Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

How I Faked Obama's Short-form Birth Certificate

     Over the past couple of years, copies of Barack Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) have circulated the Internet. At the least, mucho gigabytes of bandwidth have been used attempting to prove that it was a fake, and to explain—in their not-so-humble opinions—just how it was faked. Usually, they use such highly technical language that my eyes glaze over with each attempt to understand their explanations.
     As far as I know, no one—until now—has attempted to duplicate the Obama team’s alleged fakery. In the image below (click image for enlargement), you will see a fake COLB, supposedly proving that “Barack Hussean O’Bama” was born in the town of Colonia, Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia, on April Fools Day 2012. If you compare this image to the second image, you’ll see that my version of the COLB was Photoshopped from the form that Obama claims is legitimate.
My fake Obama COLB:
(Click image for enlargement.)
Obama's fake COLB:
(Click image for enlargement.)
     After completing the fake, I examined it and was surprised to see that my lettering was better done than the lettering in the original. If you save the images to your computer and zoom in on the print in Obama’s version, you’ll see that some of the letters have white spaces where white spaces shouldn’t be. The words I added to my version of it don’t have that problem.
     I used Photoshop CS3, which is an older version of Photoshop. I copied part of the background, in a rectangular shape, and layered it over the original lettering. Then I reduced the opacity of the new layer so that I could see the lettering.
     To add my version of the words, I clicked the type tool and used an Arial font. For most of the lettering I was faking, the 9-point and 10-point lettering were perfect matches. In some of the lettering at the top, when I went to 12-point font, it wasn’t perfect, but it was still pretty close.
     Once I got the lettering in place, I returned the layer (matching the background pattern) opacity back to 100% and used the "select" tool to single out only that part of the layer that the lettering would cover. I then clicked “select inverse” and deleted all parts of the layer that were not covered by the lettering. Then I flattened the image.
     As for the official seal of Yap State, I found the seal on the Wikipedia page, saved it and moved it to the fake COLB. I increased the size so that it was similar to the seal of Hawaii, moved it into place, and reduced the opacity by half so that I could see the seal of Hawaii and the seal of Yap State at the same time. Using the same process I had used for the lettering, I put the background pattern in front of the Hawaii state seal, removed the white from the Yap State seal, and improved the seal’s contrast and brightness/darkness balance. Then I flattened the image.
     People who believe in the validity of Obama’s version of the COLB have suggested that it would have been extremely difficult to fake it. They also suggest that a high degree of computer savvy must have been involved; and that, if it’s a fake, it must have taken a long time to accomplish a fake as convincing as the one Obama has presented to us. They’re wrong on all three counts.
     Anyone who knows me knows how little I know about computers. I’ve been using the same Photoshop program for about ten years and still use the same basic functions that I used ten years ago. I believe that most teenagers know more about computers and computer programs than I do.
     As for time, it took me less than an hour to fake “O’bama’s” Certificate of Live Birth. If a lao-ko-ko (old fogey) such as I can do it that easily, how hard can it be for someone with the resources of the presidency behind him?

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Honor the Veterans by Listening to What They have to Say: Bring them Home and Don't Start More Wars for Them to Fight

     (I had intended to post part three of the four-part series on the 9/11 hijackers.  With the several important presidential primaries coming up in a few days, I thought it best to post this article now and postpone the 9/11 article until tomorrow.)
     Supporters of endless wars of aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere have no defense for their warmongering, so they try to use America's war veterans as human shields.  The line goes, if you don't support the war, you're not supporting the veterans who have sacrificed for our freedoms—period, end of sentence, no more discussion.
     So how are we told to support the veterans?  Put a yellow sticker on your car, hold parades in their name—supposedly in their honor, but actually in honor of the banksters and other chicken hawks who sent them to fight—but don't by any means listen to what the veterans have to say about the wars they're sent to fight.
     Fully 70% of the campaign contributions from combat troops to presidential candidates is sent to the only presidential candidate who wants America to end the wars, bring the troops home, and not start another war.  Below is the link to a video asking American voters to honor the troops by listening to what they have to say.  
You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy
     With few exceptions, the corporate-owned media can't bring themselves to mention Ron Paul without a smirk or some remark to the effect that he can't win. From the ways they conduct themselves, it's clear that they're scared to death that he will win. Comedian Jon Stewart uses actual news clips to illustrate that point:
John Stewart Shows How Ron Paul Is Feared By The NWO Mafia Controlled Mainstream Media
     Barack Obama gets undeserved pats on the back for ending the war in Iraq—the war that George W. Bush started on false pretenses, and which Obama, as a presidential candidate, promised to end immediately after being sworn in as President.  When Mr. Obama "ended" the war in Iraq, he left in place an Iraqi puppet ruler and 15,000 Blackwater/Xe mercenaries.  Further, his administration has made it abundantly clear that the troops that were pulled out of Iraq are slated to be redeployed in a war with Iran.
     Do we honor our combat veterans by bringing them home to win the peace, or do we send them to sacrifice in yet another war that most of the troops do not support and which is none of our business?  Rachel Maddow reports:
Maddow: "Ron Paul Is The Only Presidential Candidate That Doesn't Want To Start Another War!"

     Oh, we're told that we should support the candidate who the corporate-owned media tell us has the best chance of beating Obama in the 2012 election.  Why should we?  Is it because of Obama's numerous and endless wars, most of which were started by a Republican President; by his assault on the Constitution, which is but a continuation and expansion of a Republican President's actions from 2001-2009; or is it because of Obama's ties to Wall Street looters such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley?
     Follow the money trail:
     Mitt Romney may, as the corporate-owned media tell us, have the "best" chance of beating Obama in November, but do we really want to replace one Obama with another?  The biggest difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney doesn't need a teleprompter.  The second biggest difference is that Obama is controlled by Wall Street insiders, while Romney, for all practical purposes, is a Wall Street insider.
     Every endorsement of Romney I've ever heard or read has been based solely on the notion that we should vote for him because he has the best chance of beating Obama.  In telling us this, Romney's endorsers are telling us to vote our fears when we should be voting our hopes.
    Combat troops in the Middle East and elsewhere have to face their fears every day.  They, whom we put in harm's way, have to master fears far greater than any fears we face in the voting booth.  Americans can best honor our combat veterans by exercising a fraction of their courage and casting votes that show that we truly support our troops. 
     Support our combat troops.  Bring them home to their families and don't start any more wars.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Ron Paul's Chances: Seeing is Believing

     Supposedly, everybody "knows" that Ron Paul can't win, but nobody seems to know how he "knows," and we're not even supposed to question this assumption.  It's my experience that, when everybody "knows" something, and so forth, the assumption is the result of deliberate manipulation and is probably wrong.
      When was the last time you heard someone say, "I really like Herman Cain, but he can't win; so I'll vote for (name)"?  Oh, you never have?  Well, when was the last time you heard someone say that about Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Tom Miller, Buddy Roemer, Rick Santorum, Matt Snyder, or Vern Wuensche?  Oh, you never have?  
     Way back in 1979 and early 1980, I heard that all the time about Ronald Reagan: that we needed to vote for George H. W. Bush because Ronald Reagan didn't have a chance of beating Jimmy Carter.  Have you noticed that the only time you hear that canard at the national level is when a popular candidate poses a credible threat to one of the Establishment's hand-picked candidates?  
     Now we're hearing it about Ron Paul.  To test whether there was any truth to this canard, I consulted Google Trends.  No, Google Trends is not by any means a national polling service.
     You see, polling services ask people who may or not be interested in voting that year just how they intend to vote.  At least a third of them aren't going to vote, over two thirds of them won't vote in a primary, and fewer than that will go to the trouble of participating in caucuses, but they respond to surveys anyway.  Why not?  It doesn't cost them any effort to answer a question over the telephone.  
     No, Google Trends measures only two things: how much news coverage a person or topic gets during a given period, and how much Internet interest a topic or person generates during that same period.  People answer surveys whether they're interested in a candidate or not.  They search a candidate on the Internet only if their interested in him or her.
     Internet interest doesn't necessarily mean support, but there can be no support without interest.  Use discretion in reading these charts.  If there are fewer searches on Barack Obama than on Ron Paul, for example, Obama already generates enough reading material via the newspapers.
     Below, in order of the dates for Republican primaries from January 3 until Super Tuesday on March 6, are charts revealing Internet interest (over the last 30 days) in Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich in each of the primary and caucus states through Super Tuesday.  Sorry.  Google Trends measures only five entries at a time.  The first chart is for the United States as a whole.  The rest are for individual states.  The upper sets of lines are for Internet searches.  The lower sets are for news reports.
     Ron Paul should make an impressive showing in New Hampshire, but I'm not prepared to predict a win.
     I'm from South Carolina.  South Carolina is definitely Ron Paul country.  
     Because Maine is a caucus state, and Ron Paul tends to do well in caucuses, I think he'll do well in Maine.

Colorado
Minnesota
     Michele Bachmann will probably do well in Minnesota, but I'm confident that Ron Paul will win.


     The Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses are not winner-take-all contests.  Delegates will be assigned in proportion to the percentage of the votes each candidate receives.
     Because there was not enough Internet traffic for Alaska, I'm putting it on the same page as the results for Georgia.  The chart refers only to Georgia.  Alaska is a caucus state.  Ron Paul will win.  He'll also win in Idaho (below).
     Chalk up a win for Ron Paul in North Dakota.  The chart below is for Ohio.

     Unless the political climate in Vermont (below) has changed over the past four years, Vermont is not Ron Paul country.  Paul has the added disadvantage of Vermont being a primary state.  
     On the surface, Virginia looks very good for him, in spite of the big support for Romney in the Arlington area.  Since Romney and Paul are the only candidates on the ballot for Virginia, we can expect that Romney will pick up the Establishment vote (such as Gingrich's supporters), while Paul will garner the anti-establishment vote.  It should be interesting.
          I chose not to look at traffic for states after Super Tuesday because the primaries and caucuses prior to (and including) March 6 will heavily influence the dynamics of the remaining primaries.  Draw your own conclusions.
     How do you account for the stunning lack of interest in Romney, Perry, and Gingrich, even as opinion surveys show major support for these three candidates?  It appears that their "support" is mainly due to voter desire to find an alternative to Barack Obama, and that the corporate-owned media have these shallow "supporters" convinced that Ron Paul can't win.  If this is the case, then Google Trends is a far more reliable measure of Ron Paul's popularity than the opinion polls could ever be.
     Just ask yourself, when was the last time you heard an average voter say that he's voting for Romney, Gingrich, or Perry because he thinks that person will be good for the country?  Chances are, you never have.  That would explain why so few people seek information about them on the Internet.
     To secure the nomination, Ron Paul has only one further need.  People who say, "I like Ron Paul, but..." should get off their "buts" and place their votes where their hearts are.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Meet the Mind-controlled Obama Twins

     It's an open secret that acting-President Obama uses one or more doubles.  What if Obama’s double is not just a double?  What if he’s Obama’s twin, and what if neither of them is “in charge” in the White House? 

     Just in case you’re not up to speed on the Obama double part, take a look at the photos on this page and at the following links. (here) and (here)
     Mr. Obama has scars that appear to be cranial surgery scars.  As if that weren’t curious enough, the scars are inconsistent from one photo to the next, suggesting that "Obama" is more than one person, and that both persons are Manchurian candidates.
     One person commenting to a blog entry wrote that Obama’s scars are consistent with the scars a person would have after being implanted with a cranial transmitter/transponder (CTT).  I couldn’t find enough articles on CTT’s to come to a conclusion on that one, but I did find that a patent for a CTT does exist.  Its official title in the patent is “Apparatus and method for detecting neural signals and using neural signals to drive external functions,” and the patent number is 7187967. (here)

     Notice also the photos of Mr. Obama waving.  In one photo he has long, thin fingers.  In another, his fingers are short and stubby. 
     Someone has said that Obama’s ears don’t stick out in some photos the way they do in others.  I really couldn’t tell the difference.
     It’s a fairly safe bet, then, that Obama uses a double or more than one.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the double is his twin.  The thought that Obama may be twins stems from my little investigation of his hidden past.
     As I’m sure you know, he has left almost no paper trail.  Most of the documents he claims as his own are forged.  Most people have only one official birth record.  Obama claims two, and both were clumsily Photoshopped.   Most American men get their first Selective Service cards when they’re young.  Obama got his about the time he declared his candidacy for President.  Most Americans have only one Social Security number.  Obama has several, including one that had been issued to a woman who died during the 1930s.  Unlike names of hurricanes, Social Security numbers are not reused.
Selective Service Registration
     The National Review Online attempts to explain away the layers in the most recent Obama forged birth certificate, but techno savvy readers commenting on the article shoot that set of excuses to hell and back.   (here)
     As far as I know, the only lawful document recording Obama’s existence prior to his achieving national prominence was an elementary school record from Indonesia.
     You may also be aware that no one from his classes at Harvard remembers him.  I did, however, find one person who claims to remember him from his time at Occidental College.  Her name is Lisa Jack.
     Who is Lisa Jack?  She’s a psychologist who is almost as enshrouded in mystery as Barack Obama.
     Lisa Jack is credited with having taken about a dozen photos of Obama in 1980, when he was supposedly attending Occidental College.  The background in the photos is devoid of anything suggesting the place they were taken.  Those pictures could have been taken anywhere except my teenage son’s bedroom.
     I searched out the name Lisa Jack on the Internet.  Her bio says that she has a PhD in psychology and works at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  (here)

     Curiously enough, she has the thinnest bio I’ve ever seen for a member of a college faculty.  Her bio says nothing of her classes, conferences, academic papers, or much of anything else.  All that’s listed is what you see below:
Lisa Jack
Assistant Professor
Ph.D., University of Southern California (Counseling Psychology)
Office: Memorial Hall 329
phone: 612-330-1221
e-mail: jack@augsburg.edu
     I checked Google Scholar for any academic papers Lisa Jack may have written.  I found no papers for which she was listed as first author or corresponding author, but I found close to a dozen that listed her a bit further down among the authors.  Most of them concerned psychological studies of twins.  Two of them concern psychological studies of cigarette smokers.  (Obama is a cigarette smoker.)
     Okay, so what’s the story on Augsburg College?  Augsburg College is in Minnesota, quietly nestled among—no, not anything as pastoral as trees or rolling hills—it’s quietly nestled among classified government buildings.  Their Physics Department could have kept Mulder and Scully, of X-Files fame, busy for an entire season.  Professor Cyndi Jones is joined at the hip with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and her specialties include nuclear terrorism. (here) Does that include false flags?   Professor Mark J. Engebretson is in cahoots with NASA and the National Science Foundation, and is an unindicted co-conspirator for what sounds like the HAARP project. (here)    Did college pranksters in his classes have anything to do with the collapse of a nearby bridge at both ends? (here)

     Professor David Murr came to Augsburg College from the State Department and monitors activity in space.   (here)  Agent Mulder would have a field day with that guy!  Like, what does a physicist from the State Department do with activity in outer space, conduct exo-diplomacy?  
     Several faculty members, including two with Russian-sounding names, don’t have links to their pages.  Hmmm.  The Cold War ended barely twenty years ago, and this place is packed with people sporting Eastern European-sounding names.  One can be excused for wondering if Augsburg College has more “rabbits” than a fake chinchilla farm.  (A "rabbit" is the CIA term for a defector.)
     Let’s recap this thing before moving ahead.  We have a “President” and his double—possibly a twin.  Both have cranial surgery scars, meaning that some sawbones has been playing around with their brains.  One “Obama” has no known history; the other “Obama’s” history is forged or hidden.  The only person who remembers Barack Obama from his college years is a woman whose profession involves rummaging through people’s brains, who specializes in twins and smokers, and who works for a college that CIA spooks and other spooky types would love.  The name of one of Bela Lugosi's last movies comes to mind: Spooks Run Wild.

     Are there any indications that the Obama twins are mind controlled?  Yes, there are.  For one, the guy is not able to speak for more than a minute without a teleprompter.  For another, his voice has the same sonorous tone regardless of what he’s saying.  It’s as if he doesn’t know or care what he’s saying.
     The following paragraph reads like a description of the crumbling personality of someone who is controlled by others:
     “President Obama finished the speech, walked off the stage, was escorted to the back corridor where he collapsed into a seat against the wall.  Both hands went to each side of his head which was leaning down almost between his knees. You could see marks on the sides of his face where the stage makeup had been rubbed off by his hands. He wears that stuff everywhere these days.  A staffer walked up and leaned over the president and told him it was time to go.  The president looked up, gave a little smile, and got to his feet slowly. Very slowly.  The only word he said was 'Yeah.'  There was no excitement. No energy from him.  The people around the president seemed to ignore his condition.  They looked right through him until he started walking down the hallway toward the outside.  They followed alongside him and seemed to kind of push him out the door.  The president looked incredibly tired.  Used up.”  (source)  I wonder if the other Obama twin feels like that.

     Wall Street fixer Timothy Geithner recently announced, “He (Obama) is not in charge.  I am!”  (here) Check out the Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Timothy Geithner goings on when they lived in Indonesia.  You’ll find Rockefellers, the CIA, and a deliberately created financial crisis.  (here)
     Before CIA-connected Geithner was “in charge” of Obama, Mossad-connected Rahm Emanuel was in charge of him. (here)     and (here)
     So where’s all this heading?  An entertainment critic, upon hearing of the alleged death of Elvis Presley, commented, “Good career move.”  Really.
     The Book of Revelation suggests a possible career move for the sock puppet Obama twins in the event that “Obama’s” poll numbers sag below that of telemarketers.  Revelation says that the Anti-Christ would be “killed” by a wound in the head but would be resurrected three days later.  Gullible people would be told that this is evidence of his divinity, and they'd believe it and worship him (the way they worshiped Obama during his first few months in office). 
     Obama’s handlers have a ready made double to pull off the trick.  That’s the way stage magicians do it, except that they don’t assassinate their stage doubles when they disappear and reappear.  A stunt like that would work wonders for Obama’s poll numbers.
     Another possibility is that his handlers will pull a JFK on us.  The assassination of President Kennedy was an inside job.  After bumping off JFK, his assassins reshaped the Kennedy image and evoked that false image of Kennedy as a martyr to the very goals that Kennedy had opposed during the last few months of his life.   Toward that end, the Obama twins could be worth more to Wall Street dead than they are alive.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Osama bin Laden was under House Arrest

     If you were the world's most wanted criminal and had to be able to flee at a moment's notice, how would anyone get that "moment's notice" to you? We're told that Osama bin Laden was living completely off the grid, with neither telephone nor Internet connection. (link)

     Wasn't bin Laden in need of frequent kidney dialysis? How would he reach a doctor in case of emergency, and why couldn't he be tracked down by way of doctors who gave house calls for dialysis treatment?
     If he was living completely off the grid, how did he contact his henchmen all over the world to do their dastardly deeds? The way I hear it, he put out more videos, audios, and other electronic messages than a rock star. His henchmen were everywhere, taking directions from him: in tourist areas, in synagogues, and under children's beds at night or in their closets, to mention a few.
     According to Michael Bunker, the author of Surviving off the Grid, it wasn't possible for bin Laden to do all he was accused of doing and still be off the grid, unless he had major help from high-level sources in government.  (link)
     Bunker's explanation fits most, but not all, the known facts. His theory doesn't answer my next question: Would the world's most dangerous terrorist be unarmed?
     Another explanation better fits the facts as we know the facts. Osama bin Laden was under house arrest and was killed at the most politically opportune time. As for the failure of Pakistan's intelligence service ISI to find bin Laden, the ISI had thought that he was dead. In a David Frost interview conducted shortly before the death of Benazir Bhutto, she mentioned that bin Laden had been murdered a few years earlier. Thus, the ISI had no reason to look for bin Laden.  (video)
     Let's take a quick look at the history of Osama bin Laden.
     The bin Laden family has close economic and political ties to the family of George H. W. Bush.
     The economic connection comes by way of the Carlyle Group, a global asset management fund founded in 1987 by William Conway, Daniel D'Aniello, and David Rubenstein. The Bush family are major investors, as were (until after 2001) the bin Laden family. The Bush and bin Laden families also shared ventures in the oil business.  There are yet other shared business connections between the two families.
     With Central Intelligence Agency funding and guidance, bin Laden left college in 1979 to become a leader in the mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He continued to be a CIA asset throughout the Ronald Reagan Administration, at least until 1989. Bear in mind that then-Vice President Bush had been a CIA director and maintained close ties to the Agency. Regardless of whether al Qaeda exists as an organization, or a database, or in some other form, there's no question but that it was—and possibly still is—a CIA operation.
     During that same period—that is, from 1979 through 1989—the U.S. government created, funded, and guided the Taliban. Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly boasted about having created the Taliban. Brzezinski is now a top foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama.
     Did Osama bin Laden continue in his role as a CIA asset?
     In 1997, a neoconservative think tank called the Project for the New American Century described a vision for the future that reads eerily like a blueprint for the world as we've seen it since September 11, 2001. They lamented that their dream would be very slow becoming a reality unless they were blessed with "a new Pearl Harbor." They got their wish on September 11, 2001.  For the free PDF download of the PNAC blueprint, click here.
     In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had created the Taliban, laid out a strategy for world conquest in his book The Grand Chessboard. Of course, none of this strategy could become more than a pipe dream absent the "new Pearl Harbor."  He, too, got his wish. Are we to believe that all this time, money, and energy was spent on mere fantasies that coincidentally became realities? Is that the way that highly intelligent, educated, rich, and otherwise successful people spend their resources?  For the free PDF download of The Grand Chessboard, .click here.
     I won't go into the issues surrounding Insider complicity in the events of September 11, 2001. There are plenty of other articles and sites that make a solid case for this accusation.
     Given all these facts, and given the strong indicators that bin Laden enjoyed the protection of powerful Insiders, there is more than ample reason to suspect that bin Laden continued to be under the control of intelligence agencies. The high level of security surrounding his compound in Pakistan wasn't just to keep people out; it was also to keep bin Laden in.
     A final question remains: Why was Osama bin Laden killed?
     Only two days before the raid, Barack Obama and NATO were taking flak for a raid in Libya—the one in which the son and grandchildren of Moammar Gadhafi were killed. Under international law, it's a war crime to target civilians for a military attack. When a United States SEAL team did the same thing to Osama bin Laden, most people thought it was great, and the murder of Gadhafi's grandchildren slipped down a memory hole.
     What a dashing way to begin a presidential election campaign!
(Note: A person writing to the Huffington Post seems to have scooped me on this one because I was a bit slow in completing this article.  On May 2, a writer called Nastywolf commented that he suspected that Pakistan had been keeping bin Laden under house arrest and was hoping to hold him for some opportune moment; but that the U.S. "stepped in and ruined their game." (link) The theory that the U.S. and Pakistan were doublecrossing each other in this matter is interesting indeed.)