“. . . if an adroit 12-year old computer geek had master-minded this fraud it would, of necessity have been 96% more difficult to discover.”

“Before there were “birthers,” all this began with Hillary Clinton’s campaign allegations in late 2007 and early 2008.”


FoxNews and Mainstream Media Drop Ball

New Obama Birth Paper an Obvious Fake


They’re called “Techies” or “Geeks” and their research indicates that this week, whoever came up with the White House document purporting to be the valid and true long-form birth certificate from August, 1961 for Barack Obama was either extremely inept or deliberately wanted to be shown up as a fraud.  Where did all this “birther” controversy come from?

Before there were “birthers” as we know them, all this began with Hillary Clinton’s campaign allegations in late 2007 and early 2008.  The Democratic Party National Committee muckety-mucks were unwilling to get involved and later when obvious corruption such as bussing-in illegal voters from out of state won Obama 14 of the 16 caucus states whereas Hillary won 26 of the 42 voting states (some states use both processes on the same day), Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the Democratic Party machinery again unwilling to step into the fray and make a ruling. The mainstream media refused to cover the story and then when Hillary lost the nomination began to attribute it strictly to “conspiracy-theorizing conservatives” never mentioning that Hillary’s people had first seen the problem for what it was: a threat to the Constitution of the United States and an audacious fraud.

For quite some time all Obama-doubters regardless of party had to content themselves with reports that his Social Security number on file for many years and many uses was one the Social Security Administration never actually issued to anyone; and that IF IT HAD BEEN ISSUED it would have been issued to a Connecticut resident not to one in Hawaii, back when Obama was still attending prep school on the Island on the issue date (when he was only sixteen).  The most helpful document was unavailable at that time.   And they’ve had to content themselves with a short-form birth certificate which was, if nothing else, internally-consistent although out of numerical order with earlier and later births in the same hospital.  

To repeat: all this began with Hillary Clinton’s campaign allegations in early 2008.  Let us be perfectly clear, IF HILLARY’s campaign in early 2008 had the evidence presented to the American people this week on . . . she and not Barack Obama would be the president of the United States . . . that is not a guess or a theory . . . that is virtually incontrovertible fact (barring a miracle, no Republican could win in 2008 with the economy as fouled as it was). However, if John McCain had this information in October, 2008, that would have proven miraculous and he would be the president . . . that’s how important the fraudulent information provided by that long-form birth certificate is . . . .

 All that changed with the surprise release this week of the long-requested, long-form document. Obama-lovers immediately said, “There, we knew it all along.” Obama doubters bit their tongues. Meanwhile the mainstream-lamestream media began crowing and they and even the always more vigilant FoxNews all simultaneously failed to investigate the document.

                This posting of the long-form document changed everything. Soon it was apparent that something akin to lunacy is going on. Whatever the absolute truth about the recently revealed “long-form” Obama birth certificate turns out to be  . . . one thing is obvious, the document we’re looking at is an inexpert computer-generated fake purportedly showing the truth from 1961 when no computers existed except in the military. Many sources on the internet have given highly credible evidence that the new document has been fraudulently created using “photo-shop-type” technology. Truly that document is so very obviously phony that it’s INCONCEIVABLE that anyone closely politically connected with Barack Obama could have deliberately created such an obviously phony “record” with any reasonable faith that its fakery would not be discovered within hours: a lot is at stake after all. This is the great mystery, why? And why now?  

The TRUE document, if such exists is thus still hidden from the American people. We repeat:  it’s INCONCEIVABLE that anyone closely politically connected with Barack Obama could have deliberately created such an obviously phony “record” with any reasonable faith that its fakery would not be discovered within hours.

ITEM: Posting of the long-form document linked above was a complete surprise to Obama’s political opponents and his allies alike. Why was it released this week? As a distraction from other chicanery?

ITEM: After thirty months of dodging the birth certificate issue and over $1.2 million spent by Obama and the Democratic National Committee to prevent efforts to have any documents at all released, suddenly the timing is right this week?? And suddenly this counterfeit long-form birth certificate is posted for all to see. How “inexpert” is this fake document . . . even at first viewing, Rajjpuut immediately had doubts . . . for example . . . .

ITEM: Rajjpuut’s first impression was that the “paper” was computer paper not generally available until at least a dozen years after Obama’s birth in 1961. . . but there was no proof of that, just some vague recollections from the past and the fact that of the perhaps 500 birth certificates he’s dealt with (verifying athletes’ and chess players’ age and eligibility) over the years, he’s never seen anything quite like that.  Perhaps a copy of an original birth certificate is now routinely produced on that paper . . . but he felt the original never could have been . . . in the end not having expertise in this area no definite conclusions could be made.

ITEM: His second impression was that the background computer pattern had been deliberately “woven” into the central “content” part of the document itself and did NOT match the external paper’s apparent newer age and higher contrast . . . it was as if the whole central image with its writing had been deliberately “cut and pasted” onto the larger paper expanse and carefully lined up with the external design pattern. Again, not having expertise in this area no definite conclusions could be made.

Item: Third impression -- the document presented appears very different from contemporary 1961 long-form records of birth for others in Hawaii (and in the supposed hospital where Obama was born) which the earlier revealed Obama short-form has often been compared to all these years. To be precise, it appears like someone took a modern COLB blank and filled in the “proper information” from 1961 and the information appears to be printed consistent with a modern computer rather than with a 1961 or earlier typewriter. This was sufficient to Rajjpuut to indicate that the item was probably phony . . . but he lacked expertise to make any authoritative conclusions.

ITEM: Certainly the data Rajjpuut had seen on 60’s era birth certificates such as the baby’s length and weight was not provided . . . data which one would expect on a legitimate birth certificate.

ITEM: Within a day, actually within five or six hours, people a lot more involved in the “documents field” and a lot more expert on computer graphics modification were pouring out their souls on the internet proving (by finding as few as three and as many as thirty-four different inconsistencies) that the document was fake and so stupidly faked that, in their opinions, no reasonable expert could doubt the counterfeiting.  Rajjpuut got the impression that if an adroit 12-year old computer geek had master-minded this fraud it would, of necessity have been 96% more difficult to discover.

ITEM: Many of the alleged inconsistencies were graphic; others were logical or even numerical; others were a combination of graphic and logical. Of some approximately sixty distinct critics, Rajjpuut opines that only one in twenty was dubious in its presentation (not necessarily in its conclusions – just unconvincing in its “science”).

ITEM: How were these examinations done?  The 95% of these experts who Rajjpuut found “convincing” all began the same way, they blew up the page by perhaps 300%-400% (kind of like Sherlock Holmes with his magnifying glass) and at that size a whole host of features about a document you weren’t aware of before come into sharp relief. At that size the “uneasy” feeling Rajjpuut got from his first and second impressions of the life-sized document become clearly manifest so that all the inconsistencies jump out at you. Rather than belabor the point here are five helpful websites and you, the reader, can judge for yourself:


Now the problem with all this “birther” stuff (they prefer the term “Constitutionalists”) appears to the uninitiated to smack of a half-baked conspiracy theory of fifty-years duration (from 1961-2011). In actuality, however, the root cause of the matter seems to be a flighty self-described Marxist known as Stanley Ann Dunham (Barack’s mother) who lived 2/3 of her lifetime as a scatterbrained-communist always  thumbing her nose## at the United States and all it stood for. It’s not known where she delivered her son.  Given all the facts that we won’t go into, Canada is far more likely than Kenya (she was traced to Seattle and Vancouver back about the time Barack was purported to have been born) . . . but it is literally unknown. It is known that Stanley Ann’s mother (Barack’s maternal grandmother) Madeline (yes, that is the correct spelling, NOT Madilyn as given by hundreds of less thorough sites) who was a very industrious and conventional person put in the paperwork in Hawaii that generated the short-form; and that she had a birth announcement put into the newspaper (normally handled by the hospital and reporters) a few days after the reported birthday of Barack Obama. Because all the information on this short form is generated by the parents or grandparents and not state records  . . . it is thus how the controversy arises . . . and it arises because of Stanley Ann Dunham.

Whether or not Barack Obama was actually born in the United States, it appears that his mother Stanley Ann Dunham deliberately lost him his citizenship when she moved to Indonesia (which did not allow dual citizenships in those days) and once there married a high-placed local petroleum official, Lolo Soetoro, and the stepfather soon adopted the boy. So American citizenship, something which most of us value quite highly – was possibly deliberately put at risk for her son Barack not once, but twice by Ms. Dunham. Much of the sketchiness of Barack’s nebulous past can be attributed to the fact that he seems to have spent a good part of his youth under various names, most likely-provided by his mother. Barry was the most common given name but Obama, Soetero, Soweto and several other last names seem to have been used indiscriminately.

The mainstream media would have you believe that birthers/ Constitutionalists believe that Barack Obama is the devil and a worldwide conspiracy exists just to put him into control over the world . . . nothing of the sort, it is clearly Ms. Dunham who is the central personage in this little birther-drama. She may have even told Barack he was born in Kenya. Certainly she spent an awful lot of his early life telling him all the great things about his father Barak (that is correct spelling) Hussein Obama, Sr. a Marxist official** in the Kenyan post-colonial government (who lost his job when his very vocal demands for more “scientific socialism” a.k.a. communism) conflicted with the more moderate socialism of the Kenyata government. His paternal grandmother says our president was born there and she witnessed it, but no evidence has ever been produced documenting this claim.

Certainly, the Associated Press following a debate during his senate campaign relying on Obama-provided information called him a “Kenyan-born U.S. Senate hopeful” and this information was reprinted with the bigger story in Kenyan papers; and later Michelle Obama referred to her husband’s native land as Kenya.  This explains the context of the often-cited debate, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural-born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, with Obama self-admitting that he was not eligible for the office of president. All this rather quickly became known by some in the Hillary campaign. Later, probably much later, someone decided that Barack’s maternal grandmother’s short-form indicating Hawaiian birth was essential to an Obama presidential effort . . . that’s when, in 2007, the short-form generated in 1961 first appeared as “evidence” in Obama’s favor and inconsistencies were brought to the Hilary Clinton campaign’s attention and the whole “birther” argument arose.

            It appears that the bottom line is this: Americans disgusted with the way the Republicans had governed from Washington, D.C. voted for a pig –in-a-poke known as “hope and change” and thanks to the mainstream media’s refusal to vett Obama, we don’t actually know who the present President of the United States actually is. On the one hand there’s the birth issue . . . which could be small potatoes or absolutely huge. Then there’s this sealing of all his records and college credentials and his frankly, slippery life narrative (Why did they build a statute to ten-year-0ld Barack in Indonesia and place it in the Muslim school he attended?) for both himself and for his mother and maternal grandfather. Then there’s the vast amount of radicals he’s installed into the government and especially as unvetted czars. And next is his apparently unashamed political dirty tricks and the brave promises for fairness, openness, transparency, oaths about turning his back on the corrupt old ways that dominate in D.C., and his pledge of bi-partisanship all added to government takeover of virtually everything possible . . . all of that makes Americans very suspicious. And now we have this phony document . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



## in fairness, Stanley Ann appears to have been very smart, just not “level-headed,” and she did do some good by helping indigent natives in the Eastern Hemisphere learn some really important skills like smithing while indoctrinating them into Marxism and anti-Americanism. Once she stopped studying Revolution she eventually got a degree in anthropology and, as mentioned, played a helpful “Peace-Corps-like” role.  Once she left America she never returned for any length of time. And she left Barack, Jr. to be raised by her parents.

here’s a little sample of Barack, Jr.’s father’s thinking (notice the reference to 100% taxation, of the rich? Or of everybody?) Our Barack’s parents met in a Russian language class in Hawaii and were both Marxists.


E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center