Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Chapter 9

CHAPTER 9 - Fair Dinkum Doco

“Oh what a tangled web we weave,When first we practise to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott (1771 - 1832)

Our society is notorious for its inability to focus on one thing for more than a few moments at a time. We have a terrible case of collective Attention Deficit Disorder. Unfortunately, our government counts on our lack of detailed intellection to manipulate us into accepting rules and information we would never otherwise allow if we knew the actual consequences. This appears to be how the Obama administration prepped the American people to receive their version of this natal information. We simply lack the fortitude to hold public servants accountable unless the behavior which offends us violates something far deeper in our psyche than it ought to have been allowed to. At this point, it is often too late to find redemption because the offender has had ample to time contrive a master plan against your effort to discover the truth or rebut the ruling.

In America, competing social and political ideology promotes an environment in which the temptation for dishonesty and misinformation is a legitimate form of debate for many. It is even a strategy used by the government to protect the political power of leaders who commit acts of wrongdoing. This is especially true in the matter of Obama’s natal identity. For many, it’s simply too much work to research. We can be assured that someone probably made it this way, intentionally.

Obama hopes people will just give up and concede to his level of opacity. Otherwise, if anyone takes action against the liberal agenda, his operatives will implement misinformation to discredit their effort to find the truth about his natal history and, thus, his true identity. His handlers hope that we are so distracted by their manufactured crisis and overwhelmed by their flood of misinformation, that people will just surrender to a compulsion for glancing at events in snap shots and become too intellectually fatigued to make rational connections. Disseminators of misinformation in Obama’s regime count on this. They hope this will overwhelm our capacity to analyze evidence and make rational conclusions about the lies they create. But, more importantly, they hope we will forget to remain focused on the essential question which has never changed about Barack Obama’s biography. What are the facts about the true identity of this man? If our inquiry remains rooted in the four basic questions of ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘where’, the ‘how’ will determine the ‘why’ on its own.


In August, 2009, Dr. Orly Taitz was a California based attorney raising legal questions about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President. She is an Israeli immigrant, originally from Moldova (Russia) living in the southern California area. Over several months leading up to and around Obama’s election, Taitz filed a series of lawsuits on behalf of several American citizens seeking legal rulings to force Obama to disclose his natal information for the purpose of establishing his authority to be president. One of her clients includes Republican presidential candidate and Foreign Affairs Ambassador to the U.N., Dr. Alan Keyes.

Taitz is a controversial figure with a diverse background in law, business and dentistry drawing intense incrimination from not only the liberal establishment, especially Obama supporters, but also from some colleagues in the legal profession, for her ongoing and, what is characterized as, haphazard challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

On August 1, 2009, Taitz filed a request on behalf of her clients, Dr. Alan Keyes, Captain Pamela Barnett and 42 other clients, with the U.S. Central District Court of California seeking the authentication of documents which she claimed contained a Kenyan, British-based “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” (CCRB) for Barack Obama. Then, on August 2, 2009 the image of the CCRB, alleged to be Barack Obama’s original Kenyan Birth Registration record (see Appendix), was posted on a website attributed to Taitz. The image of the document was posted as a digital photo which made it impossible to discern its authenticity, analyze the accuracy of its contents, or determine if the document had been tampered with. There is no account to date which demonstrates that the CCRB document Taitz submitted to the California court and the CCRB document posted on the internet were the same.

The British-based CCRB used in colonial England is not a medically verified record of birth certification. It contains no signature from a medical professional or hospital administrator. It is a document account of birth registration within the vital statistics record keeping process of the British Commonwealth. This is important to understand, because many in the American media tried to make the CCRB an authentic, hospital version of a foreign birth certificate in an effort to offset the possible authenticity of the Taitz CCRB. Support for this distinction is found in the British Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs Registration office statement of requirement for birth registration in which it is required of registrants to produce an “…original birth certificate…” to register a birth in the local consular’s office.

Without possession of the actual Taitz CCRB document, an analysis of its texture, its form and its content cannot be accurately compared to other authentic CCRB documents. However, there are other things we can learn about the image of the Taitz CCRB by digital analysis and by looking at a wide range of historical and current events surrounding its legible content, its origination, its current revelation and the source of the original posting. Within the document there are answers to the who, what, when, and where which can be compared with other sources of information.
On August 6, Judge Arthur Nakazato subsequently dismissed Taitz’ case and had the CCRB document stricken from the court’s record (see Appendix for image of Strike Order) on grounds that “the documents were improperly filed” for the following reasons:

1. Lack of proper notice (USCDC Local Rule 6-1, 7-4),
2. improper form and format (USCDC L.R. 11-3.3, 11-3.6),
3. counsel failed to identify Cal. State Bar Number (USCDC L.R. 11-3.8(a) and
4. the description of the motion conflicts or differs from that which entered on Court’s e-Docket (No Rule was cited by judge as authority).”

These mistakes, if they were indeed committed by Taitz, seem oddly fundamental for a legal professional with her profile. Based on the judge’s statement, one might conclude Taitz had never filed a case with her local court before. However, over the past year, it has become apparent that judges are unwilling to allow any court proceeding on the issue of Obama’s natal information, regardless of merit. Currently, judges in the American justice system are too influenced by Obama’s administration and too weak to make independent decisions on the matter. In most cases, it is apparent that many judges are failing to uphold the U.S. constitution in the interest of the American people. Nakazato’s set of trivial reasons for dismissing Taitz’ case is just one example of the similar, frivolous justifications used by other judges to disregard other cases filed against Obama.

Pertaining to “Lacks proper notice”, Local Rule 6-1 of Chapter 1 of the U.S. Central District Court of California’s “Local Civil Rules (Integrated with Titles of Federal Rules) of Civil Procedure” states that the motion had to be filed with the Clerk at least 20 days prior to the hearing date. Apparently Taitz violated procedural rules governing filing notices. Certainly she was aware of the court’s time constraints and requirements for lead time. What was the hurry? Why did Taitz think it was necessary to drive this motion through on such short notice? The rule also states that the court has the jurisdiction to order shorter filing periods.78

Local Rule 7-4 deals with the Forms of Motions and the documents included with the motion, how they are declared and whether they establish the facts of the motion requested.79 Again, it appears a lack of preparation and diligence to compose the motion correctly lead, in part, to a rejection of the filing. It is difficult to understand why Taitz would not have taken a more meticulous approach with the court’s requirements in order to make sure the motion brought more favorable results. After all, if the Obama Kenyan CCRB of August 1, 2009 was authentic, it seems reasonable that the filer of the motion should have made sure the court procedures were followed better than they were in this case.

Pertaining to “improper form and format”, in violating Local Rules 11-3.3 and 11-3.6, it appears Taitz did not number the pages of the motion correctly nor did she double space the typing of the document.80 Allowing a motion with the potential magnitude of reviewing the eligibility of a sitting President to be dismissed because the documents were not formatted correctly, without checking them first with the Clerk, is incomprehensible. The Judge didn’t even have to look at the content of the documents provided in the motion, he just had to assess the way they were presented in order to dismiss the case. If lawyers continue to make dismissals so easy, there is no hope for America’s viable cause to understand the true natal identity of Barack Obama.
Violation of Local Rule 11-3.8(a) means that Taitz did not present her Practice or Bar Number information correctly on the front page of the motion. Again, this is an incomprehensible mistake from anyone with a license to practice law in the United States, unless, of course, the mistake was made intentionally.

Finally, the Judge cites no Local Rule reference for his assessment that “…the description of the motion conflicted or differs from that which entered on Court’s e-Docket.” However, there is evidence on the U.S. District Court of Central California website that it was based in some part on a convoluted interpretation of Local Rule(s) 83-2 which governs over the methods and tone of an Attorney’s Communication with the Court.81


However, the most shocking, unprecedented decision by Nakazato, after throwing the case out on grounds of procedural violations, was to strike the record of the document evidence and then to confiscate the original documents! (See Appendix for Strike Order). Nakazato ordered that the documents would not be returned to Taitz’ legal team thus preventing them from being accessed by anyone else…ever. This meant that the original CCRB document could never be analyzed, compared or reviewed as to its actual authenticity or accuracy of content. To many who believe that the Taitz CCRB is an authentic document, this decision by Nakazato affirmed their suspicions. In their minds, this level of audacity on the part of Nakazato was unprecedented and an unabashed effort to assist Obama in maintaining the secrecy of his natal identity. Nakazato’s order stated:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the documents shall be stricken from the records and shall not be considered by the court.”

Then, at the bottom of the order, Nakazato invokes the following bizarre decision:

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the documents shall not be returned to the filing party; however, the Clerk shall note on the case docket that the documents are stricken from the record.”

The only evidence that the original CCRB filed by Taitz ever existed was an irrelevant note that it had been stricken from the court’s record. The location of the original CCRB is currently unknown and irrevocable.

Why did Nakazato order that the documents would not be returned to Taitz? What information did they contain which caused such an unprecedented decision? What did the motion, with all of its misformatted documentation and lack of procedural conformity, contain that Judge Nakazato felt that the actual, original, paper documents had to be stricken and confiscated by the court? This is an astonishing decision which appears blatantly prejudiced, contrived and biased in favor of Obama on the part of Nakazato.

The more one reviews the examples set by the filing of this case and its extraordinarily derelict treatment by the justice system, it becomes very disappointing to imagine the lack of any legal recourse available to root out Obama’s identity. If we are prohibited in our rightful redress of grievances by something as remedial as line spacing on the pages of our motion to our courts, it becomes futile to believe there is any hope of forwarding any clarification on the part of Obama and his administration. Worse, when biased judges and political reprobates use ideology to justify violations of the constitution by a current President, it does nothing but work for the destruction of this nation.

Since August of 2008, 24 lawsuits have been dismissed by various Obama-friendly courts as of October 2009. They are entitled:

o Ankeny v. Gov. of Indiana
o Barnett v. Obama
o Berg v. Obama
o Berg v. Obama (Qui Tam)
o Brockhausen v. Andrade
o Broe v. Reed
o Cohen v. Obama
o Cook v. Good
o Craig v. US
o Greenberg v. Brunner
o Hunter v. Obama
o Kelso v. Obama
o Kerchner v. Obama
o Keyes v. Bowen
o Keyes v. Lingle
o Keyes v. Obama
o Lightfoot v. Bowen
o Martin v. Lingle
o Rhodes v. Gates
o Rhodes v. McDonald
o Schneller v. Cortes
o v. Marshall
o Thomas v. Hosemann
o Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz
o James v. Obama

When the legal system in America fails to provide a redress of grievances for the American people, it creates fertile ground for violent rebellion. Being deprived of their right to legal recourse in the matter of Barack Obama’s eligibility is only storing up wrath against those who disregard pleas for such redress. Rulings which dismiss the American people, like Nakazato’s and the other judges with these cases put before them, are causing damage to America. Their convoluted, wrong-minded reasoning is forcing the American people to seek justice in other, more extreme, alternatives.


Once again, it is necessary to compartmentalize our understanding of the birth documentation method. We must employ an analysis of the different forms and methods of documentation used, not only between the state and federal jurisdictions of the United States, but now, with the developments of the Taitz case, we must consider, for the first time, the inclusion of foreign birth documentation in the scenario.

In the mid 1900’s, at the time of Obama’s birth, the British “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” (CCRB) was an official document published form by the government of Great Britain to record registrations of births which purportedly occurred in geographic regions under the colonial jurisdiction of the British Crown. Specifically, in British East Africa in 1961, this document was used to record birth registrations for the British Ministry of Health which existed, in name, from 1919 to 1968.125

After 1968, the Ministry of Health evolved into the British Department of Health. The CCRB was not used as an official document to be issued from a medical facility or from a qualified witness to a live birth. As the header title says, it was used to record and confirm birth registrations, not the medical verification of the actual birth.

The CCRB contains several pieces of data attributable to a birth registration. However, it does not contain the name, or signature, of a medical professional. This is because the document is not issued as a medical verification of a live birth. It is only meant to account for the registration of a birth within the British Ministry of Health. This is an important, but often overlooked detail about the Taitz controversy. The CCRB is an administrative verification, not a medical verification.

The CCRB contains a header title and seal indicating the name of the Province or Region of the document’s origin within the British colonial jurisdiction. In the Taitz case, the “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” is alleged to have originated in the Coast Province of Mombosa, Kenya. When the document image was first revealed on the internet, many thought the header was a reference to “Coast Province Hospital” in Mombosa. However, we now know the seal label is a geographic identification, not a reference to the hospital with the same name.

The British East African colonial government in Kenya used the CCRB in coordination with the birth records created by Kenyan Ministry of Health, and affiliated hospitals, to account births in the region. It is important to understand the distinction between the British colonial government and the Kenyan municipality because the political and military conflict in the region during the early 1960’s was giving way to an independent Kenyan nation at this time. Therefore, as the “Republic of Kenya” began to replace the national identification under British Colonialism, so did the forms and methods of documentation of vital events begin to change. Births, deaths, marriages and divorces required documentation in not only the vital records of the British Government, but also in the emerging vital records services of the Kenyan government. This was a complication to the vital records management systems in Kenya which was the result of the transition between colonial rule to independence.

As a form of birth registration, the early forms of the CCRB originated during the early 1800’s as Britain began expanding its colonial settlements throughout the world. As the British Crown established colonies in various regions of the world it needed to create a recognizable “trademark” while employing native document forms which identified with the foreign region of its implementation.

It is important to understand the relationship between the government of the British Crown and the municipalities of the regions where colonial rule was established. Records available in the British National Archives suggest that the British colonies maintained the CCRB for birth registration while the indigenous government body maintained vital records for the medical verifications of births. This means that the forms of documentation might be different between the CCRB and the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ used by the local municipality and hospitals. This is also an important distinction in understanding the origins of the Taitz CCRB document compared with other versions of birth certificates later issued from the “Republic of Kenya” after the transition to independence in the early 1960’s.

The document image revealed by Taitz is an authentic document form employed by the British Government to register births in its colonial regions in East Africa. Whether or not the content of the document, its natal information pertaining to Barack Obama, is accurate, is a separate issue for discernment. Dissenters on the both sides of the Obama Kenyan birth controversy attempt to engage a futile argument over the authenticity of the Taitz CCRB document based on its origins. If Obama’s birth occurred in the Coast Province of the Territory of Zanzibar (Kenya) in 1961, it would have been registered by the British government in the form of a CCRB document.
The CCRB actually provides source reference information that would allow an investigator to confirm the existence of a registration record in the British National Archives (BNA). The specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British Jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files:

General Register Office
Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia 126

Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: English
Creator names: General Register Office, 1836-1970
Covering Birth Registration dates: 1895-1965
Physical description: 15 volume(s)
Access conditions: Available in microform only
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Scope and content: Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates.
Publication note: Geoffrey Yeo 'The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom', London, 2nd edn, 1988.
Related material: Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general.
Place: Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 - 1963

Subjects: Birth: registration
Courtesy: British National Archives126

Strangely, when the image of the original Taitz CCRB appeared, it caused more fervent commotion than normal within web-based communities following Obama’s identity controversy. Even the mainstream media, which had historically ignored claims of Obama’s Kenyan birth, took a strange interest in this instance. There had been previous episodes when generic forgeries and prank versions of Obama Kenyan birth certificates had been posted on the internet, but none of them received any real attention or media resources. But, this was not the case with this particular CCRB document image. This time, the circumstances elicited unique reactions which had never been seen before with other web-based Obama birth certificate ‘forgeries’.


Birth documentation, in its most thorough forms, is the best form of confirmation that someone actually exists to the rest of the world. If someone fails to possess some form of natal confirmation they are simply regarded as an indigent or, worse, a possible criminal. Fundamentally, we know Obama has an original birth certificate issued from somewhere at some time. He confirms this in his 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father” on page 26:

“I discovered this… folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”

Obama is referring to a birth certificate he had in his possession sometime between 1975 and 1979! This is 30 years before he was allegedly issued a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth".

Thus, based on Obama's own words, we can assume that more than two people witnessed his birth. Therefore, the legal demands obligating the creation of vital records prevent Obama from remaining without adequate birth documentation. To date, Obama refused to allow confirmation of his natal identity. However, unless Obama is willing to reveal the original document which his operatives say is concealed within the vital records office of the state of Hawaii, we have no less of a reason to believe that any reasonable version of a CCRB, or any birth certificate for that matter, presented on the internet, in a court docket, or in the media, is just as authentic as the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ he has attempted to pass off as a federally approved, constitutionally adequate document.

At least with the original Taitz document, we were able to determine whether or not it was a hoax through research of source information. We can’t even verify the authenticity of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ through any collaboration because the sources of the information it contains are not accessible by the American people. As a matter of fact, the concept of the Taitz CCRB is more believable than Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ simply because the CCRB actually provides information that is traceable and is attested by official signatures, dates and locations.

The first peculiar occurrence after the filing of the Taitz court documents and the posting of the CCRB image was the posting of another version (see Appendix) of the “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth”. This unauthorized posting was put on another website attributed to Taitz by anonymous sources and show HEX file evidence of being altered with Adobe Photoshop at 11:12 a.m. on August 2, 2009. The graphic data script states the following in the images embedded script:

Exif__MM_*_ü€__'_Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows_2009:08:02 11:12:35

The fact that the cloned image of the Taitz CCRB had been altered is further prompted by the fact that second website, a blog site used by Taitz to update visitors on the cases she has filed, had been confirmed as having been infiltrated by internet hackers working to undermine her efforts to reveal Obama’s natal information. This is confirmed by a tag line placed within the Google search results of this site stating, “This Site May Harm Your Computer”. Of course, we would expect pranksters and cloners to copy, alter and repost images of the original. This would not be unusual in a high profile event on the internet. However, completely contrary to reactions to other instances of “Obama Kenyan birth certificate” revelations, this one seemed too poignant for casual browsers of the internet. In fact, the clone document was more sophisticated and coordinated in this instance than any other previously seen.

Based on the fact that the clone CCRB was posted on a corrupted website falsely attributed to the originator, it was obvious the clone was a manufactured hoax created by subversives acting to diminish any possible legitimacy presented by the original CCRB. The clone document was an artificial duplication created using an authentic document as a template. Then, forgers transcribed an altered version of its content onto an independently published document. The clone was then revealed, promoted and mocked as the original Taitz document. The promotion of the clone CCRB as the “original” is a classic demonstration of disseminative propaganda and an example of a carefully implemented attempt to spread misinformation. In past instances of Obama Kenyan birth certificate hoaxes, the false documents were posted as “stand alone” attempts to make the public think they were the authentic original. However, in the instance of the Taitz clone, the document appeared to be designed specifically for attacking the credibility of the original. This was very strange.

By associating the Taitz document with the intentionally flawed content of the clone document the disseminators were trying to discredit all forms subversive information against Barack Obama, regardless of the accuracy of the source information. Reminiscent of the serpent convincing Eve to eat the bad fruit, the effectiveness of misinformation relies on recreating a closely associated, but subtly different copy of the original information meant to confuse and distract from the truth. Skewing the meaning of the original Taitz CCRB with an alternative obvious hoax version is meant to distract the public from asking the essential questions about the original Taitz CCRB. The hoax was intended to distract the public from discovering the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘where’ the original came from.

The clone is designed to draw the attention of a wide audience who the disseminators know will look deeper into the content. Upon this investigation, the content will reveal information that is either ridiculous or extraordinarily coincidental with other seemingly unassociated sources of information or commonly known facts. In this instance, the clone CCRB was indexed with a five digit alpha numeric entry, “47,O44” which the disseminators obviously meant as an indication of Obama’s age (47), his intitial (O ‘oh’ - not 0 ‘zero’) and his number of succession as a president (44). This was done intentionally to indicate that the clone CCRB was a blatant fake and actually a joke. Therefore, it was created to lead many to simply conclude that the entire episode is just another instance of forgery by idiots. The clone document demonstrated a textbook example of this tactic. However, it is important to remember that the original CCRB document submitted to the court was never corroborated as the same document used to produce the original image on the first Taitz website.

The clone CCRB document was obviously manufactured to be used by the mainstream liberal media, and Obama supporters, to allege that the original Taitz CCRB document was a forgery without ever having to reveal the original Taitz CCRB document. The clone document appeared on MSNBC, CNN, and a variety of notoriously leftwing websites, but the original Taitz CCRB document was never revealed except on the Taitz website in its original posting. A hoax, initiated by Taitz, was never actually confirmed, just alleged through a dishonest representation of a duplicate CCRB. Liberals working for the media agencies dishonestly and blatantly attributed the clone CCRB document to Taitz and used it to discredit the idea that Obama was not born in the United States.

This was an example of a basic propaganda strategy which is intended to misinform and distract the masses by creating a flawed version of authentic information and then using mass media to intentionally exploit the flawed “clone” as the actual original. The technique is used to diminish the authority of a message and convince the public to discredit the original source. This was contrived to distract any interest in the original Taitz CCRB document while reducing its authenticity. Reducing the authenticity of information is achieved by associating it with either nonsensical content or, through associations with commonly known information, or portraying its contents as so coincidental with commonly known facts that it must be a fake.

First, the clone CCRB was dishonestly presented as the original. Then, its contents, which had been republished after being altered from information provided in the original Taitz document, contained what the media characterized as “…revealing coincidences indicating a hoax.” It was obvious that the clone’s content had been ridiculously contrived. The clone was indexed with the file number 47,O44, even though the index numbers of an authentic British-based CCRB are a maximum of two digits in their representation of births on any given date. Rarely would a facility see more than 99 births on one day. The media immediately attacked this as a ridiculous reference to Obama’s age (47) (he was actually turning 48 when the original Taitz document was posted), his initial (“O”), and his number of succession as president (44), despite the fact that this number was seen as an obvious fake by everyone long before it ever made in onto the first MSNBC broadcast.

The strategy was designed by cloners to corrupt the information found in a CCRB through selected pieces of information in the document which revealed data that most believe are not just coincidental, but contrived and faked. The idea is to get people to conclude that the clone CCRB is the original and that it is faked. The strategy is to create multiple, slightly varying versions which causes a psychological rejection of all forms of the information, even the truth, despite the fact that the original information is still supported by factual events and sources. Psychologically, this tactic works specifically on the mind’s defense mechanisms meant to prevent confusion. It works to discourage those who lack the time, patience and resources for extensive investigation. Most are only willing to take their investigation as far as the next convenient corroborative source, but when a flawed clone is revealed it removes some of the legitimacy from the entire source in their minds by suggesting that if it was so easy to manufacture a second version, it must have been easy to manufacture the original. When the clone is eventually exposed as a fake, public confidence deteriorates and both sources are abandoned as flawed. This is how Obama was able to successfully disseminate the false authority of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’.

Most people thought the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was an official U.S. ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ because the labels of the two documents were so similar. The herd mentality obligates the masses to reject any distinction between documents which contain a label containing similar words like “Certification” and “Certificate”. Obama’s handlers knew exactly what they were doing in this case.
People are persuaded to give up before the next logical step of the investigation which is to separate the renditions, pursue the specific content of each, and investigate sources deeper into the origins of the document. Unfortunately, propagandists count on the fact that most people will choose to abandon these logical steps in the chain of custody and the subsequent chain of information from one document to the next.66 In Obama’s case, the disseminators seek to cause people to surrender to the situation and stop resisting his presidency. The message is “resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

Another surprising reaction to the Taitz court document was that anonymous sources had taken great pains to make a clone image of a document whose concept had already been declared absurd for several months prior. Orly Taitz has been one of the Obama identity seekers that the liberal media has worked very hard to marginalize and smear. The default response from the liberal establishment is that any revelation of any form of information coming from Taitz, which opposes their pre-acceptance of Obama’s legitimacy, is absurd. If it was somehow discovered that Obama’s own mother had written a letter to Taitz, and the letter was confirmed by a Notary, witnessed by the physician, blessed by a priest, sealed by a nun and delivered by Christ himself, Taitz could tell everyone that Obama was born in Kenya and his minions would still not believe it. Even the highest authority on the matter has no credibility when it comes against the liberal delusion of Obama’s legitimacy.

Before it was even revealed, the image of the Taitz CCRB document that was posted around August 2nd, had already been declared by the liberal establishment to be unreal simply by an irrational predisposition. The level of liberal dissonance preventing any consideration that the man might simply have natal origins in another country, just like 36 million other Americans today, is not only intellectually dishonest, but morally depraved. It’s not as if Obama identity seekers are accusing him of being the son of Satan, they are just saying he was born in another country. This is not unreasonable. It doesn’t disqualify him from being a human being, a father, a husband or even a U.S. citizen. It just means he doesn’t get to be the President, which isn’t that bad considering the nature of the job. The veracity of liberal rejection of this possibility is disproportionate with normal human psychology.

When the clone image appeared, it should have been immediately recognized as an indicator of disseminative misinformation by every American. Even the basic question seemed strained. Why did someone make a forgery of a forgery? Misinformation and rumors about both versions’ authenticity spread throughout the internet creating a debate between two isolated sides. Obama panderers did not see the image of the original document because the liberal media refused to show it. Many people were at a loss to explain the content of the clone because they were not even aware that it was not the original document. This was the intent of those in revealing the clone.

Someone was working very hard to implement an unnecessary layer of misinformation to cover evidence they already concluded was absurd, and they were using an artificial source to do it. Apparently, the disseminators were not as confident in their message as they originally thought. This had never happened with previous internet versions of Obama Kenyan Birth Certificates. It was obvious there was something about this particular Taitz document which commanded the attention and unique actions from the left to try to confuse the situation more.

Not surprisingly, though, the liberal media was very dishonest in their reporting of the document. Their coverage was obviously designed to impress upon their primarily liberal audience that a forgery of a purported Obama Kenyan birth certificate had been faked by nutty rightwingers. The liberal message was exceptionally aggressive, hateful, dishonest, mocking and maligning of any American questioning Obama’s identity, to a degree which had not been seen previously. Characterizing the posting of the document image as a rightwing job also insulted liberal media viewers by disregarding the possibility that the entire affair could have actually been an effort by liberal hacks to make Obama truth seekers look bad.


Another significant circumstance stemming from the internet posting of the CCRB document is that its existence and contents actually coincide with the dates of other authentic court documents pertaining to the issue of Obama’s natal identity. This promotes the authenticity of the original version of this document because it suggests that the poster had access to actual legal documentation created at the time in question. Contrarily, a hoaxter would have avoided any reference to authenticity.

The request for divorce was filed by Obama’s mother on January 20, 1964 and the final “Decree of Divorce” was dated March 20th 1964. (See Appendix). According to Hawaii Revised Statutes in Hawaiian Family Court Rules, during a divorce hearing involving children, the court will require proof of parentage, for custody determination, through the disclosure of the child’s original birth certificate (HRS 571-61).

In January, 2009, investigators posted to the internet what appeared to be 13 pages of court documents from the divorce of Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham. However, a request of these court records through the Hawaiian Family Court archive revealed that the original docket was originally filed with 14 documents, not 13. It was discovered upon delivery of the documents to investigators that page 11 had been omitted or removed from the docket roster. Given the numbering of documents (page numbering skips from 10 to 12 in the docket roster), it is suspected that page 11 was the original birth certificate of Obama, possibly a CCRB, which had either been removed by Obama handlers or by mandates of Hawaiian laws protecting vital records under HRS 571-84.

In Obama’s divorce case, Obama Sr. did not respond in person to the “Libel for Divorce” filed by Ann Dunham, therefore permitting the judge in the case to award a Decree of Divorce (See Appendix) to Dunham by default. And, since we know that Barack Obama Sr. had abandoned Dunham and Obama Jr. when he moved to the east coast to attend graduate school, the judge also awarded custody of Obama Jr. to Dunham by “Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights” under HRS 571-11, 61, & 63 based on the establishment of Obama Sr. as the legal, adoptive or natural father through Obama Jr’s original birth certificate.

Current Hawaiian Parental Rights Law states:

§571-61 Termination of Parental Rights; Petition:

(b) Involuntary Termination:
(1)The family courts may terminate the parental rights in respect to any child as to any legal parent or to (2) any natural father who is named as the father on the child's birth certificate:
1(A) Who has deserted the child without affording means o fidentification for a period of at least ninety days;
1(B) Who has voluntarily surrendered the care and custody of the child to another for a period of at least two years;
1(C) Who, when the child is in the custody of another, has failed to communicate with the child when able to do so for a period of at least one year;
1(D) Who, when the child is in the custody of another, has failed to provide for care and support of the child when able to do so for a period of at least one year;
1(E) Whose child has been removed from the parent's physical custody pursuant to legally authorized judicial action under section 571-11(9), and who is found to be unable to provide now and in the foreseeable future the care necessary for the well-being of the child;
2(B) Whose child is sought to be adopted by the child's stepfather and the stepfather has lived with the child and the child's legal mother for a period of at least one year;
2(C) Who is only a concerned father who has failed to file a petition for the adoption of the child or whose petition for the adoption of the child has been denied; or;
2(D) Who is found to be an unfit or improper parent or to be financially or otherwise unable to give the child a proper home and education.

HRS 571-11(9) states as follows:

§571-11 Jurisdiction; children. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings:
(9) For the protection of any child under chapter 587

(Chapter 587 refers to the Hawaiian Child Protective Act)

In the procedural rules of the Hawaiian Family Court system, in cases where the custody of a minor child is being sought by the mother, the court requires proof of parentage by the father in the form of an original birth certificate because, unfortunately, in some cases, the father may not be able to be otherwise identified, or he abandons the mother before birth, or he is anonymous in the birth of a child whereas the mother is not able to remain anonymous in a divorce hearing. Therefore, a judgment of Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights and subsequent custody award to the mother requires precedence of established paternal parentage based on the best natal record available. In Obama’s case, this natal record may have been a Kenyan, British-based CCRB delivered to Dunham in late February or early March of 1964. The date of February 17, 1964 appears on the Taitz CCRB image.

Moreover, there is strong evidence supporting the possibility that the Taitz CCRB document filed with her request for its authentication in August, 2009 was either a copy of, or otherwise associated with, the missing document from the court docket roster of the Obama’s divorce. The document may have been inadvertently retained by Ann Dunham’s lawyer in 1964, or it may have been kept safe by an opportunistic investigator who accessed the original divorce court document archive after questions about Obama’s natal history began being asked. Or, it may have simply been removed under laws of identity protection for minors. The individual responsible for the production and exposure of the Taitz CCRB has never been positively identified.

The Taitz CCRB posted on August 2nd, 2009, was in fact shown to be dated by the deputy registrar on February 17th 1964, a date one would expect to see on a sealed birth record prior to the Divorce Decree and custody awarded on March 20th, 1964 and which plausibly fits within the span of time needed to process and deliver a birth record from Kenya if it were ordered in late January, after the filing of “Libel for Divorce”.

When Ms. Dunham submitted a “Libel For Divorce” affidavit to the court for a divorce hearing, the court clerk would have advised her to bring documents to the hearing based on Hawaiian Family Court Rule HRS 571. She would have needed to order Obama’s birth certificate from the place of his birth and submitted it for review before the final decision by the judge, which we know from the Decree of Divorce document was in March of 1964.

Excerpt of signature page from Libel for Divorce affidavit signed by Stanley Ann Dunham Obama dated January 20th 1964. Upon filing the affidavit, Dunham would have been made aware of the various documents she needed to bring to the scheduled court date. One of those documents would have been an original birth record for Obama Jr. as needed to verify parental rights for custody ruling. She would have subsequently ordered it thereafter and received it in four to six weeks from Kenya.

Excerpt image of Taitz CCRB showing date of issuance as 17th day of February, 1964, sealed by the Deputy registrar. This date coincides between the date of the filed affidavit and the date of the divorce decree ruling of Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham. Based on time needed for mailing, Dunham would have received the document sometime in late February or at the latest, early March, 1964, therefore, this is the date one would expect to see on a birth record ordered for the custody hearing.

Excerpt of Dunham/Obama Sr. Divorce decree dated as filed on the 20th day of March, 1964. This fits with the succession of documentary evidence after the date shown on the Taitz CCRB, used for the custody ruling by the judge. Dunham was awarded an uncontested divorce and sole custody of Obama Jr. after Obama Sr. failed to appear in court. The judgment which was filed with the Hawaii Family Circuit court.

It is not unreasonable to consider that the Taitz CCRB document posted on August 2nd may have been an image, albeit a digitally corrupted and altered version, of an authentic British-based CCRB from Kenya for Barack Obama because the date of its issuance coincided with the dates during which the courts would have asked Ms. Dunham to demonstrate her right to custody of Obama, and because the archive of the Hawaiian Family Court records reveal that a document was removed from the docket roster either by Obama operatives or by court clerks operating under legal mandates of natal information protection laws. Regardless, the only plausible document that would ever be removed from the pages of records of Obama’s parent’s divorce would be a birth certificate. Otherwise, if the document were something else, it would not have been removed.


Considering how intensely doubters of Obama’s natal identity had been marginalized by mainstream liberal media prior to this, major cable news and leftwing media sites were suddenly allocating relatively large amounts of resources to clarify the image of the Taitz CCRB document as a hoax. It was obvious they wanted it to be a hoax, even if it presented resolution to the vast emptiness of Obama’s biography.

It is obvious that the liberal establishment and its media sycophants have overextended themselves far too much in their support of Barack Obama to allow him to be successfully opposed, even if the opposition proves Obama is truly in violation of constitutional law. The liberal establishment will engage all forms of dishonesty, and criminality, in order to maintain the billions of dollars it stands to gain from the regime of the Obama Administration. For that much money, considering the vastly dysfunctional character of liberals, Obama will be protected by any means necessary, even if it means hiding source information he manipulated with technology and media propaganda.

One would think that, for subject matter so intensely considered absurd by Obama’s media network, they would just ignore the internet version of the Taitz CCRB as rightwing idiocy and move on. But, they didn’t ignore it like they did in previous, less sophisticated representations of possible foreign birth documentation for Obama.

Not only did MSNBC not ignore it, it appeared to be driving it. Without ever mentioning the document missing from the archive of Obama’s parents’ divorce file, MSNBC made the image of the clone CCRB document a propagandized feature or lead story on three primetime broadcast episodes of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", "the Rachel Maddow Show" and "The Ed Show".

The liberal media fumbled all over itself to argue against this document, even though the image of the clone CCRB was an obvious and blatant hoax and it was purported to lack any authenticity. The CCRB did not warrant broadcast media attention, as a purely journalistic story, yet it received copious attention and outrage from the various liberal broadcasts. If the original Taitz CCRB document filed with the court was determined to be such an obvious hoax, then why did the Obama media pay so much attention to the image of the clone CCRB? They used more broadcast resources, more print space and more radio time for this particular "hoax" instance than any other ‘forgery’ claim prior to this.

MSNBC spent a particularly large amount airtime talking about the Taitz CCRB issue between August 3rd and August 6th, 2009. This was strangely tabloidish of the executives, and their cavalcade of Obama panderers at NBC Universal. The primetime episode of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” devoted so much air time to this alleged instance of Obama birth document forgery that the show actually invited a guest, Paul Tompkins, on to talk about it.68 The scripted response from Tompkins was laughable.

The more MSNBC paid attention to the Taitz CCRB issue, the more obvious it became that this “absurdity” had either hit a nerve in the liberal media ranks, or that the liberal media was participating in the dissemination of misinformation. NBC’s manservant, Olbermann appeared more agitated and aggressive during his report of this story. We all know that Olbermann is in the Obama media’s back pocket, but he appeared more discomforted on this occasion than usual. Anyone who had ever competed in sports or witnessed the reaction of someone who was in denial of losing the big game could see that Olbermann was genuinely disturbed by the Taitz CCRB saga during his dishonest, vocally gyrating rant.

At one point during the interview between Olberman and Tompkins, Tompkins commented, “What I don’t understand, is why didn’t these goofballs use a Kenyan Birth certificate as a template?

Olbermann did not reply immediately. His silence was deafening. Olbermann seemed to realize that would not be a question to pursue if MSNBC was going to push this as a hoax. The “bad” answer to Tompkin’s question for liberals would be, “…because the actual original CCRB was, in fact, published from an authentic template of the British Certified Copy of Registration of Birth showing that Obama was born in Kenya”

Olbermann had obviously forgotten that you don’t have to sell something if people already want to buy it. But, he was sure working hard to sell this as a hoax. Olbermann and his guest used mocking gestures and terms pronouncing the name Taitz as “Taints” among other insults. It was overkill and unconvincing. He was working way too hard to convince viewers of something that MSNBC and the liberal media had been saying for nearly a year was an obvious absurdity. It was as though they were trying to convince themselves too.

Olbermann’s appearance was contrived and there was an odd veracity in his effort to reduce tension, parse facts, diminish truth and spin the subject while appearing to make it seem casually ridiculous. It was a classic bluff…a bad poker face. The only thing louder than Olbermann’s labored chortles was the subtle glints of nervous perspiration emitting from his colossal, furrowing forehead. And, yet, at no point throughout the broadcast did MSNBC ever show the original CCRB document filed with the court by Taitz on August 1st. MSNBC intentionally displayed the cloned version of the CCRB.

It soon became blatantly obvious that the management of the liberal network wanted to dishonestly discredit Taitz and the concept of an Obama Kenyan birth record. MSNBC would have done this even if the original CCRB document would have been authenticated by a dozen legal and municipal officials. The cloned CCRB document they attempted to attribute to Orly Taitz, was in fact, a document produced after the Taitz court filing date, and then exploited through journalistic malfeasance. MSNBC’s broadcast exhibited a complete disregard for the truth. Therefore, by either knowing about the original document while issuing a bogus story, or by never broadcasting a correction after discovering the original CCRB, the personnel responsible for the story at MSNBC are all liars.68

The liberal media’s reaction coupled with the reaction of Obama sycophants on the internet made it apparent that this instance of an alleged Obama Kenyan Birth record had caused some chaos. Like a bad poker face exposing the weakness of their hand, the liberal media looked oddly frightened by the original Taitz CCRB as a possible Kenyan birth document attributed to Barack Obama. Otherwise, they would have used it in their accusations of forgery instead of the clone. MSNBC’s refusal to show the originally posted document only reinforced the plausibility of authenticity of an existing document. The Obama Birth Certificate issue had been historically disregarded by mainstream media networks as fringe and hate driven by zealous Obama opposition. Yet, this time, Obama’s liberal media was taking it very seriously, while trying to make it appear like they were discounting just another absurd attempt by Obama haters. The media’s treatment of the affair looked contrived and simply, dishonest.

This is an image of the Header of the Taitz CCRB document posted on August 2, 2009. The image of this document had been tampered with after posting, after it was discovered that a CCRB was missing from the divorce file of Obama’s parents. The Obama camp would have known that a document like this might exist before his announcement to run for president in February, 2007. Obama’s operatives would have been able to access registration records and discern that authentic copies had been made from the Kenyan Ministry of Health or the British General Registrar’s office. Obama had traveled to Kenya the previous summer in 2007, and again in July of 2009.

The image of the Clone CCRB document posted August 3rd or 4th as an obvious hoax. This is the version widely alleged to be a forgery, but this is not the version originally posted on August 2nd. If this internet version is the forgery, it begs the question as to where this document originated. Anyone seeking to protect an authentic document would use a clone version to confuse observers. In this case, there is strong technical evidence that this document was produced by advanced digital graphics technology and manipulated to contain intentionally corrupted data and information meant to make it seem like a joke, or a badly produced hoax.


The report of a decision by Taitz to make the CCRB public prompted many of Obama’s identity seekers to question her judgment. If she believed the CCRB document was authentic, as a lawyer, her efforts might have been better spent taking the document to Kenya, in secret, and having it authenticated by officials, first. She should have done extensive research and analysis on the document without ever posting it to the internet.

If the goal is to legally obligate Obama to respond with authentic records by exposing authentic records, showing that his natural born citizenship is doubt, it would be more prudent to seek such an injunction without the ridicule of the public and the press hounding the endeavor. The only time the public should have been made aware of such a CCRB document, if it was proven authentic, was when we heard from the media that Obama had been subpoenaed to provide his ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. Instead, Taitz haphazardly submitted the documents with a filing for review and authentication with the U.S. Central District Court of California.

Taitz’ decision, combined with the way the media responded to the situation, reduced the affair to a circus like atmosphere. If one were not familiar with the history of opposition between Taitz and the liberal media it would appear that Taitz was intentionally trying to undermine challenges to Obama’s natal identity. Taitz actually agreed to an interview with MSNBC about the Kenyan CCRB, after it had been altered, prodded, ridiculed and dismissed. MSNBC is the defacto propaganda wing of Obama’s administration, for God's sake!

This was a bad decision on the part of Taitz. It was bad enough that she would post a document on the internet that, if proven to be authentic, could seriously damage the presidency of Barack Obama, but, to then voluntarily place herself in a vulnerable situation by appearing on a media network that has been notoriously hostile toward anyone opposing anything about Obama was somewhat reckless. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Taitz, it is understandable that she might want to increase awareness about the issue of Obama’s missing records. But, the way in which the Taitz CCRB was mishandled did more damage to the cause for discovering truth than it helped.

It’s discouraging to imagine the possibility that any representative of the American justice system, like Taitz, might consider selling out to the echelons of government power. Anytime a person opposing our government is caught in a compromising situation, this is the first thing we think of, however. Without insinuating this occurred in this situation, if Taitz were tempted to end her investigation under the “persuasion” of Obama’s protectors, she might work to undermine the integrity of information herself by acting the part of an incompetent dissenter. This is why one might question the results of the CCRB affair under Taitz’ oversight.


Speculating that Taitz indeed has, or had, an authentic copy of an Obama Kenyan birth document, the first step that Obama’s operatives would have taken was to secure it. They would have approached Taitz with an offer to purchase the document, and any peripheral evidence, for a price that perhaps she could not refuse. Then, they would have gone a step further in commissioning her help to completely discredit the idea that an authentic Obama Kenyan birth certificate actually existed.

The best way to do this is to create a scenario in which a well known Obama opposer (Taitz) is found with a very believable, but nonetheless blatant forgery of the document. Then Obama’s operatives would actually script an interview in which Taitz actually tries to defend it. Once the forgery is discovered and discredited, it would do incredible damage to the authenticity of any similar discoveries in the future. Then, it would be necessary to display the forgery, in all of its flawed glory, in front of as much of the world as possible.

In this case, enlisting the help of a media network that is notoriously favorable to Obama’s Administration, overseen by the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world (General Electric) which is the majority stake holder in the media network’s parent company, and which is in line to preside over monumental energy contracts from the Obama Administration’s “Green” policies. It’s interesting to note the Taitz document did not appear on MSNBC’s major competitor, Fox News, at any time, which is the highest rated, most powerful cable news network in the world. Apparently the risk of an actual investigation of the matter was something Obama’s operatives did not want, so they kept the affair confined to the realms within their own propaganda wing.

Prior to the exposure of the hoax, Taitz would be evacuated away from the American media where it would be difficult to access her testimony. In fact, prior to the posting of the Kenyan birth certificate between August 1st and 2nd, Taitz boarded a plane destined for Israel. Her story is that she was leaving for Russia, where her parents live. She said she planned to rendezvous with her sons and the group would be traveling to Israel to celebrate the parents’ 50th wedding anniversary. Taitz sudden departure in the hours after the CCRB was posted left many to wonder if she was evacuating the situation or if she was secretly engaged in an effort to authenticate the document with the municipalities in Kenya. There is no reason to believe that Taitz was involved in a ruse, but the timing of her sudden trip seemed suspiciously coincidental given the number of questions that needed to be answered.

On August 3rd Taitz appeared on MSNBC via satellite from Tel Aviv, to discuss the issue of the Kenyan CCRB. Obviously, MSNBC was in its primary role as an Obama apologist, and Taitz was giving her side of the story via satellite. Given the hostile environment and the chasm separating the points of view between Taitz and management at MSNBC on the subject, this interview was not a productive use of resources. American’s with legitimate, valid questions about Barack Obama’s natal identity and natural born citizenship are provided no course of resolve from spectacles of manufactured, soap operatic conflict between two extreme view points.

Ms. Taitz would have done well to avoid the engagement with the same media network owned by an adviser to the man she is persecuting. The only conclusion after the interview was either Taitz was in on the deception, or MSNBC should be ashamed of itself for coercing Taitz into what was such an obvious and blatant dramatization meant to discredit the idea of an Obama Kenyan birth, while insulting the intelligence of sincerely concerned Americans. MSNBC’s conduct is just another indication of their hidden terror over engaging an honest investigation into the matter surrounding Obama’s secret natal history.


In the book of Genesis, we learn that Satan used visual deception to manipulate mankind into disregarding the words of truth from God. In the story of the fall of man, the first method used to convince Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was to show her, visually, that it was better than the other fruit in the garden, even though Adam and Eve knew they were not supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Likewise, in politics, when words fail in their intention to make people believe something that is not true, a liar will resort to other forms of messaging, particularly visual, in order to convince the masses of their deceptive agenda.

There is strong evidence to support that the forgers of the image of the Taitz CCRB used advanced technology to convince the public of a forgery in order to promote the idea of hoax. Among the available options of technically advanced applications is one from a company called Lead Technologies. The North Carolina based company is an industry leader in the creation of digital imaging software used in such applications as medical imaging, forensic engineering, digital video production and, document imaging. Lead Technologies’ main website is

When the image of the Taitz CCRB appeared on the internet, it was immediately exploited by Obama minions as proof of a hoax. However, it was not widely reported at the time that Obama’s information handlers knew that a document, which was suspected to be a birth certificate, was discovered to be missing from the set of court documents of Obama’s parents’ divorce in 1964.

If Obama’s handlers knew this document was missing and that it might be revealed by someone in the future, they would have implemented a plan to delegitimize it by convincing everyone that it was a forgery. They would have researched other identical records from the British-based Kenyan birth records and used them to create a document containing flawed information about Obama. The plan was to use the “forgery” when the authentic document surfaced as a visual deception which would, hopefully, confuse the public and make everyone believe it was just another hoax by right wing wacko, birther nuts.

However, when the image of the Taitz CCRB was posted on the internet, Obama’s handlers realized they may have made a bad decision. If it was indeed discovered by the public that an authentic Kenyan birth document was missing from actual court records, the sudden and convenient appearance of a blatant hoax would appear to be an effort by Obama protectors to discredit the authentic document with a visual lie. From the evidence, this appears to be exactly what happened. Suddenly, images of the Taitz CCRB began appearing in different forms and distortions as demonstrations of the capability of document forgery software.

The image above is not a photograph. It is a digitally produced image showcasing the Taitz CCRB against the backdrop of things that might be used to forge a document like it. The Taitz CCRB was posted to the internet on August 2nd , 2009. This image was produced using Lead Technologies’ document imaging tools. A review of the images HEX file (the encrypted language within the image) indicates that it was created using an application from Lead Technologies.

The image is very convincing. It contains all the information one would expect to see in a birth record, and, if Obama’s information handlers had created the image, they would have known how to recreate the image of the document from their research of other British-based Kenyan CCRBs.

When Obama’s handlers discovered the missing CCRB from his parents’ divorce file, they needed to employ the best possible resources to produce a very convincing forgery which could be used to discredit the authentic document without making it look like that’s what they were doing. However, they did not consider that any attempt at a blatant forgery would appear like they had created it, if the public was aware of the missing CCRB from the divorce file. In this case, it appears the Obama “hoax-forgers” did not establish the reason for the forgery by anti-Obama hoaxers. Why would anti-Obama, right-wing nuts create a forgery of a document that actually exists proving their suspicion that Obama is ineligible to President? That would be counterproductive. Instead of creating a forgery, the effort would be applied toward seeking the best avenues for confirming the existence of the real document. They would follow the trail from the Family Divorce Court to Ann Dunham’s lawyer to the record archive and so on, until they either came to a dead end or found evidence of the authentic document.

The image below is a copy of the image which appeared on the internet on August 2nd, 2009. It was taken directly from the hacked website of Orly Taitz’ blog. Notice that the document appears to have been photographed on the same backdrop material as the the previous image. This is probably because the forgers either found an actual image of the backdrop, probably a bed cover, on the internet or other photo source and then manipulated it with the graphic application. It may be hard to believe that a graphic production computer application has the ability to create such realistic images, however, the images that follow will show that the Lead Technologies software can create a forgery that would convince most people they were looking at an actual photograph of a document. .


Of course if we open the HEX file data on the image, the following information appears:

This image’s HEX file data indicates that it was created by using an application from Lead Technologies. The following images were also created using an advanced graphic application like those offered by Lead Technologies. Notice how the images are sophisticated enough to include the content of the document image, the text and labels.


The images above and below are not photographs. They are digital images created using the original internet image of the Taitz CCRB and then manipulating them with “Lead Tools” application from Lead Technologies. Notice the convincing appearance of rips, folds, tears and warps in text in the images. The algorithmic capacity of Lead Tools alters the pixels of the original image on a microscale to such a degree that it is impossible to determine whether or not it was manipulated by digital imaging technology or a photograph of an actual document.


These images raise serious doubts about the authenticity of the images of CCRBs posted on the internet in August, 2009. This illustration demonstrates the way “Lead Tools” can be used to create convincing images of documents that would deceive many people into believing that they were authentic…or, if the forgers want to make them look like fakes, they could equally misinform the masses of a hoax created by right wing nuts.

However, the more likely scenario is that document forgers working for Obama used advanced digital imaging software to create an image of a CCRB document they already knew existed but which they could not secure after it was discovered missing from the 1964 divorce file. Their plan had to discredit the possibility of the existence of the authentic missing document while making it look like desperate “birthers” had made blatant errors during their “genuine” attempt to associate a Kenyan Birth Certificate with Barack Obama. The flaw in this scheme is that, if “birthers” knew that an authentic document existed, they would not jeopardize the opportunity to expose Obama by making the blatant mistakes found in the image of the Taitz CCRB posted on August 2nd, 2009. Any genuine effort to find the truth would involve thorough research of documents, content and associated sources to such a degree that, even if “birthers” wanted to make a forgery, it would not contain discernable mistakes, let alone the completely obvious mistakes found in the hacked versions of the Taitz and clone images of the CCRB from August 2nd, 2009.

America should be ashamed of itself for believing this hoax was created by anti-Obama nuts. It was a desperate cover scheme by Obama protectors implemented when they realized they could not find and destroy an authentic remnant of truth exposing Obama as a liar and an illegitimate President.


Less than a week later, on August 10th 2009, Hillary Clinton seemed to have had enough of the charade. Clinton was at an open forum at Kinshasha University in the Republic of Congo, when a Congolese student asked about the involvement of China in Congo’s financial affairs and the thoughts of her husband, Bill Clinton, on the matter. Clinton quickly made her feelings about being asked to convey what her husband thinks very clear.

“What does Mr. Clinton think about it?” she bristled, “You want to know what my husband thinks? My husband is not the Secretary of State, I am!”

There was a tense pause in the room as Clinton became more visibly agitated.

“You ask my opinion; I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channeling my husband,” she concluded.

It was first thought that the question had been mistranslated by the interpreter, but a Clinton aide later said that it had not. The student later approached Clinton and apologized for the insinuation diminishing the role of her position.

Clinton's trip to Africa was strangely coincidental. One theory to explain the reasons for Clinton’s trip to Africa might relate directly to the Taitz CCRB appearing on August 2nd. Shortly after the Taitz CCRB appeared, Hillary Clinton was dispatched to Africa for an 11 day tour of six nations which the public was told was arranged long before the CCRB fervor. The public was also told that the primary goal of her trip was to reiterate, ironically, the message of transparent and corruption-free governance that President Obama had urged during his trip to Ghana a month earlier. Conspicuously, this reiteration began at Clinton’s first stop in Nairobi, Kenya which is, coincidentally the location of the Ministry of Health, where vital records are housed.

She arrived in Kenya for the “diplomatic” visit on Tuesday August 4, 2009, U.S. time, less than 48 hours after the document image appeared on the internet. The State Department itself underlined that her visit was oddly configured only three weeks after Barack Obama had visited the continent, and that it was the earliest trip by a Secretary of State to Africa of any administration. This was also the earliest in any administration that both the President and Secretary of State have traveled to Africa on separate occasions. Several African delegates expressed surprise at Clinton’s sudden itinerary and believed that perhaps the trip was ahead of schedule. It is important to note the significance of these arrangements because the logistics, resources and security needed to accommodate two visits by two different officials at separate times is extraordinary.

No matter what one thinks of her political substance, Clinton is one of the most jilted figures in American political history. First, she has endured a marriage to one of the most dishonored, unfaithful presidents in history. Bill Clinton’s conduct as President, committing adultery with a much younger subordinate in the oval office, was the height of insults to all First Ladies, let alone one as independently minded as Clinton. It is not unreasonable to conclude that it took every bit of her fortitude, strength and humility to agree to remain married for political reasons, for so long.

Then, as the 2008 election cycle approached, she was determined to find some professional redemption by seeking to be the first female president in American history. She subsequently lost in the democratic primary to the popularity of Barack Obama even though she was vastly more qualified, professionally speaking.

Liberals try to make the argument that if Obama was ineligible for the presidency, Hillary Clinton would have investigated the matter and confronted him with it. However, what liberals won’t consider is that when weighed against the potential of a third presidential election loss in a row to Republicans, and the amount of resources utterly lavished onto Obama’s campaign since 2006, it would have been the advice of strategists of the democratic party, and the liberal establishment, not to weaken the image of the party with such unseemly allegations. This would have applied especially if Hillary had been told beforehand that she would be given a high level position in Obama’s executive staff in the event that she lost the democratic nomination. If she had any evidence against Obama’s candidacy her party loyalty and incentive for a high position would have silenced her on the matter. In this case, Hillary would have been persuaded that the needs of the one did not outweigh the needs of the machine.

There was a moment during the Primary campaign when the Democratic National Convention realized it was beyond the point of no return with Obama’s eligibility problem. Hillary was probably caught in the predicament like every other democrat insider. She was probably presented with shallow, but effective documentation which allowed her to have a comfortable level of plausible deniability and enough evidence to accept Obama’s candidacy without questioning his eligibility. If she had won the nomination, it wouldn’t matter. Otherwise, she was well equipped to easily embrace this evidence, along with DNC persuasion, as adequate qualifications for Obama’s candidacy. As such, the liberal establishment is remiss in its argument that Hillary would have stopped Obama during the party’s presidential candidate nomination process because the downside for Hillary was that she faced a real possibility of being ousted out of politics for good. If she had exposed Obama, the party would have lost again, but as things turned out, she was appointed to a high level, though conciliatory position during the democrat’s most successful election in more than 60 years.

In Clinton’s mind, however, upon mulling over his legitimacy, after Obama won the Presidential election, she probably began to appreciate her position less and less. After all, she was summarily relegated to a consolation position of Secretary of State, far below the aspirations she had set, and probably short of what she deserved, even by liberal standards.

Clinton’s reluctant trip to Africa only made the Taitz CCRB affair seem more contrived than it already was. If the situation needed one more reason to have more attention paid to it, Clinton’s trip to Africa was a perfect segue. The American public is already sensitive to the proximity of any member of the Obama Administration’s to Africa, let alone one of its most high profile executives making what appears to be a “cover” mission after a suspicious document alleging Obama’s foreign birth appeared all over the internet.

During Obama’s previous visit to Africa in July, 2009, he advertently avoided a trip to Kenya. At the time of Clinton’s visit to Africa weeks later, Obama’s visit to the region was mostly forgotten. However, the Taitz CCRB document suddenly brought the realization of his avoidance of Kenya to the forefront of suspicion. However, Gitobu Imanyara, a Kenyan lawmaker said that Clinton's visit shows that President Obama did not disregard Kenya when he chose to visit Ghana instead. Sending word of Clinton’s eventual visit seemed to smooth things over.

"Kenyans are very happy the Obama administration is sending the top most diplomat to Kenya. Because there had been disappointments as you know when President Obama didn't stop over in Kenya. And now we see Hillary Clinton's visit together with another cabinet minister and a huge delegation… and that the visit to Ghana was not a snub on Kenya," Imanyara said.

He said Nairobi has traditionally enjoyed warm diplomatic relations with Washington D.C.

"The friendship between Kenya and the United States, as long as Obama is the president of the United States it remains very, very strong," he said.71

Despite the onerous charity of Kenyan officials, the situation appears as though Obama’s decision to avoid Kenya during his second trip to Africa in two years was only meant to elude the appearance of overexposure there for secret reasons. Assuming the Obama administration was already aware that a Kenyan CCRB document existed, there would have been a premeditated effort to make an African trip look like a prearranged diplomatic tour by someone other than Obama whenever the Kenyan document appeared at some point. If there was any doubt about a Kenyan birth document existing, they would have created a scenario to handle the situation anyway, just in case.

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is welcomed by Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, Nairobi, Kenya, Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2009, just 48 hours after the appearance of the Taitz Kenyan Birth Cerficate on the internet.

But, Obama’s second appearance in Africa in one month, and third time in 4 years, at the time of the revelation of a Kenyan CCRB, would have appeared far too coincidental to explain, politically. So, the arrangements for Clinton’s trip were made under the guise of a diplomatic tour months before with a loosely scheduled, but accurately estimated, time for departure. This might explain the prematurity of the trip perceived by African delegates and the media.

Hypothetically, Clinton’s mission was clear; to assure the security of information showing that Barack Obama was born in Africa while comparing the Taitz document with other verified Kenyan birth certificates to confirm whether or not it was authentic. After confirming the existence of any vital records regarding Obama, perhaps the question of authenticity was answered indirectly in the Congo when Hilary finally snapped.

Not only has this woman endured the most humiliating marriage in American political history she was rejected as the first possible female president in American for a man with nowhere near the leadership experience she possesses. Then, as a tin trophy, she is offered a consolation position, bearing the word “secretary” in its title, by the very man who was chosen over her because of his celebrity and coercive dishonesty, not professional experience.

And, to top it all off, after enduring six months of Obama’s profuse declarations of victory, blaming everyone else in sight for America’s challenges, Clinton is summarily shuffled off to the far reaches of sub-Saharan climate in a pantsuit, to a part of muslim Africa where women are second-class citizens, by the very man who professionally subjugated her…only to discover that he is actually not even eligible to be in the position that should have legally and rightfully been hers. Meanwhile, the other man in her life, who jilted her adulterously, is off rescuing damsels in distress from evil, rogue Korean leaders and being welcomed home by thousands like some over-glorified hero. Hillary, on the other hand, took the equivalent of a 10 hour red-eye from South Africa disembarking in an isolated terminal in Washington D.C., angry and left without redemption.

Astonishingly, Hilary Clinton is becoming an heir to martyrdom for the entire liberal establishment, and some on the right are actually beginning to feel her pain more than they are for Obama.


The implications of Orly Taitz’ Barnett v. Obama case and the subsequent revelation of a Kenyan-British-based “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” (CCRB) brought the matter of Obama’s political eligibility to the forefront of America’s attention. The case is one of many filed against Obama in an effort to discern his natal identity and force him to reveal his personal information which would allow officials, and the American people, to determine is eligibility to be a leader of the United States.

The CCRB document has legitimate origins in the British Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs vital statistics documentation forms containing Registrar information and form data which has been confirmed to be authentic. Its authentication is further confirmable and corroborated, based on Hawaiian Parental Rights laws found in HRS 571, through the discovery of divorce court documents filed with the Hawaiian Family Court from 1964, after the independence of Kenya was established in December of 1963. The Taitz CCRB is dated February 17, 1964 which is a date that fits the chronological sequence of document evidence provided in the divorce documents.

Taitz’ decision to expose the document to the public may have undermined sincere efforts to determine the validity of the CCRB, or any other form of foreign birth documentation that might surface in the future. Regardless of the results, the Taitz CCRB revealed a profuse sensitivity to the issue of Obama’s identity among his media sycophants. This strange need that liberals have to protect Obama’s image is so irrational that it appears to cause overkill in their effort to discredit this particular document. Especially since the exposure of what would otherwise be a significant piece of evidence through the insecure sources of the internet should have been sufficient to suggest that the whole affair might be a hoax, anyway. However, in the case of Taitz’ CCRB, the liberal establishment employed its most resourced assets to discredit this little document before anyone ever had the actual chance of investigating its contents, or the sources of information it contained, for themselves. This reaction was oddly unnecessary on the part of the Obama administration, MSNBC and its General Electric purveyors, increasing suspicion that there may have been something more potent about this particular occurrence than previous others which were stand alone hoaxes. It was obvious that someone was working overtime to discredit the Taitz CCRB.

The difference with the Taitz’ CCRB, compared to other obvious hoaxes, is that it commanded the disseminative propaganda of covert Obama hacks, as well as the full efforts of notorious media dregs, in order for the liberal establishment to feel secure about the document’s diminished capacity to do damage to Obama. Not only was this the first instance in which an example of a foreign birth record made headlines on a primetime media broadcast, it was also the first time actual heads of state may have been involved. Not to mention, the Taitz CCRB is the first document produced by an anonymous source which contains corroborated information matching the succession of events pertaining to the birth of Obama and the divorce of his parents. The dates of his parent’s divorce actually correspond with the dates of issuance one would expect to find in the CCRB.

Whether or not the contents of the Taitz CCRB holds any clarity about the massive efforts by Obama to conceal his natal history, the reaction to this instance of possible exposure obviously made some people in the liberal establishment very uncomfortable. From there, it only intensifies the inquiry into the matter and makes ever increasing numbers of Americans take a new look at the identity, image and ideology of Barrack Hussein Obama.

Of course, if nothing else were to ever come of it, the Taitz CCRB actually worked to further discredit Obama’s covert efforts to conceal his personal information while attempting to claim ambiguous legitimacy in American politics. If the goal in exposing documented evidence of Obama's ineligibility is to have him removed from office, that fight will be a long, expensive process. However, a better alternative, in the short term may be to continuously present confirmable evidence which slowly bleeds his credibility and undermines his integrity as a leader, which is meet. The truth will set us free...eventually.

No comments:

Post a Comment