Posted on 08/04/2009 7:33:27 PM PDT by pissant
A document unveiled by a California attorney in her quest to determine President Obama's place of birth has been condemned as a forgery by critics who deride as nonsense the challenges that have been raised to the president based on the U.S. Constitution's demand that the Oval Office occupant be a "natural born" citizen.
But those on the other side, who would like to see the original documentation of Obama's birth place revealed, say there are factors that indicate the Kenyan birth document could be real.
WND reported when the document was submitted to a California court by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has managed several of the high-profile cases challenging Obama's eligibility to be president.
Then yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised the dispute to the floor of that august body, protesting in a speech added to the Congressional Record that the dispute was not worth one minute of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They may have planted the/a fake Kenya BC a year ago, and it took this long to finally blow up...
TE. have you cleared yourself of suspicion yet, due to your association to Koyaan? I’m sorry if I am misjudging you, but until I know better, I will have to take your information with a grain of salt.
Oh wow. I didn’t realize that. Thanks for posting it then.
If the Bomford certificate is the fake, why did the forgers add a whole new section to the document that does not even exist on the Kenya certificate?
Perhaps that was taken from the original Bomford BC?
I don’t follow ? ? (Sorry, not much sleep this week.)
I noticed.
Athos, GldnGun has been explaining to you that, for whatever reason, people we’re using the title, “republic of kenya”,in conversation, even on the other side of the world in 1963. You seem to be the one ignoring factual elements of the discussion.
For instance;
Draw downward on the blue square (in right hand column) and hover over yellow highlighted word; you will see an example of a major newspaper in America’s Southwest referring to the Republic of Kenya in June of 1963.
Above article was submitted by Bell-McClure Syndicate, a well respected literary syndicate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._S._McClure
McClure is the first and largest syndicate. Many of America’s best known writers were given their start there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Neville_Wheeler
“Exactly the opposite is the case. The claim that Kenya was known as “The Republic of Kenya” since Dec 1963 has been debunked more times than you or I can count, and I’ve been following the entire discussion all the way through.”
You may have read it start to finish, but the argument is kind of like the global warming thing. The argument is not over unless you can point to the moment when it was.
Thank you for your having read and considered this evidence.
The Kenyan one does have a section labeled "Signature, Description, and Residence of Informant." Look again. On the Kenyan one next to that section it says: "B.H. Obama, Father. Honolulu, Hawaii. UNITED STATES."
The Kenyan one doesn't have a section "Signature and Description of Authorized Person" while the Bomford bc does; however, the Bomford one is BLANK on that section. Nothing is filled in. Look at that one again.
IMO just a smokescreen from the obots. This may have been done deliberately so that there would be a slight difference between the two so as to appear more legitimate. But being left BLANK is a clue to the opposite. An unfilled out section on a legitimate bc would be highly unusual and suspect. It should at the very least say 'same as above' or something to that effect. There would have been an 'authorized' person somewhere so where is the information at??? Why is it blank?
And we're still back to the main issue: NO GENEALOGY WEBSITE (which is where this Bomford bc was found) is GOING TO POST VITAL RECORDS OF LIVING PERSONS!
Then I would ask for my money back. I don't think you got a good education, since your last assertion: that "by my reasoning, the Declaration of Independence is a forgery" is obviously and patently false. It's a logical fallacy. You're not working with the facts and reason here, you're just trying to paint me as having made ridiculous claims I never made.
All of which is a sign that you probably don't have any reasonable point to make in answer to my points, otherwise you'd make it.
In my opinion you're the one being illogical trying to maintain that a country who had DECLARED independence could not call itself a republic before it became official. Keep spinning.
Again, I never made any such assertion. They certainly could have called themselves a republic, if they had so chosen. Only we have not one shred of evidence that they ever did, and all of the real evidence that we DO have (the 1963 Constitution in which they called themselves simply "Kenya" and even the newspaper article on the Coast Region) indicates that they did not.
Kenya declared its independence in 1963. LOGIC would dictate they could call themselves whatever they wanted to prior to any offical government articles of confederation.
Sigh. Once again, the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT DEFINING THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA UPON INDEPENDENCE - THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA ADOPTED UPON INDEPENDENCE IN DECEMBER OF 1963 - explicitly and throughout refers to the new country as "KENYA." That's it.
Noone has yet suggested its been proven to be genuine - just that the jury is still out. It needs to be examined by specialists to determine authenticity.
If you've got an original paper document, then produce it. Otherwise, we are limited to discussing a graphic IMAGE of a PURPORTED document which has appeared on the Internet, which is exactly what we've been doing.
Now that's gibberish. What we have is a supposed birth certificate of a David Bomford who was born in 1959 not 1772.
Look, YOU'RE the one who brought up Colonial America. Now you're retreating from discussing the line of thought that YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP and are calling it "gibberish." If it's gibberish, it's YOUR gibberish. But the fact is, if you want to go there, this is the appropriate analogy, not some ridiculous assertion that according to my logic, the Declaration of Independence must be a forgery!
And furthermore no reputable genealogist is EVER going to publicly release the image of a vital record of a person STILL LIVING. Get that yet? That's proof enough the Bomford bc is fake.
Is that a claim that zero UNreputable genealogists exist? Or that it's impossible for someone other than a genealogist to release a copy of a birth certificate?
On the contrary, it's been proposed that persons close to David Bomford (whom we know, by the way, to be a REAL, LIVE PERSON LIVING IN ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA) are the people who created the Kenya certificate. I personally find that to be a very credible theory.
Nonsense. You just don't understand that many people living in the coastal area of Kenya really did refer to themselves as being a Republic prior to December 1964.
Where's your proof? You've made an assertion. Now PROVE it.
But even if you proved that particular assertion, it's meaningless. It doesn't matter whether 150,000 people in the heart of San Antonio refer to Texas as "the Republic of Texas." What matters is how the GOVERNMENT of Texas refers to itself.
Yeah, isn't it just ducky that it just so happens that someone just so happened to stumble upon a Bomford bc that just so happens to resemble the Kenya bc on the day the Kenyan bc was released and it just so happens that Bomford is a radical leftist who supports Obama and it just so happens that person who first identified this bc is a known troll of Free Republic and it just so happens..........Come on man wake up.
I perfectly agree with you on the suspicious nature of this. That's why I think people close to Bomford may well have been involved in using his birth certificate to create the "Kenyan" one.
I'll say one thing, though. This whole discussion is proof that the title of this thread was right on. Lol.
Exactly! Thank you for the source citations.
well that link has been scrubbed
I'm more then capable of giving multiple issues their due attention. I guess were we differ is in how much attention this issue is due. That said, good luck in your quest, and I'm being genuine. I think this is a waste of time, but should you be right, and this issue brings down Obama; it'll be the sweetest tasting crow I've ever eaten.
Happy Hunting, and see you on the battlefield.
And while you're spouting off your own logical fallacy's [sic]
Now we're down to the bald assertion. This is generally resorted to when the losing party of a debate has no rational answer to the points that have been made by the winner, and is desperately trying to paint the winning party with some kind of label, simply to distract from the fact that he or she has no answer and has lost the debate.
Try post #520... try researching the source citations.
I've had a brief look at it. It falls under my post above.
A single informal reference on some unknown and completely unauthoritative web site by people who don't even necessarily claim to be from Kenya! ("The Ogiek.org Website is a partnership of human rights organizations and groups around the world who support the rights of the Ogiek, an indigenous People in Kenya.") does NOT constitute any proof whatsoever that ANY official government document of the period referred to Kenya as "the Republic of Kenya."
Show me a copy, in print, of where the GOVERNMENT of Kenya was officially a Republic (or used the name) BEFORE they DECLARED themselves a Republic, and we've got something. Until then, it's all very improbable.
I don’t know if this has been posted to any thread yet but I found this:http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/
“For the final nail in this myth’s coffin, one particularly enterprising man, Steve Eddy, located the original Australian document on which the Kenyan certificate was apparently based.”
So we now know that Koyaan’s real name is Steve Eddy.
Question for the Photoshop experts, how could one shift and delete the location of the creases if forging from one to another, whichever it may be? I would think that to be difficult, if not impossible.
Further more the alleged Kenyan document has what appears to be a rust stain near the entry for mother, whereas the alleged Bomford document has a faint pencil doodle near the raised seal.
It would seem to me, therefore, that the documents must have independent origins.
Frgds,
3/M
Try squinting.
Especially at the positive image. It changes back and forth from K to E. I’m serious. It’s what a lo-res scan will do. Make you crazy! There no “there” there.
I think we all need to spend our energies on Bomford.
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.