All the world was so busy with the long form birth certificate released by President Obama, that they failed to grasp the scope of Ben Bernake's comments. Yes, just hours before the first Press Conference held by the Federal Reserve in this century, the White House decided to participate in the dog and pony show of the birth certificate. Well, since our dollar is almost worthless, how valuable is that birth certificate? It has certainly been a diversion!
As it turns out, the veracity of the document is important for an economist to consider, because economic analysis relies on the underlying data being valid and knowledge of the economic system essential. If someone is willing to be untruthful about their personal particulars, then what will stop them from publishing bogus data? I learned early on in estimating time series data to look at the regime. If the regime is dishonest, they have probably been less than honest in the data. If the data is bogus, any economic analysis gleaned from them is bogus. Many an economist has been mislead by bogus data in economic forecasts of third world countries, and occasionally developed ones. That is why so many economists are hot on the issue; it determines the ability of the data and the models to be valid and functional.
But beyond economic analysis, there is a more dangerous reason to consider the document's veracity. It puts the foundation document of our economic system, the Constitution, at great peril. If the Constitution is not upheld, then any economic model predicated on it cannot be relied upon to provide accurate forecasts and results. All economic mathematical models assume that economic agents have the right to hold property and the liberty to make choices. Without these concepts, neither the Keynesian, the Classical, or the Neo-classical model of economics will be useful. When liberty is jeopardized, choice sets for economic agents are constrained, and there is no way to truly quantify these dangers in the parlance of Lagrangian multipliers. Even worse, it puts our system of government in jeopardy. For these three reasons, it is noteworthy for economist to wander into the area of the alleged Long Form Birth Certificate, or LFBC, released by the White House.
For those unfamiliar with the past two days, there has been quite a bit of analysis published already. The best case, based on Photoshop, why the document is a fake, can be found here. Others have compared the Obama LFBC released with the one made available by Susan Nordyke, a twin born hours after Barack Obama. There are many differences between his document and the Susan Nordyke's real LFBC. A comparison can be found here. Without wandering into the technical aspects of desktop publishing and layers, here are the reasons why the birth certificate is a forgery and suggests a rather poor researcher manufactured the document.
First, the name of the hospital listed is simply wrong. At the official web site for Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of Obama's birth should have been Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. According to the web site the name didn't change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children's Hospital merged with Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1978. But, we can give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Second problem is very troublesome for Democrats: the doctor is wrong. Many folks who defended Obama's Hawaiian birth did so based on the word of Dr. Rodney West. Dr. West, who died in February of 2011, was the basis of confidence in the story that Obama was born in the U.S. Yet the birth certificate released by the Obama Administration now shows that Dr. Sinclair delivered Obama, much to the delight of his Iowa widow. While this may be a great thing for Obama when he campaigns in Iowa, it must be an embarrassment for Democratic operatives who introduced Dr. West in 2008!
Third, they screwed up the numbering on the certificate. The Nordyke Twins were born after Obama in the same hospital. Yet, amazingly, their registration numbers precede the number given Obama. This was very careless on the part of the forgers.
Fourth, the date in box 20 clearly has the "number 1" written in it. I guess they couldn't find a typewriter at the Smithsonian to type the letter "l" that was commonly used for the number one during the manual typewriter era of the early 1960s. Or maybe they simply lacked the patience to line up the letter in the carriage and decided it was easier to use a pencil to in the number one.
Fifth, the more amusing error, is the registrar's signature in box 21. What kind of registrar can't spell their own name? Note to forgers listed on one website: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
Sixth, there are clearly irregularities regarding the safety paper. The lines along the left hand side appear to reflect a fold, like the document came from a bound volume. However, the safety paper does not follow the curve. This and other irregularities are discussed on here.
Seventh, the race is wrong. During the 1960s, the term Negro was used as a race. Back then, the term African was reserved for those born on the continent of Africa. Oh, wait, is that what this document suggests after all?
Worse, the stamp at the bottom of the document tells it all. The document is not a birth certificate. It is an abstract. Read the stamp at the bottom, it is very clear. It is not the actual LFBC.
For those who want to suggest I am a racist, then you don't know me. For what it is worth, the issue of eligibility war originally raised by Senator Obama in regard to Senator John McCain. Indeed, Senator Obama sponsored the SR 511 in the 110th Congress. He is the one who raised the issue and clarified the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen. After all, the best defense is a good offense. Knowing he did not meet the requirements, he accused McCain of not being qualified. The document is not even a defense of Obama's eligibility; it actually makes the case that he is not natural born based on SR 511. It refutes nothing, and proves he can be bullied by a Casino magnate.
President Obama indeed has earned his place in history. LBJ lied about the Bay of Tonkin. Nixon claimed he was not a crook. Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Obama has his past. In contrast to Obama, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton enjoyed some degree of economic security prosperity despite their lack of honesty. President Obama will go down in history as bigger liar than either of these three, with an economy worse than that engineered by either President Carter or Hoover.
Years from now, as my grandchildren pay taxes on this debt, I am certain the name "Obama" will be word of disdain, reserved for occasions when a hammer hits one thumb, or bumps one's shin on a coffee table. To be deceived, people will say they are being "Obama-ed." As he sells our children and our grandchildren into slavery, remember the Congress that could have acted to remove him from office and did not, the Vice President, who could not stay awake to invoke the 25th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Chairman who ran the printing presses to finance the biggest deficits in American history.
No comments:
Post a Comment