Keep speaking the truth.
We need a moniker or stamp, just as the left has.
Bring the issue up and BANG! They yell “Birther!”.
So we need to drive it home on every news article, regardless of topic.
I suggest “African 9” .
We copy the text as it is and post it to comments in every article that CBS, NBC and ABC put online. No matter the topic. It could be about Olymics. Just post “Birth Certificate is a forgery”. You will get a nasty comment back. Then reply “African 9” . Keep repeating it, and nothing else.
I posted this link earlier......I like to look at what the De-Bunkers are saying about the evidence that is being put out there by the Sheriff and Mara.
Here is the link and right below it I posted what they said about the number 9.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/joe_arpaios_new_birther_eviden.php
___________________________________
Not only are the theories false — which, unfortunately, we’ll explain — Arpaio and his buddies presented information to the public that they know is false.
The best “evidence” Arpaio and the birthers presented was that penciled-in codes on the birth certificate don’t match federal guidelines, which they claim to believe is clear evidence of a forgery (see their video here).
In one box on Obama’s birth certificate, there’s a box titled “race of father,” which is filled in as “African.” The number nine is penciled in next to it.
Arpaio and lead “investigator” Mike Zullo say that according to the federal guide in 1961 — the year of Obama’s birth — that number nine meant “unknown or not stated.”
That’s false, and it’s nearly impossible that Arpaio’s birther gang didn’t know that.
After approximately two minutes on the Internet — no, we didn’t have to blow $10,000 on a trip to Hawaii — we found this exact theory, and the documentation proving it false, from Obama Conspiracy Theories.
The coding for the number nine in the race meant “unknown or not stated” in the guide for 1968. In 1961, it meant “other nonwhite.”
On top of that, Arpaio’s birther pals conveniently cropped the area of the 1968 guide to omit the fact that they were referring to a section called “race of child,” not “race of father.” (Click here for the whole document.)