CONSPIRACY — but not theory — phony ‘president’ releases phony ‘proof’

Posted on Thu, 28 Apr 2011 by Tom Kovach

Barack Hussein Obama II, the purported “president”, has released his purported “birth certificate”. It’s about as genuine as Obama’s teleprompted speeches or his purported “auto”-biography (which has been thoroughly deconstructed). Yet, the Lamestream News Media is trying to say that the issue is now “settled”. In reality, the new document raises more questions than it answers.

Obama's purported "birth certificate" -- released by White House on 27 Apr 2011. (To view separately, right-click, then open in new window.)

Questions

If the document released on 27 Apr 2011 is the “real” proof of Obama’s purported birth in Hawaii, then what does that say about the document that his campaign released during the 2008 campaign?
If the document released on 27 Apr 2011 “now” settles the matter, then why did the Lamestream News Media say that the matter was settled by the previous document?
(Several online writers have already asked this question by the time I could type this.) If all he needed to do was “say the word” to release this purported “long-form birth certificate”, then why did he not say the word before the 2008 election? And, why did he refuse to release this document last year, when it was demanded during the discovery phase of the court-martial of LTC Terry Lakin?
After almost three years of public debate and lawsuits, didn’t Obama realize that the document shows his father as a Kenyan citizen — and, therefore, proves that Obama is not eligible for the Oval Office? (And, if he did not realize it, then what type of “Constitutional law professor” is he??)

The Document
Other writers have already published some analyses of the document, and have pointed out some substantial flaws. In a couple of areas, my analysis will build upon their work. The fact that the document fails scrutiny from so many angles proves that the “proof” is really no proof at all.

Karl Denninger, blogging in The Market Ticker, uses a technique that I cannot duplicate — because I have neither the software nor the level of experience that he displays. His post is titled “You’ve GOT to be Kidding Me“, and for ample reason. It is a must-read, because it obliterates any possibility that the document was not digitally pieced together. Thus, I will use his work as a starting point for the presentation of my own examination. (Click the link to see Denninger’s proof that the date stamp is a fake. For even further detail, he has also made a 10-minute video, in which he explains the importance of “chromatic aberration”. Double hat-tip to Andrea Shea-King, “The Radio Patriot“, for posting Denninger’s information.)

During my career in the Air Force, it was my privilege to have been trained by a variety of investigators — civilian police detectives, OSI agents, Secret Service agents, Customs agents, etc. So, although I’m a bit more technologically-savvy than NCIS Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, like him I usually prefer to rely upon good, old-fashioned logic and forensics. (And, that is usually good enough to catch most liars — including the current Liar-in-Chief.)

: Same stamp, with same blotch, in different offices?? Not likely! (For larger image, right-click, then open in new window.)

As the above graphic shows, the same digitally-inserted phony date stamp was inserted into the blanks for two different offices. One is a county-level office, and one is a state-level office. Therefore, it would’ve been impossible for the same stamp to be in two different locations. Apparently, the forger was not only careless, but also his carelessness was apparently caused by the haughty notion that those of us out here in “flyover country” are too stupid to notice such details. (That seems to be a recurring theme among Obamatrons.)
Such forensic evidence — which calls into question not only the authenticity of the document, but also the logical possibility that the document could be authentic — is especially convincing in a criminal trial for forgery. Given that this particular document was posted on an official Web page of the White House, and announced via an official news conference, then this particular felony falls under the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause of the Constitution regarding impeachment. (The problem is that, if he was never really the president in the first place, then he cannot be “impeached”. However, he most certainly can be “removed”. The only question is whether Congress has the fortitude for the task, or will they — as is often the case — leave their dirty work for the military?) One of the attorneys for one of the several lawsuits against Obama regarding his eligibility, Mario Apuzzo, proved last year that Congress likely does not have the guts for the job. Apuzzo uncovered an official talking-points memo that shows members of Congress how to bamboozle their constituents on the question of eligibility. If they don’t have what it takes to even talk with voters about the topic, then how can they be expected to actually commit any action??

After my career in the Air Force, I worked as a paralegal in various law offices. During my paralegal training, I learned the “probative value” of a particular type of statement. It is called a “statement against interests”. Whenever a suspect or a witness makes a statement against his own interests, then that statement is considered to be true, because the person put himself at risk in order to bring the information to light. An example would be an inmate that said, “I could not have killed Billy in Cell Block 8, because I was sawing through the bars of Cell Block 27 at that time, and you can ask Big Guido, because he was there with me.” The inmate admitted to a different crime in order to protect himself from a greater crime. It was a statement “against his interests”, because he could’ve tried to say that he was in the kitchen baking a cake instead (and because Big Guido is gonna pummel him later!).

In the instant case of the purported “birth certificate”, Obama has made a statement against his own interests. The document states that his father, Barack Hussein Obama, was a citizen of Kenya at the time of “Junior’s” birth. By being a citizen of Kenya, the father was incapable of conveying “natural-born” American citizenship upon Baby Barack. Under another legal doctrine, “action proves intent”, we must accept the notion that the current occupier of the White House intended to tell the world that he is not eligible to live there. Not only did he release the document, but as a former “Constitutional law professor”, surely he must have known what would be the result of this information. And, because the action was also “against interests”, therefore we must accept that Obama Senior’s citizenship of Kenya must be true. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that Obama is eligible to sit in the Oval Office. And, there is absolutely no way that he did not know that. And, because of his background as a “Constitutional law professor”, there is absolutely no way that he did not know that prior to filling out the papers to apply to become a candidate for president. That, ladies and gentlemen, is admission of a felony — which was committed “with knowledge aforethought”.

But, wait, there’s more
Perhaps some of Obama’s defenders are thinking, “Well, maybe he knew that his father was a Kenyan citizen, but there is no way that Obama would be part of the conspiracy to commit such a massive fraud upon the American people. Right?“ Wrong!

By appearing in person at the news conference, and by personally commenting about the “certificate”, Barack Hussein Obama II has inserted himself into the web of conspiracy. And, the conspiracy to commit a felony is, itself, a felony — even if the planned misdeed is never consummated. Example: a group of Muslim terrorists are arrested with bomb-making materials and the blueprints of various churches and synagogues, after one of the conspirators has an attack of conscience and confesses to the police. The bombs were never placed at their targets. No matter. The suspects were still involved in a conspiracy to commit multiple felonies (assault, arson, murder). Therefore, the conspiracy itself is also a felony. The only way that Obama could extract himself from a charge of conspiracy would be to admit that he forged the “certificate” all by himself. It is highly unlikely that “The One” would take the fall for some “useful idiot” that is good with computer graphics. (Well … sorta good, but now “busted”. Keep reading.)

More proof that disproves the “proof”
Let’s get back to some old-fashioned forensics — the kind that would make Abby Sciuto proud. Denninger’s work showed that the “certificate” was the product of digital doctoring. My look at the date stamps shows that the forger was careless. But, there are several other points about the “certificate” that prove that the document proves nothing. (Except, of course, for the embedded statement against interests that legally renders Obama both ineligible for the Oval Office and simultaneously provides his confession of guilt for election fraud. Hmmmmmmm.)

Now, let’s build upon the work of another well-known Obama researcher, Dr. Jerome Corsi — author of The Obama Nation and the upcoming Where’s the Birth Certificate?, to be released in less than three weeks. Almost two years ago, Dr. Corsi obtained photostatic copies of the authentic birth certificates of twin girls that were born in the same hospital that Obama claims as his birthplace; and, those babies were born the day after of Obama’s purported birth there. So, the birth certificates should be identical in format. Right??
Interestingly, Corsi showed that the document number of Obama’s purported “certificate” is out of sequence with the known authentic certificates. Obama’s document number comes after, even though he was purportedly born before, those of the Nordyke twins. And, building upon his own previous work, Corsi showed earlier today that it was the state registrar, and not the individual hospitals, that assigned those document numbers in 1961. Therefore, it would be almost impossible for the numbers to be out of sequence with the chronological order of the births. But, wait, there’s more.

Building upon the investigation by Dr. Corsi, and applying old-fashioned forensics, let’s compare the document numbers themselves. Now that Corsi has proven that the numbers came from only one office — the state registrar — then the numbering format must be identical. That is because the numbers must have come from the same date stamper. Any differences must prove that one set of documents is not authentic. And, if it comes down to “either/or”, then the person with the greatest motive becomes the suspect. Remaining in the White House would be regarded by “any reasonable person” as a significant motive.

: Too many differences for these two documents to have been date-stamped by the same machine in the same office. (For larger view, right-click, then open in new window.)

As the above graphic shows, the actual document numbers on Obama’s purported “certificate” do not line up correctly. The digits, especially the middle “0″ and “6″, are at a different angle. It appears that each digit was placed individually by digital insertion, instead of all being stamped at the same time by a machine. (Relying upon Denninger’s electronic analysis, the final “1″ may have been on the original source document that was the foundation for this apparent forgery.)

We see that the document numbers are out of sequence. Even given that Obama’s purported birthdate (04 Aug 1961) was on a Friday, which means that both parent’s signatures were obtained the following Monday (that is possible), and thus it is possible that both original documents were received via regular mail by the state registrar on Tuesday, there is still a glaring irregularity.

Two brand-new mothers with the SAME handwriting??

As the above graphic shows, the chances of two brand-new mothers having nearly-identical handwriting — down to unique features, such as the odd angle of the hyphen and the elevated numeral — is almost impossible. That those two mothers would end up in the same hospital, far from their original homes, on the same weekend, makes the chances that much less. And, this staggeringly impossible feature of a document, coupled with the other impossible features, makes its forgery a virtual certainty. The only thing missing is a jury.

OOOOPS! Don't tell me that the State of Hawaii simply FORGOT that detail.

The problem of the fake “birth certificate” released yesterday is compounded by two other facts. The first is that the new one — ostensibly the most closely-examinded document in the world — has no official raised seal. The authentic document does. That is not the sort of thing that a trained and experienced document registrar would overlook, especially in these circumstances. But, it is the type of thing that some starry-eyed, Left-wing, college-age computer geek would overlook. And, that is exactly the type of Obamatron that could be easily thrown under the bus if this case ever goes to trial. Before our illustrious “leader” does one day in prison, he and his team of lawyers will make sure that the “useful idiot” geek does ten years.

Of course, there are still more anomalies that prove Obama’s document is a forgery. One could argue, illogically, that the same office in the same hospital had two different typewriters upon which to type birth certificates. However, even if that were true, then it still would not explain why the same character (a comma) looks three different ways on the same document. That is a clear forensic “tell” of a forged document. See the graphic below. (For a larger view, right-click, and then open in a new window.) This situation, of course, adds a whole new meaning to the joke about the “Obama comma“.

Same typewriter, but different commas, on the same document? No, not really. It's a bleepin' FORGERY!

And, of course, there is another detail or two that the State of Hawaii apparently “forgot”. The first is a thing called “compelling state interest”. First, the state (which is heavily controlled by the Democratic Party) said that no one — not even Obama himself — could obtain an official copy of the long-form certificate. (Well, if that were true, then how did Mrs. Nordyke get one?) Then, various officials claimed that they had seen it, but then they offered no proof. But, then, another official came forward and said that it does not exist at all, and that his superiors know that it does not exist. Well, since the first group of officials failed to provide proof that it does exist, and then another official made a spontaneous “statement against interests”, via affidavit, that it does not exist, the only one that meets the legal standard of proof is the statement that it does not exist. And, if it does not exist, then how did the State of Hawaii copy it??

And, if his “birth certificate” is a fake, then how did Obama get a driver’s license or register for the draft? Oh, well … no problem, because his draft registration was a fake, too. (If you don’t have time to read the entire three-part investigative column series, then you can listen to the three-minute explanation on talk-radio.) How is it that a man can presume to be the commander-in-chief after having a phony draft registration? Oh, duh! It’s because his mentor dodged the draft completely, and did so by writing an official letter that said he found himself, “loathing the military.”

Barack Hussein Obama II might sit in the single most powerful office in the United States, but he cannot be everywhere and do everything — even though he seems to think that he can. (Perhaps his followers, the Obamatrons, ascribe his “mystical powers” to the fact that his peculiar background qualifies him as The ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ of American politics!) So, unless he admits to lowering himself to sneaking into state offices at night to steal blank documents, making his own photocopies, and sitting at a computer for hours on end to doctor up a new “birth certificate”, then the only logical conclusion is that at least one other person was involved in this fraud upon the American people (and upon our courts). And, if another person was involved, then that is a conspiracy. And, with this much proof, then this is more than a mere “theory”.
——————————————————————–