The faked Kenyan birth certificate, page 10

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 87 times

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 09:23 AM by Movhisattva

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
... other birth certificates to show for the lawsuit, one of them below:
nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com...

The above birth certificate, another of Orly's, has this written on it:
KERHIET GOED DUT DIT ZALNUT VERANDIRES DIT IST GEEN GELDIG DOCUMENT VAN DE OVELHEID. DIT IS POLITIEKI COMMINTAAR HU IS VOURZITTER VOOR MINSTEN DREI EN EEN HALT VAN,

It translates "this is not a valid document of the government. This is a political comment. HU is president for atleast 3 and a half years."

I've not read through this entire thread, so someone might have pointed this out already, but:
This background text you've quoted, actually reads as follows:

"DIT IS GEEN GELDIG DOCUMENT VAN DE OVERHEID, DIT IS POLITIEKE COMMENTAAR. HIJ IS VOORZITTER VOOR MINSTENS DRIE EN EEN HALF VAN MEER JAREN. KEUR HET GOED. DIT ZAL NIET VERANDEREN."
it translates more or less as you said:

"this is not a valid document of the government. This is a political comment. He is chairman for at least three and a half out of more years. Approve it. This will not change."

Besides the fact its content is quite bizar, I'd like to mention it's written in Dutch (not South-African or any other Dutch-related language, but Dutch as we speak in Belgium and the Netherlands every day). Kenya was a colony of the UK and had some Portugese influence as well, but as far as I know they had nothing to do with any Dutch speaking country.
Therefore I believe this document (the one quoted here) obviously can't be an official Kenyan document.

Bless

[edit on 4/8/09 by Movhisattva]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:24 AM by HunkaHunka

It's been solved...

It belonged to this australian man

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:20 PM by maybereal11

Mushrooms grow best in darkness upon piles of manure...internet forums afford anonymity and sufficient shade.

They sprout quickly and with great momentum, thus the adjective "mushroom" or "mushrooming".

When exposed to direct sunshine or light a mushroom will collapse as quickly as it grew.

I think the "birther" movement is on the verge of a great disappointment as their "evidence" and "cause" creeps into the awareness of the general public.

It is required of a democracy to question their leaders. Questions are good and necessary. "We, the people" are without a doubt the most critical and vital of the checks and balances.

But selective consideration of evidence, championing of indisputably disproved lies..(e.g. his grandmother/ambassador said he was born in Kenya, or they are building a monument to him there), an unwillingness to approach any claim with a modicum of objectivity as long as it serves a given world view and a repeated willful ignorance when it comes to independently researching....

There is nothing admirable or democratic in that kind of discourse...

It is extreme partisan rhetoric at best...glaring right wing propaganda at worst.

The difference between rhetoric and propaganda is that rhetoric favors ideology over objectivity while propaganda values ideology over the truth.

I do not believe all folks in the "birther" camp are the same. Some are racists, some could not care less about race, but are concerned with politics and policy, some are not very bright, some are highly intelligent.

Some simply do not know why they oppose President Obama...but I am confident in saying that among all "birthers", only a minority in their hearts of hearts genuinely believe him not be eligible to be President...they just desperately wish it so.

I have a hard time respecting those willing to value ideology above the truth.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:33 PM by HunkaHunka

reply to post by maybereal11

This is my issue as well. There are several members on the other thread which remind me of the Bigfoot thread last year. No matter how much proof is provided, they continue to believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 01:23 PM by OldDragger

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
reply to post by Southern Guardian

THIS IS A BOLD FACE LIE, LIE, LIE!!!!!!

Prove that it is a fake!!!!!!!!!!! And prove that it is a LIE!

THIS IS CLASSIC ACORN TACTICS THAT YOU ARE TRYING HERE, IT IS NOT GOING TO WORK!!!!

The truth has been set free and it is only a matter of time until he is removed from office and charged with treason, that is if any of this makes it to court before someone in support of Obama buys off who ever to make this hard core evidence go away.

Watching closely,

Eye of Eagle

Yeah, I guess the truth has been set free!
IT'S A COMPLETE FRAUD! Deliberatly created to bring false "evidence" against the President of the United States.
So when does that treason trial start?
Oh, I mean yours , not the Presidents.
Har har.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 04:24 PM by debunky

Southern Guardian:

I think the best summary of the who why when where what is this piece:

www.thedailyshow.com...

The explanation starts at 5:30 (But it's definitely watchable before that part as well) Enjoy

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 04:26 PM by zlots331

A thought came to me as I was slogging through all the original threads on this latest BC issue that maybe Ms. Orly Taitz is a little too quick to pull the handle every time she gets access to some new evidence.

Somewhere I read a reference to a previous BC that she had thrown out there ( no, I don't remember exactly where, it was yesterday and I really did try to read all the posts so it's buried in there somewhere) that had been quickly debunked, and then she comes up with this recent one, also quickly debunked.

My first impression is that she is ruining her case by offering fraudulent evidence to a court of law, which may be against the law, or she is smarter than I give her credit for. For every fake document that is systematically debunked, she is gathering information on the the things to look out for when she finally comes up with a faked document that would pass all the tests.

Or, maybe I just spend too much time on ATS. That's probably it.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 04:42 PM by mythatsabigprobe

reply to post by zlots331

Right here. The previous Orly Taitz birth certificate.

nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com...

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 04:50 PM by HunkaHunka

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Yer kidding me? I must have missed that one....

How many forgeries are there?

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 05:02 PM by zlots331

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Thanks, yes I remember this one that was referenced in the current debacle, but I seem to remember another one, even further back. It wasn't around long but was brought up in the general discussion. Not important. I am curious to hear a response from the court about the fact that she is throwing fake evidence around, unless maybe it was never actually officially entered as evidence? I'm sure it can't be helping her reputation in the eyes of any judge that may end up with her.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 05:28 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by debunky
Southern Guardian:

I think the best summary of the who why when where what is this piece:

www.thedailyshow.com...

The explanation starts at 5:30 (But it's definitely watchable before that part as well) Enjoy

that was great!

Thanks debunky.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 06:04 PM by Southern Guardian

Spectre.... still defending the Obamas Australian birth certificate I see. I know this fringe story is all but dead, but hey why cant I continue to have fun?

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
it's completely wrong.

So im wrong saying

1)its unauthentic
2)Unverified
3)Contradictory to history at the time
4)and looks identical to a South Australian birth certificate?

Im completely wrong on all those all accounts? Your words here spectre

very nice of you to ditifully copy the DailyKos talking points without question like a good and obedient Obamatron.

Oh calm yourself down

, take a chill pill.

So which is it? Oh, you mean it was known by more than 1 name? Just NOT the name you don't want it to be known by, right? Just how many "Coast General Hospitals" were there in Mombassa in the early 1960s? Is it so hard to believe that whoever typed the document simply typed in "Coast General Hospital"? Is that what it's know as? Evidently...

www.operationsmile.ie...

The link you sent us is dated 2008 and its a personal website accounting an event, not official formal documentation. During the 60s it was called Coast Province General Hospital. If you would like to prove otherwise I would advise you to get another birth document from the same time.

Regarding your comment "is it so hard to believe somebody mistyped". Firstly this is suppose to be some official government document. You simply dont make mistakes like that. Secondly your basing this entirely on your own theory. Where stands however, the forgers got the official name of the hospital at the time incorrectly. You mention that "its stupid to assume it was known by one name", well yes you cannot expect everybody to mention the official designation of the hospital name, thats just common sense. Its like a hospitals name "university of Louisville hospital... some folks refer to it as "UL", that doesnt make it an excuse on an official government document being used for authentication.

Kenya declared its Independence from Great Britain in 1963 and evidently started to call itself "The Republic of Kenya"...

Lie. Kenya became independent in 63' but it only became an official republic in December of 64' and this is what you fellas fail to realize. Whats more the Republic seal was only introduced following December of 64', prior to that documentation such as short form birth certificates still contained the dominion of Kenya on them. The forgers were 6 months shy.
nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Sorry, but this document was made in 1964 and Kenya was the controlling authority.

encyclopedia.farlex.com...

The thing on the document that was confirmed was the signiture and declaration. The entire fake document itself never declared itself a document of 64' which further causes conflict. Therefore the documentation verywell introduced itself as the one from 61' that was merely signed and updated, and during that time Mombasa was still part of Zanzabar.

Uh huh. Pick a number.

Oh they picked a very non-suspicious number there.

guys are such pranksters!

No comment on this one..... do you know how long these comments are going to haunt you??

Fact is, the exact birth date isn't known for Obama Sr.

Uh lie, Obama snrs birth has been stated on numerous biographies and factchecking websites. Your automatically moving the goal posts to cover the fact they got his age wrong when they were faking the document. The excuses are really not looking good.

Really? Here's a little Kenyan education for you. Provinces and districts are 2 different things. Provinces in Kenya are made up of many districts.

Under what terms? The designation of provinces in africa are different to those in the US and Asia, there are different definitions. Why it is true that in some instances the then newly independent Kenyan government began designating provinces around 64' they did not official come onto birth documentation until after 64'. The term province was used for geographic purposes prior to 1970 but the designation of provinces on birth documentation did not exist during the transitional period from independence to republic in 64'. If you get that kind of documentation that time and prove otherwise by all means, I'd advise you check it out yourself.

.... and ofcourse there is the Australian version of Obamas birth certificate.

nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...
You have a fantastic night spectre.

SG

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:58 PM by canihavemyvoteback

reply to post by zlots331

Im a little late but heres what your looking for....

OBAMAS FAKE CANADIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 12:23 AM by Mikey84

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
First of all, under Kenya law CAP 149-8 a registrar cannot register a birth or death more than 6 months after that event.

The Kenyan Birth Cert (fake or real or whatever) has the Registration date of the 5th August 1961, a day after the birth.... not more than six months.

The fact that you got this wrong in the first few lines of your opening post made me not want bother with the rest of the post... I mean what else have you got wrong?

If it’s fake or real that’s fine, but don’t start making up stuff in your threads.

Mikey

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 12:29 AM by Amagnon

Of course the MSM is going to say this is a fake.

Regardles, this whole BC is a side issue - he should simply be shot through the head - along with Bush, CHeney - the entire CIA - Rockerfellers, Rothschilds - Goldmanites, JP Morgan directors, CEO's, CFO's etc etc - the board of directors of GE, Texaco, BP, SHell - wow - theres a lot more - a lot of bullets required - but I for one would be happy to work 20 hrs a day putting bullets into deserving heads.

Viva la revolution - get on with it already.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 12:55 AM by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Amagnon
Of course the MSM is going to say this is a fake.

Is Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh part of the MSM? Because they are saying it's a fake too.

As a matter of fact, the only person in the entire spectrum of media which exists that is claiming any legitimacy with this issue is Lou Dobbs.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 01:59 AM by Karl Popper

Did any of you bother to check the facts of the Australian Birth Certificate? Because here are the facts of it,

The District (Shire, really) of Hindmarsh is in Victoria Australia, not South Australia (A different State completely). There is a Hindmarsh in South Australia next to Adelaide (the capitol of the State) but its postcode is 5007 not 5733. The postcode 5733 is for Marree in South Australia, which is about 400km (about 280 miles) North of where the hospital could have been at Mile End.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 02:39 AM by Uniceft17

reply to post by Karl Popper

Dude, it's been debunked.

Source.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 03:29 AM by lee anoma

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Amagnon
Of course the MSM is going to say this is a fake.

Is Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh part of the MSM? Because they are saying it's a fake too.

As a matter of fact, the only person in the entire spectrum of media which exists that is claiming any legitimacy with this issue is Lou Dobbs.

Let's not forget Karl Rove saying it's probably a forgery on Twitter.

Oh and Lou Dobbs? That man has become the obvious embarrassment of CNN.
He isn't even trying anymore, and at one point he actually was.

- Lee

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 04:22 AM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by Mikey84

How was that made up? That is actually the law, thus I provided a link, and which is right there.

The registrar cannot do so after 6 months of the birth. This individual who declared it was an registrar himself as shown on the fake document. Some birthers (before it was found a fake) claimed it was following a divorce settlement, problem is, there was no evidence provided that it was the result of a divorce. So basically what you had was an unauthenticated fake document that had the signiture of a registrar over two years following Obamas birth, but no solid evidence of it being connected to any divorce or other matter at hand. What you have left then is just a confirmation of Obamas birth, which should not have been more than 6 months following the actual date of his birth.

SG