Spidey has an interesting post up about Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate again appearing in March, 2012.
Now, I’m not rushing to judgement on this, if only because the copy shown is not distinct and the timing of this miraculous discovery just before the election is … er … interesting.
OK, what is there to support this latest Kenyan certificate being his? There is a photo image and assertion that it is his certificate. There’s also a lot of “API will scan in here a letter from Coast Provincial Birth Registration Office in the next few hours or days, depending on how quick API is cleared to do so. The purpose of scanning the official letter is to ensure that what we have received as you see here is fully collaborated officially.”
The African Press International article was on March 9, 2012 and today is March 26th. I’ll believe it when I see it in a form which can be read and analysed.
You’ll also recall this from 2009:
WND did say back then that there had been a fake doing the rounds:
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
… but also claimed that this certificate might still be real. Vox Day, of WND, I notice, isn’t running anything on it for now. In 2009, WND also said:
Media Matters wrote, “Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn’t a republic until Dec. 1964.”
But Kenya’s official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
“Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document,” the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
And we might add the State Department.
The point here was that though the birth date was 1961, the copy request was 1964 and Kenya existed by then. On the other hand, there were two points brought up that the Coast General Hospital is actually called the Coast Provincial General Hospital and unconfirmed statements that women who would give birth in 1961 would go to the “Lady Grigg Maternity Hospital” which was later rolled into the Coast Provincial General hospital.
Boing Boing also noted: “The number 47O44– 47 is Obama’s age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44–he is the 44th president.” Also: “It was called the “Central Nyanza District,” not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.”
A debunking site promoting itself as a “mythbuster” spent the top two thirds of the post making assertions and applying adjectives of praise to debeunkers, with no solid evidence for its opinion, until it came up with these two:
A look at the Australian certificate:
… but which is the forgery? The Lavender signature, which has different initials on the two certificates, is probably the clincher that one is forged. According to one American, EF Lavender is a detergent made near Illinois. Someone’s having a lot of fun at someone else’s expense. One site asked which section of politics would be more likely to choose “earth friendly” for the fake name?
And why not? As was shown in America with the long certificate finally “released” after so much pressure [or enough time to prepare this one beyond debunking], then forensically analysed and declared a forgery as well, authorities will go to great lengths, given what is riding on it not being a forgery, to pump out other forgeries.
The thing which puzzles me is how pathetic the forgeries are. With the technical ability today, it’s almost certain, IMHO, that the forgery is meant to lead “birthers” around, they’re then debunked and everyone goes back to believing Obama is legit.
One commenter wrote:
It’s a deliberate distraction alright, but you’re mistaken if you think this means Obama is eligible for office. There are clear Constitutional issues with his parentage, such that his place of birth doesn’t matter. That’s what all the moonbattery swirling around birth certificates is meant to obscure.
And what do you make of this one then?
The worrying thing is that the sum total reportage, except for trolling debunkers, comes in fits and starts, then disappears. Someone’s winding someone up and I’d agree with the last commenter that it seems to be a red herring to obscure what is really going on. I don’t believe Obama is legit – there are just too many things he’s kept concealed and his very game-playing over everything from birth certificates to university record is just not straight down the line.
I feel we’re getting the run around but how can we know what it’s covering for? I really don’t like that nothing is straight in this case. A certificate with no anomalies, no debunkings necessary is availabel to each and every one of us. I have my copy, you have yours. Why can’t Obama?
Two weeks before Obama finally released his “long-form birth certificate,” Hawaii’s former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama’s original birth document – was interviewed by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was “half typed and half handwritten.”
However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were “handwritten.” What Fukino described is apparently a different document from what Obama released to the public.
I don’t want to get sucked down into the legit cert or non-legit cert. I do want to get into why there is nothing straightforward, nothing finally agreed by all. It really does smell.
Looking up Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his law-enforcment team’s investigation of Obama’s bona fides, first place I looked was top of google and it was the CBS News report. I don’t generally go to leftist sites but in this case, I had little choice. Almost immediately, there was this below, which I’ll comment on as we go down:
The publicity-hungry Arpaio, a strong opponent of illegal immigration who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” said the evidence gathered by his investigators suggests Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registration card are fakes.
Publicity hungry? This is a national broadcaster leading with a value judgement like that? Would this be allowed in a court of law?
“Based on all of the evidence, I cannot in good faith report to you these documents are authentic,” Arpaio said at a press conference in Phoenix, adding that his “investigators believe that the long form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in the paper format as presented by the White House.”
That was the factual part – what Arpaio actually did and said. CBS then comments, on the claim:
The 79-year-old Arpaio, who has been accused by the Justice Department of racial profiling and who is being probed by a federal grand jury over potential abuse of power …
That is not leading the reader? Heresay like that was 1] perfectly admissible in CBS’s eyes and 2] used to undercut what was to follow? It’s more like what a third rate blog would do.
… said he told his investigators to examine the president’s documents with “no preconceived notions,” adding that he “felt that this investigation could clear President Obama’s name and put people’s minds at ease.”
Yes, that was the second accurate reportage.
Arpaio became Maricopa County sheriff in 1993, and has been elected five times. He said the investigation, undertaken by his five-member volunteer “Cold Case Posse” at the request of an Arizona Tea Party group, did not involve any cost to taxpayers.
Had to get the Tea Party in there, did they not? That part is legit though because it pertains to influence and possible coercion.
Arpaio’s press conference puts him in league with the “birthers,” the conspiracy theorists who claim
“In league with”? That is neutral reportage for a national readership? That is not taking sides?
- against overwhelming evidence –
Really? What overwhelming evidence? On whose say-so? The long certificate already debunked and the second similarly debunked and they use the word “overwhelming”? Again, something an amateur blogger might do.
that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president. (Many “birthers” believe the president was born in Kenya.)
Note the use of the disparaging “birthers” – meaning “people of no credibility” – tacked on immediately after the claim. National broadcaster again, of supposed neutrality?
The White House’s decision to release the president’s long-form birth certificate in April has quieted such claims, though it did not extinguished them.
Really, quieted them? Not if you look at the net. Quite the opposite in fact. And “did not extinguished“? Level of language of a national broadcaster?
The clincher was the source they used to confirm their “evidence”:
“We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,” Mr. Obama said at the time. “We’ve got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…We do not have time for this kind of silliness.”
They really used Obama, the one being investigated, as the arbiter of what was right or wrong in this case? They got the defendant to also act as the foreman of the jury? And Obama’s “There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…” shoved into the middle of his disparagement of the claims? Lost for words.
It’s one thing CBS doing his but I’d like to know if any leftist reading that feels it’s fair journalism as far as it goes, that all is above board in that piece, rather than being a shoddy piece of unadulterated whitewashing?
Filed under: Politics & economics