Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Man I thought you were smart says regitered in 1961, and in 1964 received copy of said reistry.
In the year Obama was born, Kenya was still a British colony under British administration. Any record of his birth would be held in the United Kingdom, by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Colonial births were registered in the dominions birth registry. Any birth certificate claiming to be from the Republic of Kenya is a fake.
Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
To the people asking why Taitz would jeopardize her reputation and career by faking this... what if she's only the figure head? What if she is SO sure of Obama's ineligibility that she has lost the ability to objectively analyze evidence?
What the...is this the Twilight Zone? 
Two British professors who specialize in African history have e-mailed Salon to point out another apparent error in the purportedly Kenyan document. The certificate's header reads Coast Province -- but according to the professors, at the time the document is dated, what are now known as provinces were called regions.
Writes Dan Branch, an assistant professor of African history at the University of Warwick:
It seems highly implausible and certainly a hoax. I have not seen any documents from this period in early 1964 that uses the heading of Republic of Kenya -- unsurprisingly given Kenya was not a Republic until December 1964. Moreover, the label of 'Region' was being used in early 1964 instead of 'Province.' While some of the old colonial forms may have still been in circulation, which would have used 'Coast Province,' these would have been headed as 'Colony & Protectorate of Kenya.'
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama's Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
One of the issues Taitz must deal with will be the authentication of the document. Critics immediately jumped on the Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the "republic" of Kenya wasn't assembled until in December of that year.
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state…"
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
The region including Mombasa originally was dealt with as a separate independence movement, but it almost immediately became part of Kenya when the sultan of Zanzibar ceded the "coastal strip" to Kenya, according to sources.
Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."
