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?
This would explain why the documents have header and seal labled REPUBLIC OF KENYA, even though the main country of kenya didn't consider itself a republic and didn't refer to itself this way when the document was issued. BP's finding give a big boost to the chance the document could be real.
This is the crux of the matter. The BC will be either authenticated or invalidated when another Kenyan BC from that disputed coastal strip from the Dec 1963-Dec 1964 Dominion interregnum is produced.
If the printed blank is the same, then the document is real. But if that coastal strip used a different blank, then it is an artful fraud.
It can’t be! WorldNetDaily told me it was real!!!!!!!!!!!!1
.
Yup - as on the pole in the LA photo
I have a SOCIALIST-2.jpg already made and uploaded at 980x735 as well a one huge single 980 wide
I can stack it into one 980x1440 square in a few minutes and post it as SOCIALIST-4.jpg
If he claimed status as a "foreign student", then he made - without question - a fraudulent claim and may have committed perjury if his application was a sworn statement. Every piece of case law - and one in particular Kawakita v. U.S - says that he would have been a US citizen, regardless of what other nationality he may have actively sought and was granted. You can't be a "foreign" citizen if you hold US citizenship. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations in California (Occidental is located in CA) for fraud was three years in the 1980's. California authorities wouldn't investigate a case that's gone as stale as this on.
If there was Federal money involved, Title 18, § 3282 of the US Code sets 5 years for the limit of prosecution, trial, conviction or punished for non-capital offenses. The FBI wouldn't investigate something that could no longer be prosecuted. It is, as they say, water under the bridge.
Even if he was in no legal jeopardy however, he would certainly do anything he could to avoid the tidal-wave of bad publicity from such an egregious offense.
Father may have had free health care for his new bride and baby back in Kenya. None in Hawaii.
Lincoln was shot in Ford’s theater, Kennedy was shot in a Ford....
“Qualified” in the 20th Amendment also refers to gaining the requisite number of Electoral votes.
From the Senate Judiciary Committee’s notes on the 20th Amendment: “Purpose of the Amendment
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary in its report suggested several reasons for the proposed Twentieth Amendment. It said in part:
‘’When our Constitution was adopted there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and the actual commencement of work by the new Congress.
Under present conditions [of communication and transportation] the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days’ travel of the remotest portions of the country.
‘’Another effect of the amendment would be to abolish the so- called short session of Congress. Every other year, under our Constitution, the terms of Members of the House and one-third of the Members of the Senate expire on the 4th day of March. Experience has shown that this brings about a very undesirable legislative condition. It is a physical impossibility during such a short session for Congress to give attention to much general legislation for the reason that it requires practically all of the time to dispose of the regular appropriation bills. The result is a congested condition that brings about either no legislation or illy considered legislation.
‘’If it should happen that in the general election in November in presidential years no candidate for President had received a majority of all the electoral votes, the election of a President would then be thrown into the House of Representatives and the memberships of the House of Representatives called upon to elect a President would be the old Congress and not the new one just elected by the people. It might easily happen that the Members of the House of Representative, upon whom devolved the solemn duty of electing a Chief Magistrate for 4 years, had themselves been repudiated at the election that had just occurred, and the country would be confronted with the fact that a repudiated House, defeated by the people themselves at the general election, would still have the power to elect a President who would be in control of the country for the next 4 years. It is quite apparent that such a power ought not to exist, and that the people having expressed themselves at the ballot box should through the Representatives then selected, be able to select the President for the ensuing term.
‘’The question is sometimes asked, Why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to bring about this desirable change? The Constitution [before this amendment] does not provide the date when the terms of Senators and Representatives shall begin. It does fix the term of Senators at 6 years and of Members of the House of Representatives at 2 years. The commencement of the terms of the first President and Vice President and of Senators and Representatives composing the First Congress was fixed by an act of [the Continental] Congress adopted September 13, 1788, and that act provided ‘that the first Wednesday in March next to be the time for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.’ It happened that the first Wednesday in March was the 4th day of March, and hence the terms of the President and Vice President and Members of Congress began on the 4th day of March. Since the Constitution provides that the term of Senators shall be 6 years and the term of Members of the House of Representatives 2 years, it follows that this change cannot be made without changing the terms of office of Senators and Representatives, which would in effect be a change of the Constitution. By another act (the act of March 1, 1792) Congress provided that the terms of President and Vice President should commence on the 4th day of March after their election. It seems clear, therefore, that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to give relief from existing conditions.’’
As thus stated, the exact term of the President and Vice President was fixed by the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1, at 4 years, and became actually effective, by resolution of the Continental Congress, on the 4th of March 1789. Since this amendment was declared adopted on February 6, 1933, Sec. 1 in effect shortened, by the interval between January 20 and March 4, 1937, the terms of the President and Vice President elected in 1932.
Similarly, it shortened, by the intervals between January 3 and March 4, the terms of Senators elected for terms ending March 4, 1935, 1937, and 1939; and thus temporarily modified the Seventeenth Amendment, fixing the terms of Senators at 6 years. It also shortened the terms of Representatives elected to the Seventy-third Congress, by the interval between January 3 and March 4, 1935, and temporarily modified Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, fixing the terms of Representatives at 2 years.
Section 1 further modifies the Twelfth Amendment in its reference to March 4 as the date by which the House must exercise its choice of a President.
Section 2 supersedes clause 2 of Sec. 4 of Article I. The setting of an exact hour for meeting constitutes a recognition of the long practice of Congress, which in 1867 was for the first time enacted into permanent law, 2 only to be repealed in 1871.
When the 3d of January fell on Sunday (in 1937), Congress did by law appoint a different day for its assemblage.
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Sec. 3 of this amendment, Congress shaped the Presidential Succession Act of 1948 5 to meet the situation which would arise from the failure of both President elect and Vice President elect to qualify on or before the time fixed for the beginning of the new Presidential term.
SeattleBruce, sorry to rain on your parade, but the original Kenyan constitution does not appear to mention the word "Republic." You keep citing a later version as if it was the original. That is akin to reading the current US Constitution and concluding that the original US Constitution had 27 amendments.
You can read the original Kenyan constitution here. I found it on this page. If you search this original, you wont find the word "Republic." Note that the "Schedules" are not included, so it is possible that they include the word "Republic."
Given the fact Kenya’s government officially sealed all access to documents pertaining to Barack Hussien Obama Jr., after he participated in a Kenyan political campaign on behalf of his Communist cousin, only a government posseses the authority to request official disclosure from one sovereign to another sovereign at this time. If you were a “serious person” as you demand of Orly Taitz, you would have had the courtesy to at least ackowledge that much in her defense. Given your apparent irrational half truths and bias against her and anything she does, your counterproductive invective and insults against the lady will receive the attention it deserves in the future.
I believe they (media, congress, courts, etc.) are afraid, but their fears are misdirected.
Imagine Pelosi, or a similar congress-crook, looking around herself in DC. She sees Obama and his thugs, along with hordes of similar-looking street yutes who might riot. She's more likely to be afraid of those elements in her immediate vicinity, rather than the much larger numbers of much more heavily armed, generally law-abiding citizens scattered across the country.
Stupid, short-sighted, tunnel-vision liberals, to the very end ...
The rioters will eventually run out of liberals and RINOs to barbeque, and will start turning on each other. They won't bother remembering who caused this mess, and they won't care. Anyone who can get more than an hour's drive away from the cities can probably avoid the cannibals.
Out in the countryside, most people won't have to flee to anywhere. They just need to be ready to welcome their new visitors coming from the cities. Those people will not forget.
They will never forget the Democrats who created this mess, nor will they ever forget the spineless Republicans who refused to stand up speak out against this communist takeover.
They will never forget the media faces who aided and abetted this communist takeover.
They will never forget the courts, the judges, the clerks, etc. who aided and abetted the destruction of the greatest nation on earth.
Related to the ‘Republic of Kenya’ portion of the Taitz picture:
+++++++++++++
Mount Athos: I want to congratulate you on being the 384th freeper to misrepresent the modern, amended constitution as the original 1963 constitution.
The original 1963 constitution doesn’t have the word Republic in it.
++++++++++++++
From this blog - post #23 (warning - this is an anti-birther blog):
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/02/the-latest-birther-fantasy-obamas-fake-kenyan-birth-certificate/
There was a one year transition period.
Kenya Independence was declared on 12/12/63.
The Republic was official on 12/12/64.
Someone on the TopSecret blog gave proof that there are gov’t documents with both the crest AND ‘Republic of Kenya’ on the documents during this transition period. It makes sense that they’d have both.
Ref: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread487621/pg28
+++++++++
We can see from the Taitz picture, that there was the Coastal Provincial crest and the reference to ‘Republic of Kenya.’
Now Mount, you’ve said the ‘original 1963 [Kenyan] constitution doesn’t have the word Republic in it.’
What are the relative dates of these two Kenyan Constitutional documents? They both are dated in 1963:
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Kenyan%20constitution%20amended%202008.pdf
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/KEL63-002.pdf
The first document, which persisted forward and formed the basis of what is currently the Kenyan Consitution, has clearly marked Amendments from 2008 and before. The amended document (1st link), appears to be a somewhat later version of the other document. Are we talking about later in December 1963? The date of the later original document is still 1963, apparently. Section 1-1 of that document, appears to not have been amended and states:
CHAPTER I
The Republic of Kenya
1. Declaration of Republic.
Kenya is a sovereign Republic.
Now the oft-mentioned 12-1964 is when Kenya became ‘a republic within the Commonwealth.’
But this does not eliminate the potential for Kenya to have referred to itself as the ‘Republic of Kenya’ in its documents, etc, as per the earlier linked post.
Forgive me if I’m covering ground again, but I think we need to establish this point well.
Just reported on twitter, Rove says Kenyan birth certificate a likely forgery.
1) No Coast General Hospital at the time.
2) Kenya a dominion not republic at time.
3) Mombosa considered to be in Zanzibar not Kenya at time.
4) #47044 47 = O age, O = Obama, 44 = 44th Prez
5) and more.
SeattleBruce, sorry to rain on your parade, but the original Kenyan constitution does not appear to mention the word “Republic.”
+++++++++++
Please see my post #951 and tell me what you think. Both the document that doesn’t and document that does refer “Kenya is a sovereign Republic” appear to have their origin in 1963 - perhaps even in Dec. 1963?
We don’t date our Constitution today as US Constitution 1787, as amended through 1992 [which was the date of the last amendment to the US Constitution.]
Why is this document dated (by this website granted), as “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, 1963
(as Amended to 2008)” with the amendments clearly marked, and which amendments don’t include the declaration of the Republic.
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Kenyan%20constitution%20amended%202008.pdf
In any case, what matters, is how Kenya referred to itself in the interim period.
This is not case closed...
We need other official documents from the interim period.
Actually all Rove said was :
Re: Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate: @ObamaJustSayNo I believe this is likely a forgery.
about 8 hours ago from TweetDeck
He didn’t add any details.
You keep citing a later version as if it was the original.
++++++++++++++
How much later is this version (without its amendments):
http://www.constitutionnet.org/en/vl/constitution-republic-kenya-1963-amended-2008
than this one:
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/KEL63-002.pdf
It could have been weeks or a month or two - still within the range of the Taitz document. Further, the later document appears to be a rearrangement of the earlier document.
What matters is how Kenya referred to itself in the transition, also. Clearly, if they weren’t officially a Republic of the Commonwealth of Great Britain (which did happen on 12-12-1964 clearly according to many reports of which this is one:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FxYUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jZYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1278,509858&dq=republic+of+kenya
...they may have officially (Kenyan wise) thought of themselves as a Republic, or they were headed in that direction very quickly.
In any occasion, this is not case closed, just on that phrase alone.
SaraJohnson,
Some of Orly’s false claims are reported in these news reports. There are many others. I recommend that you do a goggle search of Orly Taitz or go to www.DefendOurFreedoms.org and search there if you want to know the truth about Orly.
Orly has made so many claims that turned out to be false in the past; and she has been duped so many times by Obama’s lawyers that my first reaction to anything Orly says is disbelief. Everyone who has associated with Orly has been harmed in one way or another.
I would like to believe that the smoking gun has been discovered but I expect this to be yet another humiliation for Orly and all the “birthers” by association.
I noticed more red flags in the WND report. The title of this story ends with a Question mark (Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?); and there is no WND reporter listed as reporter on this story.
Orly first starting going off on strange tangents when she called on Active Military officers to denounce Obama. Lt. Scott Easterling followed Orly’s advice and immediately got in hot water with the Army. Orly’s response to this controversy was, “...there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.” Pardon me, it is a lawyers job to know the potential consequences, for sure, before said lawyer advises a client.
http://www.military.com/news/article/February-2009/officer-calls-obama-usurper-imposter-pr esident.html?col=1186032325324
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/clarifiying-officer-easterlings-comment s-and-other-misc-stuff/
http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/07/18/orly-taitz-puts-the-life-of-us-soldiers-in-direct- and-irrefutable-jeopardy.aspx
The Lt. Easterling incident was bad enough, but she then she went on the G. Gordon Liddy Show and said that all Supreme Court Justices and all members of Congress had committed “felonies.”
Most recently Orly involved Major Stefan Cook in two of her “cases;” the first “case” was dismissed post haste as being moot. The second employment discrimination “case” was summarily dismissed because Orly failed to follow proper procedure (known by any employment lawyer) and first file the claim with Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. The net result for Major Cook in his two cases with Orly is that he lost his civilian job at Simtech.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5325-Orlando-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d30-Stefan-Cooks-birth-c ertificate-case-gets-short-shrift-in-Florida
Some of what Orly proclaims is correct, i.e., it is arguable that Obama is an illegal alien and it is definite that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, according to the requirements of Article II of the United States Constitution; but Orly, to use Obama’s word, is an “imperfect” messenger, the perfect foil for the Obama misinformation campaign.
How can a person whose own Citizenship, Allegiances, Licenses and Degrees are suspect question Obama? To use the colloquial, Orly’s papers are not exactly in order.
http://acandidworld.com/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer -will-she-be-for-long/
http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/06/11/berg-states-orly-taitz-has-gone-too-far-berg-sues- taitz-for-violating-individuals-basic-rights—privacy-by-revealing-birth-dates-and-social- security-numbers.aspx
http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/05/05/new-lawsuit-filed-against-orly-taitz-and-ed-hale.a spx
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/1
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.