Friday, May 13, 2011

Obama's Silence on Boeing Is Unacceptable

OPINION - WALL STREET JOURNAL

The president's appointees have moved to block the company from building planes in my state. He owes us an explanation.

By NIKKI HALEY

In October 2009, Boeing, long one of the best corporations in America, made an announcement that changed the economic outlook of South Carolina forever: The company's second line of 787 Dreamliners would be produced in North Charleston.

In choosing to manufacture in my state, Boeing was exercising its right as a free enterprise in a free nation to conduct business wherever it believed would best serve both the bottom line and the employees of its company. This is not a novel or complicated idea. It's called capitalism.

WSJ Editorial Board member Mary Kissel and Assistant Editor James Freeman discuss Washington's attempt to tell Boeing where to build its planes.

Boeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new, state-of-the art facility in South Carolina's picturesque Low Country along the Atlantic coast. It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the long tradition of distinguished and employee-friendly corporations that have found a home, and a partner, in the Palmetto State.

This a win-win for South Carolina, for Boeing, and for the global clients who will see Dreamliners rolling off the North Charleston line at the rate of 10 a month, starting with the first one next year. But, as is often the case, a win for people and businesses is a loss for the labor unions, which rely on coercion, bullying and undue political influence to stay afloat.

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

haley

The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal governmentwhich seems to regard its authority as endless—where and how to build airplanes.

The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptable—not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

This is not just a South Carolina issue, and President Obama owes the people of our country a response. If they get away with this government-dictated economic larceny, the unions won't stop in our state.

The nation deserves an explanation as to why the president's appointees are doing the machinist union's dirty work on the backs of the businesses and workers of South Carolina.

__________

Ms. Haley, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

New 'birth certificate' anomalies inexplicable

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

Growing question list feeds worries document is crude computer forgery


By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A growing list of apparent anomalies in the Obama long-form birth certificate released by the White House continues to fuel suspicion that the document is a crude, computer-generated forgery.

The Hawaii Department of Health and the White House have insisted that the document made public April 27 after nearly three years of public demand is genuine.

Web document experts, however, have questioned the document's authenticity, and now a close inspection of the Hawaii Department of Health state registrar's stamp on the birth records reveals an apparent typographical error.

Jerome Corsi’s new book, "Where’s the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

The stamp, affixed April 25, 2011, says "TXE RECORD."

Yet, on a copy of a Hawaii long-form birth certificate issued only one month earlier, the stamp says "THE RECORD."

The stamp on the Obama document reads: "I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF TXE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.""

Here is registrar Alvin T. Onaka's stamp on the White House document:


Here is a close-up of the state registrar's stamp on the White House-issued Obama long-form birth certificate:


The state registrar's stamp on a copy of a long-form birth certificate released by the Hawaii Department of Health just one month earlier, March 15, 2011, clearly is different, reading "THE RECORD."


Here is a close-up of the stamp on the March 15, 2011, birth certificate copy:



Why would the Hawaii DOH allow the document to be issued to President Obama with a registrar's stamp containing the obvious misspelling?

Even allowing for the possibility that the stamp was distorted by using too much ink or pressing too hard, the "X" in "TXE" bears no resemblance to the "H" in the "THE" of the March 15, 2011, document.

Where is the raised seal?

In addition, the White House-released Obama birth certificate has the same deficiency that the short-form certification of live birth had when it was first displayed to the public by the DailyKos.com on June 12, 2008. Both documents have been made available only in a digitized form and neither have a raised impression of the Hawaii state seal.

Here is the short-form certification of live birth as it initially appeared:


COLB image released by Obama campaign June 2008

Here is the president's long-form birth certificate as released by the White House:


In contrast, long-form birth certificate copies issued by the Hawaii DOH had clearly identifiable raised seal markings, as seen here:


Even the long-form birth certificate copy issued by the Hawaii DOH on March 12, 2011, has markings from a raised seal that are visible with magnification, as seen here:


No similar embossed seal markings, along with document fold lines, are discernable on the White House-released birth certificate, even under magnification.

Arguably, without the state seal, the White House-released document lacks the certifying authority of the state of Hawaii.

With the short-form birth record, the controversy that developed was not resolved until FactCheck.org produced another version on Aug. 21, 2008, more than two months after the first appearance on the Internet, that clearly showed both embossed seal markings and paper folds.


Close-up of FactCheck.org document

Why didn't the Hawaii DOH apply an embossed seal to the long-form released to the White House for public display?

Note also that the language of the Hawaii certification in 1960, as seen above, has shifted from verifying that the document is "a true and correct copy of the original record on file" to verifying only that document is "a true copy or abstract."

Is the indication then that the document the White House displayed to the public April 27 might be a compilation of information the Hawaii DOH claims to have on file? Does an original document issued shortly after the birth actually exist in the files of the Hawaii DOH?

Layers of doubt

Computer industry expert Luke Webster has produced two videos showing viewers how they can view the layers in the White House-provided birth certificate with Google Chrome, available free as a download on the Internet.

The first video demonstrates step-by-step how to load the document into Google Chrome and walks the viewer through an easy-to-follow examination of the computer layering involved in constructing the document.

The second video utilizes Adobe Illustrator to demonstrate, again, step-by-step why the White House released document appears to be a computer-generated forgery.

Webster is the president of DevRich.com, an Internet company that specializes in domain development, search engine optimization and website development.

Read more: New 'birth certificate' anomalies inexplicable http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298101#ixzz1MH9P7Aue

From A to Z: What's wrong with Obama's birth certificate?

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

Examine for yourself mounting evidence that president's document isn't genuine


© 2011 WorldNetDaily

After years of stonewalling and fighting in court to keep his long-form birth certificate under wraps, President Barack Obama has publicized an image of the document he claims should resolve his birthplace once and for all.

But is it the real deal?


In his speech announcing the birth certificate's release, Obama quickly tried to silence critical analysis of document:

"I know that there's going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest, but I'm speaking to the vast majority of the American people," Obama said. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."

But Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around Obama's constitutional eligibility, warns those questions shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

"The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama's eligibility in 2008, without any basis," Farah said. "It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers."

Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore.

Some of those questions have already been resolved – such as rumors WND debunked claiming the name of the hospital on the document was fictitious – while others present significant challenges to accepting the birth certificate's validity.

Notably, a growing list of graphic artists and computer experts have examined the online birth certificate and have concluded the image has been altered.

For example, Karl Denninger, the former CEO of MCSNet, a Chicago networking and Internet company, who also told WND he voted for Obama, demonstrates "kerning" on the birth certificate, a lining up of letters routinely done by computers but impossible on typewriters of the 1960s, implying the document was computer generated, not photocopied.


Denninger explains that in the image above, of the name of the hospital, the "a" and the "p" share vertical space on the line, an example of "kerning," which only modern computers can do.

Denninger's work follows the opinion from another analyst, Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, Web publishing and e-commerce. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

Zatkovich's analysis of layers in the PDF file, while dispelling some purported anomalies on the document, nonetheless confirms others, leading him to the conclusion, "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."

And KJCT-TV of Grand Junction, Colo., reported the opinion of graphic artist James Colby, who said, "There is no doubt it has been edited and quite significantly."

Several other factors bring the birth document's authenticity into question:

  • The objectivity of "experts" cited by the mainstream media to verify the birth certificate is suspect, including that of Fox News Channel's Jean-Claude Tremblay, who assured America they "should not be suspicious" of the document, but who, WND discovered, had heralded Obama's election victory in an online post.

  • Obama's posted birth certificate contains the same anomalies as a well-known forgery that claimed he was born in Kenya, suggesting the anomalous markings came from the same source. "How could Obama's 'real' birth certificate share these unique characteristics with an obvious forgery?" asks Farah. "For the life of me, I can't figure out an answer other than they were created by the same person or persons."

  • The birth certificate's reported delivering physician, Dr. David Sinclair, differs from previously published reports and even the myth-busting Snopes.com's original entry, which named Dr. Rodney T. West as the doctor of record.

  • Obama's purported birth certificate contains over a dozen differences in form from the verified, Hawaii copy of the birth certificate issued to the Nordyke twins, born the next day at the same reported hospital.

  • Another YouTube participant, 37, who identifies himself as orangegold1 and a computer image expert, posted a video trying to persuade watchers that the White House either was ignorant in scanning and posting a document, or was submarined by someone inside the walls who wanted people to be suspicious of the document:

    His concerns rest with the layers that are in the document, and he claimed some of the images on the document actually were added via computer.

    "I do this for a living," he said, adding that the document is "obviously faked."

  • The local registrar listed in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate is notably different than the local registrar on the Obama birth certificate.


Birth certificate of Gretchen Nordyke, one of two twin sisters born at what was known in 1961 as the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

In addition, the SmokingGun.com website notes several additional irregularities with the Obama birth certificate that do not appear on the Nordyke twin's birth certificates:

  • In Box 3, "This Birth," there are two "Xs" above "Twin" and "Triplet" – why are these "Xs" here and what do they signify?



  • What is the meaning of the smudges in the Obama birth certificate in the box containing the name of the attending physician?



  • What is the significance of the numbers, seen vertically, on the right side of the Obama birth certificate?


Hawaii officials say they have Obama's original birth certificate and made copies for the president. One of the copies then was scanned and posted on the White House website.

But Denninger is among those who say there are still too many questions to simply examine an online image.

He contends, "There's only one way we're going to get the truth – a forensic document examiner is going to have to go look at the certificate and authenticate it. The real one – not a printout."

The White House had trumpeted the release of the document, calling it "proof positive" Obama was born in Hawaii, as if that would answer all of the questions about his presidential eligibility.

But even if Obama's Hawaiian birth were proven and verified, many contend the country's founders understood a "natural born Citizen" – as listed by the Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution as a requirement to hold the office of president – to be a person born of two American parents.

Barack Obama Sr., who is listed as the father, was not a U.S. citizen.

The president himself even seemed to acknowledge the relevance of parental citizenship when he co-sponsored a resolution to address Sen. John McCain's presidential eligibility that implied a "natural born Citizen" must be born to "American citizen" parents.

"You may have thought Barack Obama ended the eligibility debate, and certainly the birth certificate debate," said Farah, "with his release of what purports to be his long-awaited, long-form document.

"But it's not over," he added. "Not by a long shot."

WND Editor Joseph Farah is available to discuss today's breaking stories on eligibility. Contact media@wnd.com.



Read more: From A to Z: What's wrong with Obama's birth certificate? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=296881#ixzz1MH6cT0AV