EXPOSED: High-Level NSA Official Says Metadata Illegally Used To Prosecute Average Citizens For Everything From Drug Dealing To Tax Evasion

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”

THIS IS WHY JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, PAUL RYAN, JOHN BOEHNER, MITT ROMNEY AND SO MANY OTHER "CONSERVATIVES" WITH SKELETONS IN THEIR CLOSETS.... ROLL OVER FOR THE OBAMA CABAL!!

ITS THE BLACKMAIL...

 

 

Posted on December 18, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

32-year NSA Veteran Who Created Mass Surveillance System Says Government Use of Data Gathered Through Spying “Is a Totalitarian Process”

EXPOSED: High-Level NSA Official Says Metadata Illegally Used To Prosecute Average Citizens For Everything From Drug Dealing To Tax Evasion

Bill Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees.
Binney has been interviewed by virtually all of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, PBS and many others.
Last year, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:

We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.

But today, Binney told Washington’s Blog that the U.S. has already become a police state.
By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.
All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally “launder” the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way … and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.
This is a bigger deal than you may realize, as legal experts say that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all … and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it.
The NSA also ships Americans’ most confidential, sensitive information to foreign countries like Israel (and here), the UK and other countries … so they can “unmask” the information and give it back to the NSA … or use it for their own purposes.
Binney told us today:

The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. [See the 2 slides below].
These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts – cause it has been acquired without a warrant.
So, they have to do a “Parallel Construction” and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a “planned programed perjury policy” directed by US law enforcement.
And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to “Foreign Counterparts.”
This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process – means we are now in a police state.

Here are the two slides which Binney pointed us to:

(Source: Reuters via RT; SOD stands for “Special Operations Division,” a branch of a federal government agency.)
We asked Binney a follow-up question:

You say “this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.’” Does that mean that foreign agencies can also “launder” the info gained from NSA spying? Or that data gained through foreign agencies’ spying can be “laundered” and used by U.S. agencies?

Binney responded:

For countries like the five eyes (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and probably some others it probably works both ways. But for others that have relationships with FBI or DEA etc., they probably are given the data to used to arrest people but are not told the source or given copies of the data.

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

TRANSCRIPTS SHOW THAT OBAMA AND HILLARY AND THEIR NASTY CABAL LIED:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward. 
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief. 
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center. 
"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."
Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president. 
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee's hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.
Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night -- as Obama's hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch -- that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue. 
"In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack." 
The transcript reads as follows: 

WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack." 

HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack." 

WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?" 

HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir." 

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?" 
"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."
Ham's declassified testimony further underscores that Obama's earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi. 
The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show "The View," when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been "an act of terrorism," the president hedged, saying: "Well, we're still doing an investigation." 
The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region. 
Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to "a considerable event unfolding in Libya." Bristol's next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that "there was a fight going on" at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -" 

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir." 

WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?" 

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an "interim" report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible -- a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.
While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony. 
"He is in the president's Cabinet," said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. "The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what's going on, and I honestly think that that's why you have seen -- beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans' lives -- is that  the American people feel misled." 
"Leon Panetta should have spoken up," agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have." 
Neither Panetta's office nor the White House responded to Fox News' requests for comment.
James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show "The Foxhole."

The National Security Agency has implanted software in nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the United States to conduct surveillance on those machines and can also create a digital highway for launching cyberattacks.

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency has implanted software in nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the United States to conduct surveillance on those machines and can also create a digital highway for launching cyberattacks.

While most of the software is inserted by gaining access to computer networks, the N.S.A. has increasingly made use of a secret technology that enables it to enter and alter data in computers even if they are not connected to the Internet, according to N.S.A. documents, computer experts and American officials.

The technology, which the agency has used since at least 2008, relies on a covert channel of radio waves that can be transmitted from tiny circuit boards and USB cards inserted surreptitiously into the computers. In some cases, they are sent to a briefcase-size relay station that intelligence agencies can set up miles away from the target.

The radio frequency technology has helped solve one of the biggest problems facing American intelligence agencies for years: getting into computers that adversaries, and some American partners, have tried to make impervious to spying or cyberattack. In most cases, the radio frequency hardware must be physically inserted by a spy, a manufacturer or an unwitting user.

The N.S.A. calls its efforts more an act of “active defense” against foreign cyberattacks than a tool to go on the offensive. But when Chinese attackers place similar software on the computer systems of American companies or government agencies, American officials have protested, often at the presidential level.

Among the most frequent targets of the N.S.A. and its Pentagon partner, United States Cyber Command, have been units of the Chinese Army, which the United States has accused of launching regular digital probes and attacks on American industrial and military targets, usually to steal secrets or intellectual property. But the program, code-named Quantum, has also been successful in inserting software into Russian military networks and systems used by the Mexican police and drug cartels, trade institutions inside the European Union, and sometime partners against terrorism like Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, according to officials and an N.S.A. map that indicates sites of what the agency calls “computer network exploitation.”

“What’s new here is the scale and the sophistication of the intelligence agency’s ability to get into computers and networks to which no one has ever had access before,” said James Andrew Lewis, the cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Some of these capabilities have been around for a while, but the combination of learning how to penetrate systems to insert software and learning how to do that using radio frequencies has given the U.S. a window it’s never had before.”

How the N.S.A. Uses Radio Frequencies to Penetrate Computers

The N.S.A. and the Pentagon’s Cyber Command have implanted nearly 100,000 “computer network exploits” around the world, but the hardest problem is getting inside machines isolated from outside communications.

Transmission distance of up to eight miles

DATA FROM TARGET COMPUTER

TARGET

COMPUTER

DATA TRANSMITTED

BACK TO N.S.A.

Data and malware are transmitted

over a covert radio frequency

MALWARE

ANTENNA

CASE

N.S.A. FIELD

STATION

TRANSCEIVER

PLANTED INSIDE

USB CABLE

1. Tiny transceivers are built into USB plugs and inserted into target computers. Small circuit boards may be placed in the computers themselves.

2. The transceivers communicate with a briefcase- size N.S.A. field station, or hidden relay station, up to eight miles away.

3. The field station communicates back to the N.S.A.’s Remote Operations Center.

4. It can also transmit malware, including the kind used in attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

No Domestic Use Seen  ( RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

There is no evidence that the N.S.A. has implanted its software or used its radio frequency technology inside the United States. While refusing to comment on the scope of the Quantum program, the N.S.A. said its actions were not comparable to China’s.

“N.S.A.'s activities are focused and specifically deployed against — and only against — valid foreign intelligence targets in response to intelligence requirements,” Vanee Vines, an agency spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We do not use foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.”

Over the past two months, parts of the program have been disclosed in documents from the trove leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. A Dutch newspaper published the map of areas where the United States has inserted spy software, sometimes in cooperation with local authorities, often covertly. Der Spiegel, a German newsmagazine, published the N.S.A.'s catalog of hardware products that can secretly transmit and receive digital signals from computers, a program called ANT. The New York Times withheld some of those details, at the request of American intelligence officials, when it reported, in the summer of 2012, on American cyberattacks on Iran.

President Obama is scheduled to announce on Friday what recommendations he is accepting from an advisory panel on changing N.S.A. practices. The panel agreed with Silicon Valley executives that some of the techniques developed by the agency to find flaws in computer systems undermine global confidence in a range of American-made information products like laptop computers and cloud services.

Embracing Silicon Valley’s critique of the N.S.A., the panel has recommended banning, except in extreme cases, the N.S.A. practice of exploiting flaws in common software to aid in American surveillance and cyberattacks. It also called for an end to government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems, and said the government should never develop secret ways into computer systems to exploit them, which sometimes include software implants.

Richard A. Clarke, an official in the Clinton and Bush administrations who served as one of the five members of the advisory panel, explained the group’s reasoning in an email last week, saying that “it is more important that we defend ourselves than that we attack others.”

Why Justice John Roberts Voted for Obamacare! NSA grabbed his secret text messages!

NSA collects millions of text messages daily in 'untargeted' global sweep

• NSA extracts location, contacts and financial transactions
• 'Dishfire' program sweeps up 'pretty much everything it can'
• GCHQ using database to search metadata from US & UK numbers

The NSA has made extensive use of its text message database to extract information on people under no suspicion of illegal activity.

LIKE JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS... AND MANY OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP.

The National Security Agency has collected almost 200 million text messages a day from across the globe, using them to extract data including location, contact networks and credit card details, according to top-secret documents.
The untargeted collection and storage of SMS messages – including their contacts – is revealed in a joint investigation between the Guardian and the UK’s Channel 4 News based on material provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The documents also reveal the UK spy agency GCHQ has made use of the NSA database to search the metadata of “untargeted and unwarranted” communications belonging to people in the UK.
The NSA program, codenamed Dishfire, collects “pretty much everything it can”, according to GCHQ documents, rather than merely storing the communications of existing surveillance targets.
The NSA has made extensive use of its vast text message database to extract information on people’s travel plans, contact books, financial transactions and more – including of individuals under no suspicion of illegal activity.
An agency presentation from 2011 – subtitled “SMS Text Messages: A Goldmine to Exploit” – reveals the program collected an average of 194 million text messages a day in April of that year. In addition to storing the messages themselves, a further program known as “Prefer” conducted automated analysis on the untargeted communications.

An NSA presentation from 2011 on the agency's Dishfire program to collect millions of text messages daily. Photograph: Guardian

The Prefer program uses automated text messages such as missed call alerts or texts sent with international roaming charges to extract information, which the agency describes as “content-derived metadata”, and explains that “such gems are not in current metadata stores and would enhance current analytics”.
On average, each day the NSA was able to extract:
• More than 5 million missed-call alerts, for use in contact-chaining analysis (working out someone’s social network from who they contact and when)
• Details of 1.6 million border crossings a day, from network roaming alerts
• More than 110,000 names, from electronic business cards, which also included the ability to extract and save images.
• Over 800,000 financial transactions, either through text-to-text payments or linking credit cards to phone users
The agency was also able to extract geolocation data from more than 76,000 text messages a day, including from “requests by people for route info” and “setting up meetings”. Other travel information was obtained from itinerary texts sent by travel companies, even including cancellations and delays to travel plans.

A slide on the Dishfire program describes the 'analytic gems' of collected metadata. Photograph: Guardian

Communications from US phone numbers, the documents suggest, were removed (or “minimized”) from the database – but those of other countries, including the UK, were retained.
The revelation the NSA is collecting and extracting personal information from hundreds of millions of global text messages a day is likely to intensify international pressure on US president Barack Obama, who on Friday is set to give his response to the report of his NSA review panel.
While US attention has focused on whether the NSA’s controversial phone metadata program will be discontinued, the panel also suggested US spy agencies should pay more consideration to the privacy rights of foreigners, and reconsider spying efforts against allied heads of state and diplomats.
In a statement to the Guardian, a spokeswoman for the NSA said any implication that the agency’s collection was “arbitrary and unconstrained is false”. The agency’s capabilities were directed only against “valid foreign intelligence targets” and were subject to stringent legal safeguards, she said.
The ways in which the UK spy agency GCHQ has made use of the NSA Dishfire database also seems likely to raise questions on the scope of its powers.
While GCHQ is not allowed to search through the content of messages without a warrant – though the contents are stored rather than deleted or “minimized” from the database – the agency’s lawyers decided analysts were able to see who UK phone numbers had been texting, and search for them in the database.
The GCHQ memo sets out in clear terms what the agency’s access to Dishfire allows it to do, before handling how UK communications should be treated. The unique property of Dishfire, it states, is how much untargeted or unselected information it stores.
“In contrast to [most] GCHQ equivalents, DISHFIRE contains a large volume of unselected SMS traffic,” it states (emphasis original). “This makes it particularly useful for the development of new targets, since it is possible to examine the content of messages sent months or even years before the target was known to be of interest.”
It later explains in plain terms how useful this capability can be. Comparing Dishfire favourably to a GCHQ counterpart which only collects against phone numbers that have specifically been targeted, it states “Dishfire collects pretty much everything it can, so you can see SMS from a selector which is not targeted”.
The document also states the database allows for broad, bulk searches of keywords which could result in a high number of hits, rather than just narrow searches against particular phone numbers: “It is also possible to search against the content in bulk (e.g. for a name or home telephone number) if the target’s mobile phone number is not known.”
Analysts are warned to be careful when searching content for terms relating to UK citizens or people currently residing in the UK, as these searches could be successful but would not be legal without a warrant or similar targeting authority.
However, a note from GCHQ’s operational legalities team, dated May 2008, states agents can search Dishfire for “events” data relating to UK numbers – who is contacting who, and when.
“You may run a search of UK numbers in DISHFIRE in order to retrieve only events data,” the note states, before setting out how an analyst can prevent himself seeing the content of messages when he searches – by toggling a single setting on the search tool.
Once this is done, the document continues, “this will now enable you to run a search without displaying the content of the SMS, especially useful for untargeted and unwarranted UK numbers.”
A separate document gives a sense of how large-scale each Dishfire search can be, asking analysts to restrain their searches to no more than 1,800 phone numbers at a time.

An NSA slide on the 'Prefer' program reveals the program collected an average of 194 million text messages a day in April 2011. Photograph: Guardian

The note warns analysts they must be careful to make sure they use the form’s toggle before searching, as otherwise the database will return the content of the UK messages – which would, without a warrant, cause the analyst to “unlawfully be seeing the content of the SMS”.
The note also adds that the NSA automatically removes all “US-related SMS” from the database, so it is not available for searching.
A GCHQ spokesman refused to comment on any particular matters, but said all its intelligence activities were in compliance with UK law and oversight.
But Vodafone, one of the world’s largest mobile phone companies with operations in 25 countries including Britain, greeted the latest revelations with shock. 
“It’s the first we’ve heard about it and naturally we’re shocked and surprised,” the group’s privacy officer and head of legal for privacy, security and content standards told Channel 4 News.
“What you’re describing sounds concerning to us because the regime that we are required to comply with is very clear and we will only disclose information to governments where we are legally compelled to do so, won’t go beyond the law and comply with due process.
“But what you’re describing is something that sounds as if that’s been circumvented. And for us as a business this is anathema because our whole business is founded on protecting privacy as a fundamental imperative.”
He said the company would be challenging the UK government over this. “From our perspective, the law is there to protect our customers and it doesn’t sound as if that is what is necessarily happening.”
The NSA’s access to, and storage of, the content of communications of UK citizens may also be contentious in the light of earlier Guardian revelations that the agency was drafting policies to facilitate spying on the citizens of its allies, including the UK and Australia, which would – if enacted – enable the agency to search its databases for UK citizens without informing GCHQ or UK politicians.
The documents seen by the Guardian were from an internal Wikipedia-style guide to the NSA program provided for GCHQ analysts, and noted the Dishfire program was “operational” at the time the site was accessed, in 2012.
The documents do not, however, state whether any rules were subsequently changed, or give estimates of how many UK text messages are collected or stored in the Dishfire system, or from where they are being intercepted.
In the statement, the NSA spokeswoman said: “As we have previously stated, the implication that NSA's collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false.
“NSA's activities are focused and specifically deployed against – and only against – valid foreign intelligence targets in response to intelligence requirements.
“Dishfire is a system that processes and stores lawfully collected SMS data. Because some SMS data of US persons may at times be incidentally collected in NSA’s lawful foreign intelligence mission, privacy protections for US persons exist across the entire process concerning the use, handling, retention, and dissemination of SMS data in Dishfire.
“In addition, NSA actively works to remove extraneous data, to include that of innocent foreign citizens, as early as possible in the process.”
The agency draws a distinction between the bulk collection of communications and the use of that data to monitor or find specific targets.
A spokesman for GCHQ refused to respond to any specific queries regarding Dishfire, but said the agency complied with UK law and regulators.
“It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters,” he said. “Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.”
GCHQ also directed the Guardian towards a statement made to the House of Commons in June 2013 by foreign secretary William Hague, in response to revelations of the agency’s use of the Prism program.

OBAMACARE IS A PLANNED SOCIALIST TAKEOVER... WAKE UP... THEY ARE PLAYING US FOR FOOLS..SO ARE WE ??

  OUTRAGEOUS Obamacare Lies

IT ALL STARTED WITH THIS LIE.. REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.. TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO A SOCIALIST PROGRAM THAT WAS SET UP RIGHT FROM THE GET GO TO DESTROY OUR SYSTEM.

Here is the LIAR.. SELLING THE PRODUCT!!

About 50,000 people have signed up in the federal Obamacare exchanges and another 50,000 signed up in the state exchanges but 5 million have lost their health insurance so far. In January, people will start to get thrown off canceled employer-sponsored plans and that will continue each month.

The following are some of the Outrageous Obamacare lies you must know an we will update them as we go along. I’m certain it will change by day to day. This is an evolving scandal with the White House brain trust continually looking for ways to deceive and distract the public and with at least one more government hotshot, CMS honcho, Henry Chao, claiming he didn’t know a thing.

1. MANIPULATING THE NUMBERS
The numbers of Obamacare enrollees will include those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not paid, according to The Washington Post..
It’s called padding. They are padding the numbers.
The Wall Street Journal reported the enrollment numbers will come in at about 50,000 this Friday but with this padding, the numbers could be 70 times higher. WaPo gives one example of DC which has 5 enrollees but 321 sitting with a plan in their online basket. Oregon has no one enrolled but the government, in their deceit, will likely come up with numbers.
The 14 states running their own insurance marketplace have enrolled about 49,000 and many thousands more in Medicaid. We probably won’t get the Medicaid numbers because that won’t help the narrative.

2. MANIPULATING  WITH DISTRACTIONS
Forbes had an article yesterday about the new HHS regulations put out on Friday. [HHS is actually legislating with almost each rule and regulation]
Steep prices, fraud and canceled insurance policies aren’t enough for the Obama Administration. On Friday, HHS passed new regulations mandating health insurers cover mental and behavioral health to the same extent they cover physical health. We know that substance abusers, who will fit into this category, will not be charged higher premiums and that can be an endless cycle of expenses with few rewards.
Mental health is amorphous and unprovable. It is a playground for fraudsters and we will get to pay for that too. The mentally ill must have coverage, that’s not the question, the question is how this blanket, no-limits coverage will play out.
Putting this out now is another effort by the Obama Administration to distract from the mess that is Obamacare.
Obamacare has been driving up the cost of policies for many Americans by 50% to 100% and now with the new mental health rules, the coverage will be even more expensive. This will also cause millions more health insurance policies to be canceled because that many more do not cover mental health and substance abuse issues.
So, even while they claim they didn’t know millions would be thrown off their policies, they are working it out so millions more will be thrown off their policies.

3. LYING BY OMISSION
Fox News reports that ‘Henry Chao, the Deputy Chief Information Officer and Deputy Director of the Office of Information Services at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said in an interview with the House Oversight and Reform Committee Nov. 1 that he was never given a Sept. 3, 2013 memo that detailed six security problems, including two designated as “open high findings.”’
In other words, no one bothered to mention to him that the website was filled with security flaws. The information was released this past Monday. He said that CMS Chief Information Officer Tony Trenkle never gave him the memo and allowed him to give the go-ahead to CMS Director Marilyn Tavvener.
HE KNOWS NOTHING! A familiar refrain in this administration. What are we paying Mr. Chao for if he didn’t know anything?
Of course we don’t know how much of this is true but he was under oath. It seems Trenkle is the fall guy or the guilty party.
They will likely not tell us how many are healthy enrollees and how many are sick and elderly. Another lie by omission.

4. LYING BY INCOMPETENCE
The website is still giving out false Obamacare premium and subsidy information. The Hill reports that due to an Obamacare exchange ‘glitch’ in Washington State, 8,000 people were promised higher subsidies than they will actually receive. The 8,000 picked out plans they might not be able to afford but will have to go through the entire application process again to find something cheaper if they can.

Branco cartoon, navigator felons, via legal insurrection

5. LYING BY FRAUD
What you can’t do by lying, you can do with fraud. Project Veritas is finding navigators promoting fraud. That is to be expected since the federal government doesn’t even do background checks on them. Navigators can be felons as we know.




6. BEEFING UP NUMBERS WITH TAX DOLLARS
Another idea being kicked around within the insurance industry, in order to help out the government, is to have  ’HHS approve a method to estimate subsidies and give preliminary tax credits based on those estimates—with the accurate amount determined later, once the system works better.’ This is according to Forbes.
The insurance industry would expect to be compensated, however. So who do you think will pay for the added subsidies people are not entitled to? The taxpayer?
Henry Chao said, ’Let’s Just Make Sure It’s Not a Third-World Experience’.
Too late, it already is.

7. FALSE HOPES
The president and the CMS officials promised a healthy healthcare.gov by November 30th which is only believable to the non-computer savvy. They are now walking that back.  CMS announced last Friday,  “It’s a critical date, without question,” said one. “But don’t think of it as an unveiling date. The goal is to make significant improvements that day.”

8. HISTORY REWRITES
David Cutler, Harvard Economics Profession and one of the two architects of Obamacare, wrote a memo to Larry Summers in May 11, 2010 in which he said the government did not have the ability to carry out Mr. Obama’s vision for healthcare.
Larry Summers has since moved on to bigger and better things, shortly after that memo in fact.
Cutler, a supporter of Obamacare, wrote in the memo that “the early implementation efforts are far short of what it will take to implement reform successfully.” Cutler continued: “For health reform to be successful, the relevant people need a vision about health system transformation and the managerial ability to carry out that vision. The President has sketched out such a vision. However, I do not believe the relevant members of the Administration understand the President’s vision or have the capability to carry it out.”
The Washington Examiner posted the following excerpt from the memo:

Cutler laid out a set of problems: 1) poor leadership at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a key organization in creating Obamacare; 2) clueless management at the Department of Health and Human Services on the subject of setting up exchanges; 3) an ineffective effort to work with insurers in implementing reform; and 4) general incompetence. “The overall head of implementation inside HHS, Jeanne Lambrew, is known for her knowledge of Congress, her commitment to the poor, and her mistrust of insurance companies,” Cutler wrote. “She is not known for operational ability, knowledge of delivery systems, or facilitating widespread change.”

However, Cutler, during an interview with Megyn Kelly last evening, fell back on the administration talking points.
He believes that we will save money a couple years from now. Did Obama say we’d say money eventually, down the road?



Cutler said that they believed enrollees would be fleeing their current plans for the Obamacare plans. In a twist of words, he is saying what the administration is saying, It’s not that they were dropped, the plans were inferior and didn’t meet the government criteria, and the government expected people to be thrilled to jump over to the Obamacare exchanges. It’s merely a ‘transition.’
In other words, it’s not really the same as dropping people if they want to go. They knew they’d be dropped but they thought they’d be happy.




When asked if he thought his warnings went unheeded, he said it’s not what anyone wanted and he didn’t know what went on:


The chart above lists the Democratic Senators who cast the decisive vote for Obamcare. Remember their names.
In the end, the lies will continue every day. Obamacare was never about care or health, it was about more power for DC. Otherwise, they would not have moved ahead with a website that didn’t work and healthcare plans with exorbitant premiums. It’s about big government and control over the people in an area that is the most critical to us – our health.

SOMEONE IN THE OBAMA CABAL..IS IN THE FORGERY BUSINESS... AND ITS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA!

Top Fourteen Signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe..
SOMEONE IN THE OBAMA CABAL  IS IN THE FORGERY BUSINESS... AND ITS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA!

Alleged to be Stanley Ann Dunham Note the tell tale neck covering. Photo:NY Times

Below is a compilation of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s, many variations of her signature.   Like anything else having to do with this fabricated family,  there are just too many inconsistencies in provided information to say any of them are biologically  related to each other or that they even exist.   The felonious crimes of the cabal involved in these crimes are getting too numerous to mention. The apparent forgeries of many documents are being examined by experts in various fields, and the exposure of these fraudulent documents and the crimes of those involved are beginning to reach a fevered pitch.
It is unfathomable to me how so many documents for this family that were completed for the government can raise so many questions,  i.e., social security cards, social security applications, passport applications, petitions, written notes, letters, marriage licenses, birth certificates, school records,  alien documents, and photographs.
Applications are incomplete, blank spaces occur where questions were supposed to be answered, dates referring to specific events are different in various documents, forms are used that were never in use by the government, and form numbers or revisions are erroneous.
Applications contain writing that is noticeably written by different hands on the same page and within the same file of documents.  Handwriting signatures aren’t identical when compared to other examples supposedly written by the same person.  Signatures occurring on the same page for the same day don’t match either.
As you will see below in examples of Ann Dunham’s signatures, the slant of the writing is either to the left, right or straight up and down.  The cursive signature varies in the amount of pressure applied to the paper; it is heavy to extremely light.  When the signature is written it is exactly on the baseline or way above it.  The written letters are either angular or rounded and vary.  Her signature is clear or sloppily written. As her name changes from Dunham to Obama to Soetoro, her first name is written either as Stanley, S., or Ann. Along with her name changes, her cursive handwriting style also changes.  The discrepancies are quite obvious when they are laid out together and seen.
How can these abnormalities be explained away?  The obvious answer is they can’t.  Someone has forged these government documents.  It has been done by those who have conspired to cover-up the usurper and his less than illustrious family. They try, but their deceit has gone too far.  Their forged documents and the information presented are being dissected and examined page by page.
As your eyes can see, Ann’s name as well as her signature varies from document to document.  Which, if any, is the real signature of Stanley Ann Dunham?  In reality, is there a real Ann Dunham that is the mother of Barack Obama or is she a fabrication?  I added the legal term of Doe to indicate another name she may have used but is unknown.
Let’s compare and contrast Ann’s signatures. These are arranged from the earliest dates to the latest. If you have other examples that are missing from this list, please let us know the source and they will be added.
Will a handwriting expert please weigh in!

Signature Variations of

      Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe

1.

Stanley Signature from High School Photo

2.

Stanley Ann Signature from Application for Social Security Number from SSA

3.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama as written on BHO's LFCOLB in 1961. Recently presented to the US by the White House on April 27, 2011

4.

Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature from Petition for Lolo, page 70

5.

Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Passport File Page 5

6.

S. Ann Soetoro Nov. 30, 1965 Affidavit, Lolo Petition File, page 117

7.

Stanley Ann Dunham Passport File, Page 3, August 13, 1968

8.

Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Page 6 Passport File

9.

S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, Passport Application, January 4, 1972

10.

Mrs. S. Ann Soetoro May 1, 1974 Letter, Lolo Petition File Pg 165

11.

S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, June 197? Passport Application, Page 11

12.

Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Signature from Marriage Certificate - Lolo Soetoro Page 73

13.

Stanley Ann Dunham Signature April 9, 1986 - Note Trip to Philippines Delayed

14.

S. Ann Dunham Passport Application Signature April 27, 1987?

Sources:
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Passport Application – Strunk v Dept of State.
White House Long Form COLB for Barack Obama on April 27, 2011
Lolo Soetoro Petition , Obama Sr. – Ken Allen FOIA Release – Department of Homeland Security
Documents Related to Stanley Ann Dunham – FOIA requests 12/10/2010

RE VISITING THE FAKE OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH NEW UPDATES:

We start with the known facts: that (1) the "birth certificate" is fake, and (2) the president has said it's his birth certificate.  It is up to researchers to work backward from the known facts to establish why the president was unable or unwilling to release a genuine one.

On May 22, the Hawaii Department of Health sent a "Verification of Birth" for Barack Obama to Ken Bennett, Arizona secretary of state (shown in Figure VB), with sufficient information to allow the president's name to be placed on the November 2012 ballot in Arizona.  It provided enough additional information, I thought, to allow me to hone in on what might be on the genuine birth certificate that the public is not allowed to see.
In addition to confirming not-previously-verified information for specific categories, the Verification of Birth also carries the following statement: "Additionally, I [Alvin T. Onaka] verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your [Bennett's] request [meaning, the White-House-issued birth-certificate forgery, as this would have been the only Obama 'Certificate of Live Birth' available to Mr. Bennett] matches the original record in our files."
Note that this carefully worded statement does not say that the Bennett copy is identical in appearance to the original record.  Nor does it even say that the information in the Bennett copy is identical to the information on the original record.  It says "information ... matches."  This could mean matching in a generic sense, where the meaning is the same but the wording is not.  Or it could indicate that the information on the Bennett copy (the forgery) is a subset of what's on the original record (the forgery has less data), or a superset (the forgery has additional data).

Figure VB.  Verification of Birth sent by Hawaii to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

To help sort out what is known and what is unknown, I decided to break out the data on the birth certificate line by line for analysis, as detailed below.  The abbreviations state where the information appears: SF for (short-form) Certification of Live Birth, the document released by the Obama campaign in 2008; LFF for the long-form PDF forgery released by the White House on April 27, 2011; and VB for the Verification of Birth dated May 22, 2012.
Certificate number (DOH File #): 151 61 10641 (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 1 (a,b,c) Child's name: Barack Hussein Obama, II (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 2 Sex: Male (SF, LFF)
Line 3 This Birth: Single (checkbox) (LFF)
Line 4 (not used)
Line 5a Birth Date: August 4, 1961 (SF, LFF)
Line 5b Hour: 7:24 P.M. (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 6a Place of Birth: Honolulu (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 6b Island: Oahu (SF, LFF, defined by 6a)
Line 6c Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (LFF, VB)
Line 6d Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town limits? YES (checkbox) (LFF, defined by 6c)
Lines 7a and 7b Usual Residence of Mother: Honolulu, Oahu (LFF)
Line 7c County and State: Honolulu, Hawaii (SF, LFF)
Line 7d Street Address: 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (LFF)
Line 7e Is Residence Inside City? YES (checkbox) (LFF, defined by 7c and 7d)
Line 7f  (not used)
Line 7g Farm or Plantation? NO (checkbox) (LFF)
Line 8 Full Name of Father: Barack Hussein Obama (SF, LFF)
Line 9 Race of Father: African (SF, LFF)
Line 10 Age of Father: 25 (LFF, VB)
Line 11 Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa (LFF, VB)
Line 12a Usual Occupation: Student (LFF)
Line 12b Kind of Business: University (LFF)
Line 13 Full Maiden Name of Mother: Stanley Ann Dunham (SF, LFF)
Line 14 Race of Mother: Caucasian (SF, LFF)
Line 15 Age of Mother: 18 (LFF, VB)
Line 16 Birthplace: Wichita, Kansas (LFF, VB)
Line 17a Type of Occupation: None (LFF)
Line 17b (not used)
Line 18a Signature of Parent: (signed) (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama (Parent box checked) (LFF)
Line 18b Date of Signature: 8-7-61 (LFF, VB)
Line 19a Signature of Attendant: (signed) David A Sinclair (MD box checked) (LFF)
Line 19b Date of Signature: 8-8-61 (LFF, VB)
Line 20 Date Accepted by Local Reg: Aug -8 1961 (LFF, VB)
Line 21 Signature of Local Registrar: (signed) U K L Lee (LFF)
Line 22 Date Accepted by Reg. General: Aug -8 1961 (SF, LFF)
Line 23 (not used)
By examining this data, we hope to answer two questions: (1) What information was known by the forger before the real birth certificate was shipped to the White House from Hawaii, and what was not (and needed to be retrieved from the real certificate to complete the forgery)?  And (2) what on the real birth certificate is so complicated that a digital scan of that certificate could not be easily fudged before release to the public, with a complete forgery instead having to be constructed in advance, waiting perhaps for only a few last-minute details?
Of course, the forger would know all of the information which appeared on the short form, given in Lines 1, 2, 5a and 5b, 6a and 6b, 7c, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 22.
Of the information appearing only on the forgery (and not subsequently validated by the Verification of Birth), Lines 3, 4, 6d, 7a and 7b, 7c, 7e, 7f, 7g, 16, 17b, and 23 are known or derivative facts or are irrelevant.  Line 7d (mother's residence) is generally accepted as true -- Ann Dunham was residing at her parents' place on the date of birth of the baby.  Lines 12a and 12b (father's occupation) show previously known information, but perhaps not using that exact wording.  Line 17a (mother's occupation) is also generally known information -- Stanley Ann Dunham dropped out of college in the spring of 1961, during the latter part of her pregnancy.  In Line 18a (mother's signature), the identity of the mother is known, but the fact of her placement of her signature on the genuine birth certificate was not.
Of the information appearing first on the forgery and then validated by the Verification of Birth, Line 6c (the name of the hospital) is known.  Line 10 (age of the father) is generally accepted from other sources of information, although further research has shown that Barack the father was most likely born in 1934 and was age 27 in August 1961.  Line 11 (the father's birthplace) is known information, but maybe not with that exact wording.  Line 15 (the mother's age) is known and is accurate.  (Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and died in Honolulu, Hawaii on November 7, 1995 [under her maiden name, which she reclaimed after her divorce from Lolo Soetoro].  Her Social Security number, 535-40-8522, was issued in the state of Washington.)  Line 16 (the mother's birthplace) is known, of course.  Line 18b (date of mother's signature) would not necessarily be known but could be intelligently guessed.  Line 19b (date of attendant's signature) and Line 20 (date of local acceptance) could be guessed to likely be the same day the certificate was registered.
And of course the forger would know about the information appearing on the genuine long-form birth certificate that was to be kept from public view.
OK, what's left?
The identity of the doctor who delivered baby Barack (Line 19a) and the identity of the local registrar (Line 21) were not known and would have to be extracted from the genuine birth certificate.  Also, though the identity of the mother in Line 18a (mother's signature) is clearly known, as to the size, shape, and placement of her signature on the paper -- the forger wouldn't have a clue.
Thus, we are dealing here with signatures (graphic images) for the unknown information -- and that answers Question #2: why the need to prepare the forgery ahead of time?  It would be very difficult to alter any of the signature graphics on a digitized image of the genuine birth certificate, especially if it arrived from Hawaii with a genuine green security-paper background.  (It would be almost as difficult to alter any items that weren't signatures.)  It would be much easier for the forger to extract from the genuine birth certificate and digitally process the little bits of additional information needed to complete the forgery -- thus assuring that the information on the forgery would match that on the genuine birth certificate, except for the information that was to be altered.
So let's take a look at the signatures on the forgery and see if they reveal any meaningful information.
The local registrar's signature in Line 21, U K L Lee, is a single grayscale graphic (except for one stroke in the letter K), which the forger likely extracted from the genuine document and added to the forgery; digitally, in the PDF it appears in a separate layer from the layer which contains most of the text of the forgery.  But its appearance in the forgery does not appear to offer any additional clues, and knowing who the registrar was is inconsequential information.  (Despite the "ukulele" jokes, Mrs. Verna K. L. Lee is a real person, in 1961 a clerk in the Hawaii Department of Health; her signature does appear on genuine Hawaiian birth certificates of the era.)
The identity of the doctor who delivered the baby, Dr. David A. Sinclair, was not known prior to the release of the forgery, and this information was a pleasant surprise for his family when the long-form fake was released.  His signature in Line 19a, and shown in Figure SS, is a single grayscale graphic (except for the dot over the "i" in "David," which is bitmap), also in a layer separate from most of the forgery text.  Note that the characters "of A" in the descriptor "Signature of Attendant" for Line 19a are (blurrier) grayscale letters in an otherwise-bitmap line of text, likely indicating that the forger overlaid the signature snippet extracted from the real birth certificate onto the forgery, thereby replacing that portion of the descriptor on the previously prepared (bitmap) text in the fake.
The name of the doctor who brought baby Barack into the world is not politically controversial.

Figure SS.  Signature of Dr. David A. Sinclair (grayscale) in Line 19a.

Unlike the signatures of the local registrar and the attendant, the mother's signature in Line 18a, shown below in Figure DS, is not a single grayscale graphic, but a composite of grayscale and bitmap information (in separate layers, also).

Figure DS.  Signature of (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama (part grayscale, part bitmap) in Line 18a.

The signature itself appears to be authentic when compared to known-to-be-genuine signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama on her 1964 divorce papers, shown in Figure DD:

Figure DD.  Genuine signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama from her January 1964 divorce decree.

The grayscale part of the signature is "Stanley) Ann D[,]" and the bitmap part is "unham Obama" -- along with the date, "8-7-61" and the left-parenthesis preceding "Stanley."  The overall signature gives the impression that the mother first signed her name as she customarily did, then parenthetically added "Stanley" after somebody pointed out to her that it might be better if her signature corresponded to her legal maiden name as it appears in Line 13.
The "Stanley" part bleeds into the descriptor for Line 18a, "Signature of Parent or Other Informant."  The blurred letters "igna," "of," and "nt" are part of the grayscale graphic, replacing the same letters in an otherwise-bitmap legend.

Figure SP.  Close-up of "Stanley" overlaying the instructions in Line 18a, and demonstrating that (the grayscale) part of the signature was extracted from a genuine birth certificate.

If you look closely at the bleed-in of "Stanley" into the descriptor for Line 18a, as shown in Figure SP, you can see that the letters "igna" and "nt" are slightly smaller than the remaining (bitmap) letters of the legend -- a very strong indication of material taken from two different sources, the grayscale graphic from a genuine birth certificate and the remainder from unknown sources used to construct the bulk of the forgery -- as the forger had a little trouble getting the sizes of the letters to be the same.
Now look at the (bitmap) portion of the signature in Figure DS that reads "unham Obama."  Does it seem to you that "Obama" was written with broader strokes than "unham"?  It looks that way to me, though it could be a sizing problem -- the forger made the word "Obama" larger in scaling it to fit into the forgery, giving the impression that a fatter pen point was used.  Next, look at the handwritten date (bitmap graphic) "8-7-61" in Line 18b, and note that its strokes are considerably thinner than the strokes of the signature in 18a.
When somebody signs and dates a legal document, customarily a single pen is used throughout -- not three different pens.
What we are able to do here is make a very strong case that the signature and date in Lines 18a and 18b were assembled by the forger from four different sources -- the first part of the signature, "Stanley) Ann D," extracted from the genuine birth certificate, and "unham," "Obama," and "8-7-61" from three unknown sources.
If the mother had indeed signed "(Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama," then the forger could have extracted the entire signature from the genuine birth certificate as a single graphic, as was done for the doctor, David A. Sinclair, and for the local registrar, Mrs. Lee.  This was not done.  Why?
The logical answer is that the mother signed her name another way.  Since she clearly was Stanley Ann Dunham, that leaves "Obama" as the outlier.  In other words, my conclusion is that Stanley Ann Dunham signed the birth certificate using her maiden name.
This does not mean that she and Barack Obama the father were not married; it means only that the real birth certificate gives no evidence of their marriage, leaving the 1964 divorce decree as the only known documentary evidence that a marriage ever took place.
About this wedding, not much is known.  In Obama's composite "autobiography" Dreams from My Father, ghostwriter Bill Ayers eloquently elucidates wedding details that weren't.  The 1964 divorce decree identifies the marriage as taking place on February 2, 1961 (a Thursday) in Wailuku, Maui.  (Other accounts give the marriage date as February 21, 1961, a Tuesday.)
Wailuku is a half-hour plane ride from Honolulu; in the early 1960s, it was a quaint resort town.  Getting married in a removed location on a weekday, when student friends are attending classes and older friends and family are supposed to be at work, does not seem to me to indicate a wedding ceremony where the happy couple tied the knot surrounded by beaming friends and family.  Rather, these details indicate a clandestine wedding, one meant to be kept secret from friends (which it was; the couple's friends didn't even know that Dunham and Obama were engaged, much less married) and perhaps, for a while, from Ann's parents.
What if I am wrong about this?  In that case, there are two possibilities: (1) there is no substantive difference in information between the forgery and the real birth certificate in the Hawaii Department of Health file cabinet, and the White House released the forgery to "screw with the birthers"; or (2) the scam is a wider conspiracy involving more people than just employees of the White House -- likely including compromised Hawaii Department of Health employees -- and we can't be at all sure what really is on the genuine birth certificate.
In my research I have tried as much as possible to stick to the documents -- to study them carefully and extract their secrets -- and not rely on what people have said about them, thus forcing me to decide who was telling the truth and who wasn't.  But eventually, I had to make some reasonable assumptions if I was to make any progress.
In my article "What Did Savannah Guthrie Really See?," I satisfied myself that the paper document "birth certificate" that Savannah Guthrie viewed and captured with her cell-phone camera was actually a color laser printout of the digital PDF forgery.  This led me to reasonably assume that the forgery was entirely a bait-and-switch operation inside the White House, an operation not involving Hawaiian officials in the forgery's manufacture.  That in turn led me to reasonably assume that the information grudgingly provided by Hawaii, including weasel-worded statements, could be relied on, though it might not be the whole truth.  From that point, I could narrow my focus to the parts of the birth certificate most likely have fraudulent information.  But if my assumptions are incorrect, my case falls apart.
If I am correct, further research might best be done by graphologists, to analyze the authenticity of the mother's signature in Line 18a, and by others who are more skilled than I at analyzing the nature of the Dunham/Obama marriage, if indeed there was a marriage.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/secrets_revealed.html#ixzz2ixHXeM1b
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook