More coverage in the UK press, with mention of Malcolm X lookalike, BHO.
[Thanks, hennie pennie.]
Posted on 02/08/2010 12:11:59 PM PST by Faith
(Feb. 8, 2010) — Another thought-provoking article appeared yesterday in The American Thinker, where Jack Cashill takes “Another Look at Obama’s Origins.”
As the author of several previous articles regarding ”eligibility,” I received a lot of ridicule and criticism, being one of the early writers to suggest the man bore a striking resemblance to Malcolm X in my articles published in the British newspapers.
-more at link - http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/08/where-are-our-security-services/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Obozo couldn't have happened 50 years ago because our culture served Truth even if individuals here and there did not.
Today Our ‘security’ services along with all the other institutions that once served America by bowing to Truth, are as PC as all those guys at FT Hood; you know, the dead guys and the wounded guys and the guys who saw it happen and the ones who saw it coming and the ones who heard about it after wards, the ones at the top, the guys in middle management, the grunts pulling along at the bottom etc.
When a nation goes down from rot on the inside it doesn't do it suddenly. It does it slowly, over decades. We are going on 50 years of rot. We will see the results very soon if not now.
For some reason I can’t get the links to work.
I found the article referred to, by Jack Cashill, “Another Look at Obama’s Origins”, at The American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/another_look_at_obamas_origins.html
More coverage in the UK press, with mention of Malcolm X lookalike, BHO.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why being Malcom X’s son matters, if true. Aside from the fact that he lied. Okay, that’s a problem. But they’re acting like simply being the progeny of X tells us something about Obama. As if we didn’t know what he was about already. You know, from listening to him (carefully).
” Given the available evidence, including the fact that some evidence has been strategically withheld, one can infer that Obama likely was born in Hawaii but that Ann Dunham did not give birth to Barack Obama, Sr.’s child on August 4, 1961.”
Intriguing speculation, but the above does not square with 2 different newspapers announcing an August birth, as well as the Obama certificate number fitting within the known BCs issued in that period. Even given any of the paternity scenarios spun out by the author, then assuming Obama Sr. willingly took responsibility for paternity, there would be no reason to “fake” an August, as opposed to an earlier, delivery date.
But... but... but Tubal Cain!! It’ll make a better movie if Stanley Anne Dunham was together with Malcolm X.... right???
The actual news papers have not been produced to my knowledge, only microfiche which is easily edited.
There is some speculation that it has been because of the lack of the Nordyke twins not being listed as well.
Some one please correct me if I'm not up to date on that.
“only microfiche which is easily edited.”
Seriously? Do you really think there was a single microfiche copy of each newspaper needing editing? Any forger would have to worry and wonder whether every single copy had been located at all the various places they might have appeared, ranging from local libraries, to university libraries to Library of Congress to the newspapers themselves. Sure, some dedicated soul might have gotten ready access to public library copies to forge them: are you imagining this Mission Impossible team also broke into the vaults of the newspapers themselves to make this modification too?
The Nordyke twins names weren’t found in the particular list that included Obama. That doesn’t rule out their showing up on the list from the preceding week.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm
The Birth Certificate Number Mystery
1. August 4, 1961: Obama born in Hawaii
2. August 5, 1961: Nordyke twins born in Hawaii
3. Nordyke birth certificate number on top of birth certificate:
4. One twin: 61 10637
5. Other twin: 61 10638
6. Obama birth certificate number: 61 10641
7. The information above has been displayed on the Internet, so it is part of the public record.
8. If the above information is displayed all over the internet for anyone to see, then why can’t the Hawaii government be forced to legally explain the following controversy:
9. That is, if Obama was born one day BEFORE the Nordyke twins — Aug. 4 vs. Aug, 5 — then why is Obama’s birth certificate number 3 numbers higher — 10638 vs. Obama’s 10641 — than the Nordyke’s number?
10. So why can’t Hawaii officials, like Dr. Fukino, be forced to legally explain why Obama’s birth certificate number is higher than the Nordyke twins’ number, if the numbers are already part of the public record?
The Nordyke twins announcement was in the Aug. 16 paper according to this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2428562/posts
I do my best to keep up but there are so many twists to this story.....someday the truth will come out, hope it's soon.
“So why can’t Hawaii officials, like Dr. Fukino, be forced to legally explain why Obama’s birth certificate number is higher than the Nordyke twins’ number, if the numbers are already part of the public record?”
That’s a legitimate question, but operationally, it’s not hard to answer. It all depends on when doctors got around to signing a certificate, when each certificate got mailed or otherwise delivered to health department, what order such documents got into someone’s in-basket, when that individual opened and processed them etc. The discrepancy is way too tiny to chalk up to anything other than standard operating procedures.
Note that parents did not sign Nordyke certificate until August 7, attendant did not sign until August 11 (gasp!).
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347. We don’t have the long form version for Obama, so we don’t know what the corresponding dates are, but it should be obvious from the Nordyke forms that documentation was “lackadaisical” at best. In that context, Obama’s BC being slightly out of order is no big deal.
Moreover, why would a clever forger ever create such a mess in the first place? If you’re going to all the trouble of forging a BC, surely you could make a point to insert the president’s fake # in FRONT of the Nordyke twins, no? Likewise, if you’ve gone to all the trouble of forging a new entry onto newspaper microfiche, why would you leave off 2 names of individuals whose certificate numbers were just ahead of Obama’s? Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely here.
*Our* security services are actually beholden to the suits in *our* government not’ the average Joe.
If they are told to stand down, they will because they like being alive and having a job.
Check this out:
The number, which is still out of order with others, reflects when the BC was filed, not necessarily when the child was actually born.
Not only that, but his "online" "COLB" says his cerficiate was filed 3 *days* before theirs was. So you'd expect his number to be several, perhaps tens of, numbers lower than theirs.
Malcom X was a US citizen. His child by a US citizen mother would be a Natural Born Citizen. The child of Barrack H. Obama, Kenyan and British Citizen/Subject, is not.
More coverage in the UK press, with mention of Malcolm X lookalike, BHO.
[Thanks, hennie pennie.]
The certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck COLB are incompatible with the certificate numbers and filing dates on the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates.
Procedurally, the certificate numbers were given by the DOH at the time that the certificate was filed with them. But the Factcheck COLB has a later number than the Nordykes’ certificates, even though it was supposedly filed at the DOH 3 days earlier than the Nordyke certificates.
The DOH has told Leo Donofrio that they had documentation on file for Obama by Aug 9, 1961. But at this point nobody knows whether the DOH is being truthful in anything it says. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
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.