more birther stuff…

Posted on Monday 3 August 2009

You see Barack Obama’s totally real Kenyan birth certificate that is not photoshopped and completely believable unlike those phony Hawaiian documents? I mean, if there’s one country that you know won’t scam you, it’s Kenya!

Yet some people persist in casting suspicious glances at the document. User CatM in the comments:
  • First, the hospital is Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes said to be Coast Province General Hospital), not Coast General Hospital.
  • Second, Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.
  • First, the hospital is Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes said to be Coast Province General Hospital), not Coast General Hospital.
  • Third, Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya.
  • Fourth, Obama’s father’s village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.
  • Fifth, 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.
  • Sixth, EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.
  • Seventh, would a nation with a large number of Muslims actually say "Christian name" (as opposed to name) on the birth certificate?
  • Eigth, his father (born in 1961) would have been 24 or 25 when he was born and not 26.
  • Ninth, it was called the "Central Nyanza District," not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.
Old Redneck in a recommended diary (omitting duplicates from above):
  • The document is dated 5 August 1964 — a Saturday.  From what I can find, Kenyan guvmint offices close early on Friday and are closed on Saturdays.  Oooops […]
  • This piece of paper certainly looks nice and new to be 45 years old — unless the Kenyans were using acid-free paper back in 1964.  Heh, heh.
  • Finally, Officials of Coast Province General Hospital reported:  “We do not have computerized records going back to the 1960’s and can only sort through our archives by hand,” Dr. Christopher Mwanga, an administrator at the Mombasa hospital tells GLOBE. “We have searched for all the names of babies born on Aug. 4, 1961, and have not found the name of Barack Hussein Obama. That is all I can tell you.”
  • Dr. Mwanga is clearly in on the scam.

    In all seriousness, some of these bullet points may turn out to be misfires. But the totality of the evidence — gathered lightning fast, I may add — suggests that this is a forgery. And not just any forgery, but one good enough to take in the idiot birthers, while poor enough to let everyone else in on the joke.

    In other words, the Birthers just got played, in a hilariously overt way.
     announcement in the Hawaiian Newspaper
    What is interesting about the "Birthers" is that they are sure they are right, though the haven’t yet said why they have this conviction. And their evidence comes up after their belief. It’s familiar to us from the Iraq War. Bush and Cheney were sure Saddam Hussein was involved in 911 and spent all of 2002 grubbing for evidence – all of which was false. These people are talking like it’s Obama’s job to prove them wrong. He released a birth certificate. Now they have an elaborate scheme to prove his parents faked it, or that the birth announcement was faked in the Hawaiian Newspapers of the time. So, his grandparents, knowing at his birth that he would run for President faked his birth certificate and put false announcements in the papers when he was a couple of days old? An absurd premise. But the lengthof time that dirty tricks play is downright remarkable – kind of like McCain’s Illegitimate black baby…
    The Berserk ‘Birthers’
    Washington Post
    By Eugene Robinson
    August 4, 2009

    If there’s been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I’ve missed it. Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy? I’m talking about the people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama was not really born in the United States, and thus is ineligible to be president. Even some commentators who usually are among Obama’s most rabid critics have acknowledged that this idea is simply nuts. Yet it persists, out there on the farthest fringes of the right-wing blogosphere. Oh, and also on CNN, which is usually a little closer to reality.

    It has been definitively shown that there is not a scintilla of truth, or even the slightest ambiguity, in the whole "birther" idea. Officials in Hawaii have attested again and again that Obama was, in fact, born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. When the "birthers" demanded to see his birth certificate, state officials produced it. Journalists have looked at this complete non-story from every angle and concluded that it is, in fact, a complete non-story.

    To believe otherwise, it’s necessary to explain that birth announcements heralding the arrival of baby boy Barack Obama ran in two Honolulu newspapers in August 1961. So to be a card-carrying "birther," you have to believe not only that Hawaiian officials conspired to fabricate records but also that "they" — not state officials, necessarily, but the generic malevolent "they" who inevitably lurk behind the deepest, darkest conspiracies — somehow managed to alter or replace clippings in yellowing newspaper archives. That’s what the less crazy birthers have to contend. The alternative scenario — for those who really ought to put their tinfoil hats back on — is that somehow this was all planned back in 1961: "They" diabolically planted these birth announcements 48 years ago, establishing a false record, so that a chosen infant who was actually born in some foreign land — Kenya? Indonesia? Manchuria? — could be groomed, perhaps programmed, and someday installed in the Oval Office. Cue evil-genius laughter.

    These would be people who also believe that Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece, "Dr. Strangelove," was actually a documentary — and that Obama’s ultimate aim, as cleverly deduced by Gen. Jack D. Ripper, is to "sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." There are probably people out there who think the world is flat, and they’re not worth writing about. The "birthers" wouldn’t be, either, unless you believe a poll released last week by Research 2000 revealing that an astounding 28 percent of Republicans actually think that Obama was not born in the United States and a separate 30 percent are "not sure." GOP officials need to order more tinfoil.

    The survey, commissioned by the liberal Web site Daily Kos, found that 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents have no doubt — duh — that Obama was born in the United States. That only 42 percent of Republicans are similarly convinced is a fascinating indicator of just how far the Republican Party has drifted from the mainstream. Also beyond the Outer Limits of sanity is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, who has been giving prime-time exposure to the "birther" lunacy — even while denying that he believes it. Dobbs’s obsession with the "story" has become an embarrassment to the network, which has tried to position itself as untainted by political bias. Jon Klein, president of CNN’s U.S. division, has pronounced the story "dead" but insists that it’s legitimate for Dobbs to examine the alleged controversy, though in fact no controversy exists.

    The "birther" thing is only Dobbs’s latest detour from objective reality. For years, he has crusaded against illegal immigration by citing facts and figures that often turn out to be wrong. Television can confer a kind of pseudo-reality on any manner of nonsense. Is this an orchestrated campaign to somehow delegitimize Obama’s presidency? Is the fact that he is the first African American president a factor? Is it that some people can’t or won’t accept that he won the election and serves as commander in chief? Maybe, maybe not. Trying to analyze the "birther" phenomenon would mean taking it seriously, and taking it seriously would be like arguing about the color of unicorns. About all that can be said is that a bunch of lost, confused and frightened people have decided to seek refuge in conspiratorial make-believe. I hope they’re harmless. And I hope they seek help.
    1.  
      Barb
      September 11, 2009 | 1:59 AM
       

      I have been digging for information as well.. and researching dates.. I have found out that Aug 5, 1964 actually was a Wednesday.. which can be found here… http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Saturday+5+August+1964&fr=yfp-t-152&u=www.ussorleck.com/decklogs/xls/August_1964.xls&w=saturday+5+august+1964&d=IYRIvt29TUAW&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=t05KAqCZG7mh1qDq6Zwc.Q–

      thanks for some interesting reading.. something that will be remembered in our history.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.