Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Originally posted by MissysWorld
Question: How can the registrar’s seal be dated the year 1964 when all this takes place in 1961?

Already answered. It's not a Birth Certificate. It's a certificate of birth.
Like our short form to the long original.
It was requested in 1964 - at the time of the divorce.
A link has been given to another site discussing this. But I'll give it again.
Here

Originally posted by Diplomat
The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it and the date is 2/17/1964.
Kenya didn't even become the "Republic of Kenya" until 12/12/1964.

Would you people PLEASE read the damn thread?
Already discussed. Already explained. UGH!

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by Diplomat
The document says "Republic of Kenya" on it and the date is 2/17/1964.
Kenya didn't even become the "Republic of Kenya" until 12/12/1964.

This is true and proves that the Kenyan BC is a fake

No it doesn't.
It has already been stated that there was a one year transition period.
Kenya Independence was declared on 12/12/63.
The Republic was official on 12/12/64.
Someone on this thread gave proof that there are gov't documents with
both the crest AND 'Republic of Kenya' on the documents during this
transition period. It makes sense that they'd have both.

I'm not going back through 30 pages to find that post.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I'm not going back through 30 pages to find that post.

If anyone wants to look, I think that it is around page 13 or so.

Can anyone find a BC from Kenya from that time period? Doesn't matter for who but it would be interesting to compare the two.

Do any of you believe the motion will be granted? If not, why?

I have a strong feeling that this case will never see the inside of a courtroom. The motion will be denied. I would love to be wrong.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix Photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya)(Taitz, Orly)

posted on 2-8-2009 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

There has been a thread started. Sounds serious. I mean, "all Obama supporters should pucker" serious.

This has stopped being fun and an exercise in debate and has become pretty damn scary instead.

For the first time today, I am stone cold serious.

I agree, bone chilling, that last bit of news was shocking.

Here's the post that FlyersFan is talking about, I believe:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a link on that post that gives a timeline for Kenyan history.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Someone on this thread gave proof that there are gov't documents with
both the crest AND 'Republic of Kenya' on the documents during this
transition period. It makes sense that they'd have both.

I'm not going back through 30 pages to find that post.

I missed that post FF, that would be very important information, being that without proof of other Kenyan docs of the period bearing Republic of Kenya on them, I would think that the court filing would be just thrown right out due to this little part of the alleged document..

Guess I will try and find that post. If I am not back in five.. call the authorities

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Forgery.

The shown is February, 1964. Kenya was not known as "Republic of Kenya" until December, 1964. The date is a Saturday.....are government offices open on Saturdays?

February 17, 1964 was a Monday link

As for 5 Aug 1961 for the recording date, it is quite possible that it was just after midnight when this item was filed, since the birth was on the 4th. That would explain the date being a Saturday.

Just because the US workers knock off real early doesn't mean other country's workers do.

reply to post by octotom


No. There was someone who posted info about gov't documents at that time having both the crest and the 'Republic of Kenya'. It wasn't me though. It's almost 9:00 and I'm tired ... so I'm going to bed (I'm old). My eyes (which suffer from Glaucoma) are fried from the computer today.

What a day at ATS!

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Jacko
Now that you brought it up. What about those social security cards.
I have been out of the loop on this birther deal. I trust your opinion only!
I hope I do not get any replies from ramsey on this.
thanks donny

What a fascinating day today is ...

Surely it won't be long till the document is either verified as either real or hoax.
Till then we're all just talking to walls really.

And in the meantime:

Geithner hints at new middle-class tax

Yet next to no peep on ats about that because, well ...

Bread and circuses indeed.

I have been trying to keep up on this thread, but it is going really fast. However, the people saying that the Republic of Kenya was not the Republic of Kenya until late in 1964 are wrong.

The Kenyan Constitution was drafted on Dec 12th 1963 and opens with these lines in the "Declaration of the Republic" and "Political System" sections:

1. Kenya is a sovereign Republic.

1A. The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state.

2. The Public Seal of Kenya shall be such device as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

www.kenyalaw.org...


EDIT: Forgot to mention that 3rd part or Section 2: Public Seal


[edit on 2-8-2009 by Buckwylds]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Guess I will try and find that post. If I am not back in five.. call the authorities

My eyes are done. Literally. I can't see the screen much. I remember SOMEONE saying something about other gov't documents from that time frame having the crest and the 'Republic of Kenya'.

If you don't find it I'll take a look tomorrow. Right now .. I just can't.

Originally posted by XTexan
This bothers me... Why is it that we must prove the Kenyan BC a forge, and we must prove the Hawaii BC is legit.

Just saying, it sounds like a double standard... The Hawaii BC has not been proved a forgery.

Obviously one of them is a forgery of course. It just seems strange that with one everyone yells that its a forgery even though it has been looked at by several different institutions, while the other which has been looked at by noone is claimed to be legit...

Neither of them have to be forgeries.

Hawaii allowed for a "Delayed Birth Registration" and was very loose in the requirements to validate a birth back in 1961.

Depending on what actually is or isn't in the Hawaiian full record file for BHO, both of them could be legit documents.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by GLDNGUN

 

Apparently they did. There is a link in the first post on this page.

No, the question was about the ONLINE BCs. The Hawaiian officials made no comments on those and have refused to do so, as the recently posted WND article points out.

reply to post by redhatty


That would be absolutely unfreak'nbelievable.
What the heck happens then? Civil war.
I should have kept up with those 'prophecies' by that
time travel fella' ....

reply to post by Buckwylds


On that Kenya Law website, where exactly did you go to look at the Constitution from 1963, so I can see it for myself? To me, it all looks like modern stuff.

If the Constitution does say that though, it would explain the discrepancy in the dating I think.

I'm not sure I understand all this either...It says his Mothers address on the above BC is Kansas...this means She is a citizen therefore so is He. I know lots of people that have been born outside the US at military bases and they are still citizens and would be eligible to be president too...too much about nothing,

reply to post by DJMSN

I'm not sure I understand all this either...It says his Mothers address on the above BC is Kansas...this means She is a citizen therefore so is He. I know lots of people that have been born outside the US at military bases and they are still citizens and would be eligible to be president too...too much about nothing,

It's not a question about citizenship, but where he was born. Yes, an American can have a kid overseas and that child still be American, but they're not natural born [unless they're born on a military base]. "Natural born" citizens are only those born in the United States.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Jacko
I recall you and ramsey talking about BO's social security cards. Whats with that. I have been out of the loop.
I know that when you two put your heads togrther the results are magnificant.
Can you give me an update?
donny