Replies

So does that mean that WND lied when they said they compared the Kenya certificate with others they found and it matched?

So which lie is which?

The first story? Or the ‘new’ story?

Not sure how one can compare a 1961 doc, to a 1964 doc especially in light of the fact that the country went from being a colony to an Independent nation during that time frame. In other words, a LOT changed in that country between those years, presumably...that would include their government docs.

I would think that a far more appropriate comparison would be to compare a certified copy generated in 1964 to the 1964 certified copy doc.

Those two statements from WND are confusing, but I don’t know if I’d label them ‘lies.’ Hopefully they’ll address the discrepancy - or what they were referring to. Also note, that the ones saying the Kenyan BC looked likely to be a forgery were ‘African sources’ whereas in the first story, they say WND has been able to obtain BCs from Kenya for comparison. In the second story they say there are ‘differences.’ Anyhow, I agree, confusing to say the least...kind of like this whole story, huh?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

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

Vs.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135
“WND obtained several samples of Kenyan birth certificates in use around Aug. 4, 1961, the date of Obama’s, showing differences from the Taitz document.”