Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz)

jficquette · Aug 3, 2009

Ak,

All this has been discussed in this thread but I will summarize quickly.

Its not a certificate of birth in the picture, it's a certified copy issued by some one's request in Feb 1964. Probably for the Obama divorce that was linked earlier.

Just because they claim they can't find the original doesn't mean anything.

We don't know where the picture was taken. Perhaps they didn't have a scanner with them and used a digital camera.

If you trade any you should know that coincidental numbers show up all the time. 47044 is no big deal. Consider all the coincidences with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

All this petty nitpicking when Obama's fake certificate has African as the race on it .

Lavender is a common English name. Here is a bunch of them.
http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/lavender-family-crest.htm

Why even bother with it? Y'all don't care anyway that we have a lying communist as Prez.

John

OPTIONAL777 · Aug 3, 2009

Uhhhh, when you have some facts, post them...

Your faith is pretty meaningless...

Quote from jficquette:

Ak,

All this has been discussed in this thread but I will summarize quickly.

Its not a certificate of birth in the picture, it's a certified copy issued by some one's request in Feb 1964. Probably for the Obama divorce that was linked earlier.

Just because they claim they can't find the original doesn't mean anything.

We don't know where the picture was taken. Perhaps they didn't have a scanner with them and used a digital camera.

If you trade any you should know that coincidental numbers show up all the time. 47044 is no big deal. Consider all the coincidences with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

All this petty nitpicking when Obama's fake certificate has African as the race on it .

Why even bother with it? Y'all don't care anyway that we have a lying communist as Prez.

John

mxjones · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from jem:

I got news for you. I suspect quite a few state will require him to prove he is a natural born citizen to get on their ballot.

Can you say - Hillary vs. Romney.

lol

Keep it going!

insider trading · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from ak15:

Eminitrader007 and Bigdavediode touched on these issues briefly earlier. This blogger has nicely encapsulated and expounded on these points as well as some new ones. Sloppy work indeed by Orly Taitz and that's putting it mildly.

By Doug Mataconis @ 4:53 pm on August 2, 2009.
Orly Taitz, World Net Daily, and the loons over at Free Republic having all been going crazy over this document, which purports to be a record of the birth of Barack Obama at Coast General Hospital on August 4, 1961:

Looks convincing, huh ? Well, not so much.

First of all, thereâs a question of why a birth registration record would be issued in 1964 for a child born three years earlier who was not even living in the country at the time. This is significant because any original birth record would be a British colonial record, not a Kenyan record. Kenya was still a British colony in 1961, and did not become independent until December 12, 1963.

Strike One

This leads to the second problem with the purported birth certificate. From December 12, 1963 until December 12, 1964, the official title of Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya. It wasnât until a year later, on December 12, 1964 that the Republic of Kenya came into existence. And yet, the document above, issued on February 17, 1964 purports to have been issued on behalf of the Office of Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya.

Strike Two

The document, supposedly âcertified with an embossed sealâ and âwitness signaturesâ says Americaâs next commander in chief was born at Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa at 7:24pm on August 4, 1961.

Officials at the hospital confirm theyâve been besieged with requests for information on Obamaâs birth but havenât been able to find any record of it.

âWe do not have computerized records going back to the 1960âs and can only sort through our archives by hand,â Dr. Christopher Mwanga, an administrator at the Mombasa hospital tells GLOBE. âWe have searched for all the names of babies born on Aug. 4, 1961, and have not found the name of Barack Hussein Obama. That is all I can tell you.â

The hospital has no records, and yet thereâs this document, purportedly created three years after Obamaâs birth, by officials of a country that wouldnât exist for another ten months, that has miraculously appeared.

Strike Three.

A point about the document above that I neglected to mention before. Itâs worth noting that what weâve been presented with is a photograph of a document. Itâs not a PDF or other similar image that would be generated had the document been scanned with an optical scanner. The only reason I can think that someone would do that would be to hide as many of the obvious forgery flaws as they could.

There are various internal inconsistencies that have been pointed out that suggest that the Kenyan certificate is more a hoax than a forgery (e.g. the certificate number 47,044 â Obama was 47 years old when he became the 44th president of the US and that the name of the Registrar, E. F. Lavender, is also a brand of handwash).

If there was a Strike Four, thatâd be it.

LOL !!!!!!

Next week they will find another one

ak15 · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

Its not a certificate of birth in the picture, it's a certified copy issued by some one's request in Feb 1964. Probably for the Obama divorce that was linked earlier.

It is pertinent to ask why would it be issued "in 1964 for a child born three years earlier who was not even living in the country at the time?" Where does it say in Taitz's motion that it was issued at someone's request for a divorce etc?

Just because they claim they can't find the original doesn't mean anything.

We don't know where the picture was taken. Perhaps they didn't have a scanner with them and used a digital camera.

The point being made here is that a photograph of the document is being used as opposed to its being scanned with an optical scanner to hide forgery flaws. To wit: Photography is inferior to optical scanning. As the saying goes "the proof is in the pudding." We'll find out in due course whether the document is a forgery although there is no doubt in my mind that it is indeed so.

If you trade any you should know that coincidental numbers show up all the time. 47044 is no big deal. Consider all the coincidences with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

You're missing the insinuation here.The blogger is being audacious enough to suggest that the document is not only a forgery but also a hoax due to the ostensible coincidences with the numbers and the peculiar name of the registrar. While obvious that it is a forgery, I'm not bold enough to call it a hoax.

Why even bother with it? Y'all don't care anyway that we have a lying communist as Prez.

I don't believe so. However that topic is a non sequitur in terms of this discussion. It is relevant however to point out that it is obvious to the majority of people, including pleasantly surprising ones such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to name a few, that Obama is not lying about his birth certificate. The blogger and several others have brought out many indisputable facts that contradict the validity of this document and they make perfect sense to sane individuals.
Jfc, you had made a big deal earlier about Russians refusing to shake Obama's hand and you were proven palpably wrong. I would venture to say that you're headed in the same direction here.

jficquette · Aug 3, 2009

Ak,

I don't know why it was issued in Feb 1964. It doesn't matter. The timing with the Divorce is a plausible guess but who knows?

Any investigator would examine the document not the image. Not sure why the hang up on how it was taken.

As established, Lavender is a proper English name. Not sure why a proper name combined with a number is such a big deal. Here is an EF Lavender which means the name was in use. If it can show up in one place it can show up in another.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wor...f-lavender-worked-for-the-british-government/

I didn't make any of this up. I gave you links to everything. I am just the messenger.

Why doesn't your guy just show his Birth Certificate?

John

ak15 · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from insider trading:

LOL !!!!!!

Next week they will find another one

I hope they make it look more bona fide and authentic.

This one was pathetic and that's being generous.

bigdavediode · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

Why doesn't your guy just show his Birth Certificate?

John

There is no birth certificate except the one Obama has shown.

None. Nada.

The Hawaiians went paperless in 2001, this is it, the only one, the sine quo non.

ak15 · Aug 3, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

Ak,

I don't know why it was issued in Feb 1964. It doesn't matter. The timing with the Divorce is a plausible guess but who knows?

Any investigator would examine the document not the image. Not sure why the hang up on how it was taken.

As established, Lavender is a proper English name. Not sure why a proper name combined with a number is such a big deal. Here is an EF Lavender which means the name was in use. If it can show up in one place it can show up in another.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wor...f-lavender-worked-for-the-british-government/

I didn't make any of this up. I gave you links to everything. I am just the messenger.

Why doesn't your guy just show his Birth Certificate?

John

Jfc, please go back and read my reply to your earlier post.

OPTIONAL777 · Aug 3, 2009

Uhhhh, was that Kenyan thingy supposed to be some crappy copy of the long Kenyan form thingy, or some crapy copy of the short form Kenyan thingy?

Quote from ak15:

Jfc, please go back and read my reply to your post.