Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
And then one of our moderators spotted this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
It has several clues, but also there's this question:
Who is E. F. Lavender?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+friendly+lavender&aq=f&oq=&aqi
Earth Friendly Lavender detergent?
Yeah no kidding. We’re going to rely on some Obot nitwit who uses numerology to check the authenticity of a document.
Since when is it harrassment to encourage constructive political activism on Free Republic? I take it your answer is “No”.
That's correct. They are citizens, citizens at birth even. But, they are not "natural born" citizens, and neither is Obama.
Unfortunately, Donofrio already attempted to argue this point, and a writ of cert was denied by the Supremes. After 2000, none of them have the stomach to insert themselves into presidential "politics", even if it's a case as profoundly Constitutional as this one. Also, I don't think anyone wants to be the guy who denies America it's first black president. Which is also why I assume none of the well-known and respected conservative legal think-tanks or lawyers weighed into the controversy last fall. They didn't want to be stigmatized as racist.
As for Obama's adoption and what effect it would or would not have had on his citizenship status, it's an interesting discussion point, but as a practical matter as it relates to his Presidential eligibility (he's not eligible for other reasons), is moot.
In the interest in accuracy, I would point out that minor-children can't "renounce" their citizenship. Also, parents cannot renounce the citizenship status of their children, either. And, if another country would bestow citizenship because of said adoption, it too would be immaterial. An American's citizenship rights are governed by American law in the American courts, not foreign law. Interestingly, there is a UN treaty that pertains to this issue (it's name escapes me), but the US and another country (I believe African country) are the only two that aren't signatories to that treaty, FWIW.
As it pertains to Obama, if his dad would have been Barack Smith from Trenton, NJ, and Obama, II. was born on American soil, then Obama, II. would be a natural-born citizen, irrespective of who would have subsequently adopted him and what other nation's citizenship privileges would have been bestowed upon him, because of the aforementioned adoption.
So what if they do? If this one has been (or will be)verified by a professional document examiner, then it won’t matter if thousands of fakes are produced. All that matters is that ONE is confirmed.
OTOH, it could more than just embarrassing, e.g. it could say "born in Honolulu but British" or something like that.
The issue is about Obama. This thread is about the birth certificate.
I don’t disagree with anything else you said. I don’t think we have propped it up. We’re vetting the hell out of it, as best we can with the resources we have. It doesn’t hurt that FR’s founder put up this thread, either.
And I have noticed the Alinsky-ite shock-and-awe ridicule campaign against the issue and the fact that it came pretty much out of nowhere. I know these people well enough to know that they don’t spend this much time and effort shouting down anything but the truth. I know there’s something big here.
I’m just struggling between “I desperately want this to be true” and “it’s too good to be true”. This day’s been a roller coaster.
So in other words The DU is going to be forging Birth Certificates for Obama....
_____________
Pretty funny, huh? I took a screenshot of the page.
Another thought: PCs support many different picture formats. JPEG is great for, oh, 98% of the content on the web. But this is a classical case where one of the larger, lossless formats like GIF would be more appropriate. Looking at the printing per your previous post, I noticed many JPEG artifacts around the light-dark edges. These make the analysis of the type you suggested more difficult.
Obama tried to create a division to distract with the ‘race issue’ on the Gates arrest.
Obama doesn’t like people digging about his past. He would not encourage it. His media men are doing everything they can to ridicule those who are researching.
Again a message to DU: there is nothing political about ‘facts’. I am sure the mods here would be grateful for anyone, even from DU, to help show that the birth certificate is a forgery.
I don’t think it is a forgery. I have learned more about Kenya and British administrative practices in the last 24 hours than I ever have in my lifetime. Some people would be smart enough to be able to perform forgeries of some major chunks of the document but not all of it.
What appears to be an ad made by Boom Shakalaka Manning
America is Under Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXwOj7ncLco&feature=channel_page
The document has already been authtenticated by one expert; Orly saw to that before going public.
She is to travel to London and get the numbers verified; since Kenya was still a part of the British Empire when Obama was purportedly born there, the Brits will have the information to either back up the document or discredit it.
OK?
That's exactly the point.
I keep repeating the mantra: WHAT is he Hiding and Why?
That’s good to know. Thanks.
Well, Specter and Sebelius got blasted at a town hall in Philly today...there are a few threads up with video.
All true. From a forger’s perspective, a digital camera that spits out JPEG is ideal because it makes our analysis job harder. If it is a digital photo of a genuine document, the person taking it may not have or know about lossless options.
Folks, this is a distraction....How many of you emailed your Congressional Representatives today? Contacted your Senators regarding their Sotomayor vote this week? Attended a town hall? Coordinated any political activity?
_______________
I spent all week calling, emailing, faxing and sending letters opposing commiecare. There were no town hall meetings within 500 miles of me. I gave up on Sotomayor when I saw it was a waste of time, and moved on to Health Care.
Only about 330,000 times.
The comment on that site about the Republic of Kenya not being in fact until 1964 is TECHNICALLY correct, however they issued a constitution in 1963.
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Kenyan%20constitution%20amended%202008.pdf
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, 1963
Now it was officially recognized by the government of Britain the world in 1964, but in 1963, when they declared their independence , they considered themselves “The Republic of Kenya”.
If I’m not mistaken, The United States of America wasn’t recognized by Britain as soon as we declared it. Only after being defeated in the war did they accept it. But we WERE the United States of America from the date of declaration.
Well, I think it’s helpful to have a thread considering whether this document is a fake. But I’ve read through most of the responses, and none of them seem to me to confirm that it is a fake.
I think we need to keep digging. But we may also need to wait for a forensic analyst to look at the paper document and compare it with others of the same time, and maybe go to Kenya to investigate, although that’s a bit tricky with Railla Odinga in office as Prime Minister.
As for the argument that Mombasa and the Coastal Province were part of Zanzibar when O was born, there are two arguments against that.
First, Britain had earlier asked the Sultan of Zanzibar to cede control over the province to their colony of Kenya, and there was an agreement to that effect, provided that the religious laws were not interfered with.
Second, at the time the BC is dated, the coastal province WAS a part of Kenya. If you wanted to get a BC for a birth there, you would have to apply to the Kenyan authorities in that province.
And it’s not impossible that officials there liked to refer to themselves in mid 1964 as the Republic of Kenya, even if the Brits were insisting that that wasn’t yet the correct name. Jomo Kenyatta was already in office. And I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia on a loaded political issue like this one.
The date it was issued fits in nicely with the 1964 divorce timeline, as BP2 has argued on the big thread and a separate thread devoted to that point. It’s likely that Stanley Ann obtained a certified birth certificate from Kenya to submit to the judge in her divorce proceedings. It would have been necessary if she wanted child support or if she wanted to apply for welfare benefits. So that very neatly accounts for the date of issue.
It’s too soon to say that this BC is genuine, without further investigation. But I don’t see any reason to declare it a fake, either. None of the objections raised so far are enough to prove that there is anything fake about it.
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.