CHAPTER 10 - Obama’s Magic Bullet
“The problem of determining the existence or nonexistence of a conspiracy was compounded because of the possibility of subversive activity by a foreign power…”
Warren Commission Report of the Assassination of President Kennedy, Chapter 6, Pg. 243
Lies of commission occur when false information is intentionally conveyed while lies of omission are when the truth is intentionally withheld. Most importantly, however, both instances are immoral. When lying becomes intellectually sophisticated, the dishonest, politically minded prefer to call it misinformation. Some call it propaganda. Employing misinformation is a deceptive tactic used by politicians to conceal information which would threaten their ability to maintain power and influence in government.
It is important for people to understand the Taitz (Barnett v. Obama) case was not dismissed on the basis of merits of the evidence against Obama. The evidence supports claims of ineligibility against Obama. The case was dismissed because of Judge Nakazato’s determination that Taitz violated court procedures when she filed the suit. However, regardless of Nakazato’s opinions about Taitz’ clerical abilities, his decision does nothing to aid the American people in their rightful request for a redress of grievances against Obama.
One day before the Taitz case was dismissed and the original documents were confiscated by Judge Nakazato, the original image of the Kenyan British-based “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” (the Taitz CCRB), posted on August 1, 2009, was linked by anonymous media sources to another image of a CCRB conveniently discovered on an obscure, private, genealogical research website called www.Bomford.net, in Australia (See Appendix).
The image of this CCRB contained information about the birth of an Adelaide man named David Jefferey Bomford and contained data which, at first glance, seemed to improbably match data on the Taitz CCRB.
With the discovery of the Bomford CCRB, it was summarily decided by a desperate liberal establishment that the Taitz CCRB was a fraud based on the unsubstantiated suspicion that it was created using the Bomford CCRB as a template. Obama sympathizers immediately concocted the theory based on the random association of two benign document images posted to the vulnerable, easily corruptible internet network, with no basis for identifying the source of either one. Soon thereafter, the drumbeat of accusations from both Obama dissenters and Obama supporters began flooding the media and internet without any real analysis of the multiple images of CCRBs having been completed.
Contrary to the theory, the evidence reveals that allegations of document forgery may be based on false and vastly misinterpreted information. In fact, the images of both the Taitz CCRB and the Bomford CCRB documents actually have authentic origins in the same British Commonwealth controlled documentation formats used by the colonial municipalities throughout the world, including those of both Kenya and Australia.
THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY
Due to America’s burgeoning information age, the 1960’s seem to be an era for incubating modern day conspiracies. Comparing the evidence presented by the Taitz/Bomford CCRB controversy with another controversy around this time gives an illustration of the challenges faced by investigators to root out truth and validate common sense.
No controversy is more prolific than the “Magic Bullet Theory” created by the Warren Commission assigned to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. Introduced by former Warren Commission lawyer, Arlen Specter, now Senator from Pennsylvania, the “Magic Bullet Theory” basically states, in general, that all the controversy and conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination can be explained by the discovery of a single, pristine, conveniently discovered piece of evidence. Ironically, it is a theory that asserts one of three bullets fired during the Kennedy assassination, only two of which are confirmed to have hit the victims, by one assassin, was responsible for inflicting multiple wounds and property damage while changing the course of American history.76
The Warren Report asserts that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots in under 5 seconds, using a bolt action rifle, at President Kennedy from the 6th floor window of a building overlooking Dealy Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Since the two victims, President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally, suffered eight wounds, it seemed unlikely that just two bullets would have caused such damage and injury. In addition, the home video of the assassination filmed by Abraham Zapruder, seemed to show that too little time had elapsed between the shots that hit both men, for only one assassin to have fired them all. The “Magic Bullet Theory” summarized that a single bullet, which was later recovered far from the crime scene in undamaged condition, caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds, while another bullet was known to have caused the fatal head wound to Kennedy. The bullet’s unscathed appearance prompted many to call it the “magic bullet”. 76
Skepticism was also generated about the “magic bullet” by the fact that it was not found in or around either victim. It was found, instead on some random location at the hospital after the victims were treated and Kennedy was declared deceased. It had no blood evidence on it, nor was it given thorough ballistics tests to determine its origins.
Specter’s theory stated that after passing through Kennedy and Connally, the bullet must have emerged from the Governor’s blood stained clothing falling onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital where it was conveniently discovered by two employees. It was never proven that either victim had ever been on any stretcher, let alone one where the “magic bullet” was found. Nevertheless, a memo sent to Specter on July 7, 1964 said that ballistics tests done at the FBI Ballistics Laboratory linked the bullet to the assassin’s rifle.76
However, in 1967, one of the two hospital employees who found the bullet, Oscar Wright, said that the bullet he witnessed on the day of the assassination was not the bullet that was later revealed among exhibits of FBI evidence. This was in direct conflict with the memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright gave testimony that the bullet he was shown then was the same one he witnessed in the hospital after the assassination.76
If one were to draw on parallels as reference, the “magic bullet theory” of the JFK assassination is a classic model to consult when analyzing the Taitz/Bomford CCRB controversy of August, 2009. Regardless if either controversy proves a conspiracy, we can see the dynamics of improbability at work against the dissemination of contrived misinformation in the absence of scientific analysis. Both accounts are cloaked in an aura of covertness which consists of three notorious pieces of iconic evidence (three bullets and three documents).
One piece of evidence in each case is presented as the one which “missed the target”. Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ has “missed the target” in answering the actual questions about his natal history. His Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is only relevant in what it did not do and by its effect in narrowing more refined questions toward the other two remaining pieces of evidence which are causing the damage. Specifically, these other two pieces of evidence in Obama’s case are the CCRBs and the missing documents which Obama refuses to reveal but that we know to exist. Likewise, the bullet which missed JFK’s motorcade did not cause wounds to the victims, therefore, narrowing the focus onto the remaining shots which we know caused the damage, one of which caused the fatal wound to Kennedy, which we know exists, but which was never found. The final piece of evidence is the “magic bullet” which is showcased as the miraculous rebuttal for every possible question, and every attempt to hold the criminals involved accountable. The “magic bullet” is forced upon the public no matter how much it is rejected or how ridiculous the lie it represents.
The “magic bullet” concept is an attempt to explain something that is highly improbable yet minutely possible. Like the “magic bullet theory” was an officially endorsed “silencer” of challenges to the Warren Commission’s investigation of the JFK assassination, the most profound result of the sudden discovery of the Bomford CCRB was that it was an attempt by Obama’s protectors to use it to silence the onslaught of inquiry into the matter of Obama’s ambiguously defined identity. It could be argued that this was the only purpose for revealing the Bomford CCRB, depending on your perspective of the entire Taitz case.
Like the “magic bullet”, some believe the entire Taitz/Bomford CCRB affair was completely contrived and planted, from beginning to end, by Obama operatives attempting to marginalize, and bring ridicule upon, investigators of Obama’s natal history. Hoping to once and for all draw attention away from the secrecy of his actual birth records, Obama’s minions manufactured pristine evidence to be used at a later time based on knowledge they acquired from examples of documents they knew resembled the actual Obama Kenyan CCRB, which they knew existed when it was discovered missing from the roster of documents in Obama’s parents’ divorce docket. Then, like the alleged planting of the “magic bullet”, when the time was right, they would deposit their document on the internet “stretcher” to be conveniently snatched up by an unnamed blogger and entered into evidence with the purpose of substituting a ridiculous, but improbable, explanation.
However, the Bomford CCRB document did nothing to actually resolve the essential questions of Obama’s missing natal information. Regardless of any accusations of forgery, Obama still has never produced a U.S. Department of Health issued “Certificate of Live Birth”. Therefore, just like the “magic bullet” did nothing to conclusively answer questions about the involvement of more than one shooter in the JFK assassination, the Bomford CCRB only raised more intense desire to find truth about Obama’s natal identity, even if the truth is that there is no conspiracy.
Like the JFK “magic bullet”, the Bomford CCRB document was also conveniently found far from the “crime scene” in Australia, in pristine condition, by anonymous individuals, without any accounting for its chain of possession or results of any analysis in comparison to actual British-based CCRBs from Kenya. This suggests that it was planted evidence meant to be used later to undermine the potency of the Taitz CCRB. As was the case, both of these parallel pieces of unscathed evidence were showcased and mantled as the disseminator’s reasons that everyone should simply shut up and stop asking questions.
Most importantly, like the final piece of evidence in the “Magic Bullet Theory” of the JFK assassination, there is one piece of evidence that, if proven to exist, will cause “fatal” damage in the Obama investigation. Like the shot which fatally wounded Kennedy, the presence of and disclosure of an authentic, confirmed Original (Vault) Birth Certificate, regardless from where, whether it confirms or denies Obama’s legitimacy, would fatally wound the investigation. It would result in a progressive spiraling end to the investigation and bring about the conclusion to either the inquisition, or Obama’s credibility, depending on its contents. Like the fatal bullet in JFK’s assassination, Obama’s ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ has never been revealed, therefore, it affords no evidence of its origin, type or content, nor has the evidence of it ever been confirmed or analyzed to determine from where it came. However, we know these pieces of evidence exist because we have witnessed the results of their destructive power. We have seen their secret devastation conveyed by those working to prevent their discovery.
Will the Bomford CCRB document prove to be a “magic bullet” for Obama’s effort to conceal his identity? Will it work to diminish the inquisition into Obama’s biography and end speculation about the massive amounts of his missing historical information? More importantly, will the Taitz/Bomford CCRB document saga work to conceal the facts about his natal history and obscure the actual existence of a single document which has the power to either exonerate Obama, or figuratively “assassinate” his credibility?
Website access records from the web host of www.Bomford.net, Aushost, reveals that the Bomford site was actually breached after the Taitz CCRB was discovered by Obama’s operatives, not before. This means that the Bomford website was accessed by anonymous hackers not for the purpose of creating a cloned forgery, but rather it was illegally accessed by hackers, possibly working for Obama, attempting to discredit the Taitz CCRB as a cloned forgery after it already was filed in court and posted on the internet.
The original Taitz CCRB document filed with the District Court of Central California has never been seen by the public and therefore it is suspected that the original and clone image of the Taitz CCRB seen on the internet was, in fact, altered by hackers. After Taitz had submitted the filing with the original paper document, Judge Nakazato confiscated it. Therefore, there was no way for Taitz or the public to verify the contents or compare it with the altered image, unless Taitz kept an original copy of the document. To date, Taitz has never provided insight about the procedural irregularities, anonymity of sources and extraordinary circumstances surrounding her possession of the original CCRB document.
Exploiting the sensationalism, ABC News reported on August 5th that a “blogger in California” (a.k.a. “hacker in the California Central District Court’s jurisdiction”), whose name was never disclosed, had conveniently located (unlawfully accessed) the image of an Australian, British-based “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” (CCRB). In the hours following, it was ignorantly decided by media executives at several news agencies, including CBS and NBC, that the Bomford CCRB document must have been a source used by “hoaxers” to create the Taitz CCRB. They made this decision based on premature zealotry to protect Obama with a falsely manufactured suspicion that the Taitz CCRB was modeled after an “authentic” Bomford CCRB and therefore, the Taitz CCRB must be another poor attempt to attach a Kenyan birth record to Barack Obama.
However, the most important occurrence during the entire week of liberal media fervor over the Taitz/Bomford CCRB controversy was not the ridicule of Taitz and “birthers” by MSNBC. The most revealing part of the media message was what the Obama-friendly media chose to leave out. In every report and broadcast from the liberal media, not one report included the fact that a CCRB was actually removed from the authentic set of 1964 Obama divorce court papers. By the time the image of the Bomford CCRB was coincidentally discovered on the internet four days after the Taitz CCRB was filed in with Nakazato’s Central California District Court, the liberal media had already made desperate hay of the altered content of the hacked image of the Taitz CCRB beginning two days earlier without ever acknowledging the probability that it was the actual missing document from the archived roster of Obama’s parents’ divorce documents. The pro-Obama media was actually more willing to exploit the theory of a hacked version of the Taitz CCRB as evidence of a forgery, even though the explanation of an original document from the divorce hearing was substantially more likely.
The mockery of the hacked version of the Taitz CCRB with its ridiculous, blatant numeric references to Obama’s age, along with parodies in the names of the registrar, and distorted content, apparently was not enough to make the liberal media feel confident about their effort to promote a lack of authenticity of the Taitz CCRB. So, Obama’s propaganda wing went the next step to introduce a “magic bullet” by showcasing the content of the Bomford CCRB as even more evidence that the Taitz CCRB had to have been contrived by forgers.
Pushing the irrelevant fact that the geographic origins of the documents, one being from Kenya and the other being from Australia, were 8000 miles apart, Obama protectors in the media desperately tried to make the American people believe that it was impossible for the Taitz CCRB to be authentic because its similarity with the Bomford CCRB was simply too coincidental. However, an extensive research of the two documents reveals the similarities can be easily explained by logical circumstances, and that the likeness between them would be expected, more than differences, given their origins of publications, the era of their creation, British colonial history and the printing methods used to create both documents. In fact, it has been discovered that the Australian-British-based Bomford CCRB and the Kenyan-British-based Taitz CCRB come from the very same municipal vital statistics recording agency located in the United Kingdom which served the colonial governments of the British Foreign & Commonwealth Consulars, worldwide.
Based on procedures defined in Britain’s Births & Deaths Registration Act of 1953, The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office states the following:
“Registering A Birth:
If your child is born outside the United Kingdom you can register the birth with the nearest consulate (Local British Foreign & Commonwealth Regional Registrar Office), or with our consular department in London if you’ve returned to the United Kingdom...
The standard of birth registration in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Africa and Overseas Territories is similar to the standard of birth registration of the UK.” 128
Standard birth registration forms from Australia and Africa are the same under the United Kingdom. Based on this statement, the fact that the Bomford CCRB is similar to the Taitz CCRB indicates an affirmation of possible authenticity, not evidence of a hoax. Since Australia and the African commonwealth territories were served by Deputy Registrars in their respective British Foreign & Commonwealth satellite offices, the document formats and record indexing was connected through the authority of the main Registrar General’s Office in the United Kingdom. We should expect the two documents to look similar in many ways, while presenting information about the applicants and officials in similar ways.
FRIEND OR FOE: ANONYMOUS HACKERS?
With regard to official verification, the two documents would actually have the same Registrar’s name (the Registrar General was referred to as the “Registrar” in vital records at this time), based the fact that the Registrar General was the only one appointed to oversee vital statistics for the entire United Kingdom. A review of the two documents indicates that this is the case. Both contain the names, “Lavender” as the Registrar General and “Miller” as the Registrar Superintendant (District Registrar).
The British Registration Service Act of 1953 (UK Revised Statutes) states that the Queen appoints one Registrar General for the registration of vital records. His or her name would appear the same on all birth certificates of children born under British common law in 1961 until the end of their service.
Article 1 of the Registration Service Act of 1953 states:
“1 Registrar General…
Her Majesty may from time to time under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom appoint a Registrar General…and any person so appointed shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by or under any enactment on the Registrar General, whether described by that title alone or with any additional description, and shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”70
However, the Deputy Registrar’s names would be different on the two documents because the deputy registrar was a locally appointed official in their respective offices throughout the colonized regions of the world under the jurisdiction of the British Commonwealth. Therefore the presence of similar information in some parts of each document and different information on other parts, depending on region of the world, would be a strong indication of authenticity, not a forgery.
Excerpt of the Taitz CCRB Deputy Registrar name and signature showing the name Joshua Sisco Oduya. This name would be different than the Deputy Registrar shown on the Bomford CCRB because the two positions are appointed separately.
Excerpt of the Bomford CCRB Deputy Registrar name and signature show the name Douglas Gordon Young, who was the Deputy Registrar in South Australia from 1958 to 1962.
This image excerpt shows the seal committed by the Republic of Kenya in February, 1964. Since this document was printed after the ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya in December of 1963, it would indeed bear such a seal claimed by the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kenya
Another argument by Obama’s defenders is that the date of the Taitz document (February, 1964) was too early for the document to contain the seal from the Republic of Kenya which did not officially become recognized by the United Nations as a Republic until December of 1964. However, the Republic of Kenya Constitution was established and ratified on December 12, 1963. Article 3 of the Kenyan Constitution says:
"Article 3: This Constitution is the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya and shall have the force of law throughout Kenya and, subject to section 47, if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."
Kenya became a Republic in December of 1963 in the same way the United States became an independent nation in 1776, more than 10 years before the formation of our internationally recognized identity of the United States…in 1787.
The United States became the “United States” in 1776, when our founders declared it, not 1787 when the world recognized it. Our founders did not wait for the rest of the world to recognize our identity…they declared it in 1776, just as Kenya did in December, 1963.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787 and used the words “United States” just as they appeared 11 years earlier. Kenya’s national identity was the Republic of Kenya from, at least, December 12, 1963. Records show the Republic of Kenya title on documents as early as 1961 when Jomo Kenyatta was released from prison in August of 1961. Also, Kenyatta’s KANU government won a majority of seats in the former British colonial government of Kenya in May, 1963.
The declaration of Kenya’s identity as a Republic occurred, officially, in December of 1963. The world recognized it one year later. Vital records would have been created under Kenya’s municipal identity, not under the rest of the world’s label of Kenya. Therefore, the argument that the Taitz CCRB must be a forgery because it contains the reference to the Republic of Kenya is incorrect.
FOOLING THE WORLD
Obama’s handlers began scrubbing the records of Obama’s past long before he announced his candidacy for the Presidency in 2007. They discovered, beforehand, that a Kenyan birth record was unaccounted for when it was found missing from the roster of documents in Obama’s parent’s divorce archive. They immediately began to construct a plan to discount its authenticity when it eventually would be exposed to the public. This plan included using any means necessary to discredit the document as a forgery, including:
1. Influencing judges if the document appeared in court. The unprecedented actions by Nakazato in confiscating Taitz original paper document is proof of this influence over the judiciary by Obama’s powerful political ties and influence. Since October of 2008, courts and judges have wrongfully dismissed more than two dozen cases which were legally and legitimately filed by American citizens seeking a redress of grievances caused by Obama’s lack of public record and his disregard for the Constitutional mandate that a presidential candidate must prove they are eligible and legitimate for the office. The number of dismissed cases is not an indication of the frivolity of the lawsuits, it is an indication of the cowardice and complicity of America’s legal system to covertly assist Obama’s secrecy and deception. The only authority available to the American people is the public’s outrage and determination to delegitimize the fake presidency of Barack Obama.
2. Computer hacking and website invasion. Since it was proven that the image of the Taitz website was hacked and CCRB corrupted by Obama sycophants, it is not unreasonable to conclude the Taitz CCRB was an authentic birth record. Since we have never seen the original, it is impossible to determine if the internet image is an accurate representation of the document submitted in court by Taitz. If an effort were made to monitor all traffic and postings on the Taitz website, it would then not be difficult for hackers working for Obama, with unlimited resources and relationships with internet service providers, to access the image of the Taitz CCRB and alter it to match the Bomford CCRB. Employing misinformation over the internet is very easy to accomplish for the general public, let alone the massive resources of America’s major political parties.
3. Altering the content of the authentic document in order to disassociate it from Obama in the minds of the public. The image of the Taitz CCRB was hacked and altered to contain blatantly fraudulent information. But, who were the hackers? And, if the effort to create a believable forgery was the intent, why would anti-Obama forgers put such nonsensical information in an official document?
4. Using other authentic records to discredit its validity by associating it with information that is made to seem too coincidental to be authentic. Computer experts and researchers working for Obama accessed global resources to locate archived birth registration records that were similar to the record they knew was missing from the Obama divorce documents. They sought all British-based “Certified Copies of Registration of Births” created around the time Obama was born. From a review of the birth registration archive books available through the British National Archives and regional library resources within the British Commonwealth territories in the late 1950’s and 1960’s, it would have been easy for Obama’s operatives to pull a record which had much of the same data content as Obama’s birth record. In this case, of the thousands of documents recovered by Obama’s operatives, it was decided that the Bomford document contained information which was similar enough to Obama’s to promote the idea of a cloned forgery. The Bomford CCRB was then “found” on an obscure website in Australia after the Taitz CCRB document revealed. confiscated by a liberal judge, having been posted to the website after the Obama machine was aware of Obama’s missing CCRB. Then, after being exploited as a hoax template, the Bomford document suddenly and miraculously disappeared from public access.
Excerpt of the Taitz CCRB showing the reference to the Registration Book number and the Page number. If this number is not digitally altered to match the Bomford document, Obama’s internet monitors and researchers could have acquired and posted the Bomford CCRB with the same Book number and Page Number, from Australia. The numbers on the Taitz image are too distorted to determine if they are authentic or altered. It is widely suspected that they are digitally altered. However, despite resistance from foreign heads of state, researchers are trying to confirm the registration of Obama’s Kenyan Birth in the Registration Books kept in the British National Archives based on these numbers. The book number might be 44B or 448 based on this image. The page could be any number of combinations, but it appears tobe a 4 digit number, perhaps 6733, 5733 or 6783 based on this image. It is obvious that the document was intended to have the same number reference as the Bomford document in order to promote the plausibility of a hoax.
Excerpt of the Bomford CCRB showing the reference to the Registration Book number and the page. If this number is authentic, researchers should be able to access the registration books in the British National Archives to determine if David Bomford’s birth is recorded.
5. Using massive broadcast media resources to promote the idea of forgery. MSNBC was complicit in Obama’s plan to discredit the Taitz CCRB document. With the discovery of the Bomford CCRB, Obama’s propaganda machine wanted the public to believe that the forgers were intellectually adept enough to circumvent internet security measures; Hack into some random obscure website; Hijack a rare image of a remote Australian’s British-based Certified Copy of Registration of Birth; Use it to produce a historically accurate Kenyan CCRB with accurate headers, titles and labels; Fill the document with chronologically accurate data which matches not only the actual legal information from Obama’s parent’s divorce affidavit but the registration book reference information of actual British birth registration archives; And, use the names and signatures of official registrars who actually existed and were appointed by the British Commonwealth in both regions from 1959 to 1963. Yet, the Obama sycophants wanted America to believe the anti-Obama hackers were not smart enough to access an actual document from Kenya to use as a template or realize that using ridiculously blatant numeric references and absurd word puns in the personal content of a cloned forgery would attract incrimination and discredit this epic cause.
This hoax was either the work of the technically smartest, yet grammatically stupid, document forging computer hackers in internet history. Or, the CCRB birth record possessed by Orly Taitz simply was an actual, authentic birth record of a Kenyan-born Barack Obama, and the vast assets within Obama’s administration simply used their global access power and endless technical resources to monitor and neutralize all subversive information placed not only on the Taitz website, but the entire internet, about Obama’s natal identity.
If the latter is so far from reality, it’s fascinating how anonymous hackers were able to illegally access both the Bomford and Taitz websites and clone, then corrupt, the contents of the image of the Taitz CCRB, and repost it all within hours of MSNBC’s attempt to debunk it. If we are to believe the absurd accusations of Obama supporters, never in the history of the internet has there ever been such a proficient effort to create a single incriminating document possessing such epic consequences...and then screw it up with such blatant nonsense.
TWO WORLDS, ONE GOVERNMENT
When analyzing the Taitz/Bomford CCRB relationship, it is essential to explore the origins of the municipalities serving in the regions of the world pertaining to the investigation of Obama’s natal history. Through discussion thus far, we are familiar with the issues presented by the remoteness of Hawaii and Kenya, but recently, with the introduction of this peripheral, though questionable evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth, regardless of its authenticity, Australia has now become part of that investigative roster.
This is important because the chronology and accounting of events around Obama’s birth have a significant impact on understanding the methods of documentation of vital statistics used in these parts of the world in 1961. Not only are the methods of documentation relevant, the actual forms of the documents, the way they were created, printed, published and filed, are all important discoveries when weighed against the lack of information we have about Obama’s natal history. A brief history of the two regions, Australia and Kenya, present some interesting consistencies which most people are not fully aware of.
Obama supporters contrive arguments which attempt to discount any discovery opposing his eligibility to be president. Most of the arguments are generated out of a visceral reaction to any threat against their blind support of his candidacy. This premeditation has now metastasized into full blown dissonance which provides them with little substantiation for denying the basic questions about Obama’s natal identity, especially when the questions are rooted in the irrefutable fact of Obama’s obstinate unwillingness to answer them.
The Bomford version of the three CCRB documents posted between August 1st and August 5th, 2009 originates from the British document form used for vital records created by New South Wales parliamentary legislation, the very same British legislation governing vital records in British colonial Kenya in the 1960’s. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that the CCRB would be modelled after the original British and Australian forms of the document during the era of Kenya’s burgeoning independence between 1960 and 1964. To proclaim that the Taitz CCRB document format, including insignias, headers, fonts and lettering is a sign of a forgery based on the fact that it matches an Australian CCRB document’s format is actually an argument for its authenticity, not falsification.
The British government established a New South Wales parliament in Australia by setting up a Legislative Council as well as a Supreme Court under the New South Wales Act of 1823. This Act was the first step towards the establishment of British government and parliament in Australia,64 and it is the same colonial government body which established jurisdiction in colonial Kenya in around 1920. The British Crown, acting under the proclamations of British Commonwealth law, logically invoked the authority of Her majesty the Queen in the same way for all established colonies whether in Africa, Australia or Asia.
Since the establishment of Independent governments in Kenya and Australia between 1823 and 1960, the documentation of vital records here have evolved and matched those used in any other British colonized regions in the world. Therefore, it is not out of the realm of reasonability that both geographic locations would have documents issued by their respective regional offices of vital statistics which match to some degree, in line with the appearance of documents created anywhere under the jurisdiction of the British government.
The Bomford CCRB document is the first time an account of alleged forgery of an Obama Kenyan birth record was attributed to another international source besides Kenya. In terms of the dissemination of misinformation, this was the final step taken to distract from the essential questions about, and attention upon, the original document and the truth within it. At this point, the disseminators were seeking to create total psychological dissonance about the issue. This is the proverbial shell game. The original document is placed under what is characterized as three possible options. A.) it is one of many other forgeries and should therefore be disregarded, B.) It is a particularly crafty forgery with very subtle coincidences and nonsensical content lending to the idea that the forgers were trying to pass a genuine document, but failed because we were all too smart for them, and C.) it is a copy of a document that already exists in a far away land where it’s possible to levy an accusation of forgery, yet very difficult to investigate the details.
The disseminators then move the facts around with speed and slight-of-hand to make onlookers lose track and become distracted from the essential facts that the original CCRB is actually an authentic document and that the others have been introduced to confuse the masses, discourage further inquiry and create ridicule toward further investigation. This is a standard disseminative strategy designed to derail people from asking the essential questions of who, what, when, where and how about Obama’s natal history as they relate to his eligibility and legitimacy as President. These questions remain: Where was he born? What documents exist to prove it? Who issued the documents? When were they issued? How was the information processed?
The Bomford CCRB document was the third step in a sequence of manipulative events. This type of propaganda is rooted in exploiting the human need for acceptance over the will to convey the truth. This is an insidious tactic used by operatives to force otherwise decent people into compromising their basic understanding of right and wrong. The equivalent would be performing an experiment where a majority, except for a few, of a classroom of children are taken aside and secretly told that, just for today, they are supposed to answer incorrectly on a simple question that everyone knows the correct answer to. For example, what is two plus two? Everyone knows that the answer is four. But, today, the majority of the class is told to answer “five” in an effort to persuade the other few children, who are not aware of the scheme, into thinking the incorrect answer is actually correct.
The teacher will ask as many of the corrupted group to give the answer before asking the other unwitting children, and after hearing the wrong answer so many times, the test subjects begin to doubt their own understanding of what is right and wrong, even though the answer is blatantly obvious. After hearing over and over again that the answer to two plus two is five, eventually the other children will begin to answer the same way in order to avoid a sense of isolation and rejection, even though they know the answer is four. They would rather wrestle internally with their confusion and moral ambiguity than deal with outward ridicule.
Disseminators of propaganda do this to conceal a very simple truth that the original version of a solution tends to be the accurate one, and is genuinely unique because it comes from a real chain of information that can be investigated and confirmed. It takes a bold thinker to recognize the scheme and willfully disregard the majority of idiocy, most of which are Obama’s media operatives at MSNBC, and around the world, who are desperate to prevent the origins of Obama natal identity from being investigated in any way. The disseminators will throw everything they have at it just to see what sticks.
As soon as the Bomford CCRB document was exposed, all logical approach to any investigation deteriorated while the Obama faithful began ridiculing the controversy as an act of Obama hating forgers. This stage of disseminative propaganda preys on the basic human need for acceptance and the avoidance of rejection and ridicule. Very few hard minded, determined individuals seek resolution to suspected misinformation beyond this because it not only requires boldness of thought, but also courage and fearlessness to isolate one’s self in order to discover righteousness and truth.
Most people do not have the fortitude to conceive of the possibility, let alone a plausible scenario, that the Bomford CCRB document was actually part of a three document shell game designed long before the revelation of Taitz’ CCRB, or even Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’. Remember, the Obama administration knows an original document, or documents, are out there, somewhere. They just didn’t know specifically when or by whom it would be revealed, so they had to fully prepare for when it was.
KENYAN INDEPENDENCE: A QUESTION OF WHEN?
At the time of Obama’s birth in August of 1961, both factions of a burgeoning Kenyan government, those of the Kenya African National Union (KANU) and the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU) demanded and gained the release of political prisoner, and east African native, Jomo Kenyatta. While in prison, Kenyatta had previously been elected as the KANU president-in-absentia (absent president) of the territory of pre-Kenyan Zanzibar on May 14, 1960. Even in captivity, encouraged by his political support, Kenyatta remained vigilant for the next several months until, finally, in December, 1960, the state of emergency which had been held over the British colonial territory of Zanzibar (Kenya) was lifted. Kenyatta was officially released from prison on August 21, 1961.75
Over the next few years, the transition from colonial rule to independence was underway in the east African nation state. In 1962, Kenyatta was admitted to the British Legislative Council as the territorial representative of pre-Kenyan government where he pushed for the employment of terms recognizing Kenya as an independent Republic. With Kenyatta’s influence on the council, the A Legislative Council in British constitutional thought is the second-to-top tier of a government led by a Governor-General, Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor, inferior to an Executive Council and equal to or superior to a Legislative Assembly. ...KANU branch of the Kenyan government subsequently won 83 of 124 congressional seats as a result of free elections in May 1963. On June 1, 1963 Kenyatta became interim prime minister of an autonomous, but pre-independent, republic Kenyan government.75
Governmentally, it is important to realize that Kenyatta did not want the British government to abandon Kenya. This is important to realize in preserving the argument that colonial government remained cooperatively influential in the majority of municipal services in Kenya even after it became independent in December of 1963. These municipal services would have included the issuance and publication of vital records based on British common law forms and publication methods while recognizing the developing status of a Republic in Kenya.75 In fact, Kenyatta supported the essential contributions of the British colonial government in its effective municipal health services which also included disease research and prevention. The vital statistics and census offices were a highly developed, integrated part of these British municipal services in Kenya.75
Surprisingly, Kenyatta also desired the British military to remain while the transitional government gained jurisdiction over land rights and statutory legislation for the native people of Kenya. Kenyatta's policies were implemented in the spirit of continuity to keep many colonial civil servants, including municipal officials of registrar, passport and document services in their old jobs. Kenyatta also asked for support from British military against Somali rebels in the northeast and during an army mutiny in Nairobi in January of 1964. The British government was called to support Kenyatta in subsequent uprisings as late as 1971.75 These facts are important to consider when analyzing the migration of Kenyan citizens, and foreigners, to and from the country, as Obama’s father, and perhaps his mother did on several occasions during this time.
Kenyatta understood the dynamics of colonial rule, having been a student in English society studying at the University of London in the mid 1930’s. Kenyatta desired eventual sovereignty for Kenyans, but he actually requested that white settlers not leave Kenya in support of reconciliation. Subsequently, many of these open policies created conflicts within the semi-dichotomous Kenyan government when it came to land ownership. However, in November, 1964, through perseverance, KADU representatives joined the KANU and formed a unified Kenyan National government.75
One month later, on December 12, 1964, Kenya was officially recognized by the rest of the world as a republic, with Jomo Kenyatta assuming executive power. 75 This became manifest even though most Kenyan citizens consider the moment of independence to be when Kenyatta was released from prison in August of 1961. The transitional period from colonial territory to republic took more than 4 years to accomplish. During that time, the British government remained a strong influence in many matters of Kenyan government, but the Kenyan government began to establish its identity as a republic in many areas of municipal function, including regional Health services and vital records long before it became recognized as independent by the international community.
RAILA ODINGA: OBAMA'S KENYAN AGENT
Many shocking facts continue to emerge about the identity of Obama and his relationships with notorious, radical revolutionaries all over the world. If documented evidence of Barack Obama’s natal history exists in Kenya, it would benefit his political aspirations in America to secure the Kenyan evidence and make sure there were individuals in Kenya’s government that he could trust to keep his foreign identity a secret. There is evidence that Obama has accomplished this in his relationship with Kenya’s controversially elected Prime Minister, Raila Odinga.
The first shocking fact that America should know about Raila Odinga and Obama is that they are genealogically connected to the same Luo Tribal faction in Kenya and that Odinga, himself, told a Reuters correspondent in 2007 that he and Obama are cousins.127
In late 2006, few American news agencies reported on the extraordinary events taking place within Kenya’s government between political opponents, Odinga and incumbent President, Mwai Kubaki. At the time, it was not commonly known that Odinga was running for the Kenyan Presidency as a member of the radical communist Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party and that, months prior to the December 2007 Kenyan election, Obama had campaigned for Odinga, in violation of the Logan Act forbidding elected U.S. officials from influencing foreign elections.
There are multiple internet video sources showing Obama traveling with Odinga and speaking on his behalf during campaign rallies.127 It was also not widely reported in America at the time that Odinga had signed a marshaled “Memorandum of Understanding” agreement with the leadership of The National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), in which Odinga promised to promote Islamic Sharia law if he was supported by tribal muslims.
Among the terms of Odinga’s agreement with NAMLEF are:
1.) the renaming of Coast Province to “Jimbo La Pwani” which means “The Realm of the Prophet”.
2.) Oversight of all Kenyan religious activities by the newly established Muslim government council.
3.) The re-writing of the Kenyan Constitution within 6 months to “recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Koran…”
4.) Implementation of Islamic “Madrassa classes” in every primary school in Kenya.
5.) The ban of alcohol.
6.) A national dress code for women.
7.) The outlaw of Christian broadcasts on the Kenyan National Television Network.
Obama supported Odinga before and after Odinga signed the agreement on August 29th, 2007. BBC reports verified that Obama called Odinga on several occasions to offer his support after Odinga had lost the election, and after he had signed the NAMLEF agreement. Odinga even admitted that Obama had called him “…on his cell phone…” while Obama was participating in the January 2008 New Hampshire primary.
On December 30, 2007, final election results gave President Kubaki the victory over Odinga. The election was officially certified by the Kenyan Election Commission.127 However, Odinga refused to accept the results which showed that he had lost the election by more than 200,000 votes. In the days following the election, supporters of Odinga began rioting in protest of the results. It was alleged by supporters of Kubaki, and members of the international Human Rights Watch organization, that Odinga and other Orange Democratic Movement politicians had personally incited riots among Muslim supporters in order to put political pressure on election officials to hold a new election.127 During the riots, more than 1100 people were murdered and 800 Christian churches were burned.
As a result of the violence, the Bush administration attempted to mediate the conflict by suggesting that Odinga and Kubaki share proportional levels of power in order to appease both sides. Subsequenty, the Kenyan constitution underwent a forced amendment process to accommodate the installation of Odinga as Kenya’s Prime Minister, a position which was not previously mentioned as an official office of leadership in Kenya before 2008. Now, Obama has a cousin in one of the highest places of Kenya’s government.
On October 2, 2008, Dr. Jerome Corsi, a best-selling author and columnist for the web press group, World Net Daily, went to Kenya to investigate the relationship between Obama and Odinga. After securing a sum of documents and emails between Obama’s office and Odinga, Corsi was preparing to give a press conference. Moments later, he was arrested and detained by Kenyan police. His documents, given to him with the cooperation of the Kenyan government, were confiscated and he was escorted to the airport where he was ordered out of the country. No explanation was given for the abominable treatment of Corsi by Kenyan officials, other than to say that he had entered Kenya without first acquiring a Kenyan work permit. This was a bizarre charge considering that Corsi had never intended to go to Kenya for the purpose of finding a job there.
WHY DAVID BOMFORD?
David Bomford was born in a region of the world where vital records were created, published, filed and recorded under the Registrar of the British Commonwealth, in the same way they were in Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth. However, in terms of comparisons to Obama’s Kenyan CCRB, Bomford’s is just one of many that are possibly recorded along with Barack Obama’s in the British National Archives, Births and Deaths Registrations in the Registrar General’s Registration Book. There are literally hundreds of thousands of births from all over the world recorded in this same Registrar source kept in the Kew office of the United Kindom.
The discovery of the Bomford CCRB document was particularly suspect given some untold details about the image and its origins. The image was a high resolution photograph, not a scanned image, taken from a perpendicular angle of focus about two feet from the geometric center of the document. This means that the Bomford CCRB image exhibits characteristics of image production by someone trained to do it. It is unknown if David Bomford is experienced in spatial imagery or geodetic photography, however, if he is, he did a great job with this photo production. Its quality work from a “little ole me” from Adelaide, as Bomford characterized himself.
The edges are perfectly oriented and the shadowing retreats uniformily from the center of the image. Evidence of this is found in the creasing and wrinkles of the document image, which would not otherwise be present in a scanned image if it were pressed on a flat glass surface. It seems unlikely, though not impossible that Bomford would have posted his birth certificate in this format.
Second, the document was posted to more than one site after Bomford says he originally posted it to his friend’s website.
Third, Obama backers found the Bomford CCRB despite the obscurity of the webpage it was attached to, the webpage’s access security, its remote location and most importantly, the lack of inferred search terms enabling a network location of the attachment to the page itself. Otherwise, this is one of the most amazing examples of investigative instincts in internet history. Unless the aforementioned ‘anonymous blogger’ was intimately involved with the operation and maintenance of the website, or he/she knew the site address and security passwords before hand, it is difficult to believe the outright discovery of the Bomford CCRB was possible in the amount of time it happened, without inside help, or without the hacking capability one might have in a professional I.T. position with massive technical resources.
Photo of the clone CCRB document’s General Registrar Office (GRO) index number manufactured by forgers to show the number 47,’O’44. If forgers wanted to make a document that was meant to make everyone think it was authentic, why would they use such blatantly ridiculous numeric references to Obama? The positional distortions of the digits in the number create suspicions against a genuine effort at forgery. If a forgery was the genuine intent of this document, considering its importance and weight, one would conclude that such distortions would otherwise never be allowed to be detected.
Photo taken from the Bomford document showing a
single digit number of the GRO index.
The image file name, as it was stored by AUSHOST, the Bomford website host, did not contain the words “birth” or “certificate” in it. It was simply tagged as “bomford”. And, the only efficient and accurate means of finding such an image would come from using a computer sequence query languages (binary SQL form) to identify as many sites as possible with any image whatsoever. This would result in a search result of more than 82,000,000 websites. One could narrow the search by only choosing sites that support vital records services such as hospitals, departments of health, immigration agencies, custody and divorce court records and, most accessible, geneology and ancestoral research websites, which was the genre reported to have held the Bomford certificate.
Bomford himself lamented posting the document because of identity theft concerns, yet, for whatever reason, he posted it anyway. Bomford’s website web master has never been interviewed to determine when the website was unlawfully accessed or to determine when Bomford actually provided his CCRB compared to when it was hacked. Who was in charge of securing the website?
This step in a misinformation campaign is a basic “Deck Stacking” tactic in disseminative propaganda. It basically says that before implementing any deception, find an existing legitimate example to make the truth look like a forgery. The scheme also relies on intellectual laziness to cause the masses to give up on the inquiry into deeper facts and just accept the idea that if everyone else is buying it, it must be a good thing. However, the scheme also relies on the idea that most people will not realize that anyone making a real attempt to make a forgery of this kind of document would never use a template that already exists. Most people don’t even consider that an intelligent counterfeiter would never allow for the revelation of his source. The idea that an Obama birth certificate forger would use a source document that could possibly be found by anyone else is completely ignorant. Mr. Bomford even acknowledged this in an ABC Radio interview when he said, “When I posted it, it never occurred to me that anyone would ever find it. I'm very surprised at how anyone would even find it on the net unless they were looking for something like that because it's buried on a little known research site that's particularly for my family.”63
We should not underestimate the significance of Mr. Bomford’s observation here. His account becomes relevant, especially, considering the resources employed by the Obama administration so far to preemptively conceal as much of is natal identity as possible, beginning as far back as 2006. To date, Obama has spent close to a million dollars fighting lawsuits asking for simple disclosure of his natal history. Obama has paid one such lawyer, Perkins Coie, almost $2 million alone. So, why is it out of the realm of possibility that they could create a “stacked deck” propaganda scenario when the information they need is accessible, though hidden, in the recesses of some obscure internet site. Bomford was a convenient tool.
ABC Radio’s Aussie bureau Correspondent, Dina Rosendorff even got Bomford to say outright that the version he was seeing was “...definitely a copy of my certificate.” But we have no way of knowing which document image he was referring to. At first, his comment seems to agree with ABC’s push for confirmation of a forgery, but if you listen closely the context becomes apparent. He is only being shown two of the three versions of the documents. In fact, he may be observing a slightly altered copy of his own birth certificate for all we know, thanks to some handy artists at ABC.
There is another problem with the images of documents Rosendorff was supplied with by the ABC Australian bureau. Based on Bomford’s comments, he is not being shown the originally posted document. If he were, basic intelligence would suggest that his birth certificate looks only slightly familiar in comparison to the Taitz CCRB document format which, as we have discussed, is entirely possible given the consistencies between Kenyan and Australian municipal histories. Unless Rosendorff actually had a paper copy, if Bomford was shown an image of the original post, why would he think that was a copy of his certificate? It looks nothing like the image of his document and the content is different except for various data related to the registrar. Suddenly Bomford had become an unwitting tool for Obama as a pontificator on document accuracy and authenticity without ever having been shown the originally posted document that the U.S. media was trying to discredit. It is probable that Rosendorff never even saw the originally posted document and therefore Bomford was only shown images of his birth certificate and an image of the clone to compare.
This was an odd statement by Bomford, unless he was being shown another version, one we have never seen, of a slightly altered copy of his own birth certificate. If he was never shown the originally posted document what document was he shown and told was a forgery? That is simply never confirmed by Rosendorff in the interview on August 4th. He continued, "I'll be certainly contacting my friend who runs that web and asking him to remove it.” 63 In this statement he revealed the obscurity of the source.
During another interview by ABC, broadcasted during an episode of the “PM” radio show, Rosendorff spoke with Internet security expert Dr. Asha Rao from RMIT University who said, “It just shows you what is possible on the Internet; that ultimately digital documents come down to a string of zeros and ones. This is an extreme case. Of course they must have trawled around and found something they could use.” 63
There’s that word “they” again. They would have to be very good at understanding how to hide vital documents, and they would need to know how to find them in buried places, wouldn’t they? But, most importantly, they would need to have a reason to create such an extreme rendition of misinformation. But, who exactly is the ‘they’, Dr. Rao could be referring to? Ironically, it’s safe to assume Dr. Rao has no idea about the identity of ‘they’. If the Obama administration was already aware of the possibility that an original Kenyan CCRB birth document might exist, even before his run for presidency, he would have an army of internet monitors and liberal media hacks trawling the net for a template upon which they could then blame a hoax if the original Obama Kenya birth document surfaced. Who were the forgers? Their names and identities have never been discovered. If Orly Taitz was the “forger”, why did she travel to Europe to have it authenticated?
Bomford was a seemingly random character caught up in a major misinformation stratagem raging between ideological forces divided over the authenticity of the man serving as the President of the U.S. But, the vulnerability created in his story comes after his decision to put his CCRB on a publicly accessible, though obscure, media source.
This was the first time an alleged forgery of an Obama birth record was duplicated from a version of an authentic version to clarify the purported Obama Birth Record posted before August 2nd. The mere fact that Mr. Bomford’s CCRB was on the internet should have repelled the propagandists because it only raises the question that if Mr. Bomford is willing to post his authentic CCRB, then why can’t Obama?
MSNBC’s participation in the Bomford affair is nothing more than another example of its profane willingness to exploit misinformation in lieu of facts solely for the purpose of protecting Obama. At no time during this episode, did MSNBC ever back their accusations of a forgery up with facts or investigation leading to the identity of the forgers. The successive reactions, to this point, were following the textbook standard for disseminative propaganda and techniques of misinformation. And, it was apparent the plan was designed and planned long before the original document was ever posted. Few people were able to recognize this though.
However, it was not commonly known by most who reviewed the Taitz CCRB document that the creator of the clone document also altered information that should have remained the same as the Taitz CCRB document and the Bomford document. The name of the Registrar would have been the same on both documents because there is only one registrar appointed under British Common law for the United Kingdom.
The Taitz CCRB Document's "Registrar’s last name" appears to have been altered after it was filed with the U.S. Central California District Court. The initials appear to be K.F. and the last name appears to be graphically distorted. Under the Vital Records Registration Act of 1953, the Queen of England appointed one Registrar. Testimony from Kenyan residents who visited the Ministry of Health said that there is a placard of a man named Lavender who served as the General Registrar in the late 1950’s to the early 1960’s. The idea that there are three different British Registrars with the same last name in two different colonial regions is ridiculous.
The Clone CCRB Document Registrar name alteration appears to have been a blatant attempt to skew the reasoning of viewers into thinking the name of the Registrar was meant to closely resemble the name of a laundry product called Earth Friendly Lavender while closely resembling the Bomford Document. Notice that the E. appears slightly askew from the other letters suggesting that it may have been digitally added at a later date, or corrected after a typo. This was a mistake by the cloners revealing an effort to promote their document as the original.
THE BOMFORD DOCUMENT REGISTRAR OFFICE
The alteration of the Registrar’s name was a mistake by Obama protectors because it revealed that their message of a “sophisticated hoax by birthers” was exposed by a mistake that highly skilled, intelligent forgers would never actually make. Knowledgeable forgers would know that the Registrar’s name would match on the two documents if they indeed used the Bomford CCRB as their model to produce a fake Obama Kenyan CCRB.
In the weeks following the Bomford CCRB discovery, residents of South Australia and residents of Kenya who were born around the time of Obama, under the jurisdiction of British Commonwealth laws, began requesting their respective CCRBs to compare the records with the Taitz and Bomford CCRBs. In an overwhelming number of internet blogs and written accounts, people were surprised to learn that their respective CCRBs, in Kenya and South Australia, actually matched the format, and contained information that matched both the Taitz CCRB and the Bomford CCRB. This “clarification by the masses” worked to discredit the possibility that the Taitz CCRB was merely just a haphazard hoax.
Why did the liberal media chase this story so hard? The Obama truth seekers are supposedly a marginalized sector of Obama dissenters. The so called “birther” movement has been called a ‘bunch of wackos’ by MSNBC, yet this allegedly forged document had NBC correspondents visually upset and ABC radio talk show hosts chasing Australian, Mr. David Jeffrey Bomford all over the outback of Adelaide attempting to confirm the existence of his source document. This was extremely odd. The desperation of the liberal media to hash this out and cover all the bases was somewhat inconsistent with their previous behavior acting dismissive with ridicule. If the Bomford document was so indicative of a ridiculous hoax, then why dedicate media resources to prove it? The media's behavior in this matter was highly irregular and outright suspicious.
Remember, in the ABC Radio interview, internet security expert Dr. Asha Rao from RMIT University said, “It just shows you what is possible on the Internet; that ultimately digital documents come down to a string of zeros and ones. This is an extreme case. Of course they must have trawled around and found something they could use.” 63
But, who is the ‘they’, Dr. Rao might be referring to? Are “they” the Obama handlers? Or, are “they” anti-Obama hoaxers? If the Obama administration was already aware of the possibility that an original Kenyan birth document might exist, even before his run for presidency, he would have an army of internet monitors and liberal media hacks trawling the net for template upon which they could then blame a hoax if the original Obama Kenya birth document surfaced.
This is a basic “card-stacking” tactic in disseminative propaganda. This strategy basically says that before implementing the deception, find an existing legitimate example to make the truth look like a forgery. Having evolved out the same government, both CCRB images could actually have been produced from authentic documents. This is just as plausible as some crazed “birther” digging on the web for any similar document to use as a template for a CCRB from Kenya.
ABC Radio Aussie bureau correspondent, Dina Rosendorff even got Bomford to say outright that the tampered version of the CCRB was “...definitely a copy of my certificate. It's so laughable it's ridiculous.” Suddenly the unassuming Bomford became a pontificator on document history and authenticity.63 Bomford obviously did not know that the official format of Kenya’s 1964 CCRB is identical to South Australia’s 1964 CCRB format.
But, for those listening to the interview on radio, it is not clear which document Bomford is looking at. If he is looking at a copy of his own CCRB and told by the interviewer that this was the copy the forgers used to create the Taitz document, he may have misinterpreted that document as a forgery as well, not understanding that it was simply the copy of the version he himself had originally possessed prior to placing the image of it on the internet. This just illustrates the confusion achieved by disseminators of misinformation when they associate domestic controversy with distant, remote sources.
OBAMA-FRIENDLY HACKERS HARD AT WORK
This is an image of the Header of the Taitz CCRB document posted on August 2, 2009. The Obama campaign knew this document existed before his announcement to run for president in February 2008. Obama’s operatives would have been able to access registration records and discern that authentic copies had been made from the Kenyan Ministry of Health or the British General Registrar’s office. Prior to Obama’s announcement to run for president in February 2008, he had traveled to Kenya the previous summer, and again in July of 2009.
The Clone CCRB document was posted August 3rd or 4th as an obvious hoax. This is the version widely alleged to be attributed as the Taitz original, but this is not the version originally posted on August 2nd. “If this internet version is the forgery, what is the origin of the mombosan version?” Anyone seeking to protect an authentic document would use two sources to confuse observers.
The Bomford document “found” on August 5th displaying header information which coordinates with the historical common law form of British regional governments since the early 1900’s. The Bomford CCRB document would appear like a Kenyan document because both regions evolved from the same British colonial governmental policies and records system. This includes the form number, the regional title, the prefix fonts and the configuration of the data.
Image taken from version of original image of the CCRB document posted on Taitz’ website and later, hacked by Obama ‘operatives’. The name appears to be K.F. LAvonder or Levender or Lavonder with what appears to be a capital “A” as the second letter of the last name. The image also seems to be comprised of slightly jumbled, inconsistently sized and distorted letters leading many to believe the name had been digitally altered. This image suggests the first step in concealing the content of an authentic document by subtlety, without completely concealing, the alteration of the appearance of the source. This is done to promote doubt in the original document’s authenticity. Then, the disseminator’s move to the next step called “Cloning” (see next image).
Image taken from clone version of the August 3rd CCRB document exploited by MSNBC as the evidence of a hoax. The emergence of this image made many wonder when the forgers were going to make up their mind about the name of the Registrar. Was it K.F., E.F. or G.F.? This document was originally only posted on the liberal website, The Huffington post and several other left wing Obama friendly sites. Conservative based sites engaged a web wide discussion which later revealed that this image was posted in a coordinated fashion only on liberal, Obama friendly websites. The name in the image appears to be E.F Lavender with an oddly shaped, slightly skewed capital “E” at the beginning.
Image taken of the Bomford CCRB document. This is the version Obama defenders think proves a forgery. However, the alteration of the original make this claim onerous. The liberal media proclaimed the clone as the forgery, while claiming this image was authentic. Yet, no analysis was done to prove this was any more authentic than the other two images.