The faked Kenyan birth certificate

page: 5
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

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.



The registrar cannot validate any birth documentation more than 6 months following the birth, period. Why dont you grow a spine and come to terms that this is a fake. Im pritty sure deep down you see the red flags but you simply refuse to believe it because of somuch hate inside ya there.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


So because shes not a part of the American Bar association then she has no credibility what so ever? Youre telling me that there arent lawyers in other parts of the world that are just as good as the ones here in America?

Thats kind of a narrow view isnt it?

You keep referencing these people who have A FORGED BC........there are many out there, so you dont KNOW if its the same one, you are speculating.





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.


Do some more research that is incorrect



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The registrar cannot validate any birth documentation more than 6 months following the birth, period. Why dont you grow a spine and come to terms that this is a fake. Im pritty sure deep down you see the red flags but you simply refuse to believe it because of somuch hate inside ya there.


The district registrar is not validating the birth. He is validating that the copy is a true copy of the original birth certificate.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Recieved said copy because of a DIVORCE and VERIFICATION of the child involved.......this really isnt hard is it?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by doublehelix
 


I don't think seeing Obama's college transcripts would do any good. If we found out he got a C- in biology, would that be grounds for impeachment? Bear in mind that Bush's C average in college didn't hurt his chances for (s)election.

This whole birth certificate brew-ha-ha is all smoke and mirrors makes the opposition look like fools and takes us away from tackling the bigger issues. Talk about the crap he's doing in office NOW, i.e. bailouts, shady deals with Goldman Sachs, etc.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Recieved said copy because of a DIVORCE and VERIFICATION of the child involved.......this really isnt hard is it?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate-Original(Not a copy)
thesteadydrip.blogspot.com...

Why Is Sec. H. Clinton going to Kenya today??????

www.state.gov...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Just incase folks get confused here. The Kenyan short form birth certificate is from 1961 and was only signed in 1964 as it is claimed, this further conlicts the dates of interest for the documentation.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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?


Lost the ability of objective analysis?
Demoic, objectivity was set ablaze and catapulted out the _

Taitz doesn't have much of a reputation as a lawyer and she is willing to risk the little she has. I can't believe she even submitted this document to the courts.

Maybe there is a reason why she isn't a part of the ABA.

QUESTION: Why is this photo of Obamas alleged 45 year old Kenyan birth certificate more valid than the ones he himself has released?

At least the state of Hawaii backed up his claim twice and even STILL these people bewilderingly reject that.

So just where in the world did Taitz get this document from?
A guy named Ed Hale who got it from "Shirley X" who first tried to get rid of it on Ebay.

What the...is this the Twilight Zone?

Are we rejecting official U.S. confirmation and simple reasoning in favor of baseless fringe claims that just "make us feel satisfied" and allay our fears?

Since there is no reason in this witch hunt, lets just bring back the Medieval Trial By Ordeal!!

Obama has to carry a piece of red hot iron in his bare hand while he walks three paces.
If his wound begins to heal within three days after being bandaged by a priest, he is innocent.

If not...he is lying about his citizenship and must be put to death.



Hands out Mr. President.

- Lee



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Just incase folks get confused here. The Kenyan short form birth certificate is from 1961 and was only signed in 1964 as it is claimed, this further conlicts the dates of interest for the documentation.


The signed copy was submitted to the court as required for divorce by couples with live children thus the 1964 date. Makes sense to me. The divorce was initiated in January 1964, birth certificate authenticated in February 1964, divorce granted in March 1964. At least that is one of the stories circulating around the web.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
The signed copy was submitted to the court as required for divorce by couples with live children thus the 1964 date.


The only thing that claims to be from 1964 is the signiture declaration itself buddy. In addition to that fact why would it make sense to you for Obama to have another birth certificate because his parent got a divorce? Why over 2 years following his supposed kenyan birth?


The divorce was initiated in January 1964, birth certificate authenticated in February 1964,


The registrar under no circumstances can register any birth or death over 6 months following or prior to the event. In no way does this make "divorces" an exception in the case of birth for the child. You gave no sources or evidence to cite for your claim.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I have replied to this question once before, but hre ill do it again!

No , Obama revealed his Certificate of Live Birth, not his birth certificate, it is NOT the same.

Hawaii claims to have this long form BC filed away but says it doesnt have the authority to release it, and Obama as far as i can see isnt going to allow them to do so.

What is interesting is that with all the controversy over his CB,the state's DHHL suddenly changed its website reference to allow for the Certification of Live Birth as a formal authentication document.

When it was only weeks before that, the WND said that the document that Obama released as proof of a Hawaiian birth was not accepted by the Hawaiian Home Lands program, because it was not a reliable document for an actual Hawaiian birth...........lil fishy dont you think?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I assume you are talking about this one:





Maybe because it is a long form that actually looks authentic?

Of course research will have to be done on it, but by itself, it LOOKS pretty damning.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
It goes to show that anyone can infiltrate America these days, 1993 world trade centre plot failed but it was succeeded in 2001, now we have nerds from the UK like Mr McKinnon who accessed 97 government computers belonging to organisations such as the US Navy and Nasa. It's no suprising if there has been a long lived plot right from the start between Muslism and American interests to maybe sway things around or maybe do more damage than good. Sounds like a plot from a movie, but yet again so was 9/11 but no one believed it could happen.

I am afraid also that maybe America is weak and can be duped at will when the thief comes in un noticed. I know GWBush was bonkers but now you could have something even worse on your hands, the graph is looking down when it comes to these things.

Good luck America fingers crossed.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Read the boards then, you are already a member here, the info is all over the place. All you have to do is read the threads, decide which bits you like the best and then post your own thread with your opinions formed from said tidbits. Kind of like this one.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
Read the boards then


Im sorry Im not the one claiming this. Back up your claims with sources. From what I see a registrar cannot register a birth or death over 6 month eluding the event, period. Back your claim up with sources vai Kenya law .



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
QUESTION: Why is this photo of Obamas alleged 45 year old Kenyan birth certificate more valid than the ones he himself has released?


It gives new meaning to the phrase, "I want to believe".

From what I've been able to learn, there's a crazed movement that wants to believe Obama was born in Kenya and the birther movement has gotten pretty hot lately. It finally occurred to someone within the movement that they weren't going to be taken seriously until someone came up with a birth certificate from Kenya. So they "came up" with one.


It's pretty funny, really.

I don't know where Obama was born, but I have never seen any reason to believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii. This whole thing started with a stupid rumor and I think a person has to be out of touch with reality to believe any of it.

Nice work, Southern Guardian.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The registrar wasn't confirming the birth in 1964. The certificate in question was requested to present to the courts per court requirements for divorce between couples with live dependents. Can't you see the difference?

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Hazelnut]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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.'


www.salon.com...

Update for ya'll



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Do you actually read anything . . . or do you just look for anything to debunk?


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."


Link


/thread





top topics
 
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join