"They show THE WHOLE FREAKIN' LETTER!"
First, I linked to six whole White House letters in my post. So yes, I am well aware of what real letters look like, and I was not trying to jerk around anyone. I naturally assumed readers who were interested in seeing the letters would click on the links.
Second, I'm slightly unclear as to what your point is in embedding images of these White House letters in your post. In case you didn't notice, each of them contradicts assertions you made about what a White House letter "should" look like. They all lack signature lines, several of them lack addresses, and Bill Clinton's is not done in block style.
All you've done is provide more evidence that your supposed standards for what a White House letter "should" look like are grossly inaccurate or overreaching. "Real" White House letters clearly come in a variety of forms, and this letter to the hospital has no features that cannot be found in other White House letters.
In fact, one of the only truly universal features about White House letters is that they DON'T have the kind of signature lines that you claimed Obama's was inappropriately missing.
Reagan's letter was block, justified (my point), and had the name and address of the recipient below his signature (my point). Gerald Ford's letter also had the name and address of the recipient below his signature (my point), and was also block (my point) - even though it was left-aligned, it was as close to being justified as a left align could be (my point).
Reagan, Ford, and Clinton all had the embossed Eagle Seal where the bas relief was clearly three-dimensional (my point) along with the deflections in the paper (my point).
George W. Bush had two distinctive Seals on his stationary (I'll call this one a "Draw").
I'll give you two points for calling to my attention to the fact that the text and format of Obama's letter does not SEEM to be unusual, although I did call out the strangely misaligned text for which i've heard no response.
Here's the crux of the argument: you still have not provided any proof as to the veracity of that photo allegedly made of his letter -- THAT is what I'm calling out. Saying "it looks like a White house letter" is no different that what libelals were saying about Obama's COLB, that "it looks like a Hawaii birth certificate."
Looks can be deceiving - especially when they come from the Left.
To reiterate:
1. I saw a flat Eagle Seal with no bas relief shown in the paper and no deflections shown in the paper. The "raised" Seal was perfectly flat. Unless someone shows me those features in a photo of an actual letter, the photo and the letter are not credible.
2. I saw a blue signature of Obama's where the intensity, luminance, and saturation rule it out as having been applied to the letter .
Again, until someone shows me concrete proof of that signature actually residing on the paper, and not try to pull a Factcheck bait-and-switch by showing only the individual photos of the Seal and Signature, I'm still going to question the veracity of the photo and the object shown.
I don't have to get everything right. All I need is for one thing to be right.