Gibbs Walks Out When Asked About Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number

Robert Gibbs, Obama's White House spokesman, had an interesting reaction today when he was asked point-blank about Obama's alleged use of a Connecticut social security number. We've got a clip of that, and right below that is a clip that explains the allegation (in somewhat dramatic fashion) - it's interesting that the identity theft allegations that sounded so outlandish to me when Dr. Orly and I first discussed them last year, are now being supported by people like Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.

I tend to think Alinsky didn’t really have anything original to say. He tried to tell radicals to tidy up a bit, but as you can see from the tagline below, it was a stupid idea. His “rules” are nothing but a reordered list of tactics that have been used throughout history. So Alinsky was a copycat. Not surprising.

Other than that, he was a Frank Nitti trainee and suckup who dedicated his book to the Big Liar.

If the poster in question is not an ideological leftist, and he’s not a sociopath funded by the ideological left, I’d like to hear a logical explanation for his posts.

In the meanwhile, go call your congressman and tell him to support Allen West for Congress.

Wow. You’re good. I wonder if they’ve changed the COLB they put in his passport file so it matches the final version of the online COLB - or if it’s still the original version which didn’t have the verifying marks.

There’s one thing I’d really like to do but can’t do at the moment because my computer won’t let me see video. I’d like to look at Polarik’s latest work and see what detail it might add to how they did the forgery and the timeline involved, particularly with the photos being taken so early and the BC# showing up so late.

Is there supposed to be an actual certified copy of a BC in a passport file, or do they use scans, photos, or what? How would the photos taken in Feb without a BC# work for a passport file?

Can anybody help me with this part? I’ve got quite a few irons in the fire right now but it really needs to be sorted out. Or if somebody could even just summarize what’s on Polarik’s videos, that could help me make sense out of the logistics and timing.

>>>”In the meanwhile, go call your congressman and tell him to support Allen West for Congress.”<<<

That’s REALLY hilarious. If only you knew. Well I guess you can know now.

This is a link to my Congresscritter’s profile. I know him personally. In fact he owes me $5 since the summer of 1969. He was my understudy on our high school debate team. I literally taught him how to speak in public. He is an absolute disgrace to our High School, the University of Notre Dame (from which I got my BA and he got his law degree) and the Catholic faith in which we were both raised (although the Church and I parted ways a long time ago.)

He would take my call personally - and laugh all the way through it.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/v000108/

And there’s also another fact to be dealt with: the Factcheck photos were taken right within the timeframe Gibbs blurted out.

They appear to be, however, it can't be ruled out that the Factlack bumpkins were simply incompetent at setting the date on their digital camera and that they really took the pictures in August 2008 as they claimed. Even so, the photo date only adds three months to Gibbs' time frame which still isn't a full year and a half. We know that at least one reporter had been trying to get a copy of the certificate for a few months before it was posted online, but it didn't show up until after Obama won the primary and Hillary had conceded. The factlack photos didn't show up until after Obama had made a trip to Hawaii and after the HI DOH publically said they couldn't reveal any information on Obama's birth certificate.

Thank you for the correction. If I was smart I’d collect all the exact dates for everything and put them in a timeline. Probably not a good thing to consider after a very late night and an early morning finishing up work. lol.

Factcheck certainly could have lied about taking the photos. Wouldn’t be their first or their last lie.

Ever feel like you’re in the middle of a complicated whodunnit mystery and the questions will never be answered? Did my computer really crash on its own or was it hacked? No way to know so you just stick it in the back of your mind, but you always wonder what the right answer was. Know what I mean? Did Factcheck really take those photos? Was Gibbs just rounding upwards?

At the rate we’re going we’ll probably never know.

Maybe in Heaven. I’m torn though. I think in Heaven I’d like to just be able to forget all this here. But then I hate being left hanging.... kinda like the “Shave and a haircut” that just sits on a dominant seventh chord and never resolves to tonic. lol. (For the musicians among us) Or maybe an augmented fourth, the tritone, the devil’s interval.

One thing I do believe: whether I get to hear it or not, these people will eventually answer all the questions, and justice will be served. God will not be mocked; we reap what we sow. Unless they repent and receive forgiveness the day of reckoning will be a miserable one for them - and all of the days following. I hope they repent. And I would like to help force them out of their denial.

If whoever took the photos was truly a “bumpkin”, then the person would not have even bothered to set the date and time in the first place. Therefore, the date would be accurate as set at the manufacturing locale.

All of my digital cameras arrived with the date/time set at the factory, although off by about 12 hours. I attribute that to the fact that the factory is probably in Asia—12 hours plus or minus behind where I live. There’s currently a disagreement in the blogosphere about what time of day those photos were taken, 10 a.m. or 10 p.m. The jury is out. However . . .

If bumpkins, they probably didn’t bother to ever change the date/time, so Aug. 2008 would be correct, although the time might be off by about 12 hours.

If bumpkins and somehow the date/time on that camera was reset incorrectly at some prior point and they never corrected it, then that “incorrect” timeframe certainly was a “coincidentally” notorious one.

If NOT bumpkins, then they set the date/time correctly, so again, Aug. 2008.

If conspirators, then they might have changed the date/time to obfuscate, but they certainly selected a very unforunate bogus date/time to use, didn’t they? Right in line with the passport breaches.

Here’s another TELL: As soon as the alleged bumpkins at FactCheck were apprised of the FACT that something like exif data exists in the first place, courtesy of truly knowledgeable folks in the blogosphere, they reduced the resolution of the photos in their already published story (although they made it appear on the front page as if the photos were actually much larger than the linked photos).

More important, they DISAPPEARED the exif data. Why? What were they covering up asap?

The photos were taken in March. The final passport breach was in March. The first passport breach of OBAMA’S records was in January 2008. Gibbs made his comment in early July 2009. A year and a half before early July 2009 was January 2008.

Nobody has EVER PERSONALLY AND PUBLICLY admitted to having taken the photos or held whatever document that was that was being photographed. NOBODY.

The persons who wrote the FactCheck story did not say that they were the representatives of FactCheck blog who took the photos. Nor did they say WHEN the photos were taken. They wrote and posted the story in August 2008. The photos may have been provided to them. Or maybe there was an on-site FactCheck representative working in and out of the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. Would that be surprising?

btw, I wonder who that guy is who’s sitting with his back to the camera. HE could tell us what was going on that day in Chicago.

Well, the HDOH has already confirmed (via their statement about the BC#’s being given by the HDOH on the “date filed”) that there is a discrepancy with the BC# on the Factcheck COLB. What they’ve said indirectly confirms that Factcheck is a forgery because the “date filed” and the BC# are not compatible with each other, given that Obama’s “date filed” is 3 days before the Nordyke twins’ but the number is 2 higher (later) than theirs.

So either the “date filed” has been changed, or the BC# has been changed, or both. Since the “date filed” was there from the beginning but the identifying BC# only appeared months later, I suspect that the BC# is what has been altered.

The BC# he used just about had to be somebody who was born shortly before the Nordyke twins at Kapiolani. Preferably somebody who is dead and couldn’t show their BC#. Preferably somebody who had been dead a long time so their family would have either lost the BC or would have no need to look at it and notice the numbers.

Somebody who was born on Aug 4, 1961 and died on Aug 5, 1961 is perfect for the situation.

When the HDOH, Punchbowl Cemetery, and VA all suddenly lose the records for that person it sort of confirms what’s going on.

But like I said, I can only prove it by seeing the documents and they say they don’t even have them. The OIP has told me they can’t investigate whether records have been illegally destroyed so I can’t even prove that they really have destroyed these records, or whether they’re just lying. I know they’re doing one or the other, because they had the records as of June 2006.

Like everything with Obama, it’s frustrating to sort it out logically, see the behaviors confirming what you suspect, and have the government officials hide behind “confidentiality” in order to hold off the legitimate questions of the people.

I’m stuck. They say the record doesn’t exist, and even in the case of the permanent records they say don’t exist (the original birth index and index of foreign births) where we know the records existed in 1980 and were required to be retained permanently.... all I can do is ask the Ombudsman to investigate.

Alfred Itamura has supposedly been investigating whether the HDOH has illegally destroyed those records since May 28th - almost exactly 8 weeks - and he has refused to respond to my question even about whether Fukino and Okubo would be put on administrative leave while he investigates. I got a “read” receipt saying he had gotten my e-mail asking about that 7 weeks ago, but I have heard nothing from him.

To put it bluntly, he’s not doing a thing. He’ll wait until I e-mail to ask him what he’s found and then he’ll say they have found nothing wrong so “shut up and file a lawsuit if you don’t like my answer.” That’s what he did last time.

It’s hopeless, unless we find a way to hold these crooks’ feet to the fire. They’re hiding behind their positions of power.

Thanks, again, butterdezillion!

You may find some comfort in the following:

I found what I was looking for:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/birther-crazy/

imabirthertoo 20. Jul, 2010 at 11:45 am

Bob Ross, (if that is your real name I must applaud your courage)

Why the need to initially respond with an attack on the substance of my comment?

Fear? Sure it is fear. George Washington, in his farewell address, told us to fear usurpation.

Was George wrong to consider such to be guarded against?

I know the fears of millions of Americans could’ve been laid to rest, and I know who has the ability to make that happen. Obama

I don’t dislike Obama. I never have. I think he was the breath of fresh air that this country needed.

Why is it that people think you must dislike him in order to find a need to question him?

Steadfast defense of the unknown is the way many deal with their fear of an outcome they would rather avoid.

I have seen it too many times.

For example, those who developed interstitial lung disease, after many years of smoking, are more likely to blame their exhaustion on getting older.

They don’t want the truth.

Seeking the truth is the only effective way to address a problem.

Many Obama defenders play the race card as if it were the wildward in their defense deck.

As an African-American, I find this disgraceful.

It only serves to delegitimize every valid complaint.

Obama, by failing to nip this thing in the bud, has damaged race relations in this country.

(yes yes yes!!! That’s what I said!)

What makes the cries of racism worse is that they are predominantly being made by white folks who have never been subjected to racism.

I grew up in the south. I’ve seen racism up close and personal.

Questioning Obama is not a matter of race.

Playing the race card to defend him against all questions is the very essence of racism.

I was pondering this last night. The FactCheck blog photos did have the BC# on them. Revealed in August 2008. That means that the number was “selected” prior to when the COLB showed up with the number redacted in June 2008.

Remember when the Hawaiian DoH spokesperson opined that maybe the number was redacted because if someone has the number, they can break into their vital records files? (Although one would think it’s a closed system, not accessible to hackers on the Web. Duh.)

In any case, if at that point in time, June 2008, someone knew the number and could hack into the files, whose name would show up on the search results? Hmmm?

If that potential problem was taken care of by August, then the number could “safely” be revealed.

I believe this is a case of what you alluded to yesterday. Incrementalism. Be prepared for all possibilities, but only tip your hand in pieces, as the situation requires. Don’t implicate yourself any more than necessary. See what people will buy and if they don’t buy it, then feed them a little more “evidence” even though it might add to the risk of exposure.

I bookmarked Polarik’s latest video but forgot to watch it.

From what I understand about the passport files: They used to be actual papers. As with everything else, they wanted to digitize the records and store the originals somewhere else. So Brennan’s firm was hired to aid in the digitation project. They scanned documents into the database, presumably to put the paper documents into the archives.

iirc, when I applied for a passport, relatively recently, I had to send a certified copy of my birth certificate. I can’t remember if they kept it or sent it back. If they sent it back, it may be because they “verified” it, scanned it, and didn’t want to store it.

Maybe someone else knows how this works TODAY. However, 1961, 1965, 1981, 1995—the passport system would have worked differently. I believe then that they had the original identity papers on file in paper form, until the State Dept. decided to create a database.

We know Obama has traveled the world extensively. Upon what passport, we don’t know. What identity papers he used—we don’t know. Whatever they were, they would have been in the files at the State Dept.

Since there was a investigation when Condoleeza Rice was SoS, then it’s safe to assume that they know what this “embarrassing” information about Obama is/was. They’re just not sayin’. imho, since Rice admitted as much, someone could have removed scans from the database and replaced them with other scans. And disappeared the paper documents that previously existed, if the person had access to those files. People hired to digitize records would have access to those files. How else could they scan the documents? Anything is possible. We already know that Sandy Berger took documents from the National Archives and destroyed them. So anything is possible.

We the People need to know who our POTUS is. I don’t care how “embarrassing” the information is. He needs to be forthcoming and as transparent as he said he would be.

The photos were digitally manipulated between when they were taken and when they were posted online. They added at least the seal, since it doesn’t “bend” when the page is folded but remains almost entirely round.

I’d love to see what Polarik has that would clarify. But back when I didn’t know whether to trust Polarik or not I did my own experiments with circles on the fold of a page at precisely the angles and perspective that the Factcheck photos have - using only what Factcheck itself was presenting to the world. From the experiments I did, there is no way that the seal they’ve got on that photo was there when they photographed the paper it’s supposedly on.

I’d like to know whether Polarik finds that they added the BC# also, or whether the BC# was actually on the paper they photographed.

Has anybody here been able to see Polarik’s videos? Does he address this?

The pictures were dated March 12, but Factlack claimed in August 2008 they had taken the pictures within a couple of days prior to publishing the pictures. If the camera date is correct, then they took the pictures five months before they claimed to have taken them and three months before the alleged COLB was ever publicized.

I also categorize the factlack staffers as bumpkins because of the quality of the pictures they took. One image has a huge shadow from what appears to be the photographer’s arm right in the middle of the COLB. These people claim to be factcheckers, but can’t even take a clean picture of a document. Several of the images are turned sideways ... they took pictures of the front of the alleged COLB in thirds, but not any pictures showing the entire back of the document and none showing the full seal, signature and date stamp at the same time. In none of the photos of the back of the document can it be ascertained that these elements are indeed on the back of the alleged Obama COLB.

Yes, when they stripped the EXIF data they were hiding their incompetence and/or complicity. Plus, the document they photographed does not match the scan posted at the Fight the Smears site. One or both alleged documents are forgeries.

I haven’t watched Polarik’s videos. I’ve never put a lot of trust in his work because he’s a little erratic and too quick to jump to conclusions that aren’t fully supported. I think he might be right about some things, but his methodology is shaky and his explanations are a little convoluted.

I still think the certificate number is the key to this whole thing. When you discovered that the cert number used to be part of the official index data (and still is in other states), you exposed the biggest evidence of collusion IMO. Unlike Spokesbabe Okubo’s nonsense comment that cert numbers could be used to hack their system, the HI DOH has no real reason not to release the index data for whoever that cert number belongs. Since they refuse, then it’s very certain that the number does NOT belong to Obama. This would have been the quickest and easiest way for them to prove Obama is legit and was truly born in Hawaii, but they can’t — WON’T — do it. You propose a good explanation of who that number really belongs to. If the truth ever comes out, a lot of people would be going to jail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.