Just as we were about to post the Wednesday, April 27, 2011 issue of MarchReport.com, a bulletin came in to the effect that Barack Obama had finally released his long-form birth certificate. Since it was "press-time," I uploaded the issue, sent out that day's newsletters, and then went to the WhiteHouse.gov web site to download the birth certificate. I revised that day's issue to include the story, with a link to the pdf file of the birth certificate as released by the White House.

Having covered the story that we called "Certifi-Gate" since October 22, 2008, I was relieved that it was finally over ... or, so I thought. I was tired of being called a racist (despite the fact that I myself am racially mixed, being a mix of Polish, Ukrainian and Mongolian ancestry), a right wing conspiracy theorist (despite the fact that the story originated with Linda Starr, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and ultra-left-wing zealot who advocated the impeachment of President Bush, the arrest of Harriet Miers, Josh Bolton, and Karl Rove by the U.S. House of Representatives' Sergeant At Arms, and a Radio Left/Daily KOS partisan; and was initially prosecuted by Philip J. Berg, a Democrat, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, who had worked on her campaign). I was sick of the death threats, although those had tapered off in proportion to the decline in Obama's popularity.

After uploading the revised April 27 issue, I took a closer look at the pdf file. Being a computer graphics specialist since 1971, and having made the transition from mainframe to desktop software in 1991, I had worked with Photoshop since version 2 and Illustrator since version 3, I immediately saw evidence of layering in the document. "Oh, Scheißdreck," I said to myself ("Scheißdreck" wasn't the word I used, actually, but some kids read this page, and I'm a father and grandfather myself). The following day I found, unsurprisingly, that others had spotted it as well. I even ran articles and videos over the next couple of days, which described the analysis performed by others.

The layers could be innocent enough, in that some modern scanning software breaks typographic elements into layers to facilitate optical character recognition; but, PhotoShop and Illustrator offer the option of flattening the layers into one. Was the failure to do this the result of a naive operator who was insufficiently familiar with the software, or who simply did not comprehend that the presence of these un-flattened layers would drive those who believed with all their hearts and souls that Obama was a usurper ... a Manchurian Candidate in office ... nuts. Was it simple sloppiness caused by the desire to get this out quickly and embarrass Donald Trump? If so, that sure backfired, having made Trump look like the titan who finally forced Obama's hand. Or, were the layers left in place deliberately, to make it look like the document had been falsified. Was it red-meat for die-hard conspiracy theorists? Was it a new MacGuffin for us to chase, while losing sight of the plot?

Alfred Hitchcock Redux.
With his 1935 film, "The 39 Steps," Alfred Hitchcock popularized the MacGuffin; both the term and the technique. Hitch described the MacGuffin technique as follows in a 1966 interview with François Truffaut:

"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?" and the other answers "Oh, that's a MacGuffin." The first one asks "What's a MacGuffin?" "Well," the other man says, "It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." The first man says "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands," and the other one answers "Well, then that's no MacGuffin." So you see, a MacGuffin is nothing at all."

The MacGuffin is a person, place or thing that drives the narrative; but, as Hitchcock said in television interviews, "the audience don't care" what it is. I am of the opinion that we have been focusing so intently on tracking down the MacGuffin that we've lost sight of the plot.

Enter Stage Right.
By 2009, Obama had spent in excess of $1.3 Million to prevent his birth certificate from being released, and had succeeded in demonizing everyone who dared ask a question about it.

Enter Donald Trump, and suddenly, Obama releases it without a whimper. The "mainstream media," who as recently as the day before the release, had been saying for years that Obama had already released his birth certificate; that they'd already seen it, and that anyone who questioned Obama's legitimacy was a racist or a loon, suddenly was reporting on the release of his "private, long-form birth certificate" as if it was a mere footnote to the story, rather than the earth-shattering event that it was.

They either could not bring themselves to admit the obvious: that they had been dutifully reporting what the White House told them to report, much as Pravda would have done in the days of the Soviet Union, or they simply could not confront the truth about themselves. The days of reporters wearing out shoe-leather to follow a story where the facts lead have long since been over. This is the day of press-release journalism: A "source" supplies an alleged fact, another "source" confirms it over a three-martini lunch, and that gets reported as fact. The days of Edward R. Murrow, or even Walter Winchell, are over. These are the days of "Ted Baxter," the dim-witted news anchor played by Ted Knight (born Tadeusz Wladyslaw Konopka) on the "Mary Tyler Moore Show," come to life. One of the most valuable lessons learned from the whole Certifi-gate affair is that the "mainstream media," really the commercial media, are completely useless; and, I include Fox News in the bunch; they are simply the least rotten of the bad apples.

Is It Real, Or Is It Memorex?
Frankly, it doesn't matter. We've been "played," but they've shown their hand by going back to the well one too many times.

Why spend, by 2011, in excess of $2 Million to hide something, only to release an apparently tainted version of it when a political opponent was getting traction? In order to answer that, we have to look at what the Obama Administration has done with "ObamaCare"; they're using exactly the same methodology here.

Let me draw you an analogy as a way of easing you into an explanation of the methodology in play here. In the mid 1980's, I saw Geraldine Ferraro on the subway platform at the 71st Street and Continental Avenue station in Queens, N.Y., waiting for the E or F train, both of which stopped there in those days. Having been the first female candidate for Vice President on Walter Mondale's ticket, scrutiny of her husband John Zaccaro's finances contributed to the defeat of the Democrats.

In New York City, you only see celebrities on the subway at two points in their careers: when they're on their way up, and when they're on their way down. In both cases, they're looking for an ego-boost: a "recognition fix." Ferraro was very conspicuously trying to look inconspicuous, if you take my meaning. She was wearing dark glasses, which were very ill-advised on the dimly-lit platform, and was making exaggerated movements, such as pulling her fur collar up to her face, in a faux-attempt to conceal her identity. At that point, her career appeared to be over, and she had no way of knowing that brighter days were ahead. She needed the "recognition fix," and by her movements, sought to assure herself that she was still known and recognized, that she was still a "celebrity."

For three years now, the unreleased birth certificate of Barack Obama has been very conspicuously trying to look inconspicuous. With the help of the Democratic Party's lackeys in the media, the story that should not be talked about was talked about incessantly, making those of us who followed the story look like fools, racists, or both. Never mind that fact that the first candidate whose eligibility under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (the "natural born" clause) was not Barack Obama, but John McCain. McCain responded by immediately releasing all of his documents, and the Senate responded by passing Senate Resolution 511 , by unanimous consent. The resolution, co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama, recognized that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for and, if elected, serve as the President. From the bill: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Is It Hocus Pocus, Or Is It Bogus POTUS?
So, what does any of this have to do with "ObamaCare"? The methodology being used to push "ObamaCare" forward is the very same methodology as that being used vis-à-vis the birth certificate.

On January 31, 2011, senior federal judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Roger Vinson ruled that "ObamaCare" was unconstitutional in its entirety because it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Having so ruled, an injunction was unnecessary; the Executive Branch was required cease all enforcement of the law because the law itself had been declared null and void. Nonetheless, the Obama Administration, who's most significant accomplishment thus far has been the new and innovative ways it has discovered to circumvent the Constitution, continued to enforce the unconstitutional "law." On March 3, 2011, Vinson stayed his order, giving the Obama administration seven days to file an appeal; just seven days. In his stay order, Vinson harshly criticized the Obama Administration, saying "It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for 2-1/2 weeks, continue to implement the act and, only then, file a belated motion to 'clarify.'" By dragging its feet and thus (yet again) circumventing the Constitution, the Obama Administration has effectively bought itself free reign to get "ObamaCare" so embedded in the health care system that it will be impossible to dismantle.

The same logic has been at work all along on the birth certificate. Assuming it's real, as I do, the reason for the long stall is obvious. The term "natural born citizen," at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, was commonly understood to mean the offspring of parents who were natural born citizens at their birth; note the plural: parents.

Obama's birth certificate clearly shows that he is the son of a mother who was an American Citizen, and a father who was a Kenyan Citizen. It is on this basis that attorneys such as Mario Apuzzo have filed litigation to have Obama disqualified. In all of my prior editorials and podcasts, I have made clear that I was not willing to take it this far: if the long-form birth certificate were to be released, and it showed Obama was born in the United States, I would be satisfied. That was, and remains, my position on the issue, but, since I am not a Supreme Court Justice, my opinion carries no legal weight.

This, obviously, is the reason why the birth certificate was withheld for so long. Although I consider it unlikely that a Court that has refused to hear legitimate suits on this issue based on spurious issues of "standing" would disqualify Obama based on the interpretation of Apuzzo, et al., the possibility existed. Thus, the "Mystery of The Birth Certificate" was crafted, to keep it from being released long enough that a disqualification of Obama would cause chaos. Were he to be disqualified, every law he signed would be null-and-void; effectively pocket vetoed. Our gutless Supreme Court would have issued another "one-off" ruling, as it did in the case of Bush v. Gore, where it resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, declaring that the ruling was "limited to the present circumstances."

Fooled Me Once, Shame on You; Fooled Me Twice, Shame On Me.
I am open to the possibility that the birth certificate released is a forgery, but I seriously doubt it. I am of the opinion that the birth certificate released is real, and that the layers that appear are a result of how modern scanning software scans documents. I also believe that the layers were not flattened to give renewed life to the MacGuffin we've been chasing for three years.

Until Wednesday, the preponderance of evidence lead to the conclusion that Obama had something to hide. Release of the certificate tips the scales. The preponderance of evidence now leads to the belief that he hid the certificate to prevent a challenge based on his father's nationality.

Continuing to pursue the birth certificate issue is a losing proposition, and will guarantee a second term to Barack Obama. It will make it look like all of the accusations of racism and conspiracy theories were correct, and will tarnish any candidate who pursues it.

About a decade ago, I took a vow to myself that I would not lie to anyone about anything, ever. It was a logical progression of a vow I took in the mid-1970's, when my daughter was born: that I would never lie to her about anything, ever. I never did, not even about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Approximately 10 years ago, my child by then being an adult and on her own, and anyone else I had to protect having passed on, I decided to risk applying that to my dealings with everyone. Over and over again, I have paid a very high price for doing so, but maintain that vow to this day in all my dealings.

In that spirit, it's time to admit that we were "had" by a master practitioner of deep-dish Chicago politics. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We followed the facts where they led. That they led exactly where Obama wanted them to lead is no fault of ours. Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me. As "The Who" suggested, "Don't get fooled again"

MarchReport.com will continue to cover developments in the Certifi-Gate issue, and will follow the facts where they lead, as we have always done; but, we will do so from the perspective cited above.

MarchReport.com is hardly the most important outlet covering this story, but the White House reads our stuff anyway. In the spirit of respect for an adversary, I request that whomever at the White House is tasked with doing so relay this message: "Well played, Mr. President."