4 Simple Questions
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time ?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & 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 age 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 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”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya)
3. 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 ?
http://http://http/www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
(http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx)
Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media ?
4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936-if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still qualifies as a “liar”). —
The Rio Norte Line 
Reblogged this on Reality Check.
One simple answer..you’re a racist!
Just kidding, of couse we know the simple answer. Everything about Obama is a lie. He is a plant that was sold to the sheep in America to destroy our country from the inside. And it’s working.
One simple answer…you’re a racist! Just kidding, but there is one simple answer. Everything about Obama is a lie. He is a plant sold to the stupid people in America so he could destroy our country from the inside. And, it’s working.
Be more careful. the birth certificate in questions lists the father’s “race” as African; not African American. Easily checked false facts weaken legitimate arguments.
African was not an approved term for racial identification in 1962. His Father’s birth place was Africa and his Race would have been identified as Negro.
Re: “African was not an approved term.”
Answer: In HAWAII, you were allowed to use any word that you wanted to describe your race. Nobody stood over you and told you want to write, and there as no checklist of races. You were free. Some people said that they were white; some said “Caucasian.” Some said black or Negro or “colored” or “mixed race” or “anglo-saxon” or “Swedish.”
And what was the word that AFRICAN exchange students normally used to describe their race in the 1960s? Answer: AFRICAN.
Now turning to the standard “Four simple questions.”
Re: “In 1961 people of color were called “Negroes.” So how can the Obama “birth certificate” state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time?”
ANSWER: First it does not say “African-American.” It says “African.” Only African.
As noted above, the explanation is simple. In Hawaii you were allowed to use any word you wanted to describe your race. There was no checklist, and no one stood over you saying what you had to enter. There are entries in Hawaii of people listing their race as “American.” So you were allowed to use any word you wanted.
And what was the word that African exchange students commonly used to describe their race in the 1960s? Answer: African.
Re: 2. “… Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could 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 then as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.”
Answer. You are out of date with that name. Kenya stopped being called the British East African Protectorate in 1920. In that year it was renamed. What was the name? THE KENYA COLONY.
In short, it was called Kenya (Kenya short for “The Kenya Colony”), and it was in East Africa, so the entry Kenya, East Africa is correct.
Re: “3. 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. ”
Answer: You are referring to two other hospitals. But, Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital DID exist in 1961.
How do we know? Well, on WND’s site there are birth certificates for the Nordkye Twins, born one day after Obama in the same hospital, and what is the name of the hospital on their birth certificates? Answer: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
As for the last question, Obama’s book simply does not say that his father was in WWII. It says that his GRANDfather was in WWII, and his grandfather really was in WWII. Perhaps someone who told you this failed to see the GRAND in GRANDfather. But, it is there. Why not check these very simple things before posting???
But what about the address used on his birth certificate? The person who lived there didn’t know him or his mother and father. Why does his birth certificate use Virginia Sunahara’s certificate number? The format on the Obama forgery is the format used today not the one in use at the time he was born. Then there is the fact that no one ever saw him at Clumbia university not even a professor who taught the class Obama would have had to have taken to graduate. And why would he be so secretive about his college time that he spent in excess of a million to hide it? Why did Obama use a SS of a man from Connecticut? There are many more unanswered questions. I suspect that once Obama is out of office that there will be some investigation and some “suprises”. But until then the media is preventing any of these questions from being answered. The surest way for anyone in the public eye to be destroyed by the media is to become a “birther”. The media will gang up on them and make them out to be a kook. SO it isn’t safe for anyone who wants to keep his reputation to ask questions about Obama the media will destroy them. Why? If the truth will set you free why does the media and people like smrstrauss continue to hide and distort the truth?
Re: “But what about the address used on his birth certificate? The person who lived there didn’t know him or his mother and father..”
It is perfectly legal for kids to give their parents address as their legal address. That’s because they move around, you know.
Re Sunahara’s number. Since her BC has never been published, it is a myth that it uses her number.
Re: “No one ever saw him at Columbia University..”
Bull. http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/
Re: “And why would he be so secretive about his college time that he spent in excess of a million to hide it?”
Because, duh, you are WRONG about there ever being a lawsuit against Obama for his college papers or for records of any kind, and since there was no such lawsuit, duh, he never spent a cent defending one. Obama was ONLY sued by birthers to get him off of the ballot, and that is all that Obama spent money on.
Re: “Why did Obama use a SS of a man from Connecticut.”
The “He used Ludwig’s number” story has been punctured. Ludwig’s SS number has been published, and guess what, it was not the same as Obama’s number. Then there was the “He used the Harrison J. Bounel” story. Turns out that “Harrison J. Bounel” does not exist, in any case he never had a file with the Social Security Administration, so he never had a number, so Obama could not have used it.
However, Obama’s CT number is a fact, and guess what caused it—a data entry error. Were you thinking that SS clerks never made mistakes??? (That would be most un-conservative because conservatives traditionally hold that bureaucrats are sloppy and make lots of mistakes—and in this case, they are certainly right).
Millions of people have errors in their social security numbers and/or multiple social security numbers, which were caused mainly by data entry errors:
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/
And, like millions of others, Obama’s Connecticut SS number also was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
And now, since I have answered all of your questions, and you claim not to be a kook, why not answer my ONE question. Here it is:
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).
If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened. (Oh, and BTW, there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961—and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days.)
So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?
Re: “The format used is the format used today.’
That is right. Both the short form BC and the long form BC are modern documents, not the ones sent out in 1961. That is because they are SUPPOSED to be modern documents, on modern security paper and in the case of the long form using a modern photocopier that makes black images on white paper and not the white-on-black copies of the 1960s. Both are perfectly legal documents, and the fact that they were sent to Obama and all the facts on them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii. Other than that, the short form uses a different format because it is, duh, short—so what else is new?
I have yet to see one “electronic techie” say that the birth certificate or cert. of live birth or whatever they want to call was legitimate and not “manufactured”. All of them that I have seen comment about say it is not possibly a real copy of a 1961 document. So either all the techie kool-aid drinkers are keeping quiet or they have had to come clean about the facts of the paperwork.
Re: “I have yet to see one “electronic techie” say that the birth certificate or cert. of live birth or whatever they want to call was legitimate and not “manufactured”
Answer: You have not looked, that is the only explanation:
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.
Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
And that is just SOME of them.
BTW, one proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.
Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.
Oh, and also, birther “experts” (which, btw, includes the nut Doug Vogt, who has claimed to have found “the original Altar of Abraham” but never showed it—-I wonder why not???) have never explained the research on the way the Xerox WorkStation works:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/