Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
We have many people here who are very concerned with the facts and not hysteria. This is not a lynch mob, but people who are analyzing things, sharing their knowledge, going off on tangents but coming back again when presented with the facts, etc. It's truly wonderful and when I see this I think there's hope for us yet.
Mombasa was TECHNICALLY belonging to Zanzibar (no, it was not IN Zanzibar. Zanzibar is an island and they owned a 10 mile strip of land in the Coast Province in Kenyan terroritory that they LEASED to the British for use in the Dominion Kenya. In order for Zanzibar to gain it’s own independence, they had to cede Mombasa to Kenya.
This is like you renting a house and using that address as your Home Address. It IS yours as you are paying for the use of it, although it is deeded in someone elses name.
Also, I just wanted to say thank you to Jim somebody...Johnson? Thompson? no, I think maybe it was Robinson.
Back during the early days of the US colonies, our boundaries were constantly changing. States were breaking into smaller states. Counties were dividing and re-organizing. Your farm one week might have been in state A and the next week it was in state B and three years later you were in state C. Then you wanted to file something at the courthouse but it was closer to file at courthouse 1 rather than the correct courthouse 2. The old saying, “if the creek don’t rise” was very true. During the early 60’s Africa was changing so don’t put too much stock into what was listed at x location on y date.
The 1 in 1964 may stand for first black president.
The 64 is backwards 46, how old he was when he started his campaign.
The 9 is how many years he was employed by government.
Obvious fraud IMHO.
Thanks — but that’s the same one I posted and got blasted for!
The document says 1963 and has the word “republic” throughout it.
It’s not a problem. Someone posted the “Constitution of the Republic of Kenya” that was printed in 1963. It was just formally recognized that way by Britain in 1964.
After looking at the disputed document more carefully, I'm not as concerned about the "Republic of Kenya" issue. There may be an easy and straightforward explanation for that objection to its authenticity.
The explanation requires a proper definition of the word "entry."
Think of a form as having two components: (1) standard boilerplate headings and verbiage that never vary, and (2) manually inputted information that is entered in the appropriate spaces and blocks on the form.
If you read the document carefully, the attestation of the registrar is that it is a certified "true copy of the entry recorded in the Birth Register."
In other words, it is a true copy of the "entry" in the birth register. It is clearly not a copy of the birth register itself (or portion of it) in which the information was originally entered.
It would work this way: the original document--the birth register--exists but we have not seen it. We may assume it is in the proper form for 1961 (that is, not on "Republic of Kenya" form heading). Its "entry" logically and arguably means all the information that was entered--inputted manually--on the birth register, not the birth register (or portion of it) itself.
In 1964, to make a certified true copy of the "entry" from the birth register the registrar would take the then-current form (showing "Republic of Kenya" form heading inasmuch as the Republic of Kenya was then in existence and its forms would be used) and copy the entry (the manually entered information) from the birth register onto the new stand-alone form.
The resulting certified true copy would therefore comprise the original entry (manually inputted information) from the pre-Republic of Kenya birth register copied onto a post-Republic of Kenya form.
Please note that on the disputed document next to the block marked "signature of registrar" it does NOT show a signature, but rather the typed name "E.F. Lavander." This is another clue. Remember, this was in an era when photocopies as we know of them today were exceedingly rare. The first primitive Xerox-style copier wasn't even available before 1959. The vast majority of certified true "copies" were painstaking hand transcriptions of the manually inputted information copied over from original sources.
That's why E.F. Lavender's type-written name appears next to that block--not his actual signature. The registrar was simply certifying that the signature on the birth register was that of E.F. Lavender. The registrar didn't have access to the technology needed to make a photocopy of the original birth register. By entering the typewritten name of E.F. Lavender, the registrar was certifying that he had seen the signature and it was that of E.F. Lavender.
This isn't necessarily the correct explanation. But I believe it is a plausible and logical explanation.
Here's the document in this thread with the same amount of gamma applied. At least no security markings on this one:
No great revelation, but I know folks had been talking about it and I figure that it would be helpful for them to see the security markings for themselves.
You know it's going to be a long night when post 4,011 is replying to post 2,275...
Not entirely. Even if the document is conclusively proved to be a forgery, all these posts illustrate one good reason for requiring a presidential candidate to provide the best available documentation of his or her birth: to prevent the public from unnecessarily expending a tremendous amount of time and effort to unearth the truth.
DR. ORLY HERE NOW 9 CST
http://www.plainsradio.com/radio.html
They are streaming the Bill Cunningham show in..
.
Michelle Maulkin (sp?) up now.
Has anyone been able to clearly make out the seal in the lower left hand corner?
I’ve been fooling around with PS4, all I get is noise, so far.
My thoughts: Hussein and his minons will pull out all the stops to have him come out of this smelling like a rose. I never liked the term "birthers" as that's too limiting and too easy to name as kooks over whichever bc is finally declared true/fake. Personally, I'd rather be called a "Constitutionalist" since that's what we're standing by. He lost his eligibility at O. Sr., period.
Yes the Left are the “smart ones” and everyone else is dumb. They are so smart, they have created the largest deficit in history “to save the economy” and people are still losing their jobs.
They are so smart, they are copying the socialist health care systems in Britian and Canda when those systems are not working and are crashing.
They are so smart, they still believe in racial stereotypes and preferences like the Klan they replaced.
They are so smart, they got their own party’s President snagged by their “smart” sexual harassment laws.
They are so smart, they are still in love with a Marxist ideology they know has failed over and over again and is oppressive and backwards as hell.
They are so smart, they got the most stupid Harry Reid, Sanfran nan and Bawney Fwank as the major ugly faces of their party.
They are so smart, they still believe in Hitlerish eugenics.
Who cares if these absolutely educated and evil idiots call anyone stupid for demanding the rule of law?
When I saved the site this morning the address was http://www.scribd.com/doc/1808714/03118509265
That address now takes me to http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.