The faked Kenyan birth certificate, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 87 times

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 05:50 PM by oneclickaway

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The official seal on documentation with the term "coast province" did not come into effect until after 1965.

Make your mind up...a little while back you said everything was a region until 1970.

You prove something for once. All you seem to be doing is waffling on and twisting everything. You keep demanding for evidence and yet make no effort yourself to produce any.

If a divorce is happening in Hawaii....with a couple who married in Hawaii, how on earth would the Kenyan or Hawaiin authorities know that he was married before. They did not send private investigators into Kenya to make sure the man was not already married...lol And anyway, that is an unsubstantiated rumour at this stage.
The birth certificate has nothing to do with the status of that marriage. It may however have been produced for the divorce....if it is real.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:05 PM by BornPatriot

It appears, someone is contesting it authencity... ok, let back channel this thing... is it the one that sold on Ebay..?

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:08 PM by Southern Guardian

Has that Kenyan short form being verified by officials oneclick? Or should we take the birthers almighty conclusion of its authenticity? Just like the rest of you continously asked for verification, wheres the confirmation from Kenyan officials?

Originally posted by oneclickawayMake your mind up...a little while back you said everything was a region until 1970.

Well there indeed a mix up.

The experts say this:

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.'

As for his qualifications to judge the document and the header on it, Branch e-mails, "I''ve been working in the Kenyan archives on late-colonial and post-colonial history for the past eight years."

www.salon.com...

Theres one thing I know for sure, none of you have proven that the term "provencial" was used in short form birth certificates at the time. Afew months following independence the transference from colonial to provencial republics would have taken atleast a year.

If a divorce is happening in Hawaii....

Yes and yet you implicate part of the divorce proceedings in Kenya, hence the excuse for the short for 2 years following Obamas birth. You base the assumption of the fact "they failed to find on Kenyan records that Obama snr was married" and what do you have to show for this? Well nothing but speculation.

And anyway,

Indeed, your sitting with a fake kenyan birth certificate, unauthenticated, not verified by any Kenyan officials, with multiple red flags on it and yet you choose to just take this as real enough as opposed to the state of Hawaii verified short form of Obamas.

right, thats the logic you work on.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:10 PM by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by gemstone
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.........

She isn't simply a nut job, but a leader of many.

Did I say that outloud?

Honestly though... she does come off as a complete kook. So my question is... what kind of people would follow someone who SCREAMS Kook!

Well... kooky people... that's who.

But having said that. I'm sure that the birthers see all of us sane folk as kooky as well.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:18 PM by TheAmused

Not one dang soul here on ats has researched anything other than googling there answer's.

So what does that tell ya?

Why because even the newspaper's we are saying is correct or not correct has no way in hell of getting the simple info this fight is over to begin with.
Because obama Knows it's causing us to fight as brother's...and he is shooting his rock's about....now.

Obama is gonna be know as the great divider.

G.W.B supposedly the mastermind behind 9/11

But Didn't hide his police record's and school history ect...
So what does that say about obama?

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:19 PM by OldDragger

So...let me get this straight.
We have the Hawaii birth certificate, verified by the State of Hawaii as accurate. Obama has been elected by popular vote, certied by the electoral cllege, and sworn in as President.
We have a photo online of a alleged Kenyan birth certificate, mysteriously produced by an about to be disbarred lawyer with a known obsessive anti Obama agenda, with no source, no verification from Kenyan officials, for that matter no verification of ANY KIND WHATSOVER.
Hmm, gee tough choice!
For crying out loud, how pathetic! News flash for the right wing!
McCain and what's her face lost by a large margin, Obama WON by a large margin. He IS and will remain the President!
Hey, better luck next time!

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:22 PM by Southern Guardian

What I still can’t figure out is how the birthers explain how an 18-year-old young woman with no money made her way on a rare, hugely expensive transcontinental flight in 1961 to Kenya and then back again with a baby without anyone—her parents, friends, airline employees, anyone—having noticed. How is it that there’s no record of such a flight?

And why in the world would she do it in the first place? What was the motive? There was no citizenship issue, because the baby’s mother was already an American citizen herself. The only conceivable motive was that Obama’s mother worried that he might be challenged if he ran for president some day. She really thought ahead, didn’t she!

What is the birthers’ theory for how all this happened, and why do they think that theory seems more likely than the far simpler claim that Stanley just gave birth where she lived in Hawaii?

If anyone can find me an explanation, anywhere, I’d be grateful to know. They must have some story for how all this was supposed to have happened, right?

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:25 PM by ManBehindTheMask

reply to post by lee anoma

we should question EVERYONE , but you didnt question them you immediately started with slanderous remarks......

And yes i would question hawaii when they have changed there tune on different occasions regarding this whole Obama fiasco..

And from i can tell people arent "hitching" anyhthing to this lawyer, we are debating the authenticity of this document, that means examining all possibilities, not just the ones that dont fit the AGENDA

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:26 PM by MissysWorld

Just in case it's asked..again..
Here is the copy of the Kenya BC:
www.orlytaitzesq.com...
(btw I had no problems getting on the above site)
Here is the ORIGINAL Kenya BC:
thesteadydrip.blogspot.com...

Your welcome

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:29 PM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheAmused
WND is a very very credible new's source.

I'm sorry, I know this is a pretty content-free post, but... REALLY?! Man. When are we going to strike that "Deny" in the logo and replace it with "embrace"?

very credible... hahahahaha...

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:31 PM by oneclickaway

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Theres one thing I know for sure, none of you have proven that the term "provencial" was used in short form birth certificates at the time. Afew months following independence the transference from colonial to provencial republics would have taken atleast a year.

'provencial' I doubt was ever used anywhere. The term is Province. Neither have you proved that the term province was not in use. I gave you the link previously that shows that the country was divided into districts and provinces up until 62...where apperently they were then called regions until 70 where they went back to provinces. So as we are talking about 61 it seems a fair enough assumption that 'province' would have been used.
The republic issue is seperate and on the other thread there is evidence that republic was used in newspaper reports in early 64.

If a divorce is happening in Hawaii....

Yes and yet you implicate part of the divorce proceedings in Kenya, hence the excuse for the short for 2 years following Obamas birth. You base the assumption of the fact "they failed to find on Kenyan records that Obama snr was married" and what do you have to show for this? Well nothing but speculation.

I believe I also gave the link to the divorce papers clearly stating it took place in Hawaii. I am totally confused as to what you are saying above...but I will battle on against all the odds. Nowhere is Kenya implicated except that in this possible scenario, Kenya would have been asked to provide a copy of Obama's birth certificate to be shown at court in Hawaii...nothing to do with Kenya except that if it was his place of birth, that is where the original birth certificate was held. The 2 years is because that is when divorce proceedings were underway as cited in the link I gave you previously.
I don't believe I said anywhere in this lifetime 'they failed to find on Kenyan records that Obama snr was married.' I believe I said that nobody would have known if he was still married...so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Indeed, your sitting with a fake kenyan birth certificate, unauthenticated, not verified by any Kenyan officials, with multiple red flags on it and yet you choose to just take this as real enough as opposed to the state of Hawaii verified short form of Obamas.

Nobody at this stage knows whether this certificate is fake or real. Nobody is asserting that it is real. The only people stating anything as the God given truth are those opposed to the possibility of it being true.
What people are doing is giving proof that the assertions against it being real are totally erroneous in most cases and the truth is being stated.
After all, truth is what this is all about.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:35 PM by OldDragger

Awww. Ya gotta love WorldNut Daily!
Wher else can you get the Birthers, huckster ads for health products PLUS noted political commentators Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and assorted creationist/theocracy enhtusiasts take on world events!
Now that The World Weekly News has gone online only as has The Onion, it looks like WND will face some real competetion in the farce department!

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:36 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by oneclickaway
'provencial' I doubt was ever used anywhere. The term is Province. Neither have you proved that the term province was not in use.

Why do I? Im not the one trying to validate the Kenyan short form now am I?

1) The kenyan BC has not been authenticated.
2) None of the Kenyan officials have verified it.
3) Thus far experts in Kenyan history have either confirmed it to be to fake or have yet to confirm the possibility of it being authentic.
4) You have not proven to us that the term province and republic was readily used on short form birth certificates in Kenya prior to December of 64'.
5) the republic seal was not used on birth documentation prior to December of 64, you are yet to prove otherwise.

Basically your sitting on your own personal conclusions. Until you come up with all of the above however its just your words and your personal conclusions.

SG

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:44 PM by Lemon.Fresh

reply to post by OldDragger

So what do we use instead?

No matter what you list someone will bitch and moan.

It is not the source that is the problem.

It is the fact that you do not agree with the article that is the problem.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:45 PM by oneclickaway

reply to post by Southern Guardian

What I still can’t figure out is how the birthers explain how an 18-year-old young woman with no money made her way on a rare, hugely expensive transcontinental flight in 1961 to Kenya and then back again with a baby without anyone—her parents, friends, airline employees, anyone—having noticed. How is it that there’s no record of such a flight?

How do you know she had no money? Why assume her parents did not know. Why would airline emplyees notice, she wasn't some superstar? Do we know there is no record of such a flight?

I don't know why she would have gone there. It could be a ruse to make people believe Obama snr was the father. None of the story adds up whichever way you look at it, which is no doubt why Obama has blocked and sealed all info. Something very fishy all round.

By the way there really is no such animal as a 'birther'...people just want the truth.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 06:57 PM by mckyle

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

I love the way you reference such an unbiased and objective "news" site.
Get a load of the recent headlines:

Today's WND News Highlights

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?

Hawaii refuses to verify president's online COLBs

HuffPost blogger, college prof: Release birth certificate

Andrew Sullivan: Release the birth certificate

Obama's radical pal slams racist 'American empire'

Today's WND Commentary Highlights

Not the last word on Obama's birth - By Joseph Farah

What Obama and my wife have in common - By Chuck Norris

We're not sheeple - By Herman Cain

Crossroads for health insurance 'reform' - By Roger Hedgecock

'An Infernal Economy II' - By Vox Day Pushing toward amnesty, Part 3 - By Barbara Simpson

The problem with Obama is ... - By Henry Lamb
Impeccable Source

Even a birther with half an ounce of intelligence should squirm with embarrassment over the genius whoever sourced this right-wing whacko mouthpiece.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by mckyle]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 07:03 PM by oneclickaway

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Nobody at this stage knows whether this certificate is fake or real. Nobody is asserting that it is real. The only people stating anything as the God given truth are those opposed to the possibility of it being true.
What people are doing is giving proof that the assertions against it being real are totally erroneous in most cases and the truth is being stated.
After all, truth is what this is all about.

Why do I? Im not the one trying to validate the Kenyan short form now am I?

Neither is anyone. You just don’t get it.
Ok you are bringing up totally different assertions now.

1) The kenyan BC has not been authenticated.

Absolutely correct. Nobody is saying it has been.

2) None of the Kenyan officials have verified it.

Absolutely correct

3) Thus far experts in Kenyan history have either confirmed it to be to fake or have yet to confirm the possibility of it being authentic.

I don’t suppose experts in Kenyan history have yet bothered to look at it. If you are quoting the two ‘experts’ from Warwick University, well what they said is apparently not true from the census taken way before 1961, which is on the link you were provided with and yet probably did not look at.

4) You have not proven to us that the term province and republic was readily used on short form birth certificates in Kenya prior to December of 64'.

I am not out to and have no great wish to prove anything to you, merely to correct erroneous statements. You likewise have furnished no proof at all of your assertions.

5) the republic seal was not used on birth documentation prior to December of 64, you are yet to prove otherwise.

You are yet to prove anything at all.

And as you do not seem to read anything properly; I will repeat.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Nobody at this stage knows whether this certificate is fake or real. Nobody is asserting that it is real. The only people stating anything as the God given truth are those opposed to the possibility of it being true.
What people are doing is giving proof that the assertions against it being real are totally erroneous in most cases and the truth is being stated.
After all, truth is what this is all about.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 07:25 PM by thedigirati

reply to post by Southern Guardian

WOW just wow, such vitriol, I'm quite amused. The part about Hawaii authenticating Obama made me giggle the most ( Allegedly the one state that DOES want to secede from the USA , tells the CONUS, "yep he was born here Bra")
I've read BOTH threads, and yet it seems ONLY the "pro-Obama" crowd (anti birthers? does that make you abortions? or just condoms?) slinging words like "stupid , idiot, kooky in great abundance (yes I did see "obomatron" a few times as well) But Nowhere did I see anyone say "this is a real document" not once in the other thread. they said things like "if this is real"
I'm fairly certain there was a divorce in 1964. I'm also fairly certain BHO
was Born ( or is that up for debate as well SC?) the question is where, and yes it is important. (do we really want the terminator for president?)
but there seems to be an agenda to not just prove "birthers" wrong but to "wipe the floor with them" as it were. This seems quite unusual to me, anyone else see that?

I am fairly certain both document are frauds, ( I lived in Hawaii for a number of years, and corruption was in the news daily) and I have a feeling that Hawaii will become the free trade zone it wants to be ( not just at the airport)

It is said that More people vote for American Idol than vote in the national election, maybe that's because we are not as dumb as people think, maybe we know when our votes count

[edit on 3-8-2009 by thedigirati]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 07:33 PM by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by MissysWorld
Just in case it's asked..again..
Here is the copy of the Kenya BC:
www.orlytaitzesq.com...
(btw I had no problems getting on the above site)
Here is the ORIGINAL Kenya BC:
thesteadydrip.blogspot.com...

Your welcome

Hrmm... your ORIGINAL says it was made with Picasa. So it's not the ORIGINAL photograph. The Exif data would not have said PICASA.

Plus, I find it odd that the entire background image has been removed.

To me if any is the original, I'm guessing it's the one on Orlys site.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 07:57 PM by Evisscerator

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

I'm with ya on this one. The OP of this thread is a disinformation specialist. Yes, he gets his point across by using counter points to the other thread on the matter, however, he has no credibility with "his OPINION". He needs to remember that Opinions are like iceholes, everyone has one. His i no more or less important than anyone elses. And just because he thinks HE is right does not make it so.

Let the Powers that Be make the ultimate decision on this if they have the balls to do so. Otherwise, all the complaining about Obama's birth certificate won't resolve any issue on the matter. If WND has the balls to prove it, then we have something to hang Obama out to dry with if it gets into the mainstream press.