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.”
The responses here to the objections are far better than anything he has published yet; and we have identified the issues in the hacked document.
Although at the end of the day, it should not make any difference because what the judge would be looking at is the real certificate, not an image.
However in part the battle is for the attention of the voting public and a clear response to this is going to be helpful.
I'm really concerned if that really says what he meant.
The 1964 Certificate is only a Certificate of certain facts in the original record. It isn't a complete copy of the record; it isn't event a certification of all the facts.
Further, certificates in 1961 would be different from certificates in 1964 by definition. In 1961, the issuing agency was a division of Coast Province of Zanzibar; in 1964, the certificate was issued by the Republic of Kenya. See for explanation BP2's excellent work above.
The quality of Joe's legal help is not very high. He really needs someone who is paying attention to these kinds of details.