A logical and electrocodicological examination of the email with all of Obama's Birth Certificate information on it

For background on this post, see:
http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2009/10/man-without-country.html
http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2010/06/barack-hussein-obamas-birth-certificate.html

A few days ago I received an email showing more details on Barack Hussein Obama II's Kenyan birth certificate than I had seen yet. I attempted to copy it here, but the graphics didn't come through. I then emailed it to my blog, which worked a little better, but the photos were cut off due to column restrictions. Now that I found the whole thing at this website, I'm deleting the graphics from my original post, leaving in just the text and my comments. I'm still willing to email it to anyone upon request, but for now let's just go with my analysis.

"Here it is, folks! The document we have been waiting for!Now if only SOMEONE in Congress or the Supreme Court will act on this!
Spread this around.....if these documents are as authentic as they certainly seem to be, Obama is NOT qualified to be our President and he sits in the White House illegally!This is what Obama has spent almost $2M (so far) to hide."

Note that two allegations are being made:
1) these documents are authentic;
2) Obama has spent almost two million dollars to suppress the fact of his Kenyan birth.

In response,
1) Snopes has provided evidence that the Certified Copy of Registration of Birth is a forgery. I believe they're probably right, for several reasons:
a) The artifact has been traced back to a particular online image (an Australian CCRB) that was manipulated with information available online. In other words, there is no provenance for the image as presented, but there is provenance for the image as manipulated. Like moveon.org's fake Hawaiian certificate, it's an electronic forgery.
b) The number and other background information exactly match those of the online Australian exemplar. In other words, it was a rushed job by a careless forger.
c) The Certificate mentions the Republic of Kenya, which didn't apparently exist as such on the date specified. In other words, the forger didn't do his homework.

Okay, so much for one piece of evidence. But remember that in a court of law, the nullification of one piece of evidence has no bearing on the authenticity of any other piece of evidence. Mere intrusion of falsified evidence into a case does not cast doubt on any other piece of evidence, unless it can be independently brought under suspicion. So, on to the other document, the Coast Province General Hospital Certificate of Birth.

First of all, in examining this photograph I was amazed to find out how accurately my first depiction of it had been, based totally on a screen capture from a video actually filmed in Kenya. The Rense image is, naturally, much clearer--which most likely indicates that it is an actual photo of a physical object, not a manipulated screen image. Furthermore, we have full provenance for this artifact: it was obtained by a named individual on a specified date from a given location in Kenya--exactly where it would be expected to be found. Nobody could expect to make this all up just from information available online. So on its face, it shows no signs of forgery. But let's go on to see what Snopes has to say about it:

"This document exhibited many of the same red flags as the previous forgery. . ."

This assertion absolutely defies logic. Snopes listed only three red flags for the previous document, and only one of them is shared by both. Under no stretch of the imagination could one out of three be considered "many of the same." So those of us committed to the truth can stop right there. Snopes is carrying water for the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Nothing Snopes has to say on the matter can be trusted. But we'll analyse it regardless:

". . . including its identification of the location of Barack Obama's birth as Mombasa . . . a thousand miles to the east. It didn't even have an international airport until 1979."

There are several problems with this assertion, starting with a very basic math problem: Kenya is only five hundred miles wide (which comes out to about 1000 kilometers from Nyanza to Mombasa--hmmm). And due east of Nyanza is not Mombasa, Kenya, but Kismaayo, Somalia; some 300 miles up the coast from Mombasa. So Snopes apparently quoted this 'authoritative' source without even so much as a cursory glance at a map of Kenya--one measured in miles, that is. It doesn't appear that Snopes has much regard for the truth at this point, but we'll keep going.

The 'authoritative' but unnamed source (probably David Weigel) makes much of there not being an international airport in Mombasa. That's totally beside the point; there's an international airport in Nairobi, and it's only fifteen hours by train from Mombasa; that's shorter than the flight from Nairobi to Honolulu. That leaves enough time for three days in the hospital and one more to get out of the country by Barry's fourth day. And as for Mombasa being such a suspicious location in which to be born, guess what: a lot of births happen at surprising times and locations. The whole point of the story is that Barry's birth came somewhat unexpectedly, and Ann was taken to the nearest hospital to have him. And furthermore, Snopes has the whole scenario backwards: this isn't a 'second' document, but the original with which the whole fury erupted, and the primary source for the information incorporated into the subsequent forgery. We could question Orly Taitz' intelligence for accepting the latter at face value, but no more so than Snopes for doing the same with their woefully inaccurate source.

So, to conclude, the original email brushed aside questions about the authenticity of the documents establishing Barack Hussein Obama as having been born in Mombasa, Kenya. Snopes asserted their inauthenticity, using untruthful information to support this claim. Both were wrong. There is almost no chance that the document without provenance is authentic; but almost no chance that the provenanced document isn't. (Briefly, for those wondering what 'provenanced' means, it refers to knowing where something came from--not something that 'just appeared' from who knows when and where, as did the online forged Certificates from Mombasa and Honolulu). On to the next point.

Secondly, did Barack Obama spend 2 million dollars to suppress this information? The answer is a bit nuanced: Obama does have a legal fund, and has paid lawyers to take steps to make his records unavailable for public review. While none of that money has been recorded as being spent on these specific two documents, he has apparently ordered suppression or even deletion of the following records:
All Presidential Archives relating to him (one of his very first executive orders as president)
His hospital birth records
His mother's passport records prior to 1965
His kindergarten records from Honolulu, Hawaii
His Foreign Student application
His records from Occidental College and Columbia University
His Columbia thesis
His Harvard Law School records
His Harvard Law Review articles
His scholarly articles from the University of Chicago
His passport records
His medical records
His files from his years as an Illinois state senator
His Illinois State Bar Association records
His Indonesian adoption records

I can imagine that all this could well have cost $2 million, and as far as I know no one in the Obama camp is even willing to discuss this claim, much less refute it.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 2014: This whole list has been shown to be specious.

Okay, back to the email.

"A British history buff was asked if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961. After only a few minutes of research, he called back and said "Sir Edward F. Lavender” Note the same name near the bottom of the photo above. Source(s): “ Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library."

This all relates to the forged document, the provenance of which was an altered Australian certificate. Nothing about this smacks of authenticity, but it's only a red herring to distract from the authentic Kenyan birth certificate.

"The Mombasa Registrar of Births has testified that Obama's birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa is genuine. This copy was obtained by Lucas Smith through the help of a Kenyan Colonel who recently got it directly from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Lucas Smith, of course, is the man who originally obtained the Kenyan Birth Certificate. Any information about him would best come directly from him, but the email appears to have gotten this pretty close.

"The local Muslim Imam in Mombasa named Barack with his Muslim middle name Hussein so his official name on this certificate is Barack Hussein Obama II."

There's no evidence behind this statement as far as I know, just speculation.

The grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. reveals the story of his birth in Mombasa , Kenya , a seaport, after his mother suffered labor pains while swimming at ocean beach in Mombasa. . . On August 4, 1961 Obama's mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa, Kenya."

I still don't know where this tidbit came from, but it's easily falsifiable. Was there a Muslim festival on August 4, 1961 in Mombasa? I haven't seen any evidence pro or con. One would think the debunkers could answer the question fairly easily. As for myself, I doubt there was. This statement is not provenanced and was probably made up off the top of someone's head. This doesn't prove that Barack Obama was never born, however! It's pretty obvious that he was born; the only question is, where? Obama has made a point not to answer that question to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

"Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama’s went to the beach to cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!)"

I suspect this was made up based on a couple observations. Yes, obviously pregnant women were barred from air travel in those days, but first births, especially to teenagers, are almost never that fast, and any given day in Mombasa is hot; it's nearly on the equator! And there was nothing intrinsically sad for the USA that a boy was born in Kenya on that day or any other.

"Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth."

We won't know if this is true until we are allowed to see the actual certificate. But who could have known this information? His grandmother, for one, but she conveniently died just before this question was raised. I'm afraid this is not the statement of an eyewitness.


"Letter from Kitau in Mombasa , Kenya:
I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put out by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical."

We could really stand to examine this witness in court, inasmuch as he provides a key to one of the stickiest problems of the Kenyan Certificate: the dating scheme. The Certificate bears the dates 11/29/1942, 8/5/1961, and 8/7/1961. In the standard British format, these would have read 29/11/1942, 5/8/1961, and 7/8/1961. It would seem most peculiar that James Ang'Awa, John Odongo, and the Mombasa registration clerk all used the American format. We would practically need another birth certificate from the same period, bearing the same signatures, to be assured that this was not an American forgery. Thus Kitau's verbal and material testimony is essential. Where is he?

"I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the "copy" of the original was ordered. I stress the word "copy". My copy also has republic of Kenya. So what you say is true about Kenya not being a republic at the time of Obama's birth, however it was a republic when the copy was ordered."

Kitau is here a witness for the authenticity of the forged Copy. Alas, it doesn't look like his testimony in favor of authenticity is worth anything. Instead, he provides testimony that casts doubt on the authenticity, not of the forged document, but of the provenanced one. He needs to be cross-examined to settle the question.

"The birth certificate is genuine. I assure you it will be authenticated by a forensic auditor. We are very proud Obama was born here. We have a shrine for him and there are many people who remember his birth here as he had a white mother. They are being interviewed now by one of your media outlets. Fortunately they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at the Mombasa hospital with the hospital in the back ground. It will be a proud day for us when it is proven that he was born here and a Kenyan became the most powerful man in the world. I encourage anyone to come here and visit. I will be happy to take you and show you the pictures at the hospital myself as well as my document and many others that are identical to what Taitz posted. God Bless. Kitau"

Well, this is all very well and good, except that we have no way of identifying Kitau in order to take him up on his offer. Strike his testimony from the record until it can be somehow verified.

"So, how much more proof do we need? Well, Here it is...
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child - Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America?"

There are several allegations being made here; I should note that NONE of them have been specifically disputed by the Obama camp.

1) This is an authentic copy of Obama's school registration.
2) Obama was, at the time of his residence there, a citizen of Indonesia.
3) Obama was presented as the legal son of Lolo Soetoro.

So--forget, for a moment, all the accusations of forgery. This one undisputed document is enough to prove that Barack Obama is a foreigner--and as such is not qualified to serve as the President of the United States. Regardless of how he pulled it off, or how long he can expect to get away with it, he is a usurper: a Pseudo-president.

National ID: now and later

I was recently reading from a dystopian novel that got a lot of bad reviews due to the shallowness of the story line. I generally notice a lot of defects in fiction books, which is only one reason why I don't recommend them. At any rate, one defect not mentioned was the idea that in some future Big Brother state, a person could stay off the government's radar by living in a rural location. Ha.

I'll give a brief glimpse of my view of the future when I am an old man, sometime in the middle of this century.

Every adult will have a cell phone. But it won't just be a simple cell phone, it will be a computer registered to and usable by only one person. Everyone will have a Facebook account, and only one; it will be linked to the person's ID Number (formerly known as Social Security Number). There will be no such a thing as anonymous web surfing (except for geeks and/or Party Members with an incognito override password); everything anyone does online will be subject to instant recall for investigation, coercion, or prosecution. Logging on will be automatic; one's palm will be scanned to ensure identity as soon as the phone is picked up.

It will no longer be necessary to give your Social Security number over the phone, or to enter a credit card number for a purchase. This information will be part of your login. If your phone is stolen, it won't be able to be used without your unique palm print. There will be no pay phones or private land lines, making it virtually impossible to make an anonymous phone call. All remaining phones will have a finger scanning device that must be activated to make a call, facilitating Caller ID on the other end.

Physical credit cards won't be necessary; at checkout, you'll have your fingerprint scanned and your designated account will be debited the correct amount. Library cards likewise.

As you can see, it won't be possible to 'hide' from Big Brother by living in a remote location. All stores will be linked to the National ID, so it won't be possible to buy or sell without one. Nor will it be possible to have Gainful Employment, or even to receive payment for goods or services rendered. Or to own property, or to drive, or to take public transport. Or to pass through any checkpoint. Or to vote. Without a National ID, even the most basic medical care will be unobtainable. Not having an ID will require the utmost in reclusivity: such a person will be subject to arrest at any time for vagrancy, and anyone whose finger scan comes up blank will be immediately suspected of terrorism.

I started thinking about this recently when I decided to test the theory that it's impossible to be paid by bank draft. Having in hand a draft made out to my order by a share draft account holder at a credit union, I headed into the local branch to be paid. The building was indistinguishable from a bank, even down to its designation as a "banking location" on the front door. I went up to a teller and presented the share draft. She asked for my account number, explaining that no one can collect on any of their drafts without an account number at their credit union (or one of the credit unions in their joint association). If I could prove that I had no such account, I would have to provide 2 pieces of ID and would be assigned a "guest account" through which to process my payment. But since it's impossible to have 2 forms of ID without a National Identification Number, the teller was admitting that it is now impossible to do business without one. And there is now no difference whatsoever in banking at a bank, versus banking at any other financial institution under the national thumb of the Patriot Act.

As of yet, it is not a crime to be without a National ID Number. But there's no need to make it one. Without having the number to serve as a gateway into the entire financial system, it is increasingly impossible to legally participate in society.

Latest twist in the Iran crisis: Foment in Bahrain

Bahrain is an island nation in the Persian Gulf, connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway and to the rest of the world by a major sea port. It's just across the Gulf from Iran, and about 15 per cent Persian by population. For this and a variety of other reasons, it represents the first line of defense against Persian expansion in the region. If Bahrain falls to Iran, we're all in trouble.

One thing nobody is writing about is the security situation for the US Fifth Fleet Headquarters. Most assigned Americans are housed not on the base itself, but in surrounding apartment buildings. This has got to have somebody in Central Command worried.

developing . . .

How Jessup became Jesus in four simple steps

Well, I'm back at the keyboard again after a couple weeks off. I've had some things in mind to write about--primarily the latest advances toward universal identification--but for now I'll dash off a quick complaint about the poor editorial practices that pass for professional book publishing.

I was looking over the #3 NYT Best Seller (Fiction) and noticed a glaring *electrotypographical error. The name "Jessup" had been replaced with "Jesus." Now, given that the context was an ex-convict being pictured enjoying a surf in the ocean, it should have been obvious to any proofreader what happened. I'll reconstruct it here, using the power of Conjectural Emendation.

1. The author, typing his original draft, missed one letter, resulting in "Jesup." This is a common scribal error known as haplography, in which a textual feature, that should have been doubled, wasn't.

2. Spell Check, being familiar with the name "Jesus," but not with "Jesup," suggested the change.

3. Someone, probably a copy editor at the world famous publishing house, had left his or her brain at home that day and allowed Spell Check the privilege of doing the job for him or her.

4. All subsequent checkers imagined that in a story about a man named "Jessup" getting his picture taken and published, a picture of "Jesus" on a surfboard made perfect sense.

I don't have very high hopes that this will be changed in the paperback edition. If it does eventually get corrected, this will just go to show that by no means is the earliest copy necessarily the best one.

I remember writing earlier on how Spell Check changed 'grafitte' to 'graphite', but that post seems to have been lost in the mists of cyberspace.

*electrotypographical error (I term I just coined): An error in a text most likely to have been perpetuated when the text was composed and/or edited electronically; commonly a situation in which a computer program suggested an alternate spelling to an incorrectly spelled word, resulting in an even worse mistake, which was not subsequently corrected before publication.

Drill seargent tells despondent recruit to jump out of a third-story window; he does. He dies; dad sues. Feds refuse; we all lose.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that suicides among America's military were up--way up, but that when a military member died of a "non-combat death currently under investigation," it usually wasn't considered news.

Well, this website is doing something to change that.