Replies

I mean why even list the name on the document, if items 1-12 were all the requested “verification in lieu of a certified copy” for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II, that Ken Bennett had asked for?

Item #1 already specified that there was a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama, II indicating that he was born in Honolulu, HI. That made clear that this was a verification involving Barack Hussein Obama II.

So why list the name of person? That’s the name of WHAT person?

It’s probably over-parsing, but listing the “Name of person” after already giving the name in item #1 seems like they’re starting a new list, that’s NOT just a continuation of the “verification” that was in #1.

If it was intended to be one solid sheet of “verification in lieu of a certified copy”, there wouldn’t be a need to reiterate who the verification was about. Switching to the “Name of person: Barack Hussein Obama II” format and starting that list with the name (which had already been stated) is a way to separate the first item from all the rest. A new list with a new format started on #2.

And it was never clarified exactly what that list is. With the exception of the “Name of person” to introduce the new list, the items in that list match those requested by Bennett to specifically be verified as FROM THE RECORD. The natural presumption is that these items - starting with “Name of person” even though that was never requested from the record - are all items as they appear on the record.

And the certifying statement at the bottom (which was put there by whoever initialed the document - an unidentified person whose initials can’t even be definitely known) says the record is the source for the verification.

To me the whole thing looks like this:

1. If there was absolutely nothing untoward or weird or embarrassing or politically inexpedient about any of this, why go through all these machinations in order to keep the originals veiled--if there indeed are any originals to begin with (and all the rest of the etc., with regard to all the rest of the hidden documentation of his alleged past)? Why go through the legal danger of presenting laughable fakes in such a public manner? What does it mean when the penalties for fraud are seen as negligible compared to a full, unredacted release of something that can be verified by forensic experts in documents?

2. If the appearance of trying to cover things up and hide the truth, even to the point of posting fraudulent documents, is preferable to the truth being revealed, is it any wonder that anyone in any chain of command, so to speak, who has the ability to make things known or who is trying to get things revealed should be the recipient of extraordinary pressure to block access or to cease and desist in their efforts by Barry and his top buds? After all, Jeremiah Wright claims Obama tried to pay him, what was it, $150,000, just to keep his mouth shut until the election? And that wasn't to keep his mouth shut about anything he knew about Obama. It was just to shut up and not say any more of what he typically said every Sunday over those twenty years that Obama was a parishioner of a guy he looked up to like a father figure.

The only conclusions I can reach are either 1. Barry has a great need to do anything he can, even at the risk of putting himself in danger legally, just to eff with his opponents' heads or 2. there is something that suffuses his entire past that is of such a grave nature that it threatens his presidency and that he is willing to do anything to make sure that doesn't come out until he has completed what he got into office to do.