Saturday, July 21, 2012

Which side of the fence?

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended". 

Rob's Comment Important Enough to be on Front Page

Rob has left a new comment on your post "It’s Time Joe Arpaio Identifies Obama As A Crimina...":

Arpaio and Zullo should stop hiding behind, 'it may be the story he was told growing up, and he may believe that story to be true.'

Arpaio and Zullo have proven that the document posted on line is an absolute fraud. They know it was ‘parked’ and 'assembled' in the White House, and they can identify the computer on which it was done. I have a firm suspicion that they also know who it was that created the document. But in one of Obama/Soetoro's phony autobiographies, I believe it was the book written by Bill Ayers, he refers to the fact that he had a copy of his original birth certificate, folded with other important papers. As Arpaio and Zullo are sure this current document is fraudulent, it cannot possibly match to the one Obama/Soetoro had in his possession, and most likely still does. That being the case, Obama KNOWS, and has always known, this most recent one is FRAUDULENT. He clearly had the true original, knew the real story all along, and knows the two don't match up. There is nothing he can do to deny that he didn't know. He has had the original for years, and if the April 27, 2011, document isn't the same, and the Sheriff and Mike Zullo, and the rest of us, know it isn’t the same, then it is a criminal offense. Arpaio and Zullo should come out and say so. 

It’s Time Joe Arpaio Identifies Obama As A Criminal




When Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse began their investigation into Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the president was not referred to even as a potential suspect of wrongdoing. During the Posse’s March 1st news conference, it was revealed that the birth certificate placed online by the White House was probably a forgery. And on Tuesday, in the second official release of Posse-acquired information to the public, any remaining doubt as to the fraudulent nature of the document was removed as it was proved that information included on the computer-crafted, BC image could not have been put there by the Hawaii Department of Health.

“What I’m telling you is that document isn’t real,” said lead investigator Mike Zullo to members of the press and others attending the Tuesday conference. “The only legal authority which could have made the document, did not make it,” he continued, speaking of the Hawaii Department of Health. For keen investigation by Zullo and others led to the 95 year old Department official whose signature appears on the birth certificate form! And in a taped telephone conference, she told Zullo that information included on the document could NOT have been placed there by the DOH office in which she was working at the time of Barack Obama’s purported Hawaiian birth.

According to an alpha-numeric identifier placed on the BC by the DOH, there should have been NO information at all included in the document box identifying the race of Obama’s father. But not only was the word “African” typed in, that designation was not in use by the Hawaii Department of Health until 1989 (28 years after Obama’s birth.) “The Department of Health didn’t create it,” said Zullo to assembled reporters. “They didn’t create the file, somebody else did.”

Sheriff Arpaio told the assembled reporters, “As I said March 1st, right at the very beginning, we are not accusing the President of any crime. We are strictly investigating a possible government forged document and that’s the way we are still going with this, we’re talking about documents.”

But later on, Arpaio added one very important fact when he stated that the fraudulent birth certificate “…parked itself at the White House at some point.” Someone in the audience said to Arpaio, “I don’t get that Sheriff.” “If this is a crime and it’s the president’s birth certificate, how could he not be accused of a crime?”
“I don’t know that he knew about it,” responded Arpaio. “Did we ever say he knew about it?” Zullo suggested that the forged document was being used “mistakenly” by Obama.

By profession and training, officers like Arpaio and Zullo refrain from alleging guilt, knowing that to be the job of prosecutors. But common sense makes it obvious that Obama’s phony birth certificate did not appear on the White House website without the president’s full knowledge and blessing. And were he not in on the fraud, were he the honest dupe suggested by Arpaio, he would have gotten to the bottom of the proven forgery BC long ago.

Barack Obama is clearly guilty of fraud and worse. Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo, and the rest of those who have taken part in the investigation know it full well. And the dictates of police protocol be damned, it’s about time they stated in plainest terms the guilt of the President of the United States in having engineered the most massive fraud in the nation’s history.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach


Obama Birth Certificate Forgery


New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers

By Mara Zebest

My newly released report examines the metadata and object code of Obama's long-form birth certificate PDF file and explains how this information corroborates the claim that Obama's PDF file never originated as a paper document, but rather was born in cyberspace or was -- to put it another way -- digitally manufactured.  The only time Obama's long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.  Obama's PDF file, like everything else from this administration, is a composite, a lie, an illusion -- even down to the deceptive colors presented in the file.
The focus of this report is centered on Obama's PDF file released on April 27, 2011; the file can be downloaded at this White House link.  From the moment Obama's PDF file was posted, numerous professionals have been speaking out on the multitude of anomalies.  The most notable indicator of malfeasance within Obama's PDF file is the presence of multiple layers. A document scanned into a computer should only contain one layer -- known as aflattened file.  However, Obama's PDF file not only contained more than one layer; it contained nine layers thatclearly display recognizable signs of forgery, along with a host of other manipulative indicators.  The problems range from Tom Harrison's observation of undisturbed safety-paper pattern beneath white dots to a clipping mask path that hides data and more.
Because layers are the most obvious symptom of foul play, it may be helpful to understand what layers are and what advantages layers provide.  Layers are analogous to transparencies used on a projector in what will be referred to as the analog world.  Content is printed on separate sheets (or layers), which allows the user to move, add, or remove a sheet element independently of the remaining sheets.  The total composite document comprises the combined stack of transparency sheets.
The digital equivalent allows a user to add or move digital image information (or text) onto separate layers.  This, of course, would be a manual and manipulative choice.  Like their analog parallel, layers can provide a means to maneuver individual elements within the image independently of surrounding image pieces.
The layers have been the most damning and problematic evidence of file-manipulation, and the defenders of Obama are quick to respond with a plethora of explanations to justify the presence of layers.  The excuses range from OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software to the more predominant excuse of optimization -- both of which have been debunked in my previous report for the Cold Case Posse press conference.
Many Obama defenders have conceded that OCR is not a factor and admit that OCR was never applied to the PDF file.  However, arguments for optimization still persist.  Optimization refers to a file-saving process in which the goal is to reduce the file size while maintaining (or optimizing) the quality of the image (as best as possible depending on the settings applied).
Those who insist on the optimization argument either do not understand what attributes need to be present for this argument to hold water -- or they are hoping the general public does not understand.  It's probably a little of both.  The defenders certainly count on the ignorance of the average citizen when it comes to understanding the differences in layers produced from an automated process (such as optimization) compared to a manual choice to manipulate the file.  One goal of the report is to offer a deeper understanding for recognizing the two patterns of layering (and to avoid being deceived or bamboozled).  The report adds additional proof along the way that the optimization excuse fails miserablyand can be completely ruled out as a justification for layers.
One particular and significant point to understand: not all optimization processes are created equal, and onlycertain programs will create (automated) layers when optimizing.  Adobe Acrobat Pro is the most commonly used program capable of creating layers from an automated process such as optimization, but even Acrobat Pro does notalways produce layers when optimizing a file.  The method and settings applied during the saving process play a factor in whether layers will be automatically generated or not.  To be clearer on this point, programs like Photoshop and Illustrator will not automatically generate layers when optimizing a file (regardless of the circumstances).  Any layered files generated from these programs are reflective merely of layers manufactured by the user.
The problems for the opposition increases when the metadata is considered.  So what is metadata?  If you've ever examined a file and noticed property information such as the creation date, modified date, or the program used to create the file, this is known as metadata.  The metadata for Obama's PDF reveals that a Mac-based program called Preview was used to generate the optimized PDF file.
Preview is a program that allows a user to open and view a file (as the name suggests).  Preview can view a range of file types created from other programs as well as allow a user to re-save the file in any file format available within Preview.  Preview is limited in its abilities and certainly not a program used to create a layered file from scratch.  The optimization argument becomes increasingly problematic when it is understood that Preview is incapable of producing or generating layers automatically from an optimization process (when saving a file).  Preview will only maintain pre-existing layers produced from another program.  Thus, Obama's PDF layers had to be generated from another program prior to being saved from Preview.
One more important point regarding Preview's role in creating Obama's PDF file: if a file is produced in another program, opened, and saved again within Preview, the metadata from any prior programs used is replaced with Preview metadata, thus eliminating any digital tracks for the previous programs utilized in the process (such as Photoshop or Illustrator, which might imply manipulation).
Along with metadata, object code is also buried within the PDF file -- which refers to the code that describes the attributes or properties present for each file object (and can be seen by opening the PDF file in WordPad or Word).  Layers within the Obama PDF file would be examples of objects described in the object code.  The report examines the layer object code, along with how the code properties can be applied in analyzing automated layers -- produced by an Acrobat optimized document -- against the manufactured layers -- produced in Obama's PDF file.  Visible and consistent patterns in optimized layers do not exist in Obama's PDF file.
One of the object code properties examined will be BitsPerComponent (seen in the figure), which is typically followed by a numeric value of 1 or 8.  To simplify, this refers to either a 1-bit layer or an 8-bit layer, respectively.  In layman's language, a 1-bit layer that also contains an ImageMask true property (in the object code) equates to a layer that is capable of containing only one single color -- black.  Conversely, an 8-bit (ColorSpace) layer is capable of containing more than one color -- indeed, of containing any color value (not restricted to just black).  If this concept is clear, then the rest is easy, and the report will explain these concepts further.
The bottom line, documented in detail within the report, is that an optimized layer pattern will contain only a single layer of 1-bit quality that displays black only.  All remaining layers (in an optimized file) are 8-bit -- containing multiple colors.  In other words, the optimization process pulls out all the black color onto one (1-bit) layer -- not two (1-bit) layers, not three (1-bit) layers...just one layer, with this 1-bit object code attribute.
Obama's PDF file (as seen in the figure) contains EIGHT 1-bit layers -- all of which fail to reflect a black color.  However, the colors presented are a deception.  The black is there, but it's hidden in plain sight (as outlined in thereport).
Taking into account the multiple 1-bit layers embedded in Obama's file, combined with the associated color-manipulation defined in the report, it is impossible to duplicate these file attributes through scanning or any other argument thrown at the debate, which currently includes:
  • Optimization
  • Adaptive compression
  • MRC (Mixed Raster Content) compression
  • JBIG2
  • Adobe Acrobat Pro, and...
  • OCR
Here's a challenge to anyone who would like to defend the list of excuses or to supplement any additional excuses.  It is advised (before doing so) to carefully read the report, examining the provided figure of object code for the nine layers found in Obama's PDF (with important properties highlighted).  Then run tests to see if any of the describedsuppositions proposed in the above bulleted list (or any new excuses being considered) can produce object code exactly as seen in the capture (without manipulation).  The final result must include eight 1-bit Image Mask true layers (with FlateDecode, as seen in the figure), and one 8-bit ColorSpace layer (with DCTDecode, as seen for this last layer).  Oh, and as an added bonus, the 1-bit layers (all eight of them) need to have colors displayed that are notwithin a pure (grayscale color value) range of black.
When these displayed attributes from Obama's PDF anomalies are reproduced via scanning and optimization settings, please publish the winning recipe settings for all to verify.  And don't forget to include a refry from Preview as the last step.  If you cannot document the winning recipe, then supposition does not count, and therefore you have nothing -- which falls into the category of misinformation, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misdirecting.
Obama's PDF object code properties cannot be reproduced without manufacturing and manipulating layers.  Any layers produced through optimizing will result in a single 1-bit layer. Repeat: just one 1-bit layer -- not eight.  In the case of adaptive compression, the color on the 1-bit layer will reflect a black color value -- not off-white, not greenish-black, not greenish-gray (as displayed in Obama's PDF file).
The report will detail these concepts and provide a documented recipe on how the layers in Obama's PDF file can be replicated down to the metadata, object code, and low file size.  Here's a hint: the only way it was possible was through complete image manipulation and manufacturing of layers.  The winning recipe included Photoshop, Illustrator, and Preview (in that order).
Mara Zebest is a graphic artist and co-author for a number of Adobe product books including the Inside Photoshop series, which typically exceeded 1,000 pages and was published in at least ten different languages around the world.  Ms. Zebest is also tech editor for numerous books for both Adobe and Microsoft products and has worked closely with the Cold Case Posse (CCP) for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in providing evidence on Obama's forged birth certificate.

Watch related American Thinker Video selection.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html

Obama's Marxist Heart of Darkness


The Marxist Heart of Darkness

By Bruce Walker
Those who doubted Obama's immersion in Marxism now have a perfect window into his soul -- namely, in the form of the stunning class warfare remarks he recently made in Roanoke, Virginia.
We must grasp, however, what Marxism is and what it is not.  Marxism is not a political philosophy to help the poor at the expense of the rich, and it is not a design for a utopian future.  Marxism is simply a Heart of Darkness, a Siamese twin of Nazism, a curse on all humanity committed to three themes: (1) hatred, (2) misery, and (3) lying.    
Marxism is neither a science nor a system of belief.  It is a rationale for seizing power and terrorizing all those who are not its cadres.  Marxism -- English Socialism, or "Ingsoc" -- was the secular religion of George Orwell's Oceania.  In Orwell's masterpiece, 1984, the interrogator of Winston Smith explains the goals of Ingsoc: "Power is not a mean, it is an end.  One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.  The object of persecution is persecution.  The object of torture is torture.  The object of power is power."
Stefan Possony in 1953 noted: "Kinetic communism often is termed an 'ideology,' as if the communist movement were held together by a bond of idealism, with individuals succumbing to communism because of its ideological attraction[.]"  He further explains that "communists are the heirs of the Mongols who conquered, not because they had an attractive ideology, but because they outperformed opponent in the fields of strategy and tactics" (A Century of Conflict, Possony).
Lunacharsky, the first Soviet commissar for education, proclaimed: "We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best of them must be looked upon as our worst enemies.  They preach love of our neighbors and mercy, which is contrary to our principles.  Down with the love of our neighbor; what we want is hatred"  (emphasis added). 
Hatred is helped when people are in pain, so creating gratuitous misery is a goal of Marxism.  A key maxim of Marxism is "The worse, the better."  The Soviets were not bashful about announcing what they wanted: "The misery and oppression of the masses must be intensified to an extraordinary degree" (Sixth Party Congress of the International at Moscow).  Knickbocker, in his 1941 book about totalitarianism in Europe, observed: "Even before the war, in both Germany and Russia, the omnipotent, omnivorous State had devoured all but a vestige of happiness.  As the two regimes of hatred went forward along their respective paths each lost gradually even the desire to promote the happiness of anyone, even of its own people" (Is Tomorrow Hitler's?, Knickerbocker).
Lenin in 1918 showed that he did not even have a plan for a happy world: "Our party has not written a new program and the old one is worthless.  Socialism has ceased to be a dogma just as it has ceased to be a program" (Proceedings of the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets).  Such hatred naturally led to an embrace of state terrorism against ordinary people, and the Soviets boasted that "[t]error is the basis of Soviet power.  Terror is not an incidental act, nor an accidental expression of government displeasure, however frequently repeated.  Terror is a system of violence, ever ready to punish from above.  It is a system of instilling fear, of compulsion, of mass destruction elevated to the status of law" (Our Chameleon Comrades, Gilbert).
Along with deliberate and almost indiscriminant infliction of pain on mankind, Marxists think almost exclusively in terms of lies.  Orwell's "doublethink" and "Newspeak" well illustrate this delusion and self-delusion.  Marxists boasted of their mendacity.  Lenin wrote: "The scientific concept, dictatorship, means nothing more nor less than power which directly rests on violence, which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules."  Angela Balabanoff, general secretary of the Third Socialist International, confirmed the dishonesty of Bolsheviks: "The Bolshevik leaders were capable of anything to achieve their political and factional ends" (emphasis in the original) (My Life as a Rebel, Balabannoff).
This, then, is the enemy we face, whose present mask is Obama.  This enemy does not want people to love each other, it does not want mankind happier, and it loathes truth as a mortal enemy.  There is a reason why Marxism has failed everywhere and utterly, and yet some still embrace it wholeheartedly.  The Marxist Heart of Darkness has no noble motives at all.  It is jealous of joy and honor and immune to any argument.  Our only hope is in its defeat.

Andrew Napolitano All Three Branches of Government Are Acting Above the Law



All Three Branches of Government Are Acting Above the Law

What do we do about it?

The greatest distinguishing factor between countries in which there is some freedom and those where authoritarian governments manage personal behavior is the Rule of Law. The idea that the very laws that the government is charged with enforcing could restrain the government itself is uniquely Western and was accepted with near unanimity at the time of the creation of the American Republic. Without that concept underlying the exercise of governmental power, there is little hope for freedom.
The Rule of Law is a three-legged stool on which freedom sits. The first leg requires that all laws be enacted in advance of the behavior they seek to regulate and be crafted and promulgated in public by a legitimate authority. The goal of all laws must be the preservation of individual freedom. A law is not legitimate if it is written by an evil genius in secret or if it punishes behavior that was lawful when the behavior took place or if its goal is to solidify the strength of those in power. It also is not legitimate if it is written by the president instead of Congress.
The second leg is that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it. Thus, the law's restraints on force and fraud need to restrain everyone equally, and the law's protections against force and fraud must protect everyone equally. This leg removes from the discretion of those who enforce the law the ability to enforce it or to afford its protections selectively. This principle also requires that the law enforcers enforce the law against themselves. Of course, this was not always the case. In 1628, the British Parliament spent days debating the question "Is the king above the Rule of Law, or is the Rule of Law above the king?" Thankfully, the king lost -- but only by 10 votes out of several hundred cast.
The third leg of the Rule of Law requires that the structures that promulgate, enforce and interpret law be so fundamental -- Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws -- that they cannot be changed retroactively or overnight by the folks who administer them. Stated differently, this leg mandates that only a broad consensus can change the goals or values or structures used to implement the laws; they cannot be changed by atrophy or neglect or crisis.
The values in America are set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the governmental structures in America are set forth in the Constitution. The former -- that our rights are inalienable and come from our Creator and not from the government -- is not merely a recitation of Thomas Jefferson's musings. The Declaration is the articulation of our values then and now, and it, too, is the law of the land.
The Constitution was written -- largely by James Madison -- to define and to limit the federal government, and it was quickly amended by adding the Bill of Rights so as to be sure that natural rights would be respected by the government. This tension between the power of the majority -- at the ballot box or in Congress -- and the rights of the minority -- whether a discrete class of persons or a minority of one -- is known as the Madisonian dilemma. Stated differently, the Constitution provides for protection against the tyranny of the majority.
In our system, the power to resolve the dilemma is reposed into the hands of the judiciary, and those who have that power are to resolve it without regard to popularity or politics. Their oath is to the Constitution. They have the final say on what the laws mean. If they follow the Rule of Law, they will invalidate that which the government has done and which is properly challenged before them and which is not authorized by the Constitution. Their very purpose is to be anti- democratic, lest the popular majority takes whatever lives, liberties or property it covets. In return for life tenure, we expect judicial modesty, and we demand constitutional fidelity -- not political compromise.
In our era, the violations of the Rule of Law have become most troublesome when the government breaks its own laws. Prosecute Roger Clemens for lying to Congress? What about all the lies Congress tells? Prosecute John Edwards for cheating? What about all the cheating in Congress when it enacts laws it hasn't read? Bring the troops home from the Middle East? What about all the innocents killed secretly by the president using CIA drones? Can't find a way to justify Obamacare under the Constitution? Why not call it what its proponents insisted it isn't -- a tax?
We live in perilous times. The president acts above the Rule of Law and fights his own wars. Congress acts below the Rule of Law by letting the president do whatever he can get away with. And this summer, the Supreme Court rewrote the Rule of Law.
What do we do about it?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom."

Thursday, July 19, 2012

POLL: Only 9% Believe Obama Has Documented His Eligibility


POLL: Only 9% Believe Obama Has Documented His Eligibility

March 21st, 2011 by Fritz Wenzel

New WND/Wenzel poll shows that 2 out of every 3 like state legislation that requires proof

By Bob Unruh
Editor’s note: This is another in a series of monthly “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies.  This article is re-posted from the original article published at www.worldnetdaily.com.
Not even one person in 10 believes Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States, according to a stunning new scientific poll that also reveals political independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue.
“The shocking result in this survey is that just 9 percent said they believe Obama has met the requirements to prove he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be president,” said Fritz Wenzel, president of Wenzel Strategies, which conducted the survey.
“Even when you combine those who say such questions are not valid with those who believe he has satisfied the requirements, it still falls short of equaling the percentage who said he should step forward and prove his birth origin once and for all,” he said.
Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of adults. The survey, including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17 and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points.
“The question of whether Barack Obama is eligible to hold the office of president is remarkable in that so many people are aware of the questions that remain unanswered. The survey shows that 77 percent are aware of the issue, and another 12 percent said they are unsure, which likely means they know a little but not enough to articulate details,” Wenzel said in his analysis of the results.
“Given the level of interest that the American public now devotes to politics, especially in an off-election year, this finding is remarkable. It speaks volumes about Obama’s unwillingness or inability to satisfy this question once and for all,” he said.
This month, 77 percent of the Democrats who responded said they are aware of the controversy. Nearly 82 percent of the Republicans are aware and almost 69 percent of the independents. Overall, 76.8 percent said yes, and another 11.7 percent said they were unsure. Only 11.5 percent said there were not aware of the questions.
“Half of those surveyed said they believe these questions about Obama’s legitimacy as president are either troubling or should be satisfied by Obama. In fact, more people want Obama to prove his legitimacy – 42 percent – than believe that the lingering questions are not valid – 32 percent,” Wenzel said.
The survey showed 41.9 percent say Obama should prove his birth story, including 60.9 percent of independents, 58.6 percent of Republicans and 13.2 percent of Democrats.
Another 7.9 percent say the questions are troubling
“What is most interesting is the response on this question of Independent voters: Fully 61 percent of Independents said they want Obama to prove once and for all his birth origin, which is a higher percentage than even among Republicans. Men are also somewhat more skeptical than women,” Wenzel said.
“At a time when this country faces dramatic problems both here at home and around the world, it does harm to Obama’s credibility and undermines the confidence of the American people to have this question hanging out there,” Wenzel explained. “One can only imagine the storm of controversy that might ensue if we discover definitively after his presidency is over that he was not qualified to hold office. The resignation of Richard Nixon would pale by comparison in terms of undermining public confidence in government.
“A corollary issue to the Obama birth certificate is the question about Obama’s refusal to release educational records, which could hold some clue as to his birth origin and early citizenship,” Wenzel said. “Two-thirds of all respondents want those records released, while the other third of respondents oppose the release of those records. It remains unclear why Obama will not comply with any requests to show those records to the public.”
Only 26 percent strongly opposed the release of the records. Nearly 50 percent strongly favored release and another 17 percent said the president should release the records.
“The bottom line on these early-life records of Obama is that this issue lives on, regardless of how derisive some have been toward the so-called ‘birther’ movement,” Wenzel said. “Obama supporters, particularly those in the national news media who have protected the president on this issue, have tried to ostracize those who still have doubts about Obama’s birth, but try as they might, they have done little to quell the questions in the minds of the American public. This issue is far from over.”
“Fully 65 percent said they support such state bills, while just 24 percent said they oppose such state measures. Huge majorities of both men and women agree with these state proposals and it is popular in every region of the nation,” he said.
“The clear implication from this polling data is that Americans like the idea that, in the absence of full disclosure by presidential candidates and a press corps interested enough to ask and pursue tough questions, state governments will do their own vetting of presidential candidates,” he said.
WND has reported that such proposals already have been made in 13 states, although several of the initiatives have been detoured by politics inside committee meeting rooms.
Another recent poll, of only members of the GOP, said only about 30 percent believe Obama was born in the U.S.
The Public Policy Polling found that only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not. Another 21 percent say they are not sure.
“Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window,” Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico at the time.
“That view is still widely held in Republican circles,” he said.
Other polls in recent months have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama’s official narrative:
  • A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.”While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers,” the report said.
  • Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s inauguration that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a “legitimate president,” with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
  • In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including “college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records and other similar documentation.”"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed,” the poll’s analysis said.
  • By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.”A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate.”But that figure included those who said they believe Obama was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with his story.
  • Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama “definitely” was born in the U.S.The CNN report said, “Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a ‘certificate of live birth.’ And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.”However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his run for the White House actually is of a short-form “Certification of Live Birth,” which could have been acquired for a baby not born in Hawaii because of the state’s loose regulations.
The Constitution requires a president to be a “natural-born citizen,” which is not the same as a “citizen.”