WND reports:
California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.
This is the alleged Kenyan certified birth certificate that Taitz obtained (click image to see larger):
People who are questioning Obama's right to serve as president and demand his birth records have been labeled kooks or "birthers" by the left wing media and some conservative commentators. By refusing to provide the "long form" Hawaiian birth certificate, Obama is just fanning the flames on his eligibility.
It will be interesting to see where this goes and what they have to say about it.
Is this "the smoking gun?"
For the full story, go here.
Here's the full document. Note the embossed certification seal on the lower left corner (click image to see larger):
UPDATE (8/6/09): I received this message from actor/writer (and a friend) Jim Beaver:
"It's been proven a forgery now, Armand. The story's all over the place (here, for example: http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/04/australia_certificate/ ). Apparently a guy photocopied an Australian birth certificate from 1959, photoshopped out the data, and put in fake data. Aside from the fact that the seal is the seal of South Australia and not Kenya, there's also the fact (not mentioned in the article but something I found out on my own) that Mombasa, in 1961, was part of Zanzibar and not Kenya. Mombasa was ceded to Kenya in 1963. So it's a really bad forgery, despite the fact that a whole lot of people fell for it.
How people can think they're serving a good cause (which I presume most birthers think they're doing) while faking evidence to do so, I can't understand. If truth is on your side, shouldn't truth be your weapon?
(I'm not saying this about you, Armand. I'm talking about the forger.)
Regards!"
Now you know why in my original post I specifically said "alleged."
3 comments:
QUESTION:
What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was Kenyan/British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s appointment to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.
Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.
Good question.
Forget Obama's Fake Kenyan Birth Certificate. I want my own.
Post a Comment