Marty Kaplan

May 2, 2011

Our friend Pakistan and other mental pretzels

By Marty Kaplan

Tweet

Share

On the same day that Americans are test-driving the idea that Osama bin Laden lived on the outskirts of Pakistan’s West Point, undetected, for six years, Orly Taitz goes to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to prove that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery.

As they say in conspiracy-land, there are no coincidences.

If you believe that Pakistan is our ally in the war on al-Qaeda, then you have to square that belief with what we now know about bin Laden’s last years.  Maybe building a luxury compound in Abbottabad illustrates the brilliance of hiding in plain sight; surely no one in the Pakistani intelligence services could have been expected to look for him there.  Or maybe they knew all along that someone who looked a lot like bin Laden lived in there, but it took half-a-dozen years to be certain he wasn’t a fiendishly clever decoy.  Or maybe they knew it was bin Laden, but the ISI, the IB and MI – the three Pakistani intelligence agencies – are like a country of their own, not to be conflated with the nation we call our ally.

Birthers, too, need to be mental contortionists to hold fast to their belief that the president is not a natural-born American.  Not only do they have to include the White House and the state of Hawaii in the plot to issue counterfeit documents; they are also required to maintain that the Honolulu newspapers were co-conspirators nearly 50 years ago.

The world is rich with things hard to believe, but which nevertheless have passionate adherents.  Creationists have to twist their minds into pretzels in order to dispatch geological evidence that our planet is billions, rather than thousands, of years old.  If the Mayan calendar convinces you that the apocalypse will arrive in 2012, you will still be perfectly capable of rationalizing the arrival of an ordinary New Year’s Day in 2013.  If you believe that Paul Ryan’s budget truly preserves and strengthens Medicare, then no appeal to the facts about health insurance companies and health care inflation will make a difference.  If you think that cutting taxes for the wealthy spurs economic expansion, creates jobs and increases revenues, then you will be armed with an endless supply of exceptions to account for the actual economic record of the last 30 years.

Diplomacy, of course, is artful doubletalk.  Everyone knows that “candid discussions” is a euphemism for trading accusations.  Negotiators say one thing for domestic political consumption, but agree to the opposite under cover of secrecy.  We tap one another’s phones, but butter wouldn’t melt in our diplomats’ mouths. 

We need Pakistan.  We need them even if they complain about our drones in their airspace, even if they arrest our CIA operatives, even if they support the Afghan Taliban, even if they freed and lionize A. Q. Khan, who sold nuclear weapon designs to terrorist states.  We also need China, even if their antagonism to human rights is appalling.  We need Saudi Arabia, no matter what they do in Bahrain.  Pursuing our interests is messy and contradictory; some of our interests turn out to be more important than others.  That’s what Realpolitik means. 

If we had shared intelligence with Pakistan about our impending SEALS attack on bin Laden, the chances that it would not have leaked and been foiled are about zero.  Pakistan knows that, just as it knows that the palaver about friendship and sovereignty is meant to conceal as much as it reveals.  We’re all in on the wink.

But I don’t think that Orly Taitz is winking.  Nor are religious fundamentalists.  Where it gets hazy for me is the political fray.  Do Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump actually believe the things they say, or are they just cynical manipulators who know how to get attention?  When Newt Gingrich exonerates his extra-marital infidelity as a byproduct of his patriotism, is this Realpolitik at work, or does he actually think he’s telling the truth?  The Ryan budget, passed by House Republicans and now likely to be brought up for a vote in the Senate by Harry Reid, relies on unemployment falling below 3 percentpalaverpalaver, something that the United States has never achieved except briefly during the Korean War.  When Paul Krugman points this out, do supporters of the Republican budget somehow rewire their neurons to prevent this information from reaching the part of their brain where facts are supposed to penetrate, or is evidence simply irrelevant, and everyone actually understands that “cutting the deficit” is just wink-wink code for punishing the unworthy poor?

The coming days will no doubt include many accounts of bin Laden’s end.  The Administration’s version will include some elegant evasiveness about the double game that Pakistan has been playing, but that doesn’t bother me; Hillary Clinton is no Orly Taitz.  I wish I could say that with certainty about the other doubletalkers in our midst. 

Marty Kaplan holds the Norman Lear chair in entertainment, media and society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.  Reach him at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Y’know, Marty, you have your moments, but this isn’t one of them. The amount of simplistic cherry picking you are doing indicates a closed mind. Let’s agree too open and too closed are both no good.

Everybody is a genius is retrospect. “Oh, I knew it all along, did you really believe…?” Before OBL was found living where and how he was, you would have to be nuts to say exactly that. Leave aside the hundreds of millions we gave Pakistan to help us find him.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/02/11 at 8:06 pm

It is certainly absurd for there to be a conspiracy surrounding Obama’s eligibility for the office, but it is diminished by the absurdity of Obama as a public employee ina position of trust protecting his birth certificate and all documentary material about him he has with millions of dollars of legal actions. It leaves us free to connect any dots we want.

The Creationist thing is cheating. By focusing on the literal ‘Young Earth Creationists’, an unnecessary tension with the broad scientific consensus is created. Deal with ‘Old Earth Creationism’ if you want to be honest about it. http://geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/02/11 at 8:07 pm

What you are saying is that Realpolitik is a necessary evil. If you want to focus on the necessary part, I will remind you about the evil part. It needs to be minimized, not just accepted.

Hillary Clinton is no Orly Taitz, but neither is Orly Taitz. It has just become kosher to rag and bully her publically because she is… a Jew? Skeptical of your conventional liberal wisdom? Not a smooth English speaker? Not a polished media talking head? She may be a nut, but we will never know because nobody ever talks to her, they just never let her say ten words.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/02/11 at 8:07 pm

Maybe you didn’t hear. Obama posted his official Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008. It is the only official certificate they issue and what you need to get a driver’s license,passport,or to run for President.The “long form” certificate is not an official Hawaiian birth certificate. It contains confidential information such as the hospital where you were born and your doctor’s name prohibited by HIPPA. That is why they are no longer released and why Obama had to get special permission to do so. BTW it is called a Certification of Live Birth because you can also get a Certification of Stillbirth. A “birth certificate” only proves that you were born not that you were born alive.

Comment by Zack on 5/03/11 at 9:13 pm

I’m an attorney and Orly Taitz is an idiot.  I have read her pleadings. She should be sanctioned by the courts again. Obama did not spend millions defending groundless cases. The president is defended by the U S Attorney, a public official who has to come in the case anytime a claim is made affecting the United States, whether legitimate or made by a crackpot like Taitz.

Comment by Zack on 5/03/11 at 9:14 pm

Not only didn’t I hear it, but neither did you or anyone else. The ‘live birth’ certificate can be obtained by non-residents of Hawaii and non-citizens. Be that as it may, Obama not showing it is like a driver not showing his license to a highway patrolman. If we grant for arguments sake that Obama is eligible to be President, we have to grant that he acts like someone who is not eligible to be President. He eliminated his political opposition by getting them disqualified, and he defends his lawsuits on technicalities as well, lack of standing and so forth.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/03/11 at 11:09 pm

Now let’s move on to Orly Taitz. I have seen her on TV a few times including on Fox News, and every time she was insulted before, during and after her appearance, and was shouted down and bullied and not permitted to say six words in a row. Why is that? If she’s an idiot give her the rope to hang herself.

But let’s grant again for arguments sake that she is an idiot. What would be your problem with Philip J. Berg? From his website:

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/03/11 at 11:10 pm

former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA Phil is a paid life member of the NAACP and voluntary fire police for 27 years.

OK, he’s not an idiot, but crazy. Democrat, btw. Any problem with his pleadings, though?

I see no difference between calling people idiots and crazy than calling Obama a radical subversive anti capitalist. Sure it’s absurd but the inconvenient truth is that’s his background.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/03/11 at 11:11 pm

Let’s take these assertions one at a time. I only have time to address the birth certificate this morning.  Look at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF.  This is the policy memo dated May 15, 2001 restricting information in accord with statute. You can look at HIPPA at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/.  You say the information was available. I have shown you it is not. Where is your proof.

Comment by Zack on 5/04/11 at 5:44 am

Regarding people not born in Hawaii getting a Hawaiian birth certificate. Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health has stated: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate”. Please provide contrary proof. Obama’s certificate says he was born in Hawaii. Also, the law you refer to was passed in 1981. How could it apply to Obama. Please be specific.

Comment by Zack on 5/04/11 at 7:06 am

Phil Berg is also an idiot who filed a suit against George W Bush claiming that the world trade center bombing was a US Government conspiracy. I will not comment further on Orly or Berg because all of their suits suffer from infirmaries in that they were either 1. filed after the election which is too late or 2. were not filed on a behalf of a candidate and so lacked standing. See next post

Comment by Zack on 5/04/11 at 7:13 am

Since Obama will stand for reelection a proper plaintiff will be found and Orly or Berg will file a suit challenging Obama which the courts will hear. The issue is easily disposed of.  The Constitution only refers to two types of citizens, person BORN here and persons NATURALIZED as citizens.  Since Obama is not a naturalized citizen he will be considered a “natural born citizen”. It really is as simple as that.

Comment by Zack on 5/04/11 at 7:20 am

BTW standing is not a “technicality”. It is a fundamental requirement for any lawsuit.  The person bringing suit must have legal standing to bring the case.  You can read the Supreme Court’s ruling dismissing Berg’s suit at:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf

Comment by Zack on 5/04/11 at 7:56 am

You attempting to smother the issue with games. I have my original birth certificate, and John McCain had his, and I am guessing you and Obama have yours, and only Obama spent five million dollars locking access to all public and private documentary material about his entire life.

As a lawyer, you know about the Natural Born Citizen requirement which is really not as simple as ‘that’. Obama does not meet the various interpretations of it, and the courts have declined to engage the issue in all of the ways courts can decline to engage the issue. If it was that easy to dispose of it would have been disposed by now, in a more definite way than ‘no comment’.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/04/11 at 8:38 pm

Your objection to the plaintiffs remains your subjective opinions of them. The question of standing is arguable, as we are all affected by Obama’s status and office.

Bottom line: Obama doesn’t have to prove his eligibility, but he should. The courts don’t have to rule, but they should. The plaintiffs can be ignored and dismissed, but they shouldn’t be and their issues remain for the segment of the public that chooses not to ignore them.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/04/11 at 8:38 pm

You may have your original birth certificate but may people of barack’s age do not. I do not.  Order a certified copy of your birth certificate and you will likely receive a certification of live birth just like Obama. That it what I have. That is because that is the law in all state’s that are in compliance with HIPPA.

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 5:41 am

Barack Obama was born in the United States.  He is therefore a natural born citizen. This issue will be addressed before the next election by the courts unless the birther lawyers intentionally evade the issue by not filing the appropriate suit.  It is very easy to do.

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 5:44 am

My subjective opinion of the Plaintiffs lawyers, not the Plaintiffs whom I do not know, has nothing to do with it. If you read the court’s opinion at the link I provided you will perhaps better understand the standing issue. Obama had to prove his eligibility.  He did that by providing a certificate under the official seal of the State of Hawaii proving that he was born in the Unites States.  What about that do you find insufficient?

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 5:48 am

Let’s see if we can narrow the issues. Do you agree that Obama was born in the USA?  Do you agree that his certification of live birth provided in 2008 was sufficient to establish he was born in the USA? Is you concern about his eligibility the fact that his father was foreign born?  Please be specific. BTW please provide support for the claim that Obama has spent millions preventing disclosure. Thanks

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 5:51 am

If you agree that Obama was born in the USA then the issue is as simple as “that.” As the court noted in Hollander v. McCain:
Those born “in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency, see,e.g., Schneider v. Rusk,

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 6:14 am

BTW McCain’s eligibility was challenged in Hollander v McCain and that case was dismissed too on standing grounds.  You can read the opinion at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf So you see this has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the law.

Comment by Zack on 5/05/11 at 6:16 am

As a lawyer, I don’t think you have a real perspective on this Obama fraud. Your reality is defined by what you can get away with. For us ordinary schlubs, reality should be defined by what you can’t get away with. Futhermore, the entire issue is one of trust. You trust him, more than a third of the country doesn’t. Cant’ just call us all fringe crackpots. But real transparency obviates the necessity for trust. I was a systems analyst and information specialist for decades. For me, the data speaks for itself. I am quite skilled at exploring the possibilities and distinguishing real from spurious patterns.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:02 pm

Do I personally agree that Obama was born in the USA? I don’t have the information to agree or disagree. Was the 2008 certificate sufficient to prove it? Not from what I have seen in that such a document can be obtained for someone not born in the the USA. The money figure of millions is an estimate by lawyers for the opposition, but the fact of the court actions is not in dispute. The Obamas are rich enough people and they additionally control vast campaign funds which they are free to use as they wish, and I believe the unaccounted job stimulus funds will and are likewise being used for bribes and payoffs in advance of 2012.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:02 pm

But if it is a hundred bucks it is suspicious.. We know that he is hiding something. The fact that the long form reveals nothing suspicious is suspicious in itself. The speech in which Obama pretends to be the adult is three years too late. Nothing can erase those three years. Document specialists have found artificial forms content and multiple layers in the official pdf at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf which does not happen with a scan of a document.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:03 pm

According to the Honolulu Star Advertiser, ““On Friday, Obama sent a letter to state Health Director Loretta Fuddy, asking for two certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth. On Monday, Fuddy made an exception to state policies regarding the release of birth certificates and witnessed the copying of the original certificate and attested to the authenticity of the two copies, which were certified by state registrar Alvin Onaka, Abercrombie’s office said.

Original forms from the time of birth are used to produce computer-generated documents recognized as official birth certificates in the state of Hawaii.”

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:04 pm

So now all we have are computer-generated documents. WE STILL HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN THE ORIGINAL LONG FORM. Only a bureaucrat has allegedly seen it.There is more.

Obama:
Born August 4, 19961 at 7:24 PM,
registered with the County Clerk August 8, signed and date-stamped
File # 161 and a certificate number of 61-10641.

You may have heard by now about Susan Elizabeth Nordyke, born in Hawaii the day after Barack Obama’s reported birthday, in the same hospital.
Born August 5, 19961 at 2:12 PM,
registered with the County Clerk August 11, signed and date-stamped
File # 161 and a certificate number of 61-10637.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:05 pm

The certificate numbers are issued in sequential order based on the date the Clerk or Registrar received the official document. The later a record is registered by the county clerk, the higher the certificate number. See the problem? Obama was supposedly registered 3 days before Nordyke, yet Obama’s certificate lists a number 3 digits after Nordyke’s.

You can ridicule all you want. We are not talking about alleged alien remains at Roswell. We are talking about things in our common experience and in front of our noses.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:05 pm

There have always been transactions that require positive explicit proof of identity. We don’t have to quibble - licenses, passports, the draft, Civil Service. It has become that much more demanding in the last decade. I’m older than Barack and I have mine. But I don’t want to be hardnosed about it. You can lose your birth certificate and you can lose your passport and you can lose your library card and glasses, but sooner or later you have to stand in line and get a duplicate, or send a flunky if you are lucky enough to have one. I fully expect that if and when I become a national candidate I may have to do the nasty and track down some b.s. records I have misplaced.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:06 pm

It develops that there is no agency tasked with validating electoral eligibility. So while I would not expect to get a pass on it, it is not beyond the imagination that someone with a spotty or shady record could be fast-tracked into a slot in electoral politics. You say the birther lawyers will address the issue before the next election, but there is no infrastrucure to do that and nobody seems to have a standing to do so. Challenging standing is punting, not exactly facing an issue head on, or winning fair and square. The current efforts focus on State requirements to appear on their ballots, and getting most or even several states to do that before the next election is doubtful.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:08 pm

You know very well that the definition of natural born citizen, while a subject of argumentation, is necessarily more demanding than that of the baseline definition of citizen, or we wouldn’t be talking about it. We might even call it first-class citizenship with all the rest of us who ineligible to be President being second-class citizens. That’s OK; for practical purposes there are several classes of citizenship; some people can’t vote or drive or own a firearm or obtain child custody or hang around playgrounds for their various reasons.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:08 pm

It may be that only the office of the President.has such a requirement, and in that case it was to ensure the loyalty of the occupant of the office beyond doubt. For example if your father (or you yourself) is French, you will have a soft spot for French interests which could potentially conflict with your loyalty to your country. If your father (or you yourself) is a declared British colonial national radical revolutionary antiWestern anticolonialist anticapitalist, well, you get the idea.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:09 pm

Therefore a natural born citizen is more than *not* a naturalized citizen, but one with deeper roots that should be protective of loyaly to the USA. I can’t se a serious objection to such a reuqirement. However you say that Obama had to prove, etc. When? No he didn’t. He may well have had to prove his identity for example to one of the schools he attended whose records he has blocked anyone from seeing. To repeat the charge that Obama is suspected of not being an American citizen is a red herring. The operative discussion is whether he is a ‘natural born’ citizen required for eligibility for the office of President.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/08/11 at 9:10 pm

Thank you for your responses.  As systems analyst you rely upon valid data.  In 2008 Obama provided his official certification of live birth issued under the authority of the State of Hawaii certifying that he was born in Hawaii, a State of the United States of America.  You indicate that such a document can be obtained by someone not born in the U.S.  I previously provided proof that this is not the case.  You have not contradicted that or provided any support for your proposition.  Therefore we are no longer involved in rational discussion.  Saying it does not make it so.

Comment by Zack on 5/09/11 at 6:49 am

With regard to the natural birth citizen question, it is true that I simplified the issue.  However, there is no support for the proposition that the constitution adopted or contains the “natural born citizen” standards of the law of nations, or requires both parents to have been citizens.

Comment by Zack on 5/09/11 at 7:16 am

This issue will be resolved when a legitimate candidate for the presidency mounts a pre-election court challenge to the citizenship of Barack Obama. Of course it will require a candidate who will take the risk of mounting a frivolous suit.  Therefore it will be a fringe candidate like Alan Keyes who has no chance of winning and seeks only some degree of notoriety or a fleeting 15 minutes of attention.

Comment by Zack on 5/09/11 at 7:17 am

With regard to standing the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.  Article III Section 2 of the Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding cases and controversies. Hypothetical questions are not considered.  That is why the courts have not considered the “natural born citizen” issue to date because no case or controversy involving actual contestants to the office of president - pre-election so that relief can be granted - has been brought to date. Parties cannot grant jurisdiction to a court by agreement.  A court always has the obligation to examine its own jurisdictional basis - its ability and authority to decide a case or controversy.

Comment by Zack on 5/09/11 at 7:17 am

So, in sum, Obama provided proof of his citizenship by birth in Hawaii in 2008.  No contrary evidence has been produced.  The burden is on the proponent of a proposition to come forth with evidence supporting their view. That has not been done.  I am going to work and will not be checking this string again.  Our exchange is pointless at this time.  Good luck and best wishes.  Zack

Comment by Zack on 5/09/11 at 7:18 am

It’s a good thing you will not be checking this string again, because it will spare you from having to deal with my response.

You provided no proof that a non-citizen could not obtain the certificate of live birth, only an assertion. Yet in fact, prior to 1971 a Hawaiian resident could obtain a birth certification for a baby on their declaration and signature, with no witnesses. The reason the law was changed in 1972 was that many foreign babies were brought to Hawaii and had an illegal birth certificate provided by a friend or relative under this route. Therefore, the form provided by Obama in 1988 was correctly deemed insufficient.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/09/11 at 11:01 pm

You might say that this issue has been put to rest by the release of the current document, but you conveniently declined to engage the challenges to its authenticity.  Tonight I have seen another one. Besides the layers revealed by importation of the PDF into graphic software, and besides the unnatural artifacts in the document, and besides the impossible assignement of an out-of-sequence certificate number with the County Clerk, there is evidence of kerning in the typewritten text, something impossible except on a computer.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/09/11 at 11:02 pm

You may recall that Dan Rather had to resign because of his publication of such a document with reference to George Bush’s military record. Naturally, Obama has blocked the access to any hospital records which could corroborate the certificate.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/09/11 at 11:03 pm

Ok - you are drawing me back into your world.  You state that “in fact, prior to 1971 a Hawaiian resident could obtain a birth certification for a baby on their declaration and signature, with no witnesses.” Please provide a source for this assertion and that it would show the person BORN IN HAWAII. I await your response

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 7:46 am

the “layering” is created by Adobe Acrobat.  It is not evidence of forgery in fact just the opposite.  You can find any number of technical explanations but here is a video of the layering being produced as a normal consequence of the scanning optimization.  The kerning issue will shortly be resolved too I am sure:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/adobe-pdf-document-layering-debunking-the-fake-obama-long-form-birth-certificate-theory/

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 8:00 am

Here is a comment that you might find interesting:

This is caused by the fact that a typewriter types each letter separately, advancing the typewriter carriage after each letter. If the type bar is not perfectly aligned, it will skew left or right or the letters will not line up vertically. So real typewritten text on an old manual typewriter is uneven, just like the LFBC.
The other problem with the WND story is that word processing programs using a typewriter font don’t do kerning, because these are mono-spaced fonts, which by design are evenly spaced.

Link: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/cottage-industry/#more-11956

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 8:43 am

Here is a link to a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1963. Same “kerning” showing overlapping letters, portions of adjacent letters occupying the same vertical space - but this is impossible!  I suppose Hawaii must have been forging all of its birth certificates.

http://trueconservative101.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 8:53 am

Here is a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1961. Notice that the same “kerning” appears in the letters K and a in the hospital name that is posted as proof of forgery by birthers.  Another forged birth certificate! When will it end? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBPXNPAtP2M/TbhfIPodryI/AAAAAAAABVE/HSRFfcslvkI/s1600/obama+birth+certificate+comparison.jpg

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 9:00 am

Odd that I assumed that proportional spacing (kerning) was not available on typewriters in 1961.  It was actually introduced on the IBM Electromatic Model 04 in 1941.  Here is a link:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

Just shows you not to assume

Comment by Zack on 5/10/11 at 8:33 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?