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 ...
I think the ‘book and page’ numbers are addressed here by WVnan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308435/posts?page=81#81
perhaps not, but Naturalman’s post in 46 showing “similarities” to the Bomford is a very modern doc with no state at all. It’s the modern countrywide template now, I assume.
I agree.
It just seems that they are going through a lot of trouble with the ‘fakes’ if, as they claim, the Kenya B.C. is a fake as well.
Why bother?
Doesn’t add up.
and this entire Bomford episode stinks to high heaven.
Sooner......
It may be possible to prove that the Bomford doc is a fake.
I’d look most closely at book 44B page 5573.
Do they use that book / page system in Australia.
I’d assume they do, but maybe they don’t.
There was an article on (I believe) the ABC News Australia website which said something like “the Kenyan doc is fake and it was based on the Bomford doc” along with an interview with Bomford.
If we can prove they don’t use the book / page system, we can prove other things we know to be true already. Like, the media is biased, the media makes things up, etc etc. And we’d be able to prove these things within the context of the bc issue.
We would be able to say “well, they call us crazy because we want to know the truth about the kenyan doc. Well, they jumped to the conclusion that the kenyan doc was fake, by claiming the bomford doc was legit. Well, we proved the bomford doc was fake. At best, that was sloppy journalism.”
Now, I have no idea if they have a book / page system in Australia, but someone should get to the bottom of that.
I didn’t know that...are you sure? Oh my...if it is only a photo of the original then why not have the original? There is NO original because the original was a forgery?
Orly’s web site. The front page. You have to scroll about half way down.
The first was supposedly a young state dept employee aand the other was a science teacher in Kenya born within a month or so of Obama.
I think the emails were sent to Orly but who knows if they are real.
Exactly right! It should be doable. And it’s not Obama Hawaii or Kenya
http://www.weblo.com/celebrity/available/David_R_Loxton/359222/
Scroll halfway down the page and you'll see the image of a robot, with the following caption:
digital image by Daniel Loxton and ...
3g I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, ...
Of course David Jeffrey Bomford is the individual whose birth is registered on the Bomford certificate. And Loxton is David's mother's maiden name, once again, as indicated on the certificate.
I suppose you could deduce from the Weblo site that Daniel Loxton is into digital imagery, and he's somehow connected with our David Jeffrey Bomford--relatives, perhaps?
At any rate, there's a Wikipedia entry for a Daniel Loxton, who is evidently quite into skeptical activism. The entry is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Loxton .
Is it just me, or does anyone else smell a big, fat rat?
I can smell the rats (plural).
The current one doesn’t because it’s not in a book anymore - the records have long been computerised. I cannot recall if my older copies referenced a book or not - I’m inclined to think it didn’t, because I can’t remember anything being ‘filled in’ in that section. But I cannot recall.
I’m no troll. I’d be delighted if the Kenyan birth certificate is real. But it does look to me like somebody has tried to create a fake Kenyan birth certificate based on an Australian template (whether Bomford’s certificate or not) for their own purposes and the dogged pursuit of evidence that proves to be fake will just make it easier for any and all evidence to be discredited whether fake or not.
What it tells me, and it may not be a popular opinion, is that the Kenyan document is a forgery, and it was forged by the people who had access to the Bomford document.
Does the Australian man who claims this is his BC have a reason why his is a Certified Copy of Registration of Birth, obviously made 5 years after he was born in 1959? The Deputy Registrar signed it on the 11th day of June, 1964.
It is logical to me why the Kenyan BC is a copy made 3 years later when you put it in the timeline of Obama’s parents divorce - why was Mr. Bromford’s requested in 1964?
So it's not BS, Kenya didn't become an official republic until 1964, though they did establish their Constitution in 1963. So if 0 was born in 1961, that would be 2 years before their independence from Brittan.
This is a losing issue folks it's not going to go anywhere and neither is 0 until at least 2012. We need to be focused on defeating Commie care and cap & tax and the rest of his Marxist agenda. All this does is make our side look nutty and takes the focus away from the fight before us.
Yep, I have seen that tag line and thought about the whole “Birther” smear thing for a while. Though the left has only in the last month or so started laughing, this was an issue months before the election. I told my leftie friends about it, but they didn’t listen and voted for him anyway.
The press being so freaking in Obamas pants by then that nothing was going to change their tune, they were gettin some and not about to let their honey hole go.
Meh
I told people this was going to become a problem privately 15 months ago when it was apparent that he was gonna be one of the top three DNC candidates. My family didn’t listen. I was astounded that he beat Hillary, and I am still amazed that she lost. SHE knew then he wasn’t eligible and didn’t bash him with it.
To think, the evil witch held her hand. OOPS.
Oh well made her a little more humble in my estimation.
Be that as it may. Hillary is in Kenya now, and likely shmoozin like mad... and what do you want to bet, she goes to visit her boss’s birth place... YA THINK? Nah... /sarc she is just honoring her Kenyan hosts who are so proud.........
Ummmm hummmm...
Yea....
Can you say... Obama is toast?
The left is more than panicked. They are in dread..... they aren’t sleeping well, and its getting worse. The White House claims that it isn’t following it any more.... Uh hua. Riiiiiight.
What do you want to be some poor punk staffer is watching this thread?
NO bet from me... unless... of course... I get to bet that there IS some poor punk staffer watching this...
Dude... whoever you are... sorry man... bad karma.. bad debt.. what ever the case may be... sorry you pulled the late shift!
The DOCUMENT IS FROM 1964, not 1961. It is not a birth certificate, it is a certified summary document
Since the B.C. disappeared so quickly and the site not showing any activity recently, plus so many other discrepancies, I’m pretty convinced that the Aussie B.C. is a fraud. Reading the background on Richard Bomford makes me wonder why he did it. Or did he? Did a Bomford in the U.S. use the family site to choose a relative and fake a B.C. and put it on the family tree so as to “find” it later?
I believe this faker will be revealed sooner or later. Just too many things wrong for the doc. to be real.
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.