Posted on 03/15/2012 10:52:58 AM PDT by Danae
s President Obama’s birth certificate a forgery? Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., believes it is. He recently held a press conference in Phoenix to discuss the findings of a new 10-page report. Mr. Arpaio’s investigators have come to a stunning conclusion: The long-form birth certificate Mr. Obama released last year is a “computer-generated forgery.”
With the exception of The Washington Times, however, no major U.S. media outlet reported this bombshell story. The liberal press corps is desperately trying to suppress any discussion of Forgerygate — potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. The media class is betraying its fundamental mission to pursue the truth.
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,”
((snip))
The Washington Times story, written by Stephen Dinan, points out that Mr. Arpaio has called for Congress to investigate the matter. Think about this: A high-profile sheriff orders a team of former law enforcement officials to examine whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and that he has the constitutional and legal right to occupy the White House. Their official report is that Mr. Obama’s documents are shoddy and he likely engaged in deliberate fraud. And yet, most of the American press corps doesn’t believe this is an important news story? The liberal media has become rotten to the core.
Ironically, the foreign press reported widely on the story. For example, Pravda — that’s right, the former official organ of the Soviet Communist Party — did an extensive analysis of Mr. Arpaio’s findings. The article by Dianna Cotter asks the obvious question: What are U.S. journalists afraid of?
Read more at: http://times247.com/articles/forgerygate-ignoring-arpaio-s-report-is-a-scandal-in-itself
(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...
The forging part is filling it out in 2008 and making it look like it was filled out and filed in 1980. You want to take my bet or not?
You will find information on "Obliteraters at Exhibit 231.52 Obliterators" in that same place.
The POM (as published in 1998) may be found at: >http://www.npmhul310.org/manuals/POM.pdf
The term "obliteraters" refers to what you are calling "round date". You'll notice immediately above the exhibit I referenced a series of typical cancellations. The big difference between an obliterator and a cancellation for more than a century was the mandatory use of "killer bars" as part of the cancellation. We got rid of the killer bars on permit imprints earlier ~ you might find some exhibits showing them on the internet. Those come from private collections.
Interestingly enough USPS has never put anyone in charge of the POM whereas there's a whole OFFICE in charge of the DMM. In reality the POM changes with glacial speed ~ but the DMM changes substantially every time there is a rate change.
They have a Handbook Series that covers specialized operations. You'd find material about how to run an automated processing line there.
These books are all written by folks who are NOT nor were they ever Postal Inspectors.
WOW ~ write something in?
Not having a Century indicated (the 19) ain't no thang, and it wasn't when I wrote that particular exhibit. I had HUNDREDS of variations ~ as I recall somebody had done a survey of what was going on in the field, so we put displays typical of the beast ~ and there they are.
Whatever they were doing in 1980 was pretty much what they were doing in 1998 or even 2009 (when they quit doing some of it).
Did you know the unions had to drag the USPS to binding arbitration to get them to publish changes to the POM ~ like I said, change in that document occurs with glacial speed.
Or for anyone being prosecuted for forging a registration form for someone else.
JUST ONE.
BTW, this whole argument is relying on the fact that somebody thinks there's something wrong with the format of the Round Date or, more correctly, the Postal Obliterator.
I've presented Issue 8 (1998 version) of the POM for guidance. You can't get better than that unless somebody bothered to put Issue 1 on the internet!
Yeah changes in the round date stamp also occur with glacial speed. If you ever used one you would know they have specific engineering specifications including a one piece 4 digit year stamp. The only way for 80 to appear would be for the 4 digit year stamp to be cut (or unlikely completely worn off) Did you even look at the cold case video?
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/452506c.pdf see page 118 hand stamp 0-642
We are not talking about filling out his registration card wrong. We are talking about forgery and eligibility to be President of the United States.
Regarding the use of the Round Date (controlled by the Postal Operations Manuel and similar federal regulations) there are relevant court cases. One is at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0745P.pdf where the court said: (“internal regulations of the post office, such as those found in the Postal Operations Manual, lack the force of law and their violation does not show negligence per se.”) which is true. They are strictly for the administrative purposes of operating the post office. Other regulations such as those found in the Domestic Mail Manual tell the public how to use the post office, so that general statement is not exactly correct regarding the DMM ~ check with your lawyer first eh ~ pay your postage and you should be OK. Point here being there’s really no law to point to regarding the correct structure of the postal obliterator used to mark that draft registration form.
you are talking about postal regulation not Selective Service Regulations, apples and oranges...negligence per se is not premeditated forgery....proof is available to prove or disprove forgery all it needs is to be investigated...just like the original BC..
The POM still shows an example of obliterators divergent from that which was published in the primary exhibit here, as well as the one on the Obama form. You might want to look at http://about.usps.com/publications/pub32/pub32_terms.htm#ep1024610 which is a compendium of postal terms. I put this one together about 1976 working for the Consumer Advocate’s office. We hadn’t had one in a long time and a quick guide was needed. This has been updated to include automation mail related terms.
Find one case.
I didnt switch anything you made some wild a$$ guesses and got called on it and now you are trying to change the subject..you stated someoen else could register for them. Why would anyone have someone else register for them? Has anyone else ever done it 28 years later? Why do you think there is a signature line and a place to check ID? So someone else can register for you like a woman? You are getting even more ridiculous trying to wiggle your way out of your previous statements...accept the fact that you were wrong and move on..
Are you willing to accept a President who may not have registered for the draft (ineligible) and then used forged documents to represent that he did? What about the truth does that matter?
here is IMO one case:
Your document is a Department of Defense document dated 1990.
Now, a problem. Remember the difficulty George Bush had down in Florida in 2000?
One of the problems we found was that the Department of Defense hadn't issued a NEW Domestic Mail Manual or Postal Operations Manual to its APO/FPO post offices since the early 1990s.
That wasn't the cause of the problem "W" had in getting uncanceled military ballots counted, but it's just something that surfaced when we sent some folks out to see what was going on in the Military Liaison Office at the Pentagon.
They were all provided with brand new rule books, order books (for postal equipment), etc.
You got yourself some ancient stuff there pardner. Bringing back BAD MEMORIES. But the item in use in 1962 ~ ? Obama was still a baby then!
We'd moved on to more kinds of junk acquired on the open market by 1980 ~
If there's ever a court case on this I'll probably be notified.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/what-the-heck-is-a-pika-stamp-anyway/
scroll down to a post by al halbert...
if you are called as a witness you will be challenged, you are in the bag for Obama IMO...don’t forget to bring your baby powder the nurses used while typing out his
BC in the delivery room!
No one, and I mean NO ONE wants Obama out of office more than I do. From my point of view people like you are Regime Toadies who are trying to sidetrack us from focusing on the coming election, and whatever happens then.
Might give him a call eh!
Another guy to check with on these round dates is named Arthur Porwick. I think he worked on that project a bit. Hexter didn't stick around after the mess in Charleston PO.
Rubber/Plastic self-inking inserts were all the rage throughout industry at roughly that time (1980). Still are!
Your own exhibit of “validator or oblitor 570 shows a 4 digit yr stamp, and it is also shown in the engineering drawings I linked to. Is it not the closest to the postmark on Obamas SS registration? It is round not oval, it contains month day year and PO location.
Why you want to check us to check with people we dont know amazes me, you are making the claim not that they had 2 year date stamps or that there were individual digits not 4 digit inserts...you check if you know these people. Check with a window clerk supervisor from 1980 who stamped the SS registrations. I know the answer and you refuse to accept it. Prove me wrong, please.
Now please show me 2 round date stamps/postmarks that have only 2 digit year on them. No one else has come up with any but Obama’s. Also explain how the validator RDS could only stamp 2 digits (no baby powder please or do they deliver babies in the PO also?)
And you never answered if you wanted to accept my friendly chance to get $100 donated to FR, but you keep insisting anyone could have filled out Obies SS registration and it could have been at other than a post office. Wrong.
You just keep wiggling and squirming out of your WAG (wild a$$ guess). You claim you want Obie out of office more than anyone else, why do you keep posting disinformation that benefits him?
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.