http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/forgery-obama-birth?xg_source=activity

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-not/

“. . . 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 WhiteHouse.gov . . . 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:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/forgery-obama-birth?xg_source=activity

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-not/

http://marbiesblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-is-another-fraud/

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,

Rajjpuut

## 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.

            “Mr. Obama has shown an undeniable pattern of associating preferentially with left-wing radicals and outright anti-American sorts  (Van Jones has called for the Revolution NOW and he’s just one of the President’s friends making similar pleas: Trumka for example has called for union violence) and he needs to be judged on that every bit as much as he’s judged on his incompetence.

Obama Preacher Refers to “3/5 of a Human

Being” and Slavery from 148 Years Ago

in Easter Sunday Sermon

             Feeling the need to attend an Easter Sunday service to remove the heat incurred after the President pointedly refused to utter the word “Easter” altogether, Barack Obama found himself back in Jeremiah Wright’s church – well, sort of. If your thesis about Barack Obama is that he is a race-baiting Black nationalist (which is not the thesis or hypothesis of Rajjpuut) this Easter Sunday would have cemented that notion as a highly probable explanation for all things Obama. This time the race-baiting Black victimization sermon came not from Reverend Jeremiah Wright but from Dr. Wallace Charles Smith, a Baptist minister in Washington, D.C. like Rev. Wright a master at driving iron wedges between the races.

             President Obama choice of spending Easter Sunday at the Shiloh Baptist Church, led by its controversial pastor Reverend Wallace Charles Smith . . . at the minimum showed that the poor judgment which got him in Dutch with the American people (incensed by his former pastor, Jeremy Wright saying “Not God bless America but God Damn America”) is still a part of the Obama psyche. Just as Wright when he blamed America for the 9/11 attacks saying “America’s chickens have come home to roost” based his sermons in the era of slavery, Wallace Charles Smith also has a well-recorded history of constantly reminding people of color that they were victims way back when and therefore they MUST now feel victimized and outside of contemporary American culture. Before looking at that history of Reverend Smith, however, which presumably Obama had NOT shared via videotape prior to attending the church, let’s see what Wallace’s Easter sermon was for the Obama family and the rest of his flock on April, 24, 2011.

            Reverend Wallace Smith talked about his own grandson and then somehow segued into a litany of references to “3/5 of a human being” referring to the census status of the slave on December 31, 1862 on the eve of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation . . . that is, he was bemoaning a great wrong that had begun to be corrected over 168 years ago. Tie that into the Easter spirit of uplift and rebirth and renewal if you can!

So we have Washington, D.C. with perhaps 800 Black congregations led by Black pastors all clamoring for the President of the United States to visit them and Mr. Obama winds up front and center at this guy’s church. But perhaps the pastor was just having a bad Sunday? Unfortunately, Reverend Wallace Smith has nothing but bad Sundays it seems. He spends a lot of time talking about White Robes and Jim Crow and a truly surprising lot of the time calling Talk Radio and FoxNews racists almost as if he had a vested interest in his flock only listening to certain media modalities. Mr. Obama, of course, just as he did for twenty years in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright was legitimizing this radical pastor . . . ah, but you say, “Reverend Smith doesn’t sound that radical . . .”

             Reverend Smith, unlike Reverend Wright, is not a bombastic fire-eater. He speaks in far more muted tones and in a less pointedly anti-White fashion . . . but that’s merely a difference in style NOT in content. The predominant message at Shiloh Baptist is RACE OPPRESSION. Black victimhood is Smith’s credo and Black grievance perpetuation is his undeniable purpose. A thousand years from now and a couple dozen generations of Reverend Smiths we can expect the man or woman in the pulpit to still be Black-grievance mongering because Black victimhood, damnit should never be allowed to end. Whitey MUST pay!

             Reverend Smith is appalled at Blacks who make it on their own without once resorting to Affirmative Action. Segregation, he insists, has never gone away just become a more subtle societal pressure felt most strongly from talk radio and FoxNews and other monsters who insist that Affirmative Action actually hurts Black and fosters Black dependency upon the Federal Government for non-ending handouts. He blames “the plight of the Black citizen” upon continuing White oppression for hundreds of years  -- an oppression now less easily pinpointed (“Jim Crow has set aside his white sheet and now wears blue pinstripes and carries a briefcase . . . Jim Crow**, Esquire.”).  Smith compared Rush Limbaugh to the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens’ Council. In other words, conservatives -  a.k.a. Mr. Obama’s critics – can’t be opposed to his actions because of policy differences but are dyed-in-the-wool racists seeking to perpetuate an Amercan apartheid. For Mr. Smith and many others on the left, disagreeing with progressivism is not only wrong, but evil-deep-seated intolerance and bigotry. Let us remind you, of Rajjpuut’s outlook on this matter in no uncertain terms:

            a)    Barack Obama was elected President of the United States receiving more White votes and a higher percentage of White votes in 2008 than Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000 received . . . roughly 48% of the White votes, high for a Democrat.

            b)    John McCain received roughly 4.5% of the Black vote less than 1/10 of that 48%. Since Racism obviously does exist, the questions here are: “Which group is the most racist?”  “Does harping on an unchangeable past and emphasizing unchangeable ills  from almost fourteen decades ago as carried out by Black Separationists like Wright, Farrakhan and Smith help or hurt the Black community in its efforts to gain the American Dream?”

            c)    It is entirely likely that folks like Barack Obama, Reverend Wright, the Democratic Party as a whole, and you, Reverend Smith, have a vested interest in keeping the Black citizen in victim-mode and helplessly dependent upon the government . . . .

            d)   It is entirely probable that the vilification that self-made heroic Blacks like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida freshman Representative Allen West constantly receive from people like Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, the Democratic Party as a whole, and from you, Reverend Smith, has done more to hurt today’s Black Community than all the vile acts of the Ku Klux Klan put together.

            e)    President Obama’s judgment is clearly the topic of discussion here: his long relationship with Wright; and then showing up in a church dominated by another like-spirited and like-minded radical hate-mongered (Smith) tends to push three possible conclusions upon us: 

                     1)              This is where President Obama is comfortable because this is what President Obama believes in his heart of hearts . . . or

                     2)             President Obama makes very poor decisions about who he associates with and who he puts into positions of responsibility around him (Van Jones, Eric Holder, Anita Dunn,  John Holdren, Bill Ayers, and even Michelle Obama (“This is the first time I’ve been proud of America”) are all radicals seemingly twenty times more likely to criticize this country than to stand up for her or to seek to advance her traditional goodness.

                     3)             Mr. Obama is comfortable only among the people mentioned because he does not believe that America is good. Van Jones recently joined an organization seeking legal rights on a par with humans for Mother Nature and everything within her.

                     4)             Guilt by REPEATED association is NOT the same as “guilt by association.” As much as Obama defenders like Alan Colmes like to point at every similar criticism of the Anointed One Barack as unfair and resorting to “guilt by association,” the fact is that singular acts are one thing and constant, continual and brazenly repeated acts are quite another. Mr. Obama has shown an undeniable pattern of associating preferentially with left-wing radicals and outright anti-American sorts (Van Jones has called for the Revolution NOW and he’s just one of the President’s friends making similar pleas: Trumka for example has called for union violence) and he needs to be judged on that every bit as much as he’s judged on his incompetence.

       In a related story, Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones who resigned when his radical past, his vile insults against Republicans and his 9/11 Truther membership came to light is now pushing for a “new global architecture of environmental law” that would give Mother Nature the same legal rights in our courts as human beings.

      Rajjpuut would certainly like to be able to sue Mother Nature for the loss of my mother to mosquito-borne encephalitis almost forty years ago; and then there’s all those times I got sunburned and the cat’s scratching up our carpet  . . . . Oh, sorry, Van Jones isn’t joking. 

      Self-admitted communist, Van Jones is now a spokesman and one of the newer board members of the “Pachamama Alliance” in Nancy Pelosi’s Land (San Francisco) of Nuts . . . seeking to extend human rights (complete with enforceable laws) to nature itself on the international scene, ah me . . . these are the kinds of radicals the President has surrounded himself with (all the while declaiming the “extremism” of the TEA Party, FoxNews, and talk radio?) and it definitely appears that these radicals are NOT loyal Americans . . . by extension, the President’s own patriotism comes under question. Question their loyalties  . . . and you again, by extension, question the President’s loyalties, his greater agenda . . . .

      Just by coincidence, another “spokesman” lost his cushy job the other day . . . The AFLAC Duck got fired, long live the new AFLAC Duck. “Why?” one might wonder did the AFLAC Duck get fired and what has that got to do with the price of Chinese Tea or with Obama and Reverend Smith?  Or with “loyalty” for that matter?

      In essence, the AFLAC Duck, or more accurately the long-time voice of the AFLAC Duck is gone because he knew nothing of common sense and nothing of loyalty. AFLAC’s reinsurance business is well-known in this country but their biggest customer by far is Japan.  Actor Gilbert Gottfried lost his position for making controversial remarks highly critical of Japan. Apparently Mr. Gottfried didn’t realize that he was working for two separate entities: AFLAC itself and AFLAC’s customers. Mr. Obama would do well to learn a lesson from the AFLAC Duck, for he too is working for two separate entities: the American people and more especially the American Taxpayer who pays his check (reduced now to only 53% of Americans). It’s almost as if you’re President of a left-wing Black nation and uninterested in the other 84% of America that is neither Black nor left-wing progressive. You work for us, Mr. Obama, all of us; but it sure looks like you’re enthusiastically at work for those who hate this country and the rest of be damned. 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** Allow us to nitpick.   Rev. Smith's characterization of Jim Crow above is very, very strange. It’s as if he's got present-day Whites becoming Jim Crow and White-favoring actions and White-favoring laws becoming Jim Crow laws. In point of fact, “Jim Crow” and “Jim Crow laws” has always referred to Blacks themselves and to the segregationist laws originally designed to keep Blacks “in their place” and subservient to the White Supremacist Segregationists.  In Rajjpuut’s not so-humble opinion, Affirmative Action so treasured by the Black Community and the preachings of you, Smith, as well as Wright and Farrakhan are the real Jim Crow laws in this day and age.  We must protest the deliberate pretense by the mainstream media that this Sunday's sermon never happened just as the "God damn America" speech by Reverend Wright never happened . . . Mr. Obama has repeatedly put his character (or lack thereof) on the line for all to see, and the left-leaning media, continues protecting his image as always.