The faked Kenyan birth certificate

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Already covered in depth in the original thread.

You should go read it. Some of the info on that thread supports your thread. Some of it totally debunks your thread. I recommend a thorough perusal of that Original Thread. But, to each his/her own.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Update for you!

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

Link

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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?

You really aren't following it well are you? This is a declaration...a copy....of the original birth certificate which was registered in 1961. This is a copy which was probably needed to prove the birth and parentage of the child in the divorce proceedings. It is issued over two years after his birth as it was over two years after his birth that the divorce proceedings occurred. It wasn't given to Obama as a birthday present....this was apparently needed and produced for the court case of the divorce.

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.

The registrar is not registering this birth merely signing a declaration that the document is a true copy of a birth certificate held on file. He is not registering anything. He is declaring that the certificate bit is a true copy. It is all said quite clearly on the certificate for you to see.

Again you talk with no sources to back up your claim but accusations, and yet you want to disregard the evidence put forward by those of us that actually have our sources backed up.

Originally posted by Hazelnut
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.

No where on the supposed form does it even mention divorce or the like. You are claiming this fact off of nothing but an assumption. Back up your claims. Now the form itself doesnt claim its from 1964. If you notice, the individual who supposed verified the form only verified his declaration on 1964, nothing else was verified as being from that year. The forgers failed to make the form dated in 1964, they only dated the declaration and the seal from the registrar as being from 1964. They made it as if the entire form was from 1961 and only the seal and signiture from the registrar came in later.

Can't you see the difference?

I see a fake kenyan short form birth certificate and an individual trying to make more excuses. Where in Kenyan law does it require further verification of the childs birth upon divorce? Heres another reality check for you, Obama snr was married to another woman in Kenya at the time he was married to Ms Dunham, illegal under Kenyan law so any divorce actions would not have gone through had hypothetically ms dunham resided in Kenya as the marriage was automatically invalid therefor any divorce action would have been invalid and not allowed under Kenyan law so there goes your other excuse out the window.

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

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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

That is wrong. Kenya was granted independence in Dec 63, whereas it had previously been either the East African Protectorate...or the British Protectorate of Kenya. They then used the term Republic even though they were not officially granted that status in the eyes of the world until Dec 64.

The 'regions' stuff is wrong. There were districts....and provinces...existing before the regions...It was in 64 they rearranged or delineated these provinces into regions. That does not even mean at that point that provinces ceased to be. It just means there was a bigger area containing provinces and districts that were called regions.

The forms would not use 'colony and protectorate' as Kenya had been granted independence from the protectorate.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
This is a copy which was probably needed to prove the birth and parentage of the child in the divorce proceedings. It is issued over two years after his birth as it was over two years after his birth that the divorce proceedings occurred.

I love the way he said "probably" meaning its just an assumption of his. Had hypothetically Ms Dunham resided in Kenya any matters of marriage including divorce would have been invalid as Mr Obama was already married in Kenya, so they would not have been any divorce proceedings in that case as Kenya law did not recognize tha marriage between Ms Dunham and Mr Obama snr. There goes that excuse out the window again.

The registrar is not registering this birth merely signing a declaration that the document is a true copy of a birth certificate held on file.

If thats the case then the registrar was merely verifying a document from 1961 making the claim of the birth certificate more so inauthentic as Kenya was a dominion at that time, meaning the printed Kenyan seal at the top should not be there.

The Kenyan republic seal only came out in December of 1964. This means that:

A) The documentation is 9 months prior to that raised republic seal ever having being released and applied to the documents.

B) That the verification from the registrar over 2 years following Obamas supposed birth should not have magically changed the the coat of arms to the top of the short form to a republic, it should still have been the British dominion coat of arms.

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

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are a perfectionist at twisting facts. Where did you get your law degree Southern? I say provide the smoking gun evidence to prove your thread title. Faked? So far, the issue is debatable, highly contested and inflammatory. But you have the audacity to claim that you have proven the alleged document is FAKE! My my.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Hazelnut]

reply to post by lee anoma


Err... dude.... I was being nice. My last post was pretty much about assuming she wasn't the mastermind and was just being used like a puppet. Some believers honestly think that she would NEVER fake something like this because it would discredit the entire movement, convincing them further that it MUST be legit. I was essentially arguing that while I do believe the new birth certificate to be fake, she could easily be being used and might not be capable of thinking of it as fake. Blind faith.

Do I honestly believe she's a puppet? I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there as a possibility. Do I honestly believe she's the diabolical mastermind inciting civil discord? I don't know that either. Just another of many possibilities.

Either way, I still see no "concrete smoking gun" evidence to support the birther movement. I do know that the anti-obama movement is dividing and weakening the country, exactly what America's enemies want. While I support the idea of ALWAYS questioning your government, there is a fine line between questioning authority and inciting treason through false patriotism.

The LAST people that should be involved in arguing for or against anything are people that are too emotionally involved. Neither will accept the others views, will never concede the point, and could very well instead turn to name calling and physical violence.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


And our Founding Fathers were using the term United States of America before 07/04/1776

Your point?

It's been interesting catching up on this thread this afternoon. Here is what I have learned:

Don't focus on the President's birth certificate.
Instead, we should be focusing on:
1. His college transcripts.
2. His professional history.
3. His shady deals.
4. His interactions with Goldman-sachs.
5. He is a "cult of personality" (Is that kinda like charisma?, oh, it's something different, okay).

I get it. Anything that is negative, let's go after it. To hell with supporting our country and our government. Let's take this man down! Let's beat him down every chance we get. Won't that prove that we are smarter than him?

Oh, let's not forget to let the courts decide this. ( Please! Like the courts would even momentarily entertain this rumor and excuse of a Kenyan birth certificate.)

Our country is hanging on by a thread, but who cares? Let's just find anything we can that's negative about this human being and bring him down.

Oh, and for crying out loud, don't forget about that fly he swatted. When everything else turns out okay, maybe we can turn PETA on his case.

Go for it!!! Let's just wallow in rumors and negativity!!!!

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.

The 'regions' stuff is wrong. There were districts....and provinces...existing before the regions..

The term "provincial" did not come into documentation until years following 1964. Districts by definition of america is different to those in africa so they did not mean segments of the province.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

No where on the supposed form does it even mention divorce or the like. You are claiming this fact off of nothing but an assumption. Back up your claims. Now the form itself doesnt claim its from 1964. If you notice, the individual who supposed verified the form only verified his declaration on 1964, nothing else was verified as being from that year. The forgers failed to make the form dated in 1964, they only dated the declaration and the seal from the registrar as being from 1964. They made it as if the entire form was from 1961 and only the seal and signiture from the registrar came in later.

Well as it is a true copy of a birth certificate on file from 1961, why would it mention divorce? The form is dated 1964. How could they date the birth certificate 1964 when it is a copy from 1961...now that would be a forgery...lol

I see a fake kenyan short form birth certificate and an individual trying to make more excuses. Where in Kenyan law does it require further verification of the childs birth upon divorce? Heres another reality check for you, Obama snr was married to another woman in Kenya at the time he was married to Ms Dunham, illegal under Kenyan law so any divorce actions would not have gone through had hypothetically ms dunham resided in Kenya as the marriage was automatically invalid therefor any divorce action would have been invalid and not allowed under Kenyan law so there goes your other excuse out the window.

They were neither married nor divorced in Kenya but in America. Obama senior may well have been a polygamist and the whole marriage illegal but that is another argument. Who is saying Ms? Dunham...or rather Mrs Obama lived in Kenya?

Originally posted by Hazelnut
You are a perfectionist at twisting facts.

So far all Iv seen is talk from you and no evidence to back up your excuses.

Go back to the drawing boards.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Well as it is a true copy of a birth certificate on file from 1961,

Lie. Thus far the form is only in a picture and has not been verified by any of the officials in Kenya. Get off it.

why would it mention divorce? The form is dated 1964. How could they date the birth certificate 1964 when it is a copy from 1961...now that would be a forgery...

The signiture, declaration and seal from the forgery are dated in 1964, the form itself is not dated 1964. That is where the forgers went terribly wrong, and the coat of arms to the top is the killer flag in the entire forgery.

They were neither married nor divorced in Kenya but in America. Obama senior may well have been a polygamist and the whole marriage illegal but that is another argument. Who is saying Ms? Dunham...or rather Mrs Obama lived in Kenya?

Exactly, more talk, more assumptions and stories cooked up, nothing to back it up.


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

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
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?

Yes I know turnabout isn't always fair play.

We shouldn't question the credibility and credentials of the lawyer that is doing so to the current democratically elected president of the United States of America.

Anyone that would submit a document without any independent confirmation of its authenticity...especially considering the guy who has had it since 2008 claims to have gotten it from a semi-anonymous source and claims to have paid $1000 to get it (after failing to sell it on eBay) is already painting themselves as a bad lawyer.

I also would question the credibility of the source of the document and unless this lawyer has some rock solid evidence she is making herself look like a loon.

Should people be hitching their star to such a person that doesn't really have much of a background by way of law and judging by the way she is approaching this case won't have much of a career afterwards?

I guess we will find out soon enough.

Thats kind of a narrow view isnt it?

You mean like questioning the credibility of the state of Hawaii by assuming since they confirmed Obama was born there they are involved in some grand cover-up?

You mean like questioning the credibility of the very hospital and its officials in Mombasa, Kenya like Dr. Christopher Mwanga and his staff who searched BY HAND for any evidence, and yet concluded that there isn't any proof that Obama was born there?

Yet people will hold onto weak claims from anonymous sources presented by dubious lawyers as if they are concrete evidence.

That isn't a narrow view, its a delusional one.

- Lee




[edit on 3-8-2009 by lee anoma]

It looks to me that people in general accept whichever "evidence" suits their prejudices. If you're pro-Obama, you'll accept the Hawaiian birth certificate, accept that the officials in Hawaii did actually verify it, and so on. If you're anti-Obama, you'll deny that, and go with whatever evidence shows Obama was born outside the US. Very few of us have any hope of sorting out what's true, just from evidence presented over the Internet. We're at the mercy of others who have hidden agenda, who are skilled at forgery or fraud. We can't tell truth from fiction, so we accept the claim that is most agreeable to us.

Common sense, however, would seem to support that Obama was born in the US, simply because if he hadn't been - had there been the slightest doubt - this would have been a major campaign issue that would not have been dropped. The Republican Party would have seized on this and never let it go. They didn't. Therefore, it wasn't a serious issue to them. You think they just somehow overlooked a golden opportunity like that? Not a chance.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Why on earth would you expect the birth certificate to say 1964? Your logic or llack of it defeats me.

Exactly, more talk, more assumptions and stories cooked up, nothing to back it up.

I am not going to spoon feed you. There is evidence all over the web. 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. There is evidence Mombasa was under the protectorate as was Zanzibar therefore ownership is not an issue.
If you bothered to research even vaguely we wouldn't be having this discussion whereby you can't seem to get your head around the fact that IF this is a real document and not a fake, that it is a copy of a birth certificate which was released to prove the birth date of said person in 1961....signed when it was copied and released in 1964 to assert that it is a true copy of a certificate that remains in the book.

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.

There is no solid evidence and no official verification of the documentation in the photo aside the fact there are red flags of a fake. If there is evidence, it shouldnt be so hard to back up the "talk".

Obamas short form Hawaiian BC however was verified as authentic by Hawaiian officials however that somehow fake. Here we have an unauthentic supposed Kenyan BC in a photo that has not be verified by officials and has been rejected by experts thus far and this is somehow authentic?

Text book definition of hypocrisy you are.

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.

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

All talk, nothing to back yourself up with. Go back to the drawing boards, this forgery is on route to no where.

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

There are now multiple COLBs out there now with changed information


This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump)
#5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : "Problem with Windows REGISTRY", a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH's age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font "Oh" not "Zero") EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP

The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644.

defendourfreedoms.net...

I'm trying, you know if we could have a topic with just research it sure would make things easier.

can't we just have a thread based on research?

[edit on 043131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]

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