“THIS IS TREASON”
by Sharon Rondeau
Why was this image created and
supplied as a certified copy of Obama's original birth certificate? Why is the
Kenyan government investigating Obama's possible birth
there?
(Jun. 2, 2011) — Mr. Douglas
Vogt is the author of
several books which focus on science and religion as well as owner of Vector
Associates, a book publishing company. He has also worked as an accountant and
owned a
typesetting company for 11 years. Regarding the image purported to be Obama’s
birth certificate released to the public on April 27, 2011, Vogt
states:
I have a
unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company for
11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index
Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and
also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the
scanners work. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser
Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems
in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems
and everything about the design of such programs. This will be important in
understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live
Birth.
On May 12, Vogt submitted an
affidavit which was included
in a Motion to Intervene filed by Atty.
Orly Taitz with the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in regard to the case of
Hornbeck v. Salazar. The affidavit consisted of a
sworn statement and detailed report stating Vogt’s conclusion that the image a
purported long-form birth certificate bearing the name of Barack Hussein Obama
II is a forgery.
Vogt told The Post &
Email that he had written the report for his own purposes prior to its inclusion
in Taitz’s Motion to Intervene.
On May 22, 2011, Vogt
updated the report,
which declares that forgery of a government document would be a felony under
U.S. Code, Title 18, and included it in acriminal complaint filed with the FBI.
The Post & Email asked
Mr. Vogt how he arrived at his conclusions, and his answers are presented here
in great detail. He referred to the May 22 updated analysis by the number of each subtitled section. The graphics are
referred to as “Figures.”
MR. VOGT: I have no
financial interest in this whatsoever. But here is what happened: I heard the
presidential announcement on the 27th, and a friend of mine contacted me and
said that there were layers in the image. He sent me a link to the White House
blog. I logged on on the 28th and got another version. It explains in
Subsection 8 of the long (updated) report that people were reporting nine
layers. I decided I was going to write a report of what I found, and it was
written independently of Orly’s case.
This is a blatant, obvious
forgery. The thing I had in my mind as I was discovering it was, “Why did the
forger go to such trouble to do these things which were seemingly unnecessary
and blatant?” the last one being the stamped signature on the lower right-hand
side, supposedly done on the 25th of the month. Where the words are, “THE” is
deliberately misspelled as “TXE.” If you scroll down to page 11, you can see
it. That’s not an “H.” The graphic artist who did this thing literally built
that “X” by clicking pixels. It wasn’t an ‘H.” Also, the “F” in “OF” has also
been doctored or came from someplace else because it’s closed off on the
right-hand side. It’s not like the stamp that was done about a month before on
the bottom of page 10; that stamp is perfectly fine, not
crooked.
Those two things gave it
away as a fraud: the “X” is “THE” and what they did to the word “OF.” But
also, the stamp is too straight. This is hand stamp that someone takes with his
hand and slaps it down. It’s called “skewing.” It’s skewed, but this one is
off only two pixels over three inches over the length of the thing, which is
unusually straight, which I don’t think they could do. That’s 1/150th of an
inch off, and that’s really somebody placing it on the background image of the
security paper.
The other thing is that on
the “A” for “Alvin,” there’s a script “e” embedded on it, and if you look at the
bottom of the previous one, it’s not really there. The “A” is smudged because
of the rubber stamp, and they must have hit from the right-hand side of the
stamp, as it’s darker there. But the point is that somebody has put something
there.
Now the question is, “Was
the “e” originally there on the original paper and they didn’t erase it before
they put this thing down, or is the forger basically screaming at us that this
thing is a forgery?” And I’m beginning to think that the forger may actually be
the hero here because some of this stuff is so blatant, figuring that when he or
she sent the PDF to the White House or to Hawaii and then Hawaii sent the PDF to
the White House, they would have just printed it out on a color printer and
scanned that in and presented it to the public.
I know the state of Hawaii
has to have it. Besides, when I saw the image that Obama produced, I knew they
had scanned this thing from one of the postbinder books, which is what #1 is,
where I describe it. That’s one of the first things that gave it away: the
typewriter lines were straight, but there was a paralax for the form itself, and
I said, “OK; it’s been overlaid. That’s impossible.”
MRS. RONDEAU: Could you
explain the term “parallax?” What does that mean?
MR. VOGT: It’s a optic
term. It’s a distortion of the image. That’s all it means. It’s because when
you put the paper down on the flatbed scanner, which is what they did, where the
binder is (known as a gutter), was higher off the glass than the rest of it. So
it looks as if it’s stanched down to the left. That’s an optical distortion,
because they never took the pages out of the postbinder. These are all
originally single pages, and the pages were actually printed most likely on
letter-press, hot-metal letter-press, which was developed in the 50s and
60s.
The county would print up
the birth certificate forms and send them to the hospital, and from the birth
certificate, the hospital would type up and fill in the long form that the
county gives them. Then the doctor would sign it, the mother would sign it, and
they would mail it to the county.
I tried to explain the whole
procedure so that people understood that this is what actually happened in all
counties. This is how the procedure goes. In the old days, the county would
microfilm it like the examples we had there that had been recorded before – the
Nordyke twins.
The stamp that the state of
Hawaii has is two and one-quarter inches; that’s larger than normal. Usually
they’re less than two inches. You’ll notice the stamp on the Nordyke twins’
birth certificates are very close to the edge of the paper, and there is another
one that was printed and stamped on the right-hand edge near the top. You can
clearly see the embossing of the county seal. That’s Figure 18 on the latest
report. I know the machine they used; they used an electronic machine, and it’s
pretty obvious that the one that Obama presented was a second- or
third-generation image of what was originally on the background color that the
artist used.
I gave examples where, even
on the Nordyke twins’s birth certificates, which is really an inverse of the
microfilm copy, you can clearly see the imprint of the embossment seal. You
can’t see it at all on Obama’s, and his is brand new. Those electronic stampers
produce a lot of force. They’ll emboss three or four pieces of paper at once
which can be seen very clearly. But this thing was just an artifact on the
background image, so it’s just a joke. From that, I know that the whole story
is not plausible.
If you open up the file in
Wordpad or
Notepad, then you’ll
actually see the hexadecimal code and the commands within the document. I put
the one I have on that page on Vectorpub.com, and that
basically showed clearly that objects 13-21 were the parameters, in pixels – it
tells you horizontally and vertically – where these images are. So there’s no
argument, and they can’t prove it wrong. I have it from within the document
from the White House that the thing is a multi-layered document. It had XML
code on the very bottom of the file. If you open it yourself, you’ll see it.
It gave a creation date and a modification date.
MRS. RONDEAU: What were
those dates?
MR. VOGT: Well, the one I
had had a creation date of April 27, 2011 at 12:09 p.m.; modification date of
April 28 at 9:58 a.m. That’s the one I had pulled out. Dr. Corsi had sent me
two more, but his were dated May 9 and 12, and one them didn’t have the XML
data.
MRS. RONDEAU: Where did he
find those?
MR. VOGT: People sent it to
him thinking that was the first one, and it wasn’t.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you did an
analysis and found that they were created on yet different dates from the first
two?
MR. VOGT: That’s correct. I
have one from at least the second day, but it really doesn’t matter at this
point; I have the evidence from the White House.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have
any thoughts on the short-form certificate which former White House Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed he
“put out on the internet?”
MR. VOGT: I don’t know.
I’ve seen it, but they blocked out the serial number on the upper right-hand
corner because they probably didn’t have one. It’s unknown right
now.
Let’s go through the
eight items so that you understand what they are.
We already talked about the
distorted image that’s covered in #1. If you scroll down just above Subheading
#2, you’ll see that the letters “N,” “s,” “H,” and “al” are grayscale, and the
rest are binary, black and white. Even below it, the “d” in “residence” is
grayscale. The document is just loaded with that kind of stuff, where you have
letters that are grayscale and the rest are binary, black and white. At first I
asked, “Well, why did he or she do that?” and I realized that the form is such
that he or she needed to establish the baseline of the original form. That’s
why it was done. Some of the letters were still there from a previous form, in
grayscale, because he had to establish the baseline of the type, because if he
got that wrong, it would have been really obvious that it was a forgery because
the baseline would have been different from what is normally on any of the forms
in points or picas.
That gave it away: the
type, the name of the hospital, and the graphic above, “Male,” which didn’t bend
down, but everything on the paper did bend down. So the typewriter stuff was
another layer imposed on top of the form.
Subheading #2 is about the
haloing around all the type. I gave examples of what it’s supposed to look
like, both in grayscale, binary or even in color. With a background security
paper, the type is supposed to show through, and his doesn’t at all. It’s due
to a couple of different things. I didn’t go into it totally because it might
be too technical, but basically, if the person was scanning in on grayscale or
color, and then did that to the black and white but he had thresholding, what
would happen is the boxes around real 100% black would still have a value in it;
256 is totally black, and zero (0) is white. But if he mistakenly didn’t have
the thresholding correct, what would happen is that the boxes around the type
would still have a value in it. It might be 20, 30 or 10; it would still look
like white, but it really isn’t. So when he overlaid it on the color background
and he said, “Type forward,” that it should be above the layer of the security
paper, it would then block out the image of the security paper behind it because
there was still a value in those little pixels. That’s the reason for the
haloing effect around all the type.
MRS. RONDEAU: So that
haloing should not be present on any copy of an original
document?
MR. VOGT: That’s correct.
That’s why I gave examples on page 3 and at the top of page 4. You can clearly
see on Figure 6 or 7 that there is no haloing whatsoever, and you see the
security paper behind it, both the green or the grayscale one. Figure 5 is a
haloing effect; it should not be there: period, end of subject. It just can’t
be there.
At the top of the next page,
Figure 9, is a blowup of what grayscale letters look like. What happened when
they went to binary, they made a mistake on the thresholding, so those little
boxes that look like a faint gray when the program would convert it to a black
and white image as with Figure 8, it still had a value around those letters.
The value might have been 10, 20 or 30, but it still looked like white. But
when they overlaid it, it really was a color, so it blacks out the background
color, the background layer. That’s technically how it would happen, but if I
did go into it, it would really be over everyone’s head.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there a way
to create a forged document which no one can detect?
MR. VOGT: It depends on the
type of document. With this one, the unusual part is the parallax, or the
curved image from the book. If it’s a flat image, it’s a lot easier. The
curved one makes it much tougher. It’s really tough. The ones who are the
experts at doing things like that is the CIA, and I can tell you right now that
the CIA did not do this or any other intelligence agency. They would stay so
far away from something like this; they never would have touched it. In fact,
it would be the biggest red light to all of them; they’d investigate who is this
guy in the White House now? They wouldn’t tolerate this; they just wouldn’t
tolerate it at all.
Figure 10 is an inverted
image of the black and white microfilm copy of Susan Nordyke’s birth
certificate, and you can clearly see what it looks like and what the inverted
image looks like.
Subsection #3: Obama’s
document is loaded with both binary and grayscale. The person did it because
they needed to establish the baseline of the type. Sometimes he didn’t do such
a hot job. I’m saying “he,” but it could be a “she.” That’s the reason why
they left these letters in there; they needed points by which to register the
baseline of the forgery.
If you scroll down to Figure
13, which is on page 7, it’s his name: “Barack,” and the “r” is grayscale,
visibly, and the rest is binary. They did that for registration reasons; they
had to register the type. They figured no one would ever see
it.
MRS. RONDEAU: What does
“registering the type” mean?
MR. VOGT: The baseline. The
baseline is where the type sits, the bottom of the type; that’s called a
baseline, or baseline rule, in the typesetting business. That’s why my unique
experience in typesetting told me immediately that this was a fraud. I
recognize things that other people would not have.
Figure 14 is a separate
offense. Do you see the “1″ where the number is in #14? That’s grayscale. Its
baseline is different from the rest of it.
MRS. RONDEAU: So it will
always look different if it’s grayscale?
MR. VOGT: Yes, that’s it,
because it’s not a white dot or a black dot, which is binary; it’s rather 256
levels of gray to black. That’s the whole point. So it’s easy to spot like
that. That told me immediately that we really don’t know what number he is or
if he even has a number. He probably doesn’t at all. The interesting thing is
this: the way the federal law is written, this is a separate offense that gives
you five years in prison: that alone.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why would
someone create something that is such an obvious forgery? I haven’t heard of
one analyst who has vouched for the document except for one on fox News, but
even he didn’t declare it authentic.
MR. VOGT: Yes, you’ll read
it on the bottom; I answered him. He knows nothing. I’m going to send my
material off to Fox News, but in my humble opinion, the guy is an idiot for even
saying it.
Anyway, let’s go on. The
sequential number is a fraud; that’s #4, and it goes through the law section a
little bit and also the fact that even though his was submitted three days
earlier than the Nordyke twins’s, who have a lower number, he has a higher
number, and it’s just impossible. In counties, when any document comes in,
regardless of department, they open up the mail and they stamp it because that’s
the legal requirement. They wouldn’t have forgotten that; it’s a legal
requirement, and they’re forced to do it. So it is impossible for him to have a
number higher than someone’s who was mailed or OK’d three days earlier, just
impossible. It’s an immediate red flag.
MRS. RONDEAU: From the
paragraph which begins “The facts I have shown you in #3 and 4,” it looks as if
you have heard the story of Virginia Sunahara. Some researchers believe that
Obama could have been given her number because she was born on August 4 and died
the next day. It’s possible that they assigned the death certificate before the
birth certificate, which might account for the higher
number.
MR. VOGT: If you read that
paragraph, you’ll see that there are two possibilities. She was born in one
hospital. They’re the ones who are legally supposed to submit the birth
certificate. They would have mailed it, and they would have assigned a number
to her. Then she was transferred to the other hospital, Kapiolani, where she
died the next day. They would have been legally responsible to file the death
certificate, which would have been mailed that next week. So the point is that
she would have had a birth certificate and a death certificate. The law that
the federal government passed in December 2004 said that you had to link the two
together; they both had to be in the database. So they had access to who had
died, so it was very convenient. But it also means, as I have in the third or
fourth sentence, that we really don’t know if Obama’s birthday was really the
fourth. We can’t assume anything at all. Maybe a long lie has been out there
for all these years, but it doesn’t mean it’s true. You have to prove it.
That’s the whole point. And I don’t think he has; it’s just a joke, the whole
thing.
But the security hole is
that the Kenyans say that his birth certificate was stolen or destroyed, which
means that it probably wasn’t destroyed, but whomever is blackmailing him has
the original. They have the original. So that’s the
problem.
Number 5 is two different
colors. This was really weird. Actually, it was in three places. I mention
all three. There are two things here with the rubber stamp; it’s not just one
curiosity. It’s on page 8 and 9, having to do with boxes 22 and 20. When the
document comes into the registrar’s office, it’s the same rubber stamp; they
stamp it on the left-hand side; they stamp it on the right-hand side, and the
guy signs it off. The guy’s name in this case is U.K.L.
Lee.
MRS. RONDEAU: A lot of
people have questioned if that was a real person.
MR. VOGT: The other part
that I was suspicious about, even though I’ve seen his name on a 1962
Certificate of Live Birth, he was supposed to legally have signed his whole
name; no initials. That’s the law: it’s supposed to be his whole name. But he
didn’t do that.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think
that was a law in 1961?
MR. VOGT: You could see that
for the Nordyke twins, the registrar signed his whole name without middle
initials. His whole name was there. So the person who signed that one knew
that he had to sign his whole name with no initials. So that’s
suspicious.
Now, look at #22 and then
#20. This should never have been, because there’s a color value to date “A” –
August (Aug) and then the sixth, and that can’t be. This thing is supposed to
have been scanned in grayscale or binary. We can’t have a color here, but we
do. It is a dark green. I gave the color value on the bottom of page 8. Then
we have box #20 at Figure 16, and we have a rubber stamp. This can’t be. They
used the same rubber stamp the same day: the guy has a rubber stamp in his hand
with the date, and he stamps left and right, and then he signs it. This can’t
be. So it’s not only just the color, but it’s also the fact that it was two
different rubber stamps with two different sizes. That’s can’t
be.
Also, he grabbed the word
“Date” in “A” because the “August” touched those letters, so he was stuck having
to grab the top part as well as the date part. When you read the whole report,
it is so obvious that this thing is a Frankenstein form.
That’s not the only place.
In the third place it shows up, it’s mentioned just above Figure 16, that in box
17a, it displays the word “None,” but “Non” is in dark green, but not the “e.”
It’s crazy stuff! That’s why I’m saying that the forger either was paid a lot
of money but didn’t like what he was doing or hated what he was doing and was
being forced to do it by his boss, and he was going to put enough things in
there that a professional who knew this stuff could wind up spotting and say,
“This thing is a forgery.” So in essence, the forger may actually be the
hero.
Why did he insert a color in
it? There are two different color values here. It’s not the same
color.
Subsection 6 is about the
seals. If you scroll down, Figure 19 is really an image under a color filter of
the one that Obama submitted through the PDF. It’s only faintly there. If you
scroll down to the next page, page 10, it’s actually invisible. In Figure 20,
it’s almost not noticeable; it’s really a distortion in the background image.
His first short-form is Figure 17, and you can clearly see that this thing was
at least three inches from the bottom of the paper. I know the machine which
embossed it; it was an electronic machine, not a hand stamp. It does a good
job. You can clearly see it through their photographs.
Figure 18 is the positive –
the inverted image from the microfilm copy of the Nordyke twins – and even if it
was a microfilm, you can clearly see the embossment. It’s practically at the
edge of the paper because the throat on those hand stamps won’t allow for very
much distance between the edge of the paper and the edge of a
two-and-one-quarter-inch seal. You can see it even on a microfilm copy. But we
do not see it on his. That told me immediately that that was a second- or
third-generation image from something else.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any
stamp at all on the April 27 release?
MR. VOGT: No. There isn’t
any, which means it’s not legal. Figure 21 was interesting: that was on a hand
stamp, again, near the edge of the paper, less than an inch away from the edge,
and you can clearly see the embossment. That’s an original, and it was from
1962.
Subsection 7 is the rubber
stamp, which is skewed. That is normal; it’s a hand stamp, and nobody is trying
to place the thing down by the pixel, but the one we have on Obama’s certificate
of April 27 is about as straight as you can get with an eyeball. It’s only two
pixels off over three inches. That’s been electronically
leveled.
In Figure 23, the script on
the capital “A” on “Alvin” in the signature, and the “X” in the word “TXE” were
literally done by hitting pixels. They hit pixels to make something that looked
like an “X,” but it’s not. When you blow it up, you can see it’s not an “X.”
It’s something else. Again, it’s someone screaming at us, “This thing is a
fraud!” That may be the most logical answer here.
Subsection 8 deals with the
layers. This is embedded from within the PDF that the White House put up. It
clearly shows from object 13-21 is the nine layers. It tells you the horizontal
and vertical pixels of each one of the layers. Under each one of these
headings, there’s a bunch of hexadecimal codes. This is where I pulled them all
out and I sorted them, putting them in sequence. You have to actually open the
file up in Wordpad and you’ll see exactly what I mean: just search for “style
type/image” or something like that, and you’re going to find each one of the
layers. There’s a bunch of layers in there, more than just these. Each one of
the layers means something else. I could recognize it and know how to read some
of the stuff. I could actually pull out one of these layers from the PDF and
save it again, and that layer would disappear. You have to know how to do it,
but it does tell you where the object starts and where the object ends. It’s
something like an HTML, but it’s a different kind of code.
I put the links for videos
that were on YouTube which explain the layers pretty well. I wanted to give
these people credit; they deserve it. In Figure 25, I displayed the layer that
has most of the type on it. As prima facie evidence, this thing is
toast.
MRS. RONDEAU: What about the
analyst
from Canada whom Fox News featured who said that the image could be
authentic?
Editor’s Note: The “leading
expert” which Fox News quoted as having said, “You should not be so suspicious
about this,” Jean-Claude Tremblay, states that his professional background
includes more than 20 years in teaching Adobe products, Quark, and technical
editing. It is this writer’s opinion that the title of the Fox News article,
“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit,” is not an accurate
reflection of Tremblay’s analysis of the birth certificate image, but rather,
conjecture on the writer’s part.
It appears that Tremblay’s
is the only analysis which Fox News has presented,
despite the many reports and allegations that the image is a
forgery.
MR. VOGT: On
page 13, I
wrote a rebuttal to discovery of the multi-layers found in the PDF. You’ll see
in the last paragraph what my qualifications are for OCR. This guy knows
nothing; he plainly does not know anything about it. You know something?
Considering he wound up defending it on the 29th, the day after somebody found
the layers, he would be my first suspect. If you looked at his qualifications,
certified on a bunch of Adobe’s products, I would say he would be the first
candidate I’d have for the one who put the thing together.
Somebody looked it up and
said he was a supporter of Obama.
Also, if they found a graphic artist who was sympathetic and was not from the
country, there is less chance of his being subpoenaed to give testimony to
Congress. They’re actually wrong about the investigation part; the reason is
that there is a security treaty between the United States and Canada concerning
national security, which this definitely does, and that means that the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be investigating this guy to find out. He can be
extradited to the United States to testify. He is not exempt from
prosecution.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you
think no one from the FBI has gone out to Hawaii to investigate the
forgery?
MR. VOGT: If you go to the
next section, page 13, I say in the Conclusion section that it is a
“Frankenstein certificate.” Some guy actually drew a picture of Obama looking like
Frankenstein. They’re selling T-shirts like that; they got the idea from
me.
But here’s the answer to
your question: Orly said she has reported things to the FBI and they haven’t
done anything with it. This is the way a law enforcement agency works: First,
the FBI is part of the Justice Department, and the Justice Department is
controlled by a guy who is an Obama handmaiden. Unless a policing agency is
notified that a crime has been committed, they’re not going to bother with it.
It’s nothing. No matter how many YouTube things are out there or things on the
web, unless somebody formally notifies a policing agency like the FBI, nothing
is going to be done, because they weren’t told a crime has been
committed.
For instance, if a bank is
robbed, the banker will call the police department, which will in turn call the
FBI, because it’s their purview. The banks are insured by the FDIC; therefore,
they robbed the federal government, and the FBI investigates. They collect the
data, hopefully catch the criminal, and then they give it to a federal attorney
who prosecutes. But again, they have to be told that a crime has been
committed. That’s the key thing; no one has ever done it.
I did. I sent it off to the
Director of the FBI and
also to the Field Agent in Charge in Hawaii. I sent it off
twice to each one in different ways, all by mail. Hawaii will probably get it
earlier because of the mail screening that occurs in Washington, DC. However,
the crime was committed both in Hawaii and in Washington, DC. It’s very
possible, since I see that the form was modified on the day of its presentation
and the day after, that somebody in the White House was modifying
it.
MRS. RONDEAU: So they might
not have created it, but now they have it and are modifying
it.
MR. VOGT: Correct, so the
crime has been committed in both places. When you read the law at the bottom of
the report, and I included the sections in red that I want people to understand,
you realize that it’s a very, very serious crime. This comes under the heading
of defrauding the United States. Everybody in the White House who knows this
thing, as well as in the Department of Health in Hawaii, is in huge trouble.
They have no idea that just on the face of the document itself, and the security
number, is 20 years in prison. Considering they flagrantly flaunted their
arrogance and knew what they were doing was wrong for somebody to become
President of the United States who wasn’t even a citizen is
treasonous. If the prosecution goes to the level of treason, which it
should be, these people go to prison for the rest of their
lives.
Some of those people are
going to be talking their heads off not to go to prison for the rest of their
lives. What I’ve done is make it irrelevant where the guy was born. It’s no
longer a case of trying to prove he was born in Kenya, Timbuctu, Manchuria or
New York City; it’s now a simple, provable case of forgery in the first
degree.
Without question, this
is the greatest scandal in American history. Everybody agrees: nothing
comes even remotely close; not the scandals in the Grant
administration; in Harding’s Teapot Dome; in
Watergate;
Clinton
was nothing…this tops everything.
© 2011, The Post
& Email. All rights reserved
internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright
restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the
left margin.
I always thought it was creepy the way Barack Hussein Obama has
repeatedly referred to the likelihood of his being a one-term President. It is
as if he knew, even as he campaigned in 2008, that all the loose ends and
unanswered questions about his life would eventually disqualify
him.
Make no mistake about it. Congress has chosen cowardice and political
expediency over honesty and the rule of law.
