Up until now, I had blown off most of the 'birther stuff' since Obama is the nominal president and ain't no removing him.
But that was until a reader sent this amazing email to The Smoking Gun which includes (gasp!) source documentation on some serious inconsistencies:
"As you all know, Donald Trump made a big deal about Obama's birth certificate. As of yesterday, the White House released the birth certificate.
I will tell you right now that I had never given this "birther" issue any credit. I watched the hype and the crazies come out. I completely dismissed the entire matter altogether. In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that it gained my attention.
I am a studious sort of guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this document. While I would have thought this issue would have been closed for good (and, got the crazies to crawl back into their holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.
First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa".
This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that does not jive.
The other item I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I said, I thought that this was a non-issue until the actual certificate was released. Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I found these issues?
Do you think the CIA, FBI, or other fed agency can create any kind of legal document, including a birth certificate???????????????
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
16 comments:
You people need help. He is not going to be removed. Give Up!
look at the name on the very bottom of the certificate. remember this is in hawaii. UKL Lee. i thought this was funnie. ukalele; the instrament. maybe it's not funny to you but it sure was to me.
to 10:43 - i think everyone knows he won't be removed, but perhaps it will disqualify him from running again. we can only hope. give up? - never, never lose hope!
Great use of misinformation that get sent around until all the crazies thing it is true because they read it somewhere.
Kenya was widely known as the Colony of Kenya or Kenya Colony between WWI and WWII. The name change was largely due to the company Britain had used for trade going out of business. The business had East Africa as part of the name, hence the Protecorate. It did not get independence until 1963, but the use of The Protectorate had ended decades prior.
As for the hospital, the whole history in the post is unfactual. When the two hospitals merged, it was known as Kapiolani Med Center for Woman and Children, according to the hospital's website. The use of Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological was from the 1930s through the earlier 70s when it was just Kapiolani.
Can some one tell Donald Trump so he can look into this.
It wouldn't be he FBI or CIA that made it-- they would have done a better job.
This was probably done by the hippies that work at the White House.
Kenya has been known as "Kenya" much earlier than 1963. Many countries have formal names that aren't used by Americans or the majority of the rest of the world. Australia for instance is actually formally known as the "Commonwealth of Australia" but I doubt you would put that as a nationality on an American form.
The only reason he won't be removed is because were afraid of the riots. If you think the riots over Rodney King were something, just think aboiut what would happen should he be removed.
What a shame our country is in such decline and we can't as a people do anything about it. The government machine is in a runaway condition and no one can control it.
Two quick Wikipedia checks confirm the disputed facts as true, not false as claimed. I'd like to get rid of this guy (Obama), but false claims are not going to do it. Please; a cursory check of facts before spreading what just sounds stupid. Snopes, and Wikipedia may not be the end-all in authoritative sources, but they are an OK first stop.
11:41 comment:
I agree with you in part that they are afraid of riots but the Amarican citizens will put down that insurrection displayed by the have nots-handout-welafare taking crouds. We will not let another "60 and 70s" riot go unchecked. I can assure you the left know this and need their votes so they will not let the riots happen.
If they tried to remove a freely democratically elected president all because you loons don't believe a black man with the name Barak Obama is "american" enough or intelligent enough to run things, yes sir, you best believe there would be riots. Argue the man's policies all you want. In fact, having a factual debate on the issues is how we get the best policies. But stop wasting the public's time with this bull crap. Else I suspect many of you are just unable to formulate fact-based opinions.
That's right, just read it and believe. Everyone knows the use of slang terms and nicknames on legal documents is done all the time, especially back in the early '60's. Open it up in Adobe Illustrator and just read and believe...Oh, ....why are there 9 layers of .pdf here with different sized pixels and differing shading within handwritten pen strokes? Aw, I'll just ignore that and just believe! After all, that's what I did when I voted for His Majesty.
God, it is the Racist 12:50 again. Get off the black thing. Nobama is NOT black. He is of mixed heritage. Man you are an idiot!
Here are a few excerpts from President Obama’s speech on Sunday night about the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . .”
Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America). But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency.
The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.
Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?
Guantanamo proves to have been important for gathering intelligence; Barack Obama derided it as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.”
Some key intelligence was found by interrogating prisoners abroad; Barack Obama wished to end that practice: “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” “That will be my position as president. That includes renditions.” Renditions have not ended under Obama, but expanded.
In some cases we are trying suspects through military tribunals; here again, Barack Obama used to deplore the practice he now has adopted: “a flawed military-commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.”
Senator Obama complained about airborne attacks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands. President Obama increased Predator assassination attacks fivefold. He has killed four times as many terrorist suspects by Predators in 27 months than did President Bush in eight years.
In January 2007 — three weeks after President Bush announced the surge — Senator Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.” If it had passed, that law would have removed all troops from Iraq by March 2008. Obama derided the surge in unequivocal terms both before and after its implementation: “I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”
Candidate Obama criticized warrantless wiretaps, in accusing the Bush administration in the harshest terms: “This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” A disinterested examination of present policy regarding both wiretaps and intercepts would show no change from the Bush administration, or indeed considerable expansion of the use of these tools.
If one wonders why former President Bush did not attend ceremonies with President Obama this week in New York, it might be because of past rhetoric like this about policies Obama once derided and then codified: “I taught constitutional law for ten years at the University of Chicago, so . . . um . . . your next president will actually believe in the Constitution, which you can’t say about your current president.” George Bush did not believe in the U.S. Constitution?
In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.
Times change. People say one thing when they are candidates for public office, quite another as officeholders with responsibility of governance. Obama as president naturally does not wish to be treated in the manner in which he once treated President Bush. Conservatives might resent Obama’s prior demagoguery at a critical period in our national security, as much as they are relieved that he seems to have grown up and repudiated it.
Okay, the public perhaps understands all that hypocrisy as the stuff of presidential politics. But I think it will not quite accept the next step of taking full credit in hyperbolic first-person fashion for operations that would have been impossible had his own views prevailed.
This document, just like everything else about this imposter is a lie. They have known were bin laden was since August, but the raid just happened to occur a few days after the fake birth certificate was released. Typical political ploy to change the subject.
It still amazes me when someone defends obammy. Everything about obammy is a puzzle, mystery. Yet some act as if they understand him and believe whatever he says.
Wise or foolish?
Post a Comment