Jack Cashill Brags About Fake Award From Fake Law School

Jack Cashill is the man behind the accusations that William Ayers ghostwrote Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father. Last year, Cashill released a book on the subject, Deconstructing Obama.

Currently, over at his website cashill.com, Jack is proudly bragging about that work being recognized:

"News: Deconstructing Obama just won book of the year for 2011 at Lysander Spooner Law School."

Funny thing, though: there is no Lysander Spooner Law School.

The "school" is nothing more than a bare-bones blog, with sections on Terry Lakin and "Pretensidential Politics" [sic]. If you Google the name, the second result is Cashill's own website.

The site is run by a single person, Kenneth Olsen. He said that in setting up the site, he hoped for people to "apply for admission at a low cost, and earn a diploma if you pass my tests." In other words, he wanted to sell people fake law degrees.

He's also, unsurprisingly, an avid Birther, who has lately been trolling over at ObamaConspiracy.org. One of his other websites is the not-at-all-racist http://jiveasspresident.com/.

But the extent of Olsen's silliness is beside the point. It's Cashill who's important here.

In the Media Matters-themed article that can be seen at the bottom of the screenshot above, Cashill complains about how he is not taken seriously as a journalist or a researcher. Perhaps this is why. He's bragging about having won a nonexistent award, from a nonexistent law school. Not just in passing, or buried in a bio; it's prominently displayed at the top of his website. Since he links to the page where Olsen made up this crap about an award, Cashill is also fully aware of what the website for LysanderSpoonerLawSchool.org looks like, and it looks nothing like an actual law school website.

So if he can't spot the difference between a law school website and an internet troll's blog, and if he can't be bothered to take two seconds to do a web search for the 'school' that supposedly honored him, why should anyone take him seriously about his ability to spot similarities between writing styles?

Or worse, what if Cashill did spot the difference, and did realize that the school was fictitious, but still decided to brag about having "just won book of the year for 2011 at Lysander Spooner Law School" anyway?

WND's Farah Lifts From the L.A. Times and the AP?

In reaction to my blog post from last week, documenting the uncredited lifting of text in a Jerome Corsi article, WND appended an 'Editor's Note' to Corsi's article, claiming that the "error" was the result of unscrupulous (and still anonymous) "Kenyan researchers". No further explanation has followed.

I then wondered if these same "Kenyan researchers" were responsible for the Aaron Klein article from two weeks earlier, where he appears to have cribbed from a CNN editorial.

Now we can further ask whether these same "Kenyan researchers" must also be to blame for Farah's own November 22 column, "Civil rights and civil wrongs", which was published less than a month before Corsi's article. Because Farah's writing bears an uncanny resemblance to articles by the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press. And Farah's column contains no links or citations whatsoever, much less to the L.A. Times or to the AP specifically.

Here are some comparisons of the text, with quotes from Farah's column italicized, and word-for-word identical text bolded:

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:

Students and teachers at the trial testified that King had been dressing in women's accessories and wearing makeup, and was flirting aggressively with male students on campus who did not want the attention.

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

For whatever reasons, the 14-year-old was acting up by dressing in girls' clothing, wearing makeup and flirting aggressively with other young boys in his junior high school in Oxnard.

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:

The victim's mother, Dawn King, revealed for the first time Monday that she had contacted school officials four days before the shooting in an effort to solicit their cooperation in toning down her son's behavior. The boy had been taken from the Kings' home two months earlier by authorities because of domestic problems.

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

Dawn King said she contacted school officials to solicit their cooperation in getting her son to tone down his behavior. Two months earlier, Larry King was taken from his parents because of domestic problems.

(Note: So far, you'll notice, there is at least the effort to rearrange the sentences, rather than simply cutting-and-pasting them. It seems that midway through "writing" this column, that proved to be too much work...)

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:

She said she was told that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

Mrs. King was told by school officials that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:

School administrators sent a memo advising teachers to give King his space, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

Prior to the shooting, school administrators sent a memo advising teachers to leave King alone, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:

Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's civil rights than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's "civil rights" than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."

Associated Press, November 22, 2011:

Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter.

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression," Byard said.

Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:

In the aftermath of this wholly preventable tragedy, Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter:

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

So once again, why exactly should anyone believe in the existence of these "Kenyan researchers"? And why are there three different articles, by three different senior WND writers, all within the span of a single month, that have committed the same journalistic offense?

WND's Aaron Klein cribs from CNN?

So WND now says that the seeming plagiarism in Jerome Corsi's article was the fault of anonymous "Kenyan researchers," and that the "unattributed references" were "unknown to WND."

Whether you trust WND's explanation may come down to whether you believe WND's writers would knowingly include unattributed references in their articles. Perhaps you would consider whether they had done so recently.

Take, for instance, Aaron Klein's December 9, 2011 article, "Naturalizer Newt: Gingrich's shifting views on immigration".

Now take this November 29th CNN editorial by William J. Bennett.

Now let's compare them:

CNN, Nov. 29:

Gingrich's call for a "humane" immigration policy in last Tuesday's CNN debate sounded too much like amnesty to many conservatives.

Aaron Klein, Dec. 9:

During a CNN debate two weeks ago, Gingrich called for a "humane" immigration policy that would grant legality for an untold number of illegal immigrants, something that sounds a lot like amnesty to conservative critics.

CNN, Nov. 29:

...only grant legality, not full citizenship, to anyone who has entered the country illegally should they meet stringent requirements.

Aaron Klein, Dec. 9:

Although legality, not full citizenship, would be given to those who meet stringent requirements,

CNN, Nov. 29:

Only those who can sustain themselves without government assistance (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and pay for their own private health insurance would be eligible to stay.

Aaron Klein, Dec. 9:

only those who can sustain themselves without government assistance and pay for their own private health insurance would be eligible to stay in the country with legal status.

CNN, Nov. 29:

An independent, local "citizen's review" board would grant legal status based on the requirements above as well as the immigrant's standing in his or her community. Should they be permitted to stay, they will still be subject to a $5,000 penalty.

Aaron Klein, Dec. 9:

...an independent, local "citizen's review" board that would grant legal status based on the financial independence requirements and the immigrant's standing in his or her community. Each individual permitted to stay would be subject to a $5,000 penalty.

And finally, the real kicker, the word-for-word swipe:

CNN, Nov. 29:

...full control of the border by January 1, 2014. All government resources necessary would be made available for this, including "round-the-clock drone flights" and "multi-layer, strategic fencing in urban areas."

Aaron Klein, Dec. 9:

...full control of the border by Jan. 1, 2014. All government resources necessary would be made available for this, including "round-the-clock drone flights" and "multi-layer, strategic fencing in urban areas," Gingrich says.

Now admittedly, this is hardly the worst case of unattributed borrowing out there. But Klein clearly cribbed from Bennett's editorial, borrowing word choices and sentence structure and even whole phrases, and there is no link or attribution to either Bennett or CNN.

More importantly, this was published on WND on December 9, just ten days before Corsi's article that similarly (but more blatantly) swiped from the London Evening Standard and the AFP. So how much benefit of the doubt do you want to give WND in believing their story about "Kenyan researchers" being to blame for Corsi's conduct? Are "Kenyan researchers" also to blame for Bennett's words showing up in Klein's article?

WND's Corsi Plagiarizes the London Evening Standard and the AFP?

Several months back I illustrated how Brad O'Leary, in his WND-published book The Audacity of Deceit, heavily copied an article by another WorldNetDaily writer. Another blog noted last month where a column by WND head Joseph Farah bore a suspicious resemblance to a Wikipedia article.

But neither of those hold a candle to a December 19 WND article by Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation and Where's the Birth Certificate? The article is "Obama's legacy of broken promises – in Kenya". Not only is roughly half of Corsi's article lifted from a 2008 British news story, but Corsi goes further, and repeatedly claims that the copied information and quotations were instead obtained by unnamed "WND researchers" in Kenya.

The British article in question is "Barack Obama's broken promise to African village", written by David Cohen and published in the London Evening Standard on July 25, 2008. Corsi even links to Cohen's story in his article (proving that he personally read the article he copied, and the content was not just provided to him by an unscrupulous "source"), but credits it as the source of only three sentences of information.

Meanwhile, he claims the rest of the article is the result of "a report in Kenya commissioned by WND." Corsi writes:

"A former Kenyan Parliament member with whom WND has worked confidentially since 2008 compiled the report. The research was assigned to trusted Kenyan professionals who conducted the field work and reported their findings in writing."

This is not the only specific reference in Corsi's article to WND researchers. On several occasions, he provides quotes and statements that he claims were provided to WND researchers. But a review of the Evening Standard shows that Corsi simply lifted them, verbatim, from the 2008 story:

Evening Standard, 2008:

However, the school's senior teacher Dalmas Raloo, 41, who is often used as a translator for Obama's grandmother who only speaks Luo, and is a friend of the family, says the family are mystified by what they are calling "Obama's lapse". "If you ask whether Obama's family think he should give something to the village and to the school, the answer is 'yes, definitely'. But they feel it should come from him spontaneously. They don't want to ask him for it."

Jerome Corsi, 2011:

Raloo said Obama's family in Kenya is mystified by what they are calling "Obama's lapse."

"If you ask whether the family think Obama should give something to the village and to the school, the answer is 'Yes, definitely,'" Raloo told WND researchers in Kenya. "But support should come from Obama spontaneously. We shouldn't have to ask him to keep his promises."

Evening Standard, 2008:

Villagers say that despite her age, Sarah Obama still comes to market where she sells her homegrown fruit and vegetables.

Jerome Corsi, 2011:

Villagers told WND researchers that Sarah, 88 years old, still goes to market where she sells her homegrown fruit and vegetables.

Evening Standard, 2008:

The market is where we head next to speak to villagers about their hopes for an Obama victory in November and what it might do for their village. Mary Manasse, 40, who runs the Mama Siste Mini Shop selling staples such as bread and cow's milk (packaged in old Coke bottles) says she has a photograph of Obama shaking hands with her on his 2006 visit.

"Back then I was looking after 40 orphans at the orphan centre," she recalls. "We faced a desperate shortage of money and Obama told us that he especially liked special, dedicated projects like ours and wanted to help. We thought he would give funds to help our project but we got nothing. A few months later we were forced to shut down the orphan centre because of lack of funds. Just a million Kenyan shillings [£6,000] would have kept us going another year. I feel disappointed that he did not come through."

Jerome Corsi, 2011:

The market is where WND researchers heard villagers express disappointment over hopes they once held that Obama would transform their lives in Kogelo.

Mary Manasse, who runs the Mama Siste Mini Shop selling staples such as bread and cow's milk packaged in old soda bottles, told researchers she has a photograph of Obama shaking hands with her on his 2006 visit.

"Back then I was looking after 40 orphans at the orphan center," she recalled. "We faced a desperate shortage of money, and Obama told us that he especially liked special, dedicated projects like ours and wanted to help.

"A few months later we were forced to shut down the orphan center because of lack of funds. Just a million Kenyan shillings (about $12,000) would have kept us going another year. I feel disappointed that he did not come through."

Those are just the instances of Corsi attributing the work and research of the London Evening Standard to his anonymous "WND researchers."

The singular other specific reference to the work of his "researchers" is also nothing more than a paraphrase of a May 2011 AFP article. While not copied word-for-word like much of the content from the Evening Standard, the information and 'quotes' provided to "WND researchers" by "Francis Muti" appear suspiciously similar to quotes appearing in the AFP article. (I'd also note that discovering the true source of this particular material was considerably more difficult than the content copied from the Evening Standard, given Corsi's paraphrasing and misspelling of Muti's last name.) To wit:

AFP, May 2011:

“In the wake of security challenges including terror threats, I can confirm that we decided to enhance security at the home of Mama Sarah … ,” said regional administrator Francis Mutie"

There have been no direct threats against the family but Kenya is on alert following warnings from Al-Qaeda followers after bin Laden was killed by US special forces in Pakistan on May 2.

Jerome Corsi, December 2011

"'As a result of the security challenges, including the threat of terror, I can confirm that we decided to improve security at home,' she told WND researchers in Kenya."

Francis Muti, the regional administrator said there was no immediate threat to the family, but Kenya was on high alert after a warning from adherents of al-Qaida after U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan killed bin Laden.

In short, every single quote or finding specifically attributed to Corsi's unnamed "researchers" was lifted from an earlier publication by another news agency.

While these falsifications may be the worst journalistic offenses in the article, they're still not the only ones. Several pictures accompany the article. It's not explicitly stated where these photographs originated from, but it's implied that they also came from "WND researchers." Corsi captions one picture of Sarah Obama by writing "As seen in Exhibit 5, Sarah continues to have roving chickens around her home, as well as goats and cows not seen in this photograph."

But this picture is, in fact, a copyrighted photo belonging to Evelyn Hockstein. No attribution to Ms. Hockstein is provided, and WND does not even indicate that the image is copyrighted. Even the 'roving chickens, goats, and cows' language is borrowed from the Evening Standard.

So much of Corsi's article is paraphrased or copied, word-for-word, that it can only be illustrated visually. Below is that illustration, with the yellow portions of Corsi's column representing the content that was lifted from other sources.

Color-Coded Legend:
Yellow = word-for-word copying from the Evening Standard;
Orange = content taken from the AFP;
Pink = specific references to the work of 'WND researchers';
Blue = credited citations to the Evening Standard

Obama's legacy of broken promises – in Kenya

I emailed Corsi for comment, including to ask for the names of his 'researchers' or a copy of their 'report.' I received no response. (Update: I received a reply from Corsi claiming that the report is "proprietary," but he'd be willing to give comments. However, he did not respond to follow-up emails with specific questions, including when the supposed investigation was conducted, and what other stories the 'source' has supposedly contributed to since 2008).

In the event that the online version of Corsi's article should disappear or be altered, I have preserved a PDF printout of the article at Scribd.

Finally, while the straight lifting of text from the Evening Standard is egregious, and the rewording of quotations from the AFP is suspicious, Corsi's attribution of all this material to his unnamed 'WND researchers in Kenya' is most troublesome. Corsi regularly relies on unnamed phantom "sources" from Kenya and Hawaii. Corsi's actions here, claiming that copied material was actually spoken directly to his anonymous "sources," should not just call into question the credibility of his "sources"; it should seriously call into doubt whether they even EXIST.

Presidential Succession and Designated Survivors

The Presidential line of succession tells us who ascends to the Presidency in the event of a vacancy in the Oval Office. And in this, we once again find Birther claims refuted.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the daughter of an Italian immigrant mother. Current Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye is the son of a Japanese immigrant father. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is the son of Italian immigrants. Attorney General Eric Holder's father is from Barbados. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was abandoned at birth in Pennsylvania; his biological parents' identities are unknown. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is the daughter of Nicaraguan and Mexican immigrants. And Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki was born in the Territory of Hawaii in 1942.

That's just Obama's Cabinet. All of them appear as legitimate successors under the law, unlike the Taiwan-born Elaine Chao or the Czech-born Madeline Albright. Their parents' citizenship is irrelevant, and indeed is often not publicly stated, because it is irrelevant.

There is also the tradition of the Designated Survivor, a Cabinet member who remains at a distance during public meetings of the nation's top leaders, such as at the State of the Union address. Only Cabinet members who are eligible for the Presidency can be named as designated survivors.

And yet, Eric Holder was the designated survivor in 2009. More significantly, in 1996, the designated survivor was HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, the daughter of Lebanese immigrants.

But most significantly, the person selected in 2000 to sit out the State of the Union address, the person who the White House specifically selected to take over the Presidency if Congress was nuked, was Energy Secretary and future Presidential contender Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson, whose mother María Luisa López-Collada Márquez was a Mexican citizen when he was born in 1947 and remains a Mexican citizen today. But Richardson was born in California, and that makes him a natural born citizen, like it or not.

And that's not all. In 2003, President Bush had two designated survivors. One of those two was Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, the son of Japenese immigrants. Not only were Mineta's parents not U.S. citizens when he was born in 1931, but under the Asian Exclusion Act, they were not even allowed to become U.S. citizens. But Mineta, like Richardson, was himself born in California. And that was sufficient for the Bush Administration to choose him as a Constitutionally eligible designated survivor.

Yes, even the custom and practice of the Executive Branch itself, in the specific context of preserving and protecting the Office of the Presidency, contradicts the Birthers' claims.

Where are the Herman Cain Birthers?

Since November 2008, Joseph Farah has wanted Barack Obama to quell Farah's doubts about Obama's eligibility. Among his reasons for being skeptical from the very beginning: the lack of a produced long-form birth certificate, the identity of the birth hospital, and conflicting reports on the specific location of his birth.

Now in 2011, a new election is around the corner, and Farah has a new "favorite" candidate: Herman Cain.

Curiously, however, Mr. Farah is failing to exact the same level of scrutiny upon Cain as he did upon Obama. We have no proof of where Cain was born at all. We haven't seen Cain's long form birth certificate, or even his short form. We don't know what hospital he was born in. We have no proof of who his parents were. We haven't seen any birth announcements, hospital records, school records, college records, passport records, medical records, or baptism records.

"But," as the objection is liable to be, "there is no doubt or question as to where Herman Cain was born." Really? There isn't?

According to various news stories, Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee. Similarly, according to Wikipedia, Herman Cain was born in Memphis, although no authority is provided for this assertion. Indeed, for years, Wikipedia flatly stated that Mr. Cain was born in Georgia.

And it was not just Wikipedia that claimed Herman Cain's birthplace was in Georgia, rather than its neighbor to the north. To wit:

Nation's Restaurant News - 1988

But the unfamiliar has seldom proved to be a hurdle for the Atlanta-born 42-year-old, who broke into food service only six years ago as a "Whopper flopper," manning the grill at a Burger King unit.

Yahoo News

But the crowd was waiting for the official announcement from Atlanta-born Cain himself.

BET

Born in Atlanta, Cain cooked up a career that landed him in the position of CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

The Fiscal Times

The Georgia-born Cain, the only African-American GOP candidate, has had broad experience as a businessman, media celebrity and fiscal expert.

Cartersville Patch

Is Georgia-born Herman Cain ready for the grueling spotlight of a presidential campaign?

Los Angeles Times

Not to be outdone in the canine arena, Georgia-born businessman Cain criticized...

New York Sun

Mr. Cain is a Southern man, born in Georgia, who probably has a better understanding of the Bull Connors of the world than the Harlem native Mr. Rangel.

Conservapedia

Cain was born in Georgia and grew up there.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Back in May, when Georgia native Herman Cain announced his campaign for the presidency...

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia native and tea party favorite Herman Cain

WSB Radio

While Herman Cain's popularity is increasing outside Georgia, the Atlanta native is the runaway leader in his home state.

Peach Pundit

The other Georgian in the race claims to have been born in Georgia, though birthers haven’t yet started asking for his birth certificate. Herman Cain most recently has been a talk show host for WSB radio in Atlanta, but also has served as the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and executive positions with Pillsbury and Coca Cola.

Indeed, this alone represents far more American news sources that disagree about Cain's birthplace than have ever disagreed about Obama's. WorldNetDaily regularly argues that there were inconsistent reports as to what hospital Obama was born in; but news sources, major news sources, cannot even agree on what state Mr. Cain was born in.

When, then, can we expect Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, and the rest of the Birther community to hold Herman Cain to the same standard they have applied to President Obama for the last three years? When are they going to demand that Herman Cain prove his eligibility for the Presidency? When are they going to start asking "Where's Herman Cain's Birth Certificate?"

Polarik's "Breaking" News is Broken

Well, Polarik's back. And rather than just claiming that Obama is the love child of Malcolm X and a Lebanese woman, or pretending that every childhood photo of Obama was faked in Photoshop, now he's spinning a tale that puts himself directly in the story.

The last time I posted about Polarik here (outside of a passing mention in a footnote in "Secret Origin, Part 2") was over a year ago, when he claimed PolitiFact invented a rumor about Obama's middle name. Now he's again trying to shift responsibility for something Birther-related, with a YouTube video and a WorldNetDaily article that claim the White House website linked to a fake Certification of Live Birth that Polarik created on his computer.

This is his claim, as expressed at YouTube:

On April 27, 2011. Obama and his White House held a press conference in which they gave reporters a copy of his "long-form" birth certificate and a copy of his "short-form" birth certificate." That copy, now posted on WHITEHOUSE.GOV, came from the image I created and stored in my Photobucket account - they did not make a copy of his short-form because there is no short-form (the COLB).

Ron's 'evidence' for this is essentially two-fold:

1) The White House blog linked to a black-and-white PDF scan of Obama's COLB that indicates that it was printed off the Snopes website, as it has a Snopes URL at the bottom.

2) An article on the Snopes website used to link to a COLB image in Polarik's Photobucket account.

He goes on at length (as he is wont to do), but that's the core of his claim. The only problem is that even given that both of the above are true, that still doesn't support his conclusion that the White House published and/or circulated an imitation document he'd created.

The White House printed off an image that was ON the Snopes server. The Snopes article linked to a Polarik image that was NOT on the Snopes server, but was rather on Photobucket's. The only way the White House published Polarik's image was if Snopes uploaded Polarik's image to its own server and published it at this address.

And Polarik provides absolutely zero evidence to support that conclusion. Rather, much of his argument contradicts it. He shares some charts showing pageviews of his Photobucket account that came from Snopes. But if web surfers are arriving at his account, then they're not looking at an image uploaded to Snopes' server.

After Polarik went public with this claim, several holes were pointed out in his story. The Snopes image has file info that says it was last modified "Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:19:50 PM." Polarik's fake COLB has file info that says it was last modified "Saturday, March 12, 2011 7:48:46 AM." Furthermore, the White House's image is clearly not Polarik's fake; there's a telltale uneven line of text at the bottom that clearly distinguishes the two. All too quickly, Ron's story was falling apart.

Now if I may interrupt my own narrative for a moment, let's go back a year, to June 2010. Polarik posts his own thread at FreeRepublic entitled "**Obama Bombshell** Blue Hawaii: Health Department falsified Obama's birth records!" In it, he wrote:

Sometime between October 31, 2008, and July 27, 2009, the dates of Health Director Chiyome Fukino's two press releases, Hawaii amended Obama's birth record. A brand-new Certificate of Live Birth (not Certification of Live Birth) was issued to him...

Not only did Obama get a new birth certificate, the certificate itself was designed with him in mind as Rev. 10/08 - coincidentally, the date of Fukino's first press release (10/31/08). Hawaii ditched the old Certification of Live Birth and switched to a hybrid form called a “Certificate of Live Birth” - formerly the name of the long-form birth certificate.

Say, "Aloha" to Obama's new COLB (Certificate of Live Birth):

[here Polarik put a Photobucket-hosted image of "Obama's new COLB"]

Click on the thumbnail for a full-size copy

When Freepers realized that Polarik wasn't being quite honest with them, he did an about-turn and posted a disclaimer, where he said that he'd posted his fake image to test people to see if they could spot it.

Okay, that aside was to provide some context for how Polarik answered his current detractors. He updated his YouTube description so that it now says:

[ **UPDATE** Last year, I made a 2nd forgery with an obvious flaw in it (a tilted line) to see if people would notice it. They didn't. People are only seeing it now because the White House posted a black & white outline of my prior image (which does not have the flaw).

That outline was made from my image shown in the video, but I left the link alone so that viewers can see the flawed forgery that so many have called a genuine copy of Obama's birth certificate.

You see? Sure, it looks like he was lying, but really he was just using a fake image to test people. Again.

He also added a single word to his original video description, to suit his new and improved story (addition emphasized):

That copy, now posted on WHITEHOUSE.GOV, came from the prior image I created and stored in my Photobucket account

New story, new details.

Not that the new narrative makes a lick of sense. In attempting to incorporate various inconvenient facts, Polarik has ended up making the following claim:

That Polarik created a fake COLB and posted it to his Photobucket account. That Snopes downloaded it and uploaded it to their server. That as a 'test', Polarik replaced his original fake with a crappier fake that had a tilted line. And that the White House printed out the original fake from Snopes and gave it to the press.

So now we have TWO Polarik-created fakes, one which has a tilted line and one which he says exists but hasn't shown. Plus an inexplicable scheme to switch out a really good fake for a not-so-good fake to see if people noticed. And a claim that the White House published a fake he created, but not the same fake he originally claimed they published a few days ago.

Still, even as silly as that sounds, is it believable? No. In trying to salvage his story, he simply made it worse.

For starters, one can view Polarik's Photobucket RSS feed to see when images were uploaded. "BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg" was indeed uploaded on March 12, 2011. Rather curiously, images called "Barack Obama's birth certificate (Factcheck copy)" and "Barack Obama's birth certificate (Fight The Smears copy)" were also uploaded the day before on March 11...and they're the same fakes with the tilted line. 'Test' or not, he was certainly out to lie to people about what his uploads represented.

This upload date demonstrates one of the problems with Polarik's new timeline. He uploaded the tilted line fake on March 12, but the White House printout was made on April 25, 2011. Yet the White House image is clearly not the March 12 fake. In fact, Polarik's version 2.0 story is maddeningly irrational; if Snopes had already linked to a fake he created, then why replace it with a more obvious fake? And why, when you go public, do you only brag about Snopes linking to the obvious fake, and not mention the 'prior image' at all until you revise your story?

The feed doesn't show when the original "BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg" was uploaded to Polarik's Photobucket account, but there was indeed a prior image at that URL. However, it wasn't a fake; it was the real thing. Israel Insider linked to it way back on June 24, 2008. Polarik certainly hadn't created a polished fake within two weeks of the original release of the COLB. He simply uploaded the real image, using the same filename that the DailyKos had used. Then in March 2011, for some reason, he replaced it with an imitation.

In browsing my computer files, I found something of note:

See there? "BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg," which I saved July 20, 2009. Followed by several other Polarik-created COLB files which I saved contemporaneously while I was writing about Polarik. And what does BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg look like?

Yep. It's just the plain ol' real COLB. If you open it in a separate window from the tilted line fake, you can see the differences for yourself. This isn't merely a shifting of a line; the entire rattan background changes, as does the border.

So, long story short, what do we have here? Snopes may have linked to a once-legitimate image URL on Polarik's Photobucket account, which Polarik originally uploaded in June 2008 but surreptitiously swapped out for an imitation image in March 2011. (This is a reminder of the risks of hotlinking to outside sites.) The White House printed out a legitimate image that was saved to the Snopes server, said image having nothing at all to do with Polarik's March 2011 fake. There's no evidence whatsoever of Polarik's 'prior' fake that was first mentioned in his revised story. Polarik's first attempt at his story may have gotten published at WND, but its faults caused him to revise it, but the narrative still crumbles under basic scrutiny.