Ongoing questions about Obama's birth certificate

tvb wrote:LOL - the birthers ought to learn some history. The "Republic of Kenya" didn't exist until late 1964. It didn't even become independent until 1963. Orly Taitz really needs to get a life or at least become a better forger.

From what I'm reading they were in transitory period, according to the article they obtained another birth certificate to compare and it's the same. Not sure about that source but I guess we'll find out.

Document verification is mostly about provenance.

Once you clear a document physically (the paper is old enough, the issuing authority existed on the date of issue, the fonts used had been invented at the date of printing, and so forth) it's an issue of who had the document when, why did they have it, and if the issuing authority is willing to stand behind it.


The most damning thing about the Hawaii document to the birthers cause is that the state of Hawaii says it is real.

The time frame of the reprint is well explained here :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=2222#2222

From what I've read, BHO will not allow the state of Hawaii to release his original long form birth certificate. Makes you wonder what the heck is on it that may be so embarrassing?

spc wrote:From what I've read, BHO will not allow the state of Hawaii to release his original long form birth certificate. Makes you wonder what the heck is on it that may be so embarrassing?

.....which is why I think Obama and the people handling this situation are more to blame than anyone. Insted of trowing a bucket of water on it they through a bucket of gasoline. The mere fact that they have been fighting the release of it is going to keep the issue mainstream. If they would have released what has been requested since this started I would have filed this one away in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracies and the JFK ones.

But
"President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_h ... house-gov/

Even if he released the original BC someone with a talk show would come up with something else so IMO its a mute point. As I always used to say at work, if they are talking about me then their leaving someone else alone.

I don't follow much of this story as I didn't follow 9/11 was an inside job. That being said, Obama was born in 1961. This BC was produced by the Republic of Kenya. The Republic of Kenya did not exist until Dec 1963. Prior to that it was a British colony known as British East Africa. Are the proponents of this BC saying he's also lying about his age? Not trying to start arguements, I'm just trying to figure out if this movement has any legitamacy or is it like the WTC being wired to implode while waiting for the planes to strike?

Richard S. wrote: I would have filed this one away in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracies and the JFK ones.

Unsurprisingly one of the main proponents of both 9/11 conspiracies and birther conspiracies are the same person; Philip Berg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

samhill wrote:Even if he released the original BC someone with a talk show would come up with something else so IMO its a mute point. As I always used to say at work, if they are talking about me then their leaving someone else alone.

That is inevitable but you have people such as myself and I like to think of my myself as reasonable person questioning WTF is the reason they would fight this. There is nothing for them to gain if they have been honest to this point? Right?

Maybe if everyone stays focused on the bc thing they can get other things on their angenda done with less hassle, just like previous politicians, let people argue over something that would be easy to disprove & wouldn`t matter either way. In the mean time continue on with other things, all done with smoke & mirrors.

Why not just ask his Aunt Zetunia that lives in low income housing in Boston I am pretty sure she would know where he was born. Oh wait she is not a USA citizen either

Why bother working to disprove something that already has been satisfied? It makes the Republicans look bad to let it fester and it's distracting the crazies while the White House does what it was elected by a majority of Americans to do.

It's never up to the innocent to prove their side - it's up to the accuser to prove their side. That's Law 101 and so far, the crazies haven't even approached a modicum of proof to support their argument.

The administration is right to basically ignore these people. The state of Hawaii has sworn he was born there. That's the end of it. If the birthers think they can make a case then any member of the house of representatives is permitted to file articles of impeachment. None will because there's no evidence. They'll be laughed out of the chamber.



One other telling fact is that last December Justice Scalia refused to hear arguments on Berg v. Obama et al. I think you're hard pressed to call Scalia a shill for the democrats.

Honestly, will this controversial thread on Obama’s birth ever end? As a confirmed Liberal (go ahead, spit!) I admit that he was born in Kenya and smuggled to Hawaii a few days later so his mother could collect welfare and the great liberal conspiracy could begin grooming him, like an infant Dalai Lama, for the future presidency. While we are into confessions, I also admit that Jimmy Hoffa was NOT murdered and put through a sausage grinder, and that JFK did NOT die of his minor flesh wounds in Dallas. Both of them are being held incommunicado on the moon (sorry, we really DID get there), along with Elvis and that bulb-headed alien from Roswell and several living specimens of the Abominable Snowman. They say confession is good for the soul. I feel better now, and I hope you do too.