Obama wouldn’t pass a security clearance check

I’m re-posting this because IT ROCKS! Racer Jim posted this on    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/08/scotus-shattering-8-prominent-groups.html

Even ignoring all the fake birth certificate stuff, and the invalid SSN … this is the best summary of who managed to get elected (through massive fraud on multiple levels) to the highest position in the United States. The person described below would have trouble passing a security clearance to work as a clerk at the White House. This is an embarrassment to the United States, and a reason why we, as a people, really must demand more proof of who our elected officials really are.

FYI – this is all factual and well verified information. If only someone had bothered to check before 2007. Thumbs down MSM. When i get a chance, I will fill in the blanks on this – but read it and weep.

“What I find suspicious is someone who was born to a Muslim Marxist father and an Atheist Communist mother, whose father’s parents also were Muslim Marxists and whose mother’s parents also were Atheist Communists, who spent five years attending grade school in an Islamic (Muslim) country registered under a different name as a citizen of that Islamic (Muslim) country, who was mentored by a radical Marxist member of the Communist Party of the Untied States of America during his teenage and early college years, who sought out and associated with radical Communists and Marxists during college, who was then mentored for twenty years by a Marxist “GOD DAMN AMERICA” Black Theology preacher, who had his political career initiated by the domestic terrorist couple who founded the radical Communist organization “Weather Underground”, who committed perjury on his law license application, who denounced the U.S. Constitution as a doctrine of negative liberties and allowed his publicist’s bio of him to say he was Kenyan born for 17 years through 3-4 revisions running for President of the Untied State of America. 

For crying out loud, all the above notwithstanding, in 2008 the Democratic Party of Hawaii INTENTIONALLY deleted the required by Hawaii law verbiage “under the provision’s of the United States Constitution” from the certification statement on it’s “Official Certification Of Nomination”…effectively certifying Obama not eligible to serve as President. That’s Obama’s own party in his own (birth) state trying to prevent him from being elected. “

Racer jim

Advertisements

Obama Literary Agent Website Bio said “Born in Kenya” for 16 Years

I have been accused, as have many “birthers” have, of being racist because we dared to ask for Mr. Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. The claim is that no on ever asked any other candidate to prove where they were born – so clearly the need to see the actual certificate was based on racism. I pointed out that no other candidate had indicated that they were born in a foreign country for over 16 years. I was accused of “making up” this fact. I did the following screen shots to prove that I was stating a FACT.

Obama had a bio published by his literary agent Acton & Dystel in 1991 that clearly states he was born in Kenya. I know we have heard the following disclaimer from Miriam Goderich in 2012:

Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

It is clear that she is referring to the  1991 brochure published by her company. See full text here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566

There are two problems here. First, it is industry standard procedure for an author to provide their own bio. After all, they are the writer, and who knows them better than themselves. And even Miriam herself says that she “edited the text of the bio”  and “fact checked it”. Semantics – she never says she wrote it. In fact, on the Dystel & Goderich website, part of the “non fiction submission guidelines” is a “formal narrative bio of the author”http://www.dystel.com/nonfiction-proposal-guidelines/  It seems logical that requirement would have been in place in 1991.

The second problem is that it is not just a brochure published in 1991. The same bio was present on the Acton & Dystel and later Dystel & Goderich website starting in 1998. And it stayed there, and was edited during that time. It added that he was was the Junior Democratic Senator from Illinois, and that he was also the Keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention. It said “born in Kenya” until April of 2007, even though someone was obviously very diligent about updating it to add important new details.

Does anyone believe that Miriam Goderich was just updating all her clients bios for years, without once asking for an approval or asking for  permission to make the changes? I for one DO NOT think that she did that. Nor do I think that Mr. Obama never ONCE looked at his bio in 16 years. I believe that he was aware of it and was concerned with keeping is up to date and accurate. I believe he wrote it and maintained the “born in Kenya” until such time as it became important to have NOT been born in Kenya. From April 2007 on, he was “born in Hawaii”.

Just look at the screen shots. Does it make sense for anyone to leave inaccurate information on the internet for 16 years? These are from a very interesting site called archive.org – The Wayback Machine. Snapshots of web pages over the years have been preserved there. These are just some of hundreds of dates I could have used from the Dytsel & Goderich website over the last 15 years.

June  27,1998 – Born in Kenya

Dystel Obama Bio1998 - born in Kenya

September 1, 2005 – Junior Democratic Senator and Keynote speaker are added – still born in Kenya

Dystel Obama Bio 2005 Born in Kenya

March 26, 2007 – still “Born in Kenya”

Dystel Obama Bio March 2007 - born in Kenya

July 27, 2007 – A miracle – he was reborn in Hawaii – AND he’s a presidential candidate – how coincidental!  And his poor Dad is no longer a Finance Minister. How sad – just a regular fellow from a small town in Kenya…

Dystel Obama Bio July 2007 - NOW born in Hawaii

So there you have it.  Does anybody out there know anyone else over the age of 6 who has  allowed themselves to be incorrectly represented as having been born in a foreign country for a decade and half? Anyone Googling Barack Obama would have found this bio and would have no reason the doubt he was born in Kenya. This is why so many people are confused about where he was born.

More Evidence of Computer Generated Fraud on Obama’s Birth Certificate Date Stamp

gravatar

One of the first odd things I noticed on the birth certificate months ago, is what I call the “Frankenfive” It appears in the registrars date stamp that supposedly “certifies” the document. This can’t be a real rubber stamp. That little side “wing” is a dead giveaway. That is not something that would be found on a rubber office stamp. Like Frankenstein, it appears to be made of parts of other things – not what one wants to see on an official document, is it?

Here are the date stamps on the higher resolution Press photo/scan, and the form on http://www.whitehouse.gov. The stamp on the bottom shows a “5” from the same Hawaii date stamp from 6 weeks earlier. It is a regular “5” with NO WINGS.  That stamp could not have made the stamp on the 25th. No stamp could have. (FYI – take note that the MAR 15 is what a stamp on security paper and scanned to a computer SHOULD LOOK LIKE. The one on whitehouse.gov really shouldn’t be fooling anyone.)

astart

There is also a problem with positioning and sizing that can’t be explained by a rubber stamp. The vertical difference is okay for a stamp, the SIZE of the “5” and the horizontal positioning can’t be explained by a stamp.

Click to enlarge - see the many differences in the "fives" - that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

Click to enlarge – see the many differences in the “fives” – that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

I also want to address a common objection that “it’s just a smeared stamp.” or “It’s a dirty stamp.”  A dirty stamp will be blurry, no sharp edges as are shown here. If the stamp were smudged, all the numbers would be smudged. Here are some samples of smudged and dirty stamps that I did myself.  I can’t make just one or two numbers smudgy. The whole bar is affected by motion or double stamps. I can’t  stamp anything close to what we are seeing on the birth certificate.

amystamps

The Franken Five and its fellow “2” are not from a stamp – they are computer generated. How they were made interested me. Recreating them became a challenge, and if I could prove the birth certificate to be a fraud… well then, extra points for me. At the time, I made an intuitive guess that the forgers had altered a “6” to make a “5”, in order to CHANGE the date from 26 to 25, as you can see a faint rounded top on the higher resolution “5” that shouldn’t be there.  I assumed that the forgers had made a “mistake”, and I looked at the “5” from that perspective. However, since I completed my analysis of the “X” (click to read) I have come to the conclusion that what is being done graphically on this certificate, is being done intentionally, either as a “signature” or “catch me if you can type of thing”, rather than on a “need to” basis. In other words, they didn’t need to change the “5”, but they did anyway. My theory is that, like the “X”, it was done with the intention of “hiding something in plain sight.” On the “X” they left 4 random scratches as a “clue”. On the FrankenFive, they added “wings”.

With that new perspective, I decided to take another look at the FrankenFive to see if I could see anything differently than I did initially . With my understanding  of how creatively the “X” was done, I expanded my thoughts on what was used to make the ‘5”. My “six” recreation was close, but I wasn’t happy with it. It also now seemed too simple and mundane for whoever did this. The forger did something very interesting and creative with the “X”, so I looked harder at the “5”. In a classic example of deus ex machina, a reader mentioned to me that the “X” looked like a Greek “ Chi”. That was true, and just on a whim, I Googled “Greek numbers”, and this is what came up.

asigmas.

This is a Sigma. In some versions the call it  a Stigma. I gather that they are archaic, rarely used symbols. Please don’t lecture me about my lack of knowledge of Greek – I’m trusting Google. Anyway, what an interesting set of items we have here! I downloaded these examples, and was fascinated to find out how well the Sigmas worked for my little FrankenFive recreation.

This is two different Sigmas overlaid. The “wings” are the end tabs from the modern “Z like” Sigma. Then I added one vertical line and one horizontal line to connect them. So if the “X” is a pile of “2”, then the “5” is a pile of “sigmas” or Greek “6”s. Again, these are just rotated and resized, with slight erasures. I wasn’t trying to get an exact match, but …WOW!

afinal 5 copy

But wait, there’s MORE!

If you look at this date stamp, the “2” to its left is pretty funky. Again, it’s been assumed that it was made with a dirty stamp. Even I largely ignored it. But there it sat, next to the Five as I was doing the drag and drop with the Sigmas.  It actually has A LOT wrong with it – different width, front arch doesn’t match the 2011 “2”, and the width is bizarre. At some point, I took notice of the fat “2”, and out of curiosity, I dragged and dropped a sigma onto the “2” in 2011, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. If there was any doubt in my mind that I was heading the right direction with the Franken Five and the Sigmas, the fact that the “2” is also made with  overlaid Sigmas put that to rest. I’m not a gambler, and I hate math, but I bet the odds of this being a coincidence is pretty high.

afinal2

To conclude, I believe that the Sigmas are what are being hidden in plain sight. Do I know why? I have an idea, but it will need its own post. I know the objections I will get to this recreation. So, I will answer them all in one sentence. No, I don’t KNOW if this is HOW it was done, or WHY it was done, or even WHO did it. At this point, I’m just the investigator following the clues and putting them together the best I can.  What I do know at this point is that this stamp is a fraud. This 25 could not have been made with a date stamp. This number was made on a computer.

afinal25

FRAUDULENT STAMP  – FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATE.

100% Computer Generated Element on Obama Birth Certificate = Fraud

There is one “anomaly” on the birth certificate that is frequently mentioned, but has never been discussed. I think that’s because no one has any idea what to make of it. So it’s dismissed as “odd”. I’m going to tell why it’s more than “odd”. Because, I DO think I know what to make of it. It is a 100% computer generated element, and I can prove it step by step. If you want to see just the final comparison, skip to the bottom of the post. So what is this “anomaly”?

sinclairsig

Very ODD scribble in the M.D. box

It’s the scribble in the M.D. box next to David Sinclair’s signature. I suppose we are to believe that this Doctor, who signed the certificate in such neat and elegant script, suddenly had some kind of seizure or pen malfunction that caused him to scribble all over – not just his own box, but the box above it, too. It’s not just a big black scrawled “X”, there appears to be something lighter colored under it, and several stray lines above it. It’s just too weird for me to dismiss without a second – or third look. It looks intentional and not at all natural.

HRstart

High Resolution version of the FAKE computer generated “X”

So I decided to open the AP press version, which has a much higher resolution than the certificate with the green background  in Photoshop, because it is so much clearer and more detailed. This is what we see when we look at it zoomed in. Now this is looking very weird and very contrived. I dare you to write an “X” like this, right now. Pretend you’re filling out a form and need to mark a box. Is there ANY WAY that this is what you would do? I bet you can’t do it if you try. Because, it wasn’t done with a pen in 1961, or 2011, or EVER.

There are several other things wrong here, too.

  • For starters, the box itself is LARGER than all the other boxes. This is a  preprinted   form. The boxes should be the same size.
  • Second, is the very clear semicircle to the right of the center of the X. That is NOT a part of any natural hand drawn X.
  • There is also a lighter semicircle ABOVE the center of the “X” – not part of the “X”.
  • Also, the little lines above the X seem to start and stop on one side or the other of that big line. A natural scribble wouldn’t do that.

To me the whole “scribble” looked “manmade” i.e. computer generated, and it reeks of some kind of layering, and A LOT of graphic manipulation. I played around with the idea that parts of the signatures had been cut and pasted to make the “X”, but nothing fit those odd flares at the tips. I then decided to see if I could identify and/or recreate the base layer, which appears to be the lighter gray rounded area above the M.D. box. By adjusting the resolution in Photoshop, I decided that it most resembled a backwards “2”. To make a comparison, I typed a “2” next to the scribble, flipped it backward, and then started to run through the Photoshop fonts to see if I could find one that was a close match. I think I finally just ended up using Arial, but that’s not the important part now. The important part is what I saw when I used the font “segoe script”.

big2

Note the flaring base on this number

And there it was. The base of the “2” appeared to match the swooping ends of the “X”. Just for fun, I erased the top of the two and dragged the base over to the original scribble and overlayed it. And to my absolute AMAZEMENT, with only a minor bit of rotating  and resizing, it matched the main parts of the “X” with 100% accuracy. This stunned me. Not only did the background of the scribble appear to be  two Arial “2” s, one gray and one black, but the main “X” was made of “2”s also. The scribble is a pile of “2”s. Before you tell me to get my tinfoil hat, just look at the 100% match – original and computer generated.

comparison1

This is just down and dirty cut and paste with minimal reorientation and resizing – REMARKABLE MATCH, dontcha think? Mystery of the “X” solved, if you ask me. Here’s where the people who refuse to see the problems with this document will say, “Why would someone go to all that effort?” I can tell you what I think. Someone started with a blank certificate scanned into a graphics program, and they needed to add an “X” . They couldn’t just draw it in with a pen as there was no paper document. So they had to graphically design something that resembled handwriting. Pretty ingenious. I DO KNOW this “X’ was not made with a pen.  And I DO KNOW that this pile of “2”s is an irrefutable match. This “X” was computer generated. 

So with the “X” solved, I then turned my attention to the scribbles in the box above it. The more I looked at the scratches, the more I realized I KNEW what I was looking at. I was looking at FOUR MORE bases of segoe script “2”s – rotated and resized.

1comparioan2 copy

Again, this is just a quick cut and paste job – no real editing at this point – but the match is REMARKABLE. As to why they are there, I can only reference my own experience with Photoshop “drag and drop” elements and layering. A new element has to be dropped on the page from another page. If there are a lot of layers open, sometimes the element gets “misplaced”. Sometimes a layer that was hidden gets revealed by accident when another layer moves. It is complicated, but very possible for this type of error to occur when a lot of elements are being relocated in a GRAPHICS PROGRAM. It may also have been intentional.

1comparison3 copy

I have done a slight bit of erasing – I wasn’t trying to make it an exact match. My point wasn’t to duplicate the element exactly, the point was to show how easy it is to recreate the element just by cutting and pasting a whole pile of 2’s.  I know what “they” will say. “It’s just a coincidence.” Well, I think too many coincidences start to be a real Incidence. Nine times I was able to place the base of a segoe print “2” in positions to 100% match the original document. That stops being coincidence.

1greenfinal

The one on the Right is the one I made today in Photoshop with Twos

On this comparison,  I printed the gray  example from above onto green bar paper, because that is how I believe the certificate was made, then I scanned it into the computer, which is what I think the White House did. It is the SAME as the original. This a fully computer generated element, as there is NO HANDWRITING involved in this scribble. As the whole certificate, in my opinion, is computer generated, the “X” had to be computer generated also. They couldn’t use real pen and ink, because there was no real paper certificate.  It was NOT copied directly from an old 1961 form. This “X’ doesn’t exist on any paper document prior to it’s creation in 2011.  It was MADE in a computer, as was the entire Obama Long Form Birth Certificate.

A Tale of Four Fraudulent Obama Birth Certificates

Below are the Four (4) versions of the Obama Long Form Birth Certificate that the White House has provided to the public to prove that the President was born in Hawaii. Please take note that they look quite different! They are all scaled here to an 8.5 x 11 background. As they are all of the same “certificate” and have the same “stamps” – one must be the parent and the rest are its offspring.  But which one started it all? Ah, that is the question.  The candidates are:

Four DIFFERENT versions of Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate - FOUR !!!

Four DIFFERENT versions of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate – FOUR !!!

  1. The photo taken by reporter Savannah Guthrie of the “actual paper document.” She reported that she “felt the raised seal”
  2. Ah… here we have a conundrum. This is a SUPER high resolution version released as a PDF to the press so they could “report” on it and tell us all the Birth Certificate problem was solved
  3. The green PDF that in on http://www.whitehouse.gov to show us idjits the “proof”
  4. And here is an even BIGGER conundrum. It is a larger and less clear version of #3 that was actually placed in the press packets on April 27, 2011 when the announcement of the birth certificate was made. (Here’s a hint – this is the Parent) Note the shadowy bleed through of another document.

Let’s tell the White House fairy tale of the Birth Certificate. In the White House story, on April 25, 2011, Hawaii made a copy of the Certificate that they have in the big orange binder. Then they put the black and white copy on a copy machine and ran green security paper through, so the certificate had a nice green background instead of being white. Then Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, took the green paper to the Registrar, Alvin Onaka and he stamped it and put a big embossed seal on it to make it all super official. Then Obama’s lawyer flew in and picked it up and flew it to Washington DC for its big debut to America on April 27, 2011. We are supposed to believe that certificate #1, as photographed by Savannah Guthrie is that document, and it’s so new and fresh from Hawaii that it still smells like coconuts.

#1 – Savannah Guthrie’s Photo

Now, I imagine that Ms. Guthrie, though not a legal expert, can identify security paper and a raised seal. What she photographed is a piece of 8.5 x 11 security paper, with a rudimentary (and fake(link) ) raised seal. I’ve show the certificate below to scale, though she only photographed the center section with the pertinent data. The color is not really green,  but let’s assume bad lighting. Ms. Guthrie is now the only EYE WITNESS to the PAPER DOCUMENT.

Photo of Obama LFBC taken by Savannah Guthrie

Photo of Obama LFBC taken by Savannah Guthrie

#3 – The “official” version on http://www.whitehouse.gov

The next part of the story is that someone from the White House scanned that paper document that smelled like coconuts into the www.whitehouse.gov website, and voila… we have the PDF for all the world to see. This is version #2. Notice that it is a little smaller than the” original” #1 – but let’s assume the scanner shrinks it for some reason of its own. Now, if you zoom in, it’s clear that all the green lines match up when documents #1 and #2 are compared. You can overlay the certificates and the stamps and they match.

This is the "official" PDF version on www.whitehouse.gov

This is the “official” PDF version on http://www.whitehouse.gov

I will accept that #2 is a scan of #1. It’s very fuzzy, the resolution isn’t good. There are MANY, MANY scanning anomalies, the worst being the white halos around all the lettering. There is no really good reason for this. I personally believe it was done intentionally to make it all look “old” and “hard to read” and lowering the ability to spot the flaws that are there in this copy of a fraudulent document. (Which makes no sense once we look at the next two versions)  But for now, let’s accept that it is a poor resolution scan of #1. So, if #1 as photographed by Ms. Guthrie is the bona fide coconut smelling Hawaiian document – we’re good with #2 and our President. Not so fast….

# 2 High Resolution version Released to the Press

Next in the public presentation are  versions #2 and  #4. #4 is a white paper copy that was placed in the Press Kits on April 27, 2011. I have MAJOR problems with this document. Let’s talk about #2 and #4 together, because #2 is a cropped version of #4 that was released to the Press as a High Resolution version of the Birth Certificate.  The two biggest questions I have on this version are:

Note the incredibly HIGH RESOLUTION of this document. Why does this exist??

Note the incredibly HIGH RESOLUTION of this document. Why does this exist??

How did the green background disappear? And HOW did they raise the resolution about 1000%? WHY DOES THIS VERSION EXIST?

I know that many people think that the green bars are a background “layer” in the forgery, and they just “removed the layer” to make these two plain paper versions. I don’t think that.

I don’t think  that #3 and #4 CAME FROM #1 the Guthrie paper,  or #3 the Green PDF.  Just look at this thing! Zoom in on it. It is LIGHT YEARS better than the supposed “parent” paper document. That paper document could NOT produce anything of this quality. I  know that it is possible to take backgrounds out in graphics programs – threshold, magic wand and background eraser  all do an “okay” job, but they don’t produce anything of this quality and clarity. And with regards to the resolution, if the data and pixels weren’t there, and from the photo #1 and the green PDF #3, they WEREN’T, they can’t just APPEAR on this document. So if the parents of #2 weren’t #1 or #3 where does that leave us?

The White House fairy tale of the coconut smelling Hawaiian paper document #1 that Savannah Guthrie touched doesn’t hold water. That paper document, though it could be the parent of #3, is more like a brother of #2 and NONE of them is the ORIGINAL STAMPED document from Hawaii. The White House story is a lie – just like most fairy tales. So let’s retell it so it all makes more sense. And I warn you, this is going to get weird and complicated, but hang in there.

 I think that #4 is the black and white copy that was copied on security paper to MAKE paper document #1 and scanned document #3, and High Resolution #2,  and I know it didn’t came from  Hawaii. So here it goes…. Let’s start at the beginning – 5 years ago– with the Short Form Birth Certificate that was shown to us in 2008 before the first election. It’s also on the www. whitehouse.gov website. Interesting article here regarding that certificate:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/331525/

This jist of the linked article is that the Short Form Certificate that was on the White House web site in April 27, 2011 was a forgery created by Ron Pollard, Phd. I would have dismissed this claim, but for two things – the article is very accurate in its documentation, and SOMEHOW that short form got into the back ground of form #4. There is another green short form on whitehouse.gov now, but the original white one is the one we want to use, as it is the one the White House was using in April 2011.

# 4 – White Version with Short Form Bleed Through in the Press Packet

Plain paper LFBC placed in Press Packets on  4/27/2011 - note bleed through and lack of background

Plain paper LFBC placed in Press Packets on 4/27/2011 – note bleed through and lack of
background

Now let’s look at Birth Certificate #4. This was a copy that was placed in the press packet for all the reporters to see on April 27, 2011. It  is on 8.5 x 11 white paper with no green background.  Behind it, clear as day is the White copy of the Short Form Certificate that was on the White House Website in April 2011.  What this tells us is that, whether the Certificate was reproduced on a copier, or photographed, as reported by Brendan Smialowski for Getty Images, it was a thin white paper over another white paper that allowed the bleed through. There was no security green background. It was white paper. Why was there no green background?

You can clearly see the overlay that was accidentally included on the LFBC in the Press Packets. I used a green certificate to see the contrast. A white one was released.

You can clearly see the overlay that was accidentally included on the LFBC in the Press Packets. I used a green certificate to see the contrast. A white one was released.

This is an OVERLAY of the two documents. I used a green copy of the LFBC for contrast, but note that the underlying Short Form lines up precisely in the same way as the #4 form that was in the Pres Packet. Why were they copying a WHITE COPY of the Birth Certificate if the GREEN copy was the OFFICIAL DOCUMENT?

If we believe that the copy Savannah Guthrie saw was the actual Hawaiian coconut smelling document, then,  after it was scanned for version #3, the background would have had to be digitally removed to make this white copy. This would have been nearly impossible to do so cleanly. And let’s just think about this for a second. Why would ANYONE take a “real” copy of their birth certificate and use some super technology to REMOVE the background??? Why?

A FAR MORE LIKELY STORY – the white image #4/#3 IS THE PARENT IMAGE. It was the one created on the computer. That’s why it has no background, and why the resolution is so high. Those would be two keys for a successful forgery. The background has to be clear and at high resolution, so it is possible for the forger to see clearly what he was adding or deleting. It is apparent that I am disagreeing with the “layer” people that say that because Version #3 green PDF can be opened in layers, that it is the forgery. The “layers” present don’t make sense for a forger. They make more sense for an OCR scanner.

The forgery was done on a white or transparent background. It was copied to security paper for Savannah Guthrie to see,  and copied in its white form for the press with the bleed through. I think the bleed through copy  was a mistake. The White House pretty quickly released the really High resolution cropped document #2 for the press, I think hoping they wouldn’t examine the other one too closely. Even though #2 is cropped, it is still possible to see the bleed through in the document.

People have asked, why can’t it be the black and white copy be the one from the copier in Hawaii? It can’t be because it has the registrars “stamps” that were supposedly added after it was copied to green paper. The B&W real copy would have no stamps. This raises the question of the “stamps”. If none of these versions came from Hawaii, where did the stamps come from? I have said all along that they are computer generated and/or edited. I think that Hawaii sent something with stamps on it. I think the stamps were digitally lifted from this document and placed on white version #4. I also think something went seriously wrong in the transfer. (See the bad date stamp)  This may be their biggest mistake – or the biggest red flag, as it may have been intentional.

There was interesting exchange of letters in 2012, between the Secretary of State of Arizona and Alvin Onaka, the registrar who was responsible for stamping the Birth Certificate. http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf  The question asked of Registrar Alvin Onaka in writing was, “Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.” The answer was carefully avoidant, “Additionally, I verify that the information in the Copy of the Certification of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.” Alvin Onaka  is NOT verifying that the whitehouse.gov PDF is what they certified. And Dr. Fuddy who oversaw the copying died mysteriously recently.

So there you have it – The Tale of Four Obama Birth Certificates.

  1. A fraudulent birth certificate (version # 4) was made in a computer on a white or transparent background. The seals were lifted from the real documents. I maintain that they were doctored VERY badly for some reason, possibly to change the date to the 25th. (see how)This white copy was placed in the press packets.
  2. This was then copied to green security paper, (version #1) because I cannot believe that Savannah Guthrie would be fooled by a computer generated green background on white paper. Print it yourself. It wouldn’t fool anyone.
  3. It was then cropped when the “bleed though” was noticed. (version #3)
  4. Paper version #1 was scanned to make the green PDF (version #2)

It absolutely defies logic. No one has two (or more) versions of their birth certificate. They have ONE birth certificate, and if they need to copy it – they do just that. THEY COPY IT. They don’t scan it and remove the background and then reprint it. They don’t have a plain white clean copy that they reprint on security paper. Forget the technology side of it – REAL PEOPLE DON’T DO THAT. Criminals and forgers do.

Where is the Embossed Seal on your Birth Certificate Mr. O?

What I am basically trying to show in my posts is that no “High Tech” is needed to see that the document being presented to us as “proof” of the Presidents Hawaiian birth is NOT A REAL DOCUMENT. We just need our eyes and our brains. One of the most important things that almost all official documents need is the OFFICIAL RAISED SEAL. We all have them – on deeds and licenses and wills and bank checks and birth certificates – you name it.

A raised seal helps show the authenticity of a paper document, and makes it harder to pass off a forgery. The Obama Long Form Birth Certificate has a fraudulent seal on it. It is NOT the official seal from the Hawaii Health Department. I believe that a generic stamped seal was lightly applied to the document so that the reporter, Savannah Guthrie, that was allowed to touch it was able to “feel the raised seal” and report that fact. You can buy these seals at craft stores with the little gold stars to make official certificates for your club or coworkers. They are a lot of fun and do make things look very official.

I think our President has a cute fun little “seal” on his “official birth certificate”. That’s not so fun for us… Check it out below.

Click to enlarge this set of stamped seals. Compare the differences between the top two legitimate stamps and the bottom two off the Obama "certificate"

Click to enlarge this set of stamped seals. Compare the differences between
the top two legitimate stamps and the bottom two off the Obama “certificate”

More on the FrankenFive Stamp that Proves the Obama Birth Certificate to be a Fraud

The FrankenFive and I have gotten very attached in the past few weeks, what with people trying to discredit him and saying  he’s just a “stamping mistake” instead of the incredibly fraudulent little creature he really is. (Read about him and my analysis here.)

gravatar

But in an effort to discredit him, someone sent me a very clear scan of a date stamp from the Hawaii Department of Health  (which had nothing to do with Obama) to show me how “substantially similar” the “5” in the MAR 15 was to the FrankenFive in the Obama Birth Certificate APR 25. It’s a little like saying that George Clooney is “substantially similar” to George Carlin, but I digress. However,  this new scan was actually very helpful to my cause of proving that the FrankenFive is not only a strange little character, but that he is also NOT part of that stamper.

For those of you not familiar with the tedious chore of date stamping, there are a couple of pictures below of the most common types of date stamps. There are Four rollers that must be changed manually to set the date correctly. The YEAR is rolled into place in January. Each MONTH the roller is advanced to position at the bottom of the stamp. Each DAY there are TWO rollers that are changed to make the new day, both   0 – 9. The goal each day is to have them line up to make a straight line, then they get inked on a stamp pad, and when pressed down – voila – the correct date is stamped.  It’s not uncommon to have the DAY numbers be slightly higher or lower than the month and/or year, if you don’t take time each morning to set the alignment correctly.

rubber stamps

What IS NOT possible is for one number to move to the right or the left. These stamps are tight and sturdy without any “wiggle” room.  So when I lined them up to compare the “substantially similar” Fives, I noticed that they were not only very DISSIMILAR, what with one being a FrankenFive,  but….

  1. They WERE NOT in the same position on the “stamp”
  2. They are DIFFERENT SIZES

I have place the correct REAL date stamp on the top, with the Obama Birth Certificate “stamp”  on the bottom. The red lines and dots show that they are scaled and aligned correctly. The blue brackets on the “R” shows that the two stamps are the same height. All the other numbers  and letters line up 100%.

Click to enlarge - see the many differences in the "fives" - that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

Click to enlarge – see the many differences in the “fives” – that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

Except for the FrankenFive.  Not only does he not look like the REAL five, but he is too close to the 2011, and he is significantly taller than the real five. (note the blue brackets to the left of the fives. The brackets are the same size.)  FrankenFive is a one of a kind. He is not a STAMP. He was computer generated. (see my analysis here) And now, thanks to his detractor, I can show that the FrankenFive could not have been part of the same stamp that stamped the MAR 15  just 6 weeks earlier.

People have asked me “Why would anyone bother to make a fake computer generated stamp?” That’s a very good question, and I don’t know the answer. Two possibilities come to mind.  First, what I have proposed on my analysis – it was a “6” and because the White House said Obama’s lawyers picked up the Birth Certificate in Hawaii on the 25th  it was necessary to change the 6 to a 5, and whoever was responsible for doing it had limited time and minimal resources and/or skills. Second, it’s absolutely possible that whoever did this WANTED it to be spotted to flag this Obama Birth Certificate as a fraud. If so, we are letting them down.

What I DO KNOW is that someone DID make a fraudulent “stamp”. And I am still looking for a “better” answer to how the FrankenFive  came to exist. I’d be glad to hear new ideas. But, as it stands now, without a valid registrars stamp, this entire birth certificate becomes worthless.  It is outrageous that this has been foisted on us by our president. It is even more outrageous that as a country we aren’t standing up for ourselves and demanding to be shown the original certificate. I cannot even imagine the depths of what he must be hiding from us.

As an aside, the person who personally verified that this was a true and valid document was Dr. Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health. She supposedly died mysteriously following a plane accident in December 2013. She had been subpoenaed several times to provide the actual birth certificate. I think it was getting to the point where she wasn’t going to be able to ignore the subpoenas indefinitely. The circumstances of the “death” are exceedingly odd. So odd in fact, that I’m starting to wonder if this accident was staged. They were all in on it and she is alive and well and retired somewhere else now, but more on that later. The point is, Dr. Loretta  Fuddy KNEW that what is on the whitehouse.gov website as the official  long form birth certificate is either a fraud, to which she was an accomplice, OR – that it is NOT the document that she certified. Either way, she’s 65 and she wanted to get out now. For her sake,  I hope it worked, but I wish she had straightened this whole Birth Certificate fiasco out first.