Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate ^ | 08/02/2009

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?


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allahpundit; areyouseries; article2section1; bc; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; charlesjohnson; citizenship; edmorrissey; eligibility; fake; hawaii; hillary; hoax; honolulu; hotair; indonesia; ineligible; kenya; lgf; littlegreenfootballs; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; orly; orlytaitz; pumas; republicofkenya; taitz; thisishugh; usurper; waitforit; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,181-1,190 next last
To: PowerPro

These are good questions. I am curious if they just didn’t adopt the British version and change the title at the top until they could develop their own version? Wonder what the previous years looked like?

*Note: Just throwing out that thought as well.


921 posted on 08/03/2009 11:48:50 AM PDT by pinkpanther111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: tyke

tyke, U got Orly pegged.

“The more I see of her and her antics (she’s already cost one man his job) the more of a joke she appears to be. How many times does Taitz and her 39 social security numbers have to be laughed out of court (she will be this time too) before you guys stop taking her seriously?”


922 posted on 08/03/2009 11:50:40 AM PDT by L_Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

Hey, I worked midnight shift Saturday night and I am ashamed to say I just took someone’s word for it and I don’t see that number either. Lesson learned
Melissa


923 posted on 08/03/2009 11:51:05 AM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Return to #847. The answer is in the first lengthy paragrapsh. Lots of luck finding that one bit of info in that HUGE thread. But the info came from someone who had run a quickie online search.


924 posted on 08/03/2009 11:51:20 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306755/posts?page=788#788

"I DID NOT say that the Times of London called Kenya a republic. "

Here is your exact quote.

"A newspaper article from the Times of London, Oct. 9, 1963, using the term Republic of Kenya.

The article did not use the term "Republic of Kenya" anywhere. You misrepresented what the article said.

You create the false impression that the leading newspapers of the day were habitually calling kenya the "Republic of kenya". Instead of characterizing the article accurately, you chose to mislead.

You could have accurately said the paper was quoting opposition leaders as saying they wanted to form a republic. (Which they didn't, they passed a constitution that kept the Queen of England as the head of state, and they didn't create a president).

When a newspaper account reports that Joe Blow said X, Y, and Z, it is Joe Blow who is saying it.

And I said so.


No you did NOT say so.

Look at your posting, you did not say anything like this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306755

If your message had this clarification it wouldn't have misled. But we can all see from the link that it didn't, and that you instead chose to mislead. Interesting strategy. When someone catches you carelessly handling and misrepresenting facts, make stuff up to claim you didn't?

Here's another grossly misleading statement in your post:

"They considered themselves a republic from the point at which they declared their full independence from England (while remaining in the Commonwealth)"

Who is "they"? You are conflating leadership of a pre-independence rebellion opposition with the entire country of Kenya!

Yes, some leaders of the rebellion wanted Kenya to become a republic straightaway on Dec 1963, but they lost the independence negotiations, they were outvoted. In other words, more leaders of Kenya did not want to be a republic than wanted to in the 1963 vote. The constitution that passed was not a Republic, they had the queen of england as the head of state! There was no president.

Today, there are some people in Australia who want Australia to become a Republic in the near future, throwing off conenctions to the queen. They might be successful. Can you say Australia considers itself a republic today because a group wants it to become one? NO! Can you say the country thinks of itself as one today? NO!
925 posted on 08/03/2009 11:51:35 AM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

The original claim that Obama was born in Kenya was made by Bishop Ron McRae. He taped the phone interview with Obama’s step grandmother.

Do some historical research on Bishop Ron McRae, check out his background and any biases he may have had in starting this story in the first place.

It may make no difference whatsoever to the validity of this document, but as the one who started this whole idea that Obama was not a natural born citizen, McRae’s background could have an enormous effect on the minority response to this document, should it prove legitimate.


926 posted on 08/03/2009 11:55:04 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Ark v. US, comes closest. And, I think it can be fairly said that the majority opinion in that case does go quite a long way in narrowing or clarifying what “natural-born” actually means. And, in their definition, Obama would be eligible. But, they don’t go all the way.
++++++++++

I must confess, I haven’t read that case closely. Do you think Bammy would be eligible if had one citizen parent and were born in Kenya?
***************

“But, as the framers wrote and intended, I don’t believe he qualifies. Unfortunately, that standard is not always the law of the land.”
+++++++++

Right, that argument won’t fly in the current ‘court of public opinion.’

What’s interesting are two things:
1) The liberals insane reaction to this, while having personal doubts.
2) The evident coverup of so much of Bammy’s life to include:
his long copy birth certificate
his kindergarten records,
his Punahou school records,
his Occidental College records,
his Columbia University records,
his Columbia thesis,
his Harvard Law School records,
his Harvard Law Review articles,
his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago,
his passport,
his medical records,
his files from his years as an Illinois state senator,
his Illinois State Bar Association records,
any baptism records, and
his adoption records.

One good to come out of all this. The potential clarification of natural-born citizenship status for future, if not for now. Not giving up on this yet, but I tend to agree, that in the current environment, that may be the only fruit out of this, aside from condounding liberals - who are forced to defend obfuscation and mendacity.


927 posted on 08/03/2009 11:55:07 AM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark, 1898 cannot have any bearing on Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s circumstance except in regard to the possibility of his mother conveying U.S. citizenship, IF she had been 19 years of age at the birth of her child. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 does nothing whatsoever in regard to the Constitution’s unique requirement for the definition of a “natural born citizen” as John Jay obtained the usage from Vattel and the previous two thousand years of history in France and the rest of Continental Europe. Attempts by Obama supporters to apply English-British common-law to an interpretation of the Constitution is a red herring. Upon declaring their independence from Britain, the States began to enact their own citizenship statutes and judicial decisions in replacement and overruling the English-British common-law they fought a Revoultionary War to overthrow.

The only interpretation of the Constitution which can possibly preserve the clearly stated intent of John Jay and the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitutional clause is one in which any person who is born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign, dual allegiance or not, cannot serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States in the Office of the President.

Barack Husseing has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.


928 posted on 08/03/2009 11:56:30 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Right...because coincidences never happen.
929 posted on 08/03/2009 12:00:05 PM PDT by PowerPro (2009 - Conservative Revolution Reborn (Go Palin!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: cycle of discernment
The more BCs floating around, the more absurd it becomes that Obama does not step forward to clear the chaos and release his long form.

Actually, you may have a very, very good point about that. But I still think we should just assume from the get-go that any of these BC's coming forward are hoaxes and proceed from there.

930 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:43 PM PDT by leilani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Ah, but the real problem lies in the fact that the real reason he will not release his records, is because he either lied to get funding for college as a “foreign student”...or to become President. Either way, he has broken the law.

There needs to be an investigation by the FBI before her infiltrates that organisation completely.


931 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:55 PM PDT by tuckrdout ("Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

please read 5231 before you write any more garbage.


932 posted on 08/03/2009 12:08:54 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
That has got to be a first in US history.

If you are frustrated or think this distraction has no meaning, ruminate on those words a bit...

This is a first in US history. We've witnessed a hostile takeover by an illegitimate foreigner; a communist, muslim, anti-American, white-hating, race-baiting, sociopathic scumbag. And a long-legged mac daddy.

Not even the media, or the congress, or the courts, want to "ruminate on those words a bit". They'd rather wait until millions are slaughtered, rather than speak any small truth that might get them called "racist".

933 posted on 08/03/2009 12:14:21 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: All

For reference:

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2275574/posts?page=29

Polarik’s Final Report on the COLB Forgery
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_obamas_bogus_birth_certificate_exposed!.thtml


934 posted on 08/03/2009 12:15:59 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PowerPro

They do, but that is too fishy for me to trust.

The name issue doesn’t, but the numbers do.


935 posted on 08/03/2009 12:19:34 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: bonncaruso

Ahh, another n00b spouting nonsense. Have you done spectral analysis on the paper or the ink? ... Didn’t think so.


936 posted on 08/03/2009 12:21:58 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: L_Patriot
tyke, U got Orly pegged.

Wow, you've been here almost a whole week! You must know everything about everything!

937 posted on 08/03/2009 12:22:55 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
"On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark, 1898 cannot have any bearing on Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s circumstance except in regard to the possibility of his mother conveying U.S. citizenship, IF she had been 19 years of age at the birth of her child."

Ark says nothing about the age of the parents, nor does it say anything about the age of any parent with respect to the limitation of a parent's ability to convey citizenship either on the basis of jus soli or jus sanguinis. The "19 years of age" that you cite stems from a law that was passed long after US v. Ark was decided. And, that statute deals only with children that are born to US citizens while outside the jurisdiction of the US. Ark has everything to do with children that are born within the jurisdiction of the US. Big difference.

"Barack Hussein has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain."

Ark does nothing to address or even acknowledge dual citizenship, or obtaining foreign citizenship as a minor child. But, another Supreme Court case does. You can reference a 1930's case Perkins v. Elg. It tackles, head on, a child, who was born in the US to Swedish nationals and subsequently moved back to Sweden with his parents. The court held that even though his parents obtained Swedish citizenship on his behalf, that could have no bearing on or provide no obstacle towards his ability to "reclaim" his US citizenship, provided he did so within a reasonable time of becoming an adult.

938 posted on 08/03/2009 12:23:39 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: mel

I didn’t question it until I saw which poster had put it out there.


939 posted on 08/03/2009 12:25:39 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

It’s an oddity but that in and of itself proves nothing...which is why it’s important not to jump to conclusions one way or the other and wait until it’s been either authenticated or officially debunked.


940 posted on 08/03/2009 12:30:58 PM PDT by PowerPro (2009 - Conservative Revolution Reborn (Go Palin!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 935 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,181-1,190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson