Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Obama's Birth Certificate... or A Forgery? You Decide?

Speaking of SCAMS, the video below either is or is not one. Since I neither shot the video, nor retrieved the "birth document" from the hospital myself, I have no personal knowledge as to the credibility of this claim. I do, however, believe it is something to which the American public should have access...

What do you believe? And, if you do believe that Obama is the Great Usurper of the U.S. Presidency, then the greater question becomes "What is the power that placed him there?" followed by "Why?"

Addendum: As of today, 26 August 2009, the document in question has been declared a "clever forgery" based upon the following information -

"The document appears to have the following defects:

  1. Kenyan News Sources have called into question the use of "Coast Province" or "Coast Provincial" as a correct reference to the official name of the Mombasa general public hospital in 1961, citing Professor Dan Branch of the University of Warwick who noted that the term "Coast Province" was not used in the early 1960s when Kenyan provinces were typically referred to as "regions."

  2. Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.

  3. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama's birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.

  4. The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, day and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of day, month and year.

  5. The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.

  6. The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.

  7. Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.

  8. The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era."
And, there you have it! The best, most objective information I have access to as of this date. Now the question becomes one of:
"Can we trust what we see or hear... anywhere?"

No comments: