) to insinuate themselves into the office of the president. Without taking into consideration parentage and the principles of jus sanguinis, far less than elimination of “all” potential for foreign influence would persist. The Founders sought exclusive and undivided allegiance to the United States alone, not split or shared allegiance which would exist if place of birth alone controlled.
Second, commenter Leland correctly points out that Madison’s remarks related to the challenged seating in the House of William Smith rather than a “William White.” Your servant appreciates the correction.
Third, the commenter addresses Madison’s remark that “place of birth being the most certain criteria for allegiance.” The commenter probably means “criterion” rather than the plural “criteria,” but that is a grammatical matter. The point is that there is nothing in Madison’s remarks suggesting that it is the exclusive criterion. Indeed, Madison acknowledges that “parentage” also may play a role.
There is no question that place of birth is a significant sine qua non of national allegiance. That is why § 212 of the de Vattel treatise includes it in the definition of a “natural born citizen,” requiring birth to be “in” the country where the person is claimed to possess that status. However, the commenter omits acknowledging that this position alone destroys any claim that Senator Ted Cruz, born in Calgary, Alberta Canada, could ever be considered an nbC as contended by Messrs. Clement and Katyal in their 2105 article on the topic.
Fourth, the fact that Mr. Smith’s ancestors may have been British subjects when they died is a concession that Madison believed that the principles of jus sanguinis (parentage), as well as those of jus soli (soil) coalesced to support his conclusion that Mr. Smith was a “citizen.” There is absolutely nothing, however, to suggest that Madison also believed that Mr. Smith was, in addition to being a “citizen,” also an nbC.
Finally (at last). the commenter STILL refuses to answer the core question, i.e.: “Given the Founders’ concern over eliminating all potentials for the insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency, why would they have intentionally adopted the lower, inferior barrier to foreign influence under the definition of an nbC inherent in the Clement/Katyal “citizen at/by birth” theory, rejecting the “two-parent citizen” requirement, instead of the higher, superior barrier embedded in the definition available under the de Vattel § 212?
Everyone commenting here with an ounce of common sense knows that the two alleged Obama (Soetoro) (Soebarka) birth certificates are only distractors to obfuscate the real issue: The putative 44th POtuS is not a natural born Citizen and therefore twice a POtuS usurper plus an undocumented alien.
Nikita is correct, there is only a narrative-birth certificate(s) for the narrative-nativity of FRAUD presIDent Obama:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP5Y9OUJyk
> https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2074&context=theses
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/47549032/Sworn-Affidavit-by-Tim-Adams-No-Hawaii-Hospital-Generated-Long-Form-Birth-Cert-Exists-for-Obama
We’ve all known about the Obama-DNC election fraud of 08-28-08 as exposed here EVERYDAY since 08-28-09 at The Post & Email!
Therefore, anyone badgering any “birther” today is possibly a hateful-ungrateful Alinsky disciple, like Barack and Michelle Obama, who continue to MAKE-THEM-BELIEVE MAKE BELIEVE https://www.wnd.com/2016/07/obama-brings-up-birth-certificates-while-pushing-hillary/ with the help of the corrupt corporate “corporrupt” media-mafia, conmen congressmen and a 100% nationally syndicated judicial-omerta: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
So obvious.
In the article you said:
“In photos Guthrie posted to UberSocial that day, however, no “raised seal” or insignia of any kind was visible.”
Not true. If you open the image she calls “a wider shot of the document” then zoom in to the lower left part of the birth certificate the embossed seal is definitely visible.
Perhaps you have X-ray vision!
I made it easy for you and enlarged the part with the seal:
[/img]
[img
Ah yes. Thank you. Now I can clearly see the text “State Of Hawaii – Department Of Health” within the double row of dots and the crest of Hawaii in the middle of the seal. NOT.
But what does the seal say therein; “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval?
https://ltgov.hawaii.gov/what-is-an-apostille/
https://ltgov.hawaii.gov/application-for-apostille-or-certification-of-documents/
https://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/apostilles/
1 5/8″ diameter Hawaii Notary seal https://www.rubberstampchamp.com/products/hawaii-notary-embossing-seal
2 1/4″ diameter seal https://health.hawaii.gov/opppd/files/2013/06/prac_proc.pdf see page 11-4
AND WHY IS IT THE WRONG DIAMETER FOR A 1961 HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE SEAL? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP5Y9OUJyk
at 13:00 timestamp (of fraud stamp)
Obama puke drinkers must remodel their frames of mind from believing-is-seeing-narrative-realities-mind-slavery to seeing-is-believing-natural-common-5-senses-realities before they can barf-up the moldy 16-year-old half-baked layered-cake of woeful wokeful Obama-lies! Start barfing! And nourish yourselves with honest food for thought right here at The P&E “family dinner table”!
Here is the archived Savannah Guthrie image of the LFBC.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120525143442/http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
If you zoom in to the spot just above the April 25, 2011 date you can make out the dots the make up the double border of a seal. Adjusting the contrast helps. The seal is also visible just to the left of the V in Vern Lee’s signature.
The same round double row of dots is visible in the same place on the PDF if you zoom in.
In fact since a seal appears in both images at the same spot, it is likely the paper document photographed by Guthrie was used to create the PDF on the Xerox 7655.
BTW, I suspect the Archives has the PDF on their site because it was used in an official press conference and was uploaded to the White House website. That would make it a Presidential record. The question for the Archivist is whether the original paper document used to create the PDF is also now part of the record. I’ll ask them and let you know what they say
The Post & Email has different information.
I’m not sure what your different information is but Zullo himself said the PDF was made on a Xerox 7655.
“We took the tax returns from President Obama in 2011, we took the birth certificate that was released in 2011 and I had the forensic team over in Italy decipher the metadata that was actually in the tax return, that does have metadata. And we compared the quantization tables in both documents and they actually did determine that it was indeed a 7655 copier that created both of those images. So now we knew there was a 7655 involved.”
Even if there are allegedly artifacts of a seal which I am unable to see any resemblance of any seal on the forged images, and if there at all – since nothing is readable, who is to say that said seal if there is one there, is a seal created by the state of Hawaii. A fake seal could have been purchased and made also in addition to making the forged short-form and long-form birth documents for the anti-American, Marxist fraud – Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama.
By making the forged seal if one is there and making it totally unreadable, the forgers may have deliberately done that to avoid breaking additional laws regarding forging government documents and using a forged fake official look alike state seal on a forged fake birth document.
Remember Obama himself was not allowed to handle the alleged birth document by his lawyers. That was all part of the efforts to give Obama more plausible deniability as to him benefiting from use of a forged document. I could just see him now in court on a witness stand saying, “Heck, I didn’t know it was a forgery. I didn’t even touch it. I trusted my legal and political team that it was real.”
Liars lie! And con-men and grifters like Barack Hussein Obama are consummate liars will go down with their “lies upon compounded lies” when confronted directly with one of their lies, on and on into perpetuity.
And let us not forget, Obama in his book “Dreams From My Father” stated on page 26 that he found a copy of his birth certificate which also contained his vaccination record. Hmmh, interesting that he found such a document that combined birth and vaccination information. Sounds like a documentation practice only found in other countries. And that statement made in his book was long before 2007/2008 when the short-form BC was alleged obtained by Team Obama from Hawaii.
So where is that BC that he found as per his statements on page 26 in his book? Why not show the world a copy/digital image of that.
It is so easy to forget all the false information put out by Obama and Team Obama during his early life and the time leading up to him or his far-left handlers decided for him to run for the Presidency. His life narrative was ever changing to suit his current financial needs and political agenda.
So again, where is that birth document he found and talked about on page 26 of his book. If only we had a truly objective and aggressive investigative news media in this country to ask the usurper Obama this question and many more of his ever changing early life narrative. There are so many questions that could be asked of Obama about statements about his life that he made in the past and was changed and covered-up later when it was no longer useful or was detrimental to his current financial and political goals and agenda.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
CDR Kerchner – “Sounds like a documentation practice only found in other countries.”
First off that birth certificate he found in Hawaii was when he was in high school in the late 1970s so about thirty years until he needed it in 2007. A lot can happen in 30 years
And as for a vaccination record. He left Indonesia when he was 10 to go to school in Hawaii. Would he need a vaccination record to make the transfer? Doesn’t seem that suspicious.
There’s no evidence that the seal portrayed in the digital image was forged. A forged seal seems especially unlikely in light the register’s certification and a professional reporter’s account.
There’s no evidence in the seal allegedly portrayed in the digital image indicating it is the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health. NADA. ZERO.
Here are just two sources of cheap ways to make forged seals:
https://www.simplystamps.com/embossers/corporate-seal
https://www.thestampmaker.com/embossers.aspx
There’s evidence of a seal. There’s circumstantial evidence it was the Hawaiian seal. There’s no evidence the seal was forged. And digital image wasn’t being used for any legal purpose, so the clarity of its seal is just a red herring.
Disinformation again.
While there may be evidence of a seal, the lack of clarity is hardly a red herring because it makes it impossible to recognize it as the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health.
It is disinformation to suggest that the possiblity of forgery means this seal was forged when there’s no evidence to support that belief.
It is disinformation to proffer on one hand that the lack of clarity is just a red herring and on the other hand that it can’t be a forgery.
There is such evidence in the Barry BC story, as there are several cases where seals were used in a fraudulent manner, as with Barry’s LFBC three Verifications. Thus, use of your “especially unlikely” is far off the mark. If the Guthrie I-feel-something seal doesn’t manifest the required-to-be-valid features, it would only be an added measure of BC forgery, par for the course for these intel-agency-connected document manipulators.
There’s no evidence any seal was used in a fraudulent manner. That Guthrie didn’t describe the seal to your satisfaction doesn’t mean it is a forgery. And the registrar’s certification is visible.
A link someone shared with me today for a YouTube video that someone made about 13 years ago which pointed out just a few of the signs of forgery for Obama’s forged long form Birth Certificate digital images proffered by Team Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xNKLsGeLEw
I remember well those days in April 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GREU6DdKtZs
Many other indications that both the short-form (digital images proffered June 2008) and long-form birth (digital image proffered April 2011) documents being forgeries were revealed by various experts and investigators in many fields of expertise. See: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3166684/Obama-s-Birth-Cert-Other-Key-Docs-Draft-Reg-Card-Forged-Expert-Reports … and … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05hORpFr2xE
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
In the archive’s copy of the image, the outline of the seal is visible (in the lower left quadrent).
Could you provide a screenshot?
Even better, a link to the image on the archive’s site:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
That is linked in several places in the article. Where do you see a raised seal?
By zooming to at least 200%, there’s a visible circular displacement. Starting below “for” in Box 23, continuing counterclockwise, and ending to the right of “Alteration.”
Show us an enlarged screenshot.
At 500% magnification of your PDF, no raised seal – zilch, nil, nothing. Three tries for a quarter.
A screenshot won’t change that the digital image on the archive’s site has an outline consistent with the size and shape of a seal. And the registrar’s certification is plainly visible.
On a forgery, no less!
There are photographs of the paper copy. Photographs that show the seal and registrar’s signature. And the register also verified the data contained in copy matches the data on the birth certificate in the state’s records.
IN MY OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY AT AGE 75, Savannah Guthrie lied for the media-mafia and got career promotions for it. sguthrie@hotmail.com
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/savannah-guthrie-lawyer-finding-fame-111905828.html
Savannah is a “BAR-smarTEST-person-in-the-room-lawyer/outlawyer/lieyer” and it was set-up before Obama gave his BIG LIE on TV in 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM2GJn6hpJE that only one highly recognizable media-mafia reporter would get to “narrative-feel” the narrative-embossed-seal and report that she felt it, in my opinion. All pre-staged.
For some 16 years now folks have been protecting narrative-man, FRAUD presIDent Obama, unlike any other President in US history. Why continue THE LIE?
ANSWER: Folks will be REWARDED if they protect THE LIE and other folks (Trump, Arpaio, Judge Moore, et al) will be TWARTED if they attempt to expose reality.
She said she “felt” a seal on the copy they let her handle. Well, she should have told us what the seal stated on its impression and took a good quality close up picture of the area with the seal with an angle to make it most readable in a picture. No that was not done. Not done on purpose in my opinion. Doing so would have shown the seal if readable was a forgery, and thus reinforcing the fact that the document was a forgery, as well as the images of the overall forged document posted online clearly show forgery as stated my many graphics experts and Chief Investigator Michael Zullo’s investigations in AZ. And not showing a clear image of the “Seal” she said she felt, that also gives her plausible deniability for her part in the scam. Also she has to do is say, well I just felt it. I didn’t look at it closely or take a good close-up picture of the seal. Plausible deniability was the plan all along. and all around for everyone that day, by Team Obama’s lawyers that day.
I or anyone could create a fake document and put any seal on it from any former defunct business or pseudo business from Hawaii, or even a specifically made fake State of Hawaii seal for use in this purpose, or a what-not kind of seal of any kind or the right size, and then impress that seal weakly on a fake document, but still feel-able, and then pass it quickly and briefly to someone and say, here feel the seal. See this is the real thing, A scam which can be easily foisted on someone in on the scam or not and just not allowed any time to closely examine the seal during a highly orchestrated event such as the day that Team Obama released only images to the public or the fake, forged long-form birth certificate. Only one person other than Team Obama lawyers were allowed to touch it. After that day only digital images are ever shown to anyone or touched by anyone in any controlling legal authority to validate it.
Also, see this video by Dr. Ron Polland on the cover-up attempts and other digital images produced by FactCheckers.org folks and others in on the forgeries and the cover-up of same, that were foisted on the public at various times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05hORpFr2xE More forgeries of the forgery, etc.
“…by Team Obama’s lawyers that day…”
I say, by Team Obama’s LIEYERS that day.
One thing some 15 years of off-and-on review of Obama Lies is my increasing disdain for state-licensed attorneys.
I now believe that Atty Bauer and Perkins Coie, et al, who criminally covered-up Obama’s ID frauds, are unaccounted ATTORNEY-CRIMINALS with the believability of USED CIGAR SALESMEN!
After meeting with Atty. Sidney Powell and reading her book “Licensed to Lie”, she too expresses in public that she is ashamed of her own profession!
So, maybe the real culprit in the 16 year OBAMA LIE is the ABA and all 50 state-attorney-licensing boards who see something and do nothing, like capable bystanders watching a culpable bank robbery and they adamantly refuse to “get involved” by calling 911 as witnesses!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?320640-1/licensed-lie
https://www.sidneypowell.com/shop/p/licensed-to-lie-book-paperback
abanews@americanbar.org
Why do attorney-criminals, Joe and Hunter, aka “Joke and Coke Biden”, still have their attorney licenses UNREVOKED after the U.S. public-jury sees daily TV discoveries of their crimes and scandals?
ANSWER: FEAR of media-mafia reprisals and CIA-mafia hit jobs, me thinks
Obviously and evidently, the U.S. attorney profession has allowed a U.S. Gangster Garbage Government and its attendant OBAMA LIE to flourish 08-28-08- TODAY because of their personal FEAR for their lives and livelihoods! Just ask “evasive” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who most likely fears for his own life herein as well, so he goes along with the nationally “sindicated” OBAMA JUDICIAL OMERTA.
Zullo didn’t even come close to proving that the Ah’Nee certificate was in any way used to produce the Obama birth certificate image.
Raised embossed seals are by design not visible in copies made on most copiers. That is why the seal doesn’t show up in the scan to PDF document that was posted by the White House and now posted at the National Archives. The raised seal on one of the two copies of the Obama certified LFBC provided by the state of Hawaii is visible in the photo taken on the morning of April 27, 2011 by NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie.
Of course I know this will not be posted because facts are the last thing you want on your blog.
Not true, sir. But why has no one else “seen” or “felt the raised seal?”
How do you know no one has “seen” or “felt” the raised seal? The packet handed out to reporters at the press conference on 4/27/11 did not show the embossed seal because, as I said, embossed seals do not copy easily. J. Scott Applewhite’s photo was taken of one of these copies so it doesn’t show on his photo either. We do not know how many reporters asked to see the original documents but they would have been able to see the raised seal. We know they were made available at the presser however.
We know because Savannah Guthrie said she was allowed to capture a cell phone shot of one of the two original certified copies of the long form certificate provided by Hawaii. If you open the link I provided and enlarge the image you can clearly see the embossed seal. Guthrie said she saw and felt the seal. Recall that when copies of the short form were first published they did not show the embossed seal unless you enhanced the image to crank up the contrast. On the high resolution images published by Factcheck.org that you linked above the seal is visible because they shot the photo at an angle with a concentrated light source that made the embossed seal very visible.
Skip to 3:50 of this video and you can see that Guthrie “saw and felt” the raised seal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/obama-birth-certificate-signed-sealed-delivered-4444013177
So yes there is a seal and any argument to the contrary is bogus.
That the Editor of this blog, Sharon Rondeau, posted your first comment (Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:37 PM) warranted your apology to the Editor of this blog, Sharon Rondeau, herein PRIOR to you posting your second comment (above) 26 minutes later.
Of course you did not do so. Shame on you.
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
————————————
In the above comment by “Reality Check,” a link is included purporting to confirm that Savannah Guthrie “saw and felt” the raised seal on the birth certificate. However, all that confirms is that a clearly less-than-unbiased NBC reporter ran her finger over “a” seal that had been squeezed onto a piece of paper.
Was that tactile “feeling” of a seal the official one from the State of Hawaii or might it have been from some other state or even the seal of Good Housekeeping? Or the Land of Oz? Stated otherwise, only an unbiased, independent examination of the document displayed on the NARA website would satisfy the “Best Evidence Rule.” The anecdotal comments of an NBC reporter do not suffice.
Moreover, quite apart from embossed seals on pieces of paper claimed to be birth certificates – and as an apparent supporter of the purported “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama – might the commenter wish to offer a response to the underlying core nbC question? The question is applicable to all who are or claim to be an nbC, including Barack Obama, the bona fides of his birth certificate aside. Again, the argument that birth in the United States does not alone make one an nbC is gathering wider recognition.
The fundamental question, of course, is this: Given the Founders’ concern over eliminating all potentials for the insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency, why would they have intentionally adopted the lower, inferior barrier to foreign influence under the definition of an nbC inherent in the Clement/Katyal “citizen at/by birth” theory instead of the higher, superior barrier embedded in the definition available under the de Vattel § 212 definition?
Again, the invitation to the commenter is open-ended, with no time-limit or expiration date.
To Mr. DeMaio:
Here we go again with the moving of the goal posts. Ms Rondeau made the statement that no one had ever touched or seen the seal. I showed that was not true. Now you don’t like the person who verified the seal. I believe other reporters also mentioned seeing the seal but I don’t have the time to go back and search. I recall though that the reporter from WND who attended the briefing said this document put the entire birth certificate issue to bed.
Certainly such a constitutional expert as you would understand that President Obama never was required to show any birth certificate to be eligible. The two birth certificates he allowed to be published were completely valid certified documents. How do I know? Because the issuing authority said so.
https://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
The ultimate authority on the validity of any vital record is the body who issued the record. In this case that was the State of Hawaii.
You are mistaken; I did not claim “that no one had ever touched or seen the seal.” I reported the statements Guthrie and others made, including the assertion by the reporter in the press gaggle that the White House had shown and distributed only a copy of a purported original birth certificate, not the actual document said to have been issued by the HDOH.
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
————————————
Commenter “Reality Check” asserts that your humble servant has “moved the goal posts.”
Au contraire: the goal posts have never been moved. Instead, they have always remained embedded in the bedrock foundation that, the bona fides of competing birth certificates completely aside, if one is not a natural born Citizen (“nbC”) as contemplated by the Founders and adopted into the Constitution, one is ineligible to the presidency. Full stop. Agitated debates about the legitimacy of a birth certificate may be relevant but are largely peripheral chaff.
The commenter states that Obama “never was required to show any birth certificate to be eligible.” If the commenter’s suggestion is that merely “showing a birth certificate,” presumably from one the states of the union, renders one eligible, that is plainly wrong. The production and display of a birth certificate – in and of itself and alone – has little to do with confirming eligibility under the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen“ (“nbC”) clause.
Under the definition set out in § 212, Book 1, Ch. 19 of The Law of Nations (1758) by Emer de Vattel (“§ 212”) only if a person is born in the country where both of the parents are already citizens will the person be a “natural born citizen.” It is posited that the historical record compels the conclusion that the § 212 definition is the one adopted by the Founders.
The argument that a “citizen at/by birth” is “close enough for government work” – regardless of actual birthplace here or unity of citizenship in both parents at the time of birth – runs diametrically counter to the Founders’ intent to preclude, not merely impede, the potential for the insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency. See Federalist 68 (Publius A. Hamilton)
Stated otherwise, even if the Obama birth certificate image is deemed to be genuine and the “raised seal” felt by NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie on a piece of paper – somewhere – was, in fact, the Great Seal of the State of Hawai’i, the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen in 1961 renders him, under § 212, a 14th Amendment “citizen” under the Supreme Court’s flawed Wong Kim Ark decision, but not an nbC under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, insofar as Monsieur Obama is concerned, even assuming that the Internet-posted image of a birth certificate purporting to be his “long form” certificate is genuine, the document corroborates the independent and undisputed fact that his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen in 1961, and not a naturalized U.S. citizen. No one disputes that. The fact that his mother may have been a U.S. citizen is not, under § 212, enough.
Thus, Mr. Obama was not, is not, and in the future will not be an nbC as defined under § 212.
The “Best Evidence Rule” is a rule for admitting documents in a courtroom. But this isn’t a courtroom, and most people make countless decisions every day without resort to such formal rules. There are photographs and images showing the seal, a professional reporter’s account of touching the seal, the registrar’s certification, and the absence of evidence that it might be some seal other than Hawaii’s. For most people, this would be sufficient evidence of authenticity.
Like many of the names of Bills introduced in Congress, RealityCheck’s statements and so called facts that he has proffered in his support of Team Obama has nothing to do with the insinuations of his user ID name. It is just a social engineering tactic.
As I recall he’s a trained social engineer and sociologist (look up what social engineers do online) – who is a master (in his own mind at least) of linguist trickery, language manipulation as taught by Antonio Gramsci a founder of the Italian Communist Party, and in attempts to manipulate people and public perceptions.
Also, as I recall I believe he teaches Sociology (or did) at the University of CT, at which one his favorite course offerings to his students was the works of Karl Marx. His student reviews were not very good as I remember reading them.
Thus, in reading what RC posts here, his language manipulations and trickery tactics here in general have nothing to do with “reality” and the truth about the enigma of who Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein (some also say a 2nd middle name of Mohammad) Obama really is, if even Obama knows himself anymore what with all the fabrications and changes of his life narratives over time.
And with RC’s well known association with the very nasty FogBow group members such as Foggy, who they called “Grumpy Foggy” in their inner-circle chats, who was in a video wearing a red ball camp with the hammer and sickle on it in one video tape of their chats, RC being Foggy’s buddy, is obviously not here in this forum for the good of our constitutional republic and the protection of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution. JMHO!
Jonathan J. wrote:
“For most people, this would be sufficient evidence of authenticity.”
You have to remember we are dealing with people who hate Obama passionately and who will never accept he was the legitimate President. They have moved the goalpost so many times they are not only out of the stadium but in another county.
Look at DeMaio’s dishonest reading of James Madison comments on place being determinate of citizenship in this country. Had had to twist the truth into a pretzel to try to make Madison’s quote support the discredited two parent citizen nonsense.
How much are you being paid and by whom?
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
—————————————
Commenter “Reality Check” criticizes your humble servant’s quoting of the actual language of James Madison, stating: “Look at DeMaio’s dishonest reading of James Madison[‘s] comments on place being determinate [sic: determinative?] of citizenship in this country.” Soooo…, the quoting of Madison’s actual words has now become “dishonest?” Seriously?
The commenter then adds: “Had [sic: He?] had to twist the truth into a pretzel to try to make Madison’s quote support the discredited two [-] parent citizen nonsense.” A pretzel? “Had had?” Clearly, grade school grammar and proofreading are not among the commenter’s wheelhouse strengths.
As for the claim of “discredited two[-]parent citizen nonsense,” two questions emerge. First, where, exactly, does the commenter find that the two-parent requirement of the de Vattel § 212 definition of a “natural born citizen” is “nonsense” and has purportedly been “discredited?” And please, citation to the ipse dixit pontifications of the Congressional Research Service or the 2015 Clement/Katyal article are insufficient, as is the dictum in the flawed Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case.
Second, is this the same assertedly “discredited” two-parent plural “citizens” element that the 1st Congress employed in that favorite repealed statute of de Vattel Deniers, 1 Stat. 103? Is it the same “discredited” component of 1 Stat. 414, which repealed 1 Stat. 103? Is it the same “discredited” two-parent plural “citizens” phrase recognized by the 110th Congress in Senate Resolution 511, the 2008 ploy used by the Senate in an attempt to portray Senator John McCain as being a “natural born Citizen” eligible to the presidency? That one?
Your servant will munch on a pretzel – salted, with a side of hot nacho cheese and a Diet Dr Pepper — while waiting for Reality Check’s answers.
The certified copy of my birth certificate with a genuine raised seal always casts its shadow to the paper copy, each and every time that I have scanned it since — whad-da-ya-know — 1964 on every type of scanner you can think of. Your reality check has no cash value.
“Raised embossed seals are by design not visible in copies made on most copiers. That is why the seal doesn’t show up in the scan to PDF document that was posted by the White House and now posted at the National Archives.”
Balderdash!
My mid-level Epson Home/Office MFC produced a direct copy and a Scan to PDF of my NH Certificate of Birth clearing showing its raised embossed seal, so clear in fact that all the circular text, “* STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE * DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH *”, around its periphery is clearly legible. Surely the White House’s much higher-end Xerox Business/Commercial MFC could easily do likewise.
Actually the better the copier the less likely it will copy an embossed seal. Better copiers have more even and diffused light sources designed to eliminate shadows. Regardless, we know both the short form and long originals from Hawaii had raised seals from photographic evidence and eye witness accounts. Factcheck for the short form and Savannah Guthrie on the long form.
Yet another excuse/deflection. Regardless, we all know an alleged circular double row of dots alone in no way, shape or form is bone fide evidence of a raised embossed official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health.
James Carter said:
“Yet another excuse/deflection. Regardless, we all know an alleged circular double row of dots alone in no way, shape or form is bone fide evidence of a raised embossed official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Good, we are making progress. You reluctantly admit that there is an embossed seal. So where did the seal come from? Isn’t the obvious answer it came from Hawaii? After all Hawaii said they issued the certificate. They said that over and over and over.
The burden of proof is on you my friend. If the White House generated the LFBC PDF entirely on a computer from scratch as fired posse member Mike Zullo claims then how in the world can another image with higher resolution exist? You cannot print a computer generated image and magically add details that aren’t there. Yet that is exactly what Mike Zullo would want you to think happened when J. Scott Applewhite shot a photo of a copy of the LFBC in the presser packet.
A real investigator looks at all the evidence and doesn’t look at one little piece and scream “Oh I cannot tell this seal (which is designed not to be photocopied) came from Hawaii. Oh dear, it must be a forgery.”
This is all disinformation, and we all know it.
“alleged” is in no way, shape or form an admission.
“So where did the [alleged] seal come from?” Good question, we are indeed making progress. Since you are the one proffering that the alleged seal must have come from Hawaii the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it did, and an alleged circular double row of dots alone is supposition at best — such could easily be the result of a forger using a <$50.00 embosser and custom seal plate (with a 2" circular double row of dots and nothing else) ordered from either of the two sources I posted links to previously.
A real investigator does indeed look at all the evidence. The images and photographs of Obama's alleged short form and long form birth certificates posted on DailyKos, Snopes, Factcheck and the White House website are evidence…and none of them have anything recognizable as the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health to the exclusion of anything else.
As Post & Email's illustrious Editor Sharon Rondeau pointed out below, your comment above (and elsewhere herein) is all disinformation. And we all know it.
Not only did Zullo and his vaunted document experts, both foreign and domestic, not come close to proving the Ah’Nee certificate was used to produce Barry’s LFBC, what he was able to prove was that he and his experts had no semblance of professional criteria to come to proper conclusions.
Herewith, I include excerpts from the relevant and claimed Ah’Nee fields and their corresponding fields from Barry’s LFBC, first onto Green Safety Paper, and secondly onto the gray blank background found in the White House Press Corps(e) Press Kits.
https://postimg.cc/zH8fL2zt
The reader will note that police guy has fully screwed up his claimed evidence for the culminating, final presser. NONE of the sample Ah’Nee fields were used to source Barry’s analogous fields. They don’t match at all!!!!
Obama’s Birth Certificates (Long & Short Forms) & Other Key Documents (Such as Draft Reg Card) Forged – Expert Reports: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3166684/Obama-s-Birth-Cert-Other-Key-Docs-Draft-Reg-Card-Forged-Expert-Reports
CDR Charles Kerchner
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org