Has anyone in the MSM bothered to ask, and, more importantly, answer, why it has taken President Obama so long to produce a long form birth certificate? Applying Occam's Razor to this seeming conundrum yields a rather stunning conclusion, which is, that, until very recently, President Barack Obama didn't possess a long form birth certificate. I know, how horribly conspiratorial of me to suggest that one has been invented on his behalf. Do you have a better explanation?
Let's see, perhaps you would like to suggest, in lieu of my straightforward explanation, that Barack Obama and his handlers have, perhaps, the worst political instincts ever, and, instead of, way back when, producing the necessary document to immediately quell the brouhaha surrounding the issue of his place of birth, decided, instead, to let the issue fester to the point that it would gestate, to name just one ghastly progeny, a Donald Trump Presidential bid. No, The Donald isn't going to become our next President, but I hope you catch my drift just the same. Do you really think Obama and his handlers decided the way forward was to stonewall, for well over a year, producing the document in question. It's possible that this explains matters, but, let's face it, the less tortured explanation is that Team Obama needed time (and a lot of money) to fabricate a convincingly authentic long form birth certificate. It must not have been easy. Counterfeiting such things is quite a job, but far from impossible. The technology is there, if you have the resources to bring to bear. Well, call me crazy, as I may well, be, but I propose the Office of The President has just such resources and that in the absence of a better explanation, used them.
7 comments:
Did you notice the name on the very bottom? Say it out loud and it sounds like ukelele - as in the musical instrument. Anyhow, assuming this really is his birth certificate, what about the army officer that was court martialed and imprisoned over this matter? Does he get out now?
Good question, Johnny. One would like to know.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1089.html
And this from The Urban Survival site:
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 just does not jive.
The other item that 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?
Kenya received its independence in 1963. But the territory had been known as Kenya at least as far back as WW2. I have the Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas from 1944. It was a state within the British East African Protectorate. The birth certificate says lists in parentheses "island, state or foreign country" so "Kenya" is a state within the country of "East Africa." It would appear that the lack of space precluded the full title.
The Hospital went by that name in 1931 according to the timeline on that page.
There are valid reasons to doubt the veracity of the circulated document, but the data referred to in the Urban Survival link aren't compelling. The problems with the birth certificate have to do with the physical nature of the document itself, which seems to have been tampered with.
Well, FactCheck.org saw the original short form "certificate of live birth" back in '08. They even held it in their hands. They don't seem to have any problems with the long form either.
Post a Comment