Skip to comments.Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?
Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Pray you are right , obviously , but have serious doubts and it’s not just the Mombassa / Zanzibar / Kenya thing . We should soon know .
if we keep on top of this eventually all the documents will have to come out—not just his BC but all his missing school records, esp for the time he was in Indoneisa
Perhaps Kenya’s connection with England would mean that lots of bureaucrats with British names are all over the place.
Not fake. :)
The question is why would Obama Sr. travel to Zanzibar to have his child? And not have his child in either his own country or his wife's country?
That's what seems fake about it to me. Someone made this up with Mombasa as the birthplace because that's been the rumor going around for the past year or so. But this new (to me) information about Mombasa not even being part of Kenya when Obama was born makes it seem extremely unlikely that he was born there.
Good question. Why did I have to show my whole life for the INS and Coustoms while Hussein didn’t. Eventually I took a job with DHS. Low level - Bared my soul.
“my question is, how in the WORLD did he get a security clearance without proving where he was born!!!”
Sadly, elected officials don’t require security clearance. When the people elect you they have cleared you for access to classified material.
It was a result of, not a cause of, the Kenya certificate.
This poster thinks the Kenya certificate very well may be legit.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But let's not pretend that no lefties are smart enough to fake a copy. I saw a post on another thread suggesting that the folds are specific and are unlikely to be faked - unless, of course, someone had an original and used it to generate a fake.
I can't imagine who could have an original.
Their young very PREGNANT "mistress playtoys"? And they purposely have their children there, in some country that's neither theirs nor the mother's?
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone challenge the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An Act doesnt cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a qualification of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to qualify. To infer that the lack of a specified qualification process means that stated eligibility qualifications for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to qualify, a president elect must present evidence that he meets its requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has failed to qualify and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet qualified as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see Congress in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper qualifying documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
Ok, has any “decoded” why page 5733 was chosen?
Why? See post #59.
I think you're being way too anal about the whole thing. Your attitude reminds me of a funny "Far Side" cartoon I saw many years ago. There are two frames in the cartoon. The first frame shows an Indian village, where a drummer holding a big drumstick has been beating loudly on a huge drum, so hard, in fact, that there's now a huge hole in one side of the instrument. The other frame shows a circled group of covered wagons, with an anxious, frightened group of people gathered round their leader, who says, "Don't worry folks ... they only attack to the sound of the drums!"
Okay. Been through the OPM interview and it sucks. Maybe the current occupant didn’t have to go through it - but maybe he should. Maybe if he did - we would have been spared from this freakin nightmare. Have you ever been through it?
Worse yet is the fact that someone elected President gets automatic access to the highest classification of documents with ZERO background checks while some of us while employed by the DoD had to go through 5-year upgrades.
That question is impossible to answer without knowing a lot more about the places and the times. Sometimes women travel to hospitals to give birth because they have better care (perhaps American doctors?). Or, she may have been visiting someone in the area and went into labor when she was not expecting to. It’s hard to say, but that in and of itself doesn’t seem particularly damning.
Obama’s 57 states.
Not sure about the 33.
Was Mombasa a sea port?
Perhaps they traveled by boat rather than plane and she went into labor before she could get home.
(I ask from ignorance here...just thinking aloud)
Wait... Paul is not dead? Well, if he faked his death he is probably on the run.
Sorry, I don’t believe it is fake.
What on earth are you talking about? There’s no requirement of proof; no previous president has been asked to prove anything about their birth, including the one who may have been born in Canada. There’s no support whatsoever for your claims, and by your logic, the office of President has ALWAYS been vacant because no one has ever “proven” their eligibility before.
So all the anchor babies born to illegal Mexicans are not natural born citizens? (I think the “born on US soil automatically a citizen” thing needs to be changed, but it has been taken as unquestioned truth for a long time.) Their parents are not citizens but birth on US soil makes the baby a citizen, certainly a natural born citizen.
So, if OBama was born on US soil, then no one questions that he was a natural born citizen. But if he was not born on US soil, then his parentage comes into play.
But it can’t be a simple as: parents US citizens, baby US natural born citizen; parents not US citizens, baby not US natural born citizen.
Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.
The last post at the DU on the link of the first page is quite interesting.
Perhaps this registrar in Africa was named after this dude or one of his descendents? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that the question here..if this was the name of a registrar and/or ‘district’ in Africa.....not a person?
That’s the impression I am getting from this.
The signature on the document appears to be less aged than the document. Look at the folds and you can see that the other type is somewhat faded because of the folding. Whereas, the signature does not and looks fairly fresh.
I wish otherwise .......... but the document may prove to be a fake. :O(
I admit to thinking the same thing today. This may well be a fake, but I am a little suspicious about the seemingly-coordinated hysteria about birthers over the past week.
You've obviously never heard about babies poping out early. What if they traveled to the beach and got surprised a few weeks ahead of time?
Perhaps they traveled by boat rather than plane and she went into labor before she could get home.
I understand what you're saying. And anything's possible. We're all just speculating here. But traveling halfway around the world by boat when you're apparently THISCLOSE to giving birth that you can't even wait until you're out of the port city? Seems incredibly risky and unlikely. The odds of giving birth on the high seas in such a situation would be extremely high. Would you even be allowed to take such a long trip in that condition?
Or he named his son after himself.
Oh come on, you know that babies always arrive on their due dates! ;)
#59 is incorrect. The second image with “E.F. Lavender” is just a close-up of the first image. But WND did say they inspected another Kenyan BC for consistencies and it checked out... they just didn’t say anything about a second signature from E.F.
I’m totally up in the air on this. I want to believe it, but I don’t want to get burned.
Well, perhaps you can explain what section three of the Twentieth amendment means with the phrase “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” What on earth could this be talking about?
Someone went to ALOT of trouble to make this appear real.
What about the Divorce papers?
I don’t get the feeling that ‘E.F. Lavender’ is a person but that it is more like a district or registar name..perhaps named after a person back in the day.
I ask again what may be a dumb question: Wouldn’t one expect the occasional bureaucrats/registrars to have British names, given the deep ties between the two nations? How different is it from someone like Paul Running Bear signing a BC for a kid born to a German mother while she is visiting an Indian reservation here? Not the best example, but you get my drift. I’m neither advocating nor rejecting this document’s validity. I’m just posing a question about this particular point that has everyone so riled.
Somebody made a good point :
>Not anal. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think thats perfectly understandable, fine. I dont.
Which means that the “E.F. Lavender” signature in no way calls this latest document into question.
And the number: If it weren’t 47044, it would be something else—and somebody could come up with reasons that it COULDN’T be a coincidence.
I’m not convinced this is an “obvious forgery” yet.
It is good Jim that you spoke on this issue.
The first, E.F. Lavender, is the name of the registrar in 1961 whose name appears on the referenced record in book 44B on page 5733. The second, E.H. Miller, is the registrar in 1964 at the time the certificate attesting to the content of the record was prepared. Joshua Simon Oduya is Mr. Miller's assistant who prepared and signed the document.
To dilute the issue. To make it seem like they are all fake. Oldest playlist in the book.
I just looked up the origin of the surname Lavender, and it is English. I’m agnostic on this particular document, but I don’t yet see this name as a problem in a country with close ties to England and, thus, entrenched British-surnamed bureaucrats.
102181 sealed it for me fake of well
102181 sealed it for me fake of well
Not sure ... I did come across a William and a Frederick Lavender predating E.F., both registrars, IIRC.
Pokemon ace may miss out on world
By RANDY ERICKSON | firstname.lastname@example.org
Joshua Simon has been ranked No. 1 or 2 in the world for most of the Pokemon Trading Card Game season, but it looks like it might not be in the cards for him to earn a top rank in head-to-head competition at the world competition next month in San Diego, Calif.>
And what I'm saying is that there are a million and one reasons why someone might do something that might seem on the face of it to be illogical or unreasonable.
Zanzibar was not a “third country.” The whole region was British-controlled but with differing structures. Mombasa was “nominally” under the control of Zanzibar, which, I believe, had at least the notion of some “autonomy” rather than a direct British colony. But Zanzibar was under heavy British influence. Eventually most of Zanzibar went with Tangyanika to form Tanzania but Mombasa went to Kenya. But it had long-standing ties to Kenya. In 1961, going to Mombasa from Kenya was not exactly “going to a third country.”
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.