The faked Kenyan birth certificate

reply to post by Stormdancer777


You are right of course, and I aplogize for my earlier editorial opinion.

Recently a Californian attorney, Orly Taitz, publicly released a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. Taitz has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for authenticating the document, but as of right now, the birth certificate appears authentic. As World News Daily reports, “No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly used as a certified copy of the original in February 1964. WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical. Despite the fact that a hoax document similar in nature circulated the Internet last week, WND reports that the document ‘bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.’”[5]

Taitz told WND: “I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds.

I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a

deposition from Hillary Clinton

so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].

”[6] The birth certificate was discovered by an anonymous source, who feared publicity because of the possibility of retaliation.[7]

Many Obama supporters have naively claimed that the birther movement has been ridiculous because there is no way the government would allow such a thing to ever happen. Obviously, this discovery raises the question of who allowed this to happen and how honest the American government truly is to its people. Who are the Obama administration and the government really working for?

www.examiner.com...

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Your whole thread ended with the article by WND this morning that you fail to accept, or even acknowledge.

When faced with defeat, you attack a the messenger, not the evidence.

Typical SG style.

like I said two pages back . . .

/thread



[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

I just don't get it.

Rumors come out (just like Obama being a Communist or a Muslim - yes, the non-native subject was circulated at the same exact time as these other rumors) and everyone hops on the Anti-Obama train. And don't jump to conclusions ... I have no love for the man.

So they decide to focus on the most viable and provable rumor ... his viability for the Presidency. But, when the Hawaii certification of birth is released it's not good enough. The birthers demand more proof. So the "original" is provided. Then it becomes a "fake". Now the birthers demand the long form.

So now the Kenyan birth certificate comes out and most birthers rejoice. Finally the proof they've needed. Which is what I've been asking from them from the get-go. But now it's been declared a fake by nearly all mainstream media outlets. And what do the birthers say to this? "Wait for the government to say it's a fake."

It just goes to prove my point that I've been trying to make since this story has taken a foothold: Nothing will ever be proof enough. If the long form Hawaiian certificate pops up it'll be dubbed a fake as well.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by tyranny22]

reply to post by tyranny22


1.) It can easily be proved by the name change from Barry Soetoro to Barak Obama that he is a Muslim. All Muslims change their Christian names to Muslim ones. Would I care if he is a Muslim? Not particularly. But add into that his association with some . . . shady characters, it does raise an eyebrow.


2.) It was not a fake, but it did raise questions. The long form is needed to fully satisfy the questions raised because of Hawaii laws at the time.

3.) Which mainstream media outlet has proven beyond a doubt that it is fake? All I have seen is the Salon article, which was proven wrong on all accounts by WND 30 minutes after the Salon article was posted.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


And wnd has proven to be rightwinged fringed disillusional people, writing nothing but hatress and disinfo.

Best regards

Loke.:.

reply to post by Loke.


Okay . . .

So we can't trust CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, WND, Free Republic, or personal blogs.

WTF are you supposed to use as evidence?


Oh, I get it. It is only propaganda if you disagree with it.

Got it!

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by oneclickaway
I am not going to spoon feed you.

Aint that something? you accuse the man of something, your asked back it up under the court of law, and you say "i am not going to spoon feed you".

Yes yes yes that is going to go down well.

There is evidence all over the web.

Text book definition of hypocrisy you are.

I was not under the delusion that we are in a court of law.

There are the divorce documents stating all the dates, times, places etc. There is masses of evidence that Coast province existed and was not part of a region until 64.

www.statoids.com...

Again all talk, nothing to back it up. If there is evidence come up with it and get it backed up by Kenyan officials.

Umm as the divorce was in Hawaii it would be a bit difficult to get it backed up by Kenyan officials

www.scribd.com...

WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.

Where are the pictures for these other birth certificates from Kenya that appear to be identical? I can't find them at the site.

Why hold back on those? Are we to just trust their word like we're supposed to trust the word of Hawaii state officials?

I'd like to see those pictures to compare them myself...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

this is the leader of the birther movement?

what the heck she is definatley from crackpot central....

Keep on behind her birthers, she on route off a cliff, again.

calm down Orly..... there there

It just has to be true about Dr. Taitz, I know you wouldn't lie.

Thank you, thank you thank you Southern...you have finally convinced me to think your thoughts and speak your words, thank you. Your disdain for your fellow human is encouraging, being a trait I admire and aspire to from my lowly place of ignorance. I shall forever follow in your footsteps, hate my fellows who think not like I. Emulating your example I will insult, demean and ridicule them all. Thank you my dear, dear friend for showing me the light.

Thoughtful, measured, considered conversation with courtesy and objectivity was surely a lost cause, a burden no longer mine to carry. My embarrassment knows no limits while I cower in your shadow of truth and righteousness.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by oneclickaway
That is wrong.

Uh no its not wrong. The the official label of "Coast province" on documentation did not come about until 1970. In addition even though Kenya became independent in 1963 the republic became official and on documentation on December 1964.

That is correct.

The Kenya stamps did not have Republic of Kenya on them until December 12, 1964 which is when they were known as the "republic" of Kenya.

Also the Kenya Constitution of 1963 (not the amended one from 2008 that some people are posting up erroneously as proof) makes no mention of itself as the "republic" of Kenya at all. Kenya Constitution of 1963

People spouting out "do some research" are themselves guilty of ignorance and gullibility, and personally I would not even attempt to back this bogus document up. It will be revealed as fake I am sure.

It's funny too, because the original Berg lawsuit against Obama also included a fake certificate.

It was signed by...I kid you not...Dudley Do Right!!!

Berg Fake

It was presented in his case as actual evidence.

Do these people even try and research this stuff or do they make everyone else do the work for them?

And they wonder why people look at this movement as a collection of fringe fruit-baskets that make Ann Coulter look like a voice of reason.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b7e2734823c.jpg[/atsimg]

- Lee

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Loke.

 

Okay . . .

So we can't trust CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, WND, Free Republic, or personal blogs.

WTF are you supposed to use as evidence?

Well to answer your query, Free Republic finds this Kenyan BC to be suspect. That should tell you something....


Well if you looked at evidence anyway...

for example:

The movement is, naturally, all abuzz. But even people who might normally be inclined to support it, like the founder of conservative forum FreeRepublic.com and the Birthers' favorite self-proclaimed document expert, who declared Obama's Hawaiian certification of live birth a forgery, are calling foul.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Has that forgery of a Kenyan short form being verified by officials?

Originally posted by oneclickaway
I was not under the delusion that we are in a court of law.

So in other words your saying the garbage being sprouted here will not go through a court of law? I agree, it wont get a blink.

There are the divorce documents stating all the dates, times, places etc. There is masses of evidence that Coast province existed and was not part of a region until 64.

The documentation such as short form birth certificates did not contain "coast province" until after 1964. Find another short form birth certificate during 1964 from the same area and it will not contain the term "coast province". The official seal on documentation with the term "coast province" did not come into effect until after 1964.

Umm as the divorce was in Hawaii

Ummm Mr Obama was already married in Kenya. Any matters of marriage under a process of law in Kenya would have been found void and thus no divorce proceeding would have gone through as they would have found Mr Obama snr to be already married. Your basing the claim on this short form kenyan birth certificate being the result of a divorce settlement, yet no settlement would have gone through had this registration process gone on in Kenya as Mr Obama was already married. So the excuses that this was the law of Kenya certifying Obama's birth over a marriage divorce settlement are false as such settlement would have been invalid given Mr Obama was already married.

Go on with the excuses, one by one the lies will be exposed.

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

I had never seen or heard of Orly Taitz until now... Of course we all know that MSNBC is very left-wing oriented... So there was no chance she would be allowed to present her case without strong disagreement from the MSNBC journalists...

But after watching that video she is clearly a nut job!! Did she actually call Obama supporters "brown shirts"???!!! YIKES.........

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh


1.) It can easily be proved by the name change from Barry Soetoro to Barak Obama that he is a Muslim. All Muslims change their Christian names to Muslim ones. Would I care if he is a Muslim? Not particularly. But add into that his association with some . . . shady characters, it does raise an eyebrow.

That's retarded.

He was born Barack Obama II. His step father, Lolo Soetoro, registered him as 'Barry Soetoro' in elementary school when he was under the age of 10.

He never changed his name, his step father used his own last name to register him so he could go to school in Indonesia, despite him being a US citizen. Since then he has gone by Barack Obama, his birth name.

You're going to have to reach a little further to prove that he's a Muslim, I'm afraid.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Oh my.

After watching that interview...I'm not surprised she believes that certificate is real.

She couldn't even answer the reporters question about the 40+ year old Hawaiian birth announcements found in two different major Hawaiian newspapers. Is this lady competent to represent anyone? She's over-emotional, screaming for no reason, and at times completely babbling incoherently.

What is with the Nazi Germany references?

Maybe she magically transforms into a coherent articulate lawyer only when she actually enters a court room but outside it she acts like the too-many-cats-lady with the smelly house. You know...like that episode of Family Guy where Peter Griffin could only play the piano like a master if he was totally smashed?

Well whoever said that "he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client", would probably be recommending self-representation as an option for Major Cook.

Either way this looks like a "fail" no matter how you cut it.

- Lee

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Umm . . . all the questions on that link were thoroughly answered by WND



Link

[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by drwizardphd


Do you have a source to back that up?

Well although I never really liked him too much, I'm going with "Turd Blossom" on this one...............

Karl Rove responded to the circulation of the new paper on Twitter, saying "I believe this is likely a forgery."

Source

BTW, Wouldn't this be considered a crime to forge documents of this nature? (Like currency and medical degrees?)





[edit on 3-8-2009 by kinda kurious]