PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY: PIECEMEALED DOCUMENT ON THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE IS NOT THE DOCUMENT ISSUED BY HAWAII

IN A POLITICAL PICKLE: Desperate and perishing, despite a pending criminal investigation following Arpaio’s conclusions of forgery and fraud, the Obama White House continues to endorse a farcical side show by allowing Obama’s fake birth certificate to remain posted online.

Commentary by Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – In the wake of Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio’s apocalyptic investigation exposing fraud and forgery committed by counterfeiters working on behalf of the Obama Administration, it is important for all Americans to remember the foremost, most important issue at hand.
No matter what forgeries and fraud have been perpetrated, which will be brought to justice, we still have an ineligible president sitting in the White House.

“A crime has been committed in the fraudulent election of an illegitimate candidate for the office of the president,” say TDP’s editor, Pen Johannson. “As officials from the government of the State of Hawaii will claim they issued a document containing different information than the one suddenly appearing on the White House’s government website in April, 2011, Obama, himself, will be protected from criminal indictments by plausible deniability from having any knowledge of forgery or fraud by “others” working on behalf of his administration.”
Of course, the state of Hawaii will claim innocence by saying sometime in the approximately 48 hours between April 25th and April 27th, 2011, between the issuing of their certified copy to agents from Perkins Coie attorney’s representing Obama and the moment the copy shown to America was posted on a government website, someone changed the information within it. Obama will say he has no knowledge of the document being changed because he was never allowed to see it before it was posted. Plausible deniability. They altered the contents of the document in the interim to protect both administrations. That way, when the forgery is exposed, Hawaii still has possession of the protected original and Obama can deny he even knew that the document was altered because he was never allowed to see it before it was posted, anyway. “They could have posted a fishing license and claimed it was an authenticate birth certificate. Regardless, we must never forget that Obama’s eligibility remains unverified and invalid, regardless of this lesser, but serious crime,” concludes Johannson. It now appears, in a criminal effort to protect both the State of Hawaii and Barack Obama, counterfeiters working on the behalf of the Obama administration digitally recreated an image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” from multiple sources already present on the internet and from scans of other documents which the State of Hawaii provided to other applicants, but which were not issued directly to Obama. Obama’s alleged document was piecemealed from several sources as a mere illusion to deceive Americans into accepting his eligibility and make doubters stop asking about it. As a criminal investigation is prepared, this now means the document the State of Hawaii gave to Barack Obama was digitally reproduced to make it appear as though Barack Obama’s natal information is different than what actually is shown on the authenticate paper copy provided by the State of Hawaii. This was done with the intention of deceiving the people of America. “Plausible deniability” is the credible ability to deny a fact or allegation, or to deny previous knowledge of a criminal act committed by someone working under you. The term most often refers to the denial of blame in a chain of command where the executive level quarantines the blame to the lower level personnel who are inaccessible or often silenced making confirmation of responsibility for the action difficult.
In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions which helped Obama avoid responsibility for any future criminal actions or knowledge of them.
For several years, it has become all too clear that the debate over Obama’s eligibility was quarantined around the birth certificate issue. No one ever bothered to realize that, according the National Archives and Records Administration, vital records make up only about 7% of the entire records about our population. In the case of Obama’s fraudulent presidency, the entire weight of this matter was channeled onto the validity of an obscure internet image, not only by those seeking its validation, but by those who committed the crime in altering the original. The fact that Arpaio boldly and courageously took the investigation a step further into the issue of Obama’s selective service registration gives crushing weight to the precedent for future investigations.
“Eventually, it is going to become impossible for congress and the attorney general to ignore this. They will deny the facts at the peril of their reputations and their careers and their character,” says Johannson. Recall, in July of 2009, then Director of the Department of Health in Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino said that she had, “seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health…”
At no time did Fukino ever identify the record by its official header title, instead identifying it only as “original vital records”.

Source: