Kenyan Birth Certificate again – let’s wait and see

Spidey has an interesting post up about Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate again appearing in March, 2012.

Now, I’m not rushing to judgement on this, if only because the copy shown is not distinct and the timing of this miraculous discovery just before the election is … er … interesting.

OK, what is there to support this latest Kenyan certificate being his?  There is a photo image and assertion that it is his certificate.  There’s also a lot of “API will scan in here a letter from Coast Provincial Birth Registration Office in the next few hours or days, depending on how quick API is cleared to do so.  The purpose of scanning the official letter is to ensure that what we have received as you see here is fully collaborated officially.”

The African Press International article was on March 9, 2012 and today is March 26th.  I’ll believe it when I see it in a form which can be read and analysed.

You’ll also recall this from 2009:

Looks to me to be the same document again.

WND did say back then that there had been a fake doing the rounds:

Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.

… but also claimed that this certificate might still be real.  Vox Day, of WND, I notice, isn’t running anything on it for now. In 2009, WND also said:

Media Matters wrote, “Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn’t a republic until Dec. 1964.”

But Kenya’s official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.

At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.

“Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document,” the website stated.

The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.

And we might add the State Department.

The point here was that though the birth date was 1961, the copy request was 1964 and Kenya existed by then.  On the other hand, there were two points brought up that the Coast General Hospital is actually called the Coast Provincial General Hospital and unconfirmed statements that women who would give birth in 1961 would go to the “Lady Grigg Maternity Hospital” which was later rolled into the Coast Provincial General hospital.

Boing Boing also noted: “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.”  Also: “It was called the “Central Nyanza District,” not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.”

A debunking site promoting itself as a “mythbuster” spent the top two thirds of the post making assertions and applying adjectives of praise to debeunkers, with no solid evidence for its opinion, until it came up with these two:

A look at the Australian certificate:

… but which is the forgery?  The Lavender signature, which has different initials on the two certificates, is probably the clincher that one is forged.   According to one American, EF Lavender is a detergent made near Illinois.  Someone’s having a lot of fun at someone else’s expense.  One site asked which section of politics would be more likely to choose “earth friendly” for the fake name?

And why not?  As was shown in America with the long certificate finally “released” after so much pressure [or enough time to prepare this one beyond debunking], then forensically analysed and declared a forgery as well, authorities will go to great lengths, given what is riding on it not being a forgery, to pump out other forgeries.

The thing which puzzles me is how pathetic the forgeries are.  With the technical ability today, it’s almost certain, IMHO, that the forgery is meant to lead “birthers” around, they’re then debunked and everyone goes back to believing Obama is legit.

One commenter wrote:

It’s a deliberate distraction alright, but you’re mistaken if you think this means Obama is eligible for office. There are clear Constitutional issues with his parentage, such that his place of birth doesn’t matter.  That’s what all the moonbattery swirling around birth certificates is meant to obscure.

And what do you make of this one then?

The worrying thing is that the sum total reportage, except for trolling debunkers, comes in fits and starts, then disappears.  Someone’s winding someone up and I’d agree with the last commenter that it seems to be a red herring to obscure what is really going on.  I don’t believe Obama is legit – there are just too many things he’s kept concealed and his very game-playing over everything from birth certificates to university record is just not straight down the line.

I feel we’re getting the run around but how can we know what it’s covering for?  I really don’t like that nothing is straight in this case.  A certificate with no anomalies, no debunkings necessary is availabel to each and every one of us.  I have my copy, you have yours.  Why can’t Obama?

WND also drew attention to this:

Two weeks before Obama finally released his “long-form birth certificate,” Hawaii’s former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama’s original birth document – was interviewed by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was “half typed and half handwritten.”

However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were “handwritten.” What Fukino described is apparently a different document from what Obama released to the public.

I don’t want to get sucked down into the legit cert or non-legit cert.  I do want to get into why there is nothing straightforward, nothing finally agreed by all.  It really does smell.

March, 2012

Looking up Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his law-enforcment team’s investigation of Obama’s bona fides, first place I looked was top of google and it was the CBS News report. I don’t generally go to leftist sites but in this case, I had little choice. Almost immediately, there was this below, which I’ll comment on as we go down:

The publicity-hungry Arpaio, a strong opponent of illegal immigration who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” said the evidence gathered by his investigators suggests Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registration card are fakes.

Publicity hungry? This is a national broadcaster leading with a value judgement like that? Would this be allowed in a court of law?

“Based on all of the evidence, I cannot in good faith report to you these documents are authentic,” Arpaio said at a press conference in Phoenix, adding that his “investigators believe that the long form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in the paper format as presented by the White House.”

That was the factual part – what Arpaio actually did and said. CBS then comments, on the claim:

The 79-year-old Arpaio, who has been accused by the Justice Department of racial profiling and who is being probed by a federal grand jury over potential abuse of power …

That is not leading the reader? Heresay like that was 1] perfectly admissible in CBS’s eyes and 2] used to undercut what was to follow? It’s more like what a third rate blog would do.

… said he told his investigators to examine the president’s documents with “no preconceived notions,” adding that he “felt that this investigation could clear President Obama’s name and put people’s minds at ease.”

Yes, that was the second accurate reportage.

Arpaio became Maricopa County sheriff in 1993, and has been elected five times. He said the investigation, undertaken by his five-member volunteer “Cold Case Posse” at the request of an Arizona Tea Party group, did not involve any cost to taxpayers.

Had to get the Tea Party in there, did they not? That part is legit though because it pertains to influence and possible coercion.

Arpaio’s press conference puts him in league with the “birthers,” the conspiracy theorists who claim

“In league with”? That is neutral reportage for a national readership? That is not taking sides?

- against overwhelming evidence –

Really? What overwhelming evidence? On whose say-so? The long certificate already debunked and the second similarly debunked and they use the word “overwhelming”? Again, something an amateur blogger might do.

that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president. (Many “birthers” believe the president was born in Kenya.)

Note the use of the disparaging “birthers” – meaning “people of no credibility” – tacked on immediately after the claim. National broadcaster again, of supposed neutrality?

The White House’s decision to release the president’s long-form birth certificate in April has quieted such claims, though it did not extinguished them.

Really, quieted them? Not if you look at the net. Quite the opposite in fact.  And “did not extinguished“?  Level of language of a national broadcaster?

The clincher was the source they used to confirm their “evidence”:

“We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,” Mr. Obama said at the time. “We’ve got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…We do not have time for this kind of silliness.”

They really used Obama, the one being investigated, as the arbiter of what was right or wrong in this case? They got the defendant to also act as the foreman of the jury? And Obama’s “There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…” shoved into the middle of his disparagement of the claims?   Lost for words.

It’s one thing CBS doing his but I’d like to know if any leftist reading that feels it’s fair journalism as far as it goes, that all is above board in that piece, rather than being a shoddy piece of unadulterated whitewashing?

23 Responses to “Kenyan Birth Certificate again – let’s wait and see”

  1. Lemmi March 26, 2012 at 15:49 Permalink

    The only problem with the last birth certificate is that the mother’s DOB is given in American form (month first) as is the date of the lower signature. As Kenya was still a colony the dates would be in British form (day first). I’m not trying to debunk just pointing out a couple of possible errors. If this was produced by an America as a fake they would probably make this mistake, or is it a deliberate error?

  2. Twilight March 26, 2012 at 18:26 Permalink

    This thing just will not go away. I’m not saying it should – but it’s interesting that it doesn’t.

    I have the feeling that there IS something hidden, but think it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out what it is. THEY will make sure of that. It could be something fairly insignificant too, but enough to keep the distraction game going. Distraction….that’s the name of the game.

  3. ehancock March 26, 2012 at 18:48 Permalink

    For those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born somewhere else than in Hawaii, a question for you:

    I’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.

    So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?

    All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.

    Well, they never did. There is no such file.

    So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?

    Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?

    The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that Obama was born in Kenya. That was the first of the birther lies. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii. And she said in another interview, with the Hartford Courtant newspaper, that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

  4. James Higham March 26, 2012 at 19:01 Permalink

    I’m with Twilight here – the distraction seems to be the name of the game. Lemmi and Ehancock – I’ve moved my own stance in that I think all of them were fake – the first, second, the long and all the Kenyan ones to date.

    Just exactly what it means is a puzzle. I hear what you’re saying and obviously that can’t be dismissed but neither can the anomalies be swept under the rug. And they’re really are anomalies.

    And why has this thing gone the way of JFK of splitting into two camps, fighting one another? Why is there not one table and everything laid on that from any source?

    It’s this “birthers” thing, as if it’s somehow a negative, which gets me. Since when have people been vilified for seeking the solution to a puzzle? That worries me more than anything else in the story. Why, whenever anyone wants an investigation into anything, does someone come in and put -ers on the end of it?

    But looking at the certificate though – that guy in Hawaii said it was half written/half typed. When it came out, it was all typed. Leave aside the certificate and look at his college records. Why the reticence?

    You can say privacy but why? I never hid my university records from anyone – in fact I travelled about with them when I went o/s. And then you get to that weird stage set for his inauguration, spitting image of the one in Berlin, based on that mystical stuff. Why? And if there were questions which didn’t come out when they could, then why all the gameplaying over the certificates?

    There are things which don’t add up with this man and we’re being shamed by the use of the word birther into not being seen as nutters and not speaking. Now you tell me how that aids getting the facts into the open? Don’t you want the facts in the open?

  5. ehancock March 26, 2012 at 19:07 Permalink

    James Higham has not explained how Obama could have been born outside the USA despite there being no travel document found (either INS or State Department) showing that Obama or his mother traveled in 1961, and no document in Kenya except for these forgeries (the one with the footprint was published by a convicted felon who claimed to have gotten it in Kenya, but who has constantly refused to prove that he had been to Kenya).

  6. James Higham March 26, 2012 at 19:13 Permalink

    Yes but I’m not saying he was – I’m saying all of the certificates were fake and it doesn’t matter where he was born because, as Twilight said, it’s what we’re being distracted from that’s the issue. And by the way, she was an Obama supporter. Admittedly I never was. Now it’s interesting that she and I can be in the same area on this.

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA.

    You’ve actually opened a can of worms with that. What if we agree there were multiple files? It seems the most logical thing to me. OK, so why couldn’t any of those be found to lay the thing to rest for once and for all? Why did it drag on and on, with one certificate [short form] produced, obviously a dud so they had to try again and then the ludicrous long form which has been debunked all over the web, including a guy producing his own version of it.

    Why did Obama play this game instead of coming clean? That’s a question not answered by his: “We do not have time for this kind of silliness.” If anything was designed to make people even more suspicious, that was it. Look, the game I was in in my working life was to know when someone wasn’t being straight and not only was he not being straight but neither were others.

    Obama was called to account by SCOTUS, he refused and absolutely nothing happened as a result. Why? What could have been said to SCOTUS to make them back off? And who said it?

    And was there never any scandal in the U.S.A.? I seem to recall a thing called Teapot Dome and JFK and Watergate. Did they end up being nothing? By the way, Watergate didn’t erupt until after the re-election.

    I’m not saying the things above in comments are wrong. I’m saying that they’re not the complete list of anomalies.

  7. Rossa March 26, 2012 at 19:15 Permalink

    Ehancock – James doesn’t need to explain anything. All he has done is point out the inconsistencies on both sides of an argument that has clearly been designed to distract most people from perhaps more obvious and serious issues. Divide and conquer, smoke and mirrors, whatever you want to call it is a classic case of disinformation.

  8. James Higham March 26, 2012 at 19:30 Permalink

    Wish we could all just get a break in this case, Rossa. Not “from” this case – “in” it.

  9. dearieme March 26, 2012 at 19:31 Permalink

    The notion that he waws born in Kenya seems very far fetched to me. There are two interesting questions (i) What is it that he’s hiding about his birth? (ii) Who knows what it is and what are they doing with that information?

  10. ehancock March 26, 2012 at 19:51 Permalink

    If, as you admit, Obama was born in the USA, then he is a natural born citizen, and it is up to someone to prove that the birth certificate is forged, which would not make him NOT a Natural Born Citizen. It would be an impeachable offense, but you would have to prove that Obama ordered the forgery. The experts say that the image of the document may have been enhanced to make it look more clear–but NOBODY has claimed that there are facts different on the image from what was sent to Obama.

    An enhancement is not a forgery. Only if the facts on the document were changed or Obama actually had a birth certificate created, when one did not exist, would it be a forgery. But the officials in Hawaii say that the original birth certificate actually DOES exist, and that it is in the files, and they say that the facts that Obama has published are accurate, the same as on the document in the files.

    Of course, you may believe that three Republican and several Democrat officials are lying. But then there is the evidence that a Hawaii birth certificate actually DID exist in 1961 from the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. Birthers sometimes try to explain away the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers by saying that they could have been placed by relatives. But it turns out that relatives could not place birth notices in Hawaii in 1961. The papers only took notices for that section of the newspapers from the DOH, and the DOH only sent out the notices for births in Hawaii.

    There is a remaining question, why would anyone who actually was born in Hawaii and had a birth certificate showing it forge a birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii???

    However, this site began as a discussion of the birther claims of there being birth certificates proving that Obama was born in Kenya. These turn out to be obvious forgeries, and the birthers who promote them as being possibly true show either a lack of critical thinking (how could Obama have been born in Kenya without US travel documents proving it?) and/or they reveal their motives.

    Dr. Conspiracy has shown that precisely one person came to the USA from Kenya during the time when Obama was supposed to have done so and for months on either side. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/

  11. ehancock March 26, 2012 at 19:57 Permalink

    Dr. Conspiracy has shown that precisely one person came to the USA from Kenya during the time when Obama was supposed to have done so and for months on either side. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/

  12. James Higham March 26, 2012 at 20:13 Permalink

    There is a remaining question, why would anyone who actually was born in Hawaii and had a birth certificate showing it forge a birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii???

    Indeed – why did he? This is the critical question. The copy or extract was clearly a forgery – that’s been painstakingly shown by people in the field. So if all was above board, why did he do it?

  13. ehancock1 March 26, 2012 at 21:13 Permalink

    Re: “The copy or extract was clearly a forgery – that’s been painstakingly shown by people in the field. ”

    Nope. To show a forgery, you have to show either that the facts on the document were changed or that there was no original document and that the document shown is a fabrication. But all of the comments made by WND’s “experts” (who are the ones used by the sheriff’s posse as well) are consistent with enhancing a document. In other words the letters may look a bit clearer but the facts have not changed. No one has claimed that the facts are changed.

    To find out if the facts were changed, the Posse or a birther site would, of course, call Hawaii and ask the officials there if the document had changed and for them to confirm that they sent a birth certificate to Obama, but the posse did not do that, nor did any birther site. The officials in Hawaii have stated that the facts on Obama;s birth certificate are the same as those in the file.

    You can believe that three Republican officials are lying and the current DOH of Hawaii is lying as well, but very few people other than birthers will do so.

    And, get this, not one single Republican candidate for president has shown his birth certificate. People will wonder about your motives in insisting that Obama’s birth certificate is forged despite the fact that we know that he had a birth certificate in 1961 from the birth announcements and that the facts on it are accurate from the officials in Hawaii, when none of the Republican candidates has shown a birth certificate at all.

    And, of course, the motives of sites that publish obviously forged “Kenyan birth certificates” are obvious. Yet they continue to do so despite the fact that Obama could not have been born in Kenya.

    Dr. Conspiracy has just shown that precisely one person came to the USA from Kenya during the time when Obama was supposed to have done so and for months on either side. I have shown that it would be virtually impossible for a child to have been born in Kenya and reach the USA without a US travel document such as a US visa or a US passport, and be checked into the USA by the INS, and also receive a Hawaii birth certificate.

  14. James Higham March 26, 2012 at 21:36 Permalink

    Nope. To show a forgery, you have to show either that the facts on the document were changed or that there was no original document and that the document shown is a fabrication.

    Nope – you’re quite wrong there. There were insertions, deletions and layers which had no place being there. Your definition, which you wish to be that narrow, isn’t in fact in real life. I see how the argument is being brought round but the premises must all be correct for that to happen. One or two of yours are correct but others, e,g, the definition of a forgery, are not.

    The copies were shown to be forged. In fact, they were quite poor forgeries – amateur stuff.

    The only question remaining is why.

    There are many sites with the goods but this isn’t a bad start:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Other-Docs-Forged-Expert-Reports

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356005/

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/331525/

    And please don’t try: “That’s been debunked,” because it hasn’t. Sites like Snopes are known shills, he himself being a Democrat.” There are plenty of others as well.

    ………..

    Dearieme – that’s right. Supporters can twist it any way they like but they fail to answer the basic question – why would he spend that money and take that long to cover up his certificate when, as Ehancock admits – there is plenty of corroborating documentation about.

    Or there was.

  15. James Higham March 27, 2012 at 12:32 Permalink

    Ehancock – apologies for the delay – you’re comments were in spam because you’re newish and there were links – the system is hot on that. Though you had about five comments, they were based on two and you tried to repost. I think this covers all you were saying in these two comments above.

    I shall answer, of course but can’t at this moment now because other RL things are demanding I attend to them. Shall be back a.s.a.p.

  16. ehancock1 March 27, 2012 at 21:34 Permalink

    Only WND’s “experts”–who have not proven that they are experts and certainly have not shown that they are impartial–have claimed that there were changes to Obama’s birth certificate, and even they have not shown that there was a change to a single fact. Yes, they claim that the image was manipulated, but they do not say that the facts on it were different from what Hawaii sent to Obama.

    The following experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii, which is the real expert, has not said that there is anything wrong with it.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: \ldblquote 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. \’85 I\rquote 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, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined 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.”

    Document software is not the same as a photographic image. It manipulates the image in order to make it clearer. As the experts say, there are modifications, but they are “consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

    Well, that is not illegal. It is not even immoral. Making the image of a document more legible is a good thing.

    However, the bottom line is that no one believes what WND’s “experts” claim because they are doing it due to their hatred of Obama. In order to convince, you have to hire experts who are impartial, such as those from these organizations: the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or the American Society of Questioned Document Experts or the Association of Forensic Document Examiners. But birthers have not done that. WND even cut off Ivan Zatkovich’s statement about legibility although WND had hired Zatkovich–they just used the portions of his remarks that they liked.

    Getting back to the document itself. The real expert on whether a Hawaii birth certificate is forged is, of course, HAWAII, and it has not said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and three officials there state that the facts that Obama showed on the images of the birth certificate are accurate. They would have to be lying if the birth certificate were forged.

    And, as you admitted earlier, Obama has a birth certificate stating that he was born in Hawaii. But birther “experts” can keep on making claims all day long.

  17. ehancock1 March 27, 2012 at 21:37 Permalink

    It occurs to me that YOU are the one who published the forged birth certificate. In fact, you published three different forged “Kenyan birth certificates.”

    Why did you do so when you knew that it was virtually impossible for Obama to have been born in Kenya due to the absence of US travel documents and the Hawaii birth certificate?

  18. James Higham March 27, 2012 at 22:55 Permalink

    EH, there are so many inconsistencies that it would take days to address them all. For example the difference between forging and enhancing. You seriously think people are unaware of that? :) Then you say the WND expert is not but that your guy is. All assertion, with no independent way to verify.

    The bottom line is that there are serious anomalies in Obama’s behaviour and further – that people believe this to be so, the fact that he would spend that sort of money stopping the certificate coming to light and all the other things mentioned. He has the more difficult task because he’s asserting something and needs to prove it, i.e. his eligibility.

    The unfooled simply have to show inconsistencies and anomalies and there are grounds for official investigation. They’re not asserting a proposition, they’re negating his and only need one ground to do it, rather than the many there are, in order for him to be investigated.

    But America knows there’s something rotten with the man. When a judge issues an order and when placement on a ballot is at stake, when the request not to appear from him [no citizen being above the law] is struck down, so that the defendant must appear, then what happens when he doesn’t? As Malihi himself points out:

    1. He is not granted a place on the ballot, as he requests;
    2. A default order is entered.

    But what does Malihi do, quite inexplicably?

    Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against the party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding…Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html#ixzz1qM9wHSpW

    And on what grounds does he not only fail to enter the order but also grant entry to the ballot to the man who defied his court order? The grounds that the plaintiffs wanted the case decided on its merits.

    That’s like saying we won’t charge the criminal who attacked you because you wanted the case tried on the evidence. WTF is going on here?

    Every single person of age in the States knows that stank. Malihi had been gung ho in his denial of Obama’s attorney and in the space of a few days, he suddenly becomes compliant? Whatever would make a man do that? What does it say about American justice when judges can be bought or coerced? If you dispute those words, then how else do you explain it?

    And even if you can explain it, EH, why would you wish to? It’s as plain as the nose on your face that a gung ho judge has suddenly gone non gung ho. Why would it be that millions of Americans can see that but EH cannot, assuming of course that you can’t?

  19. Barking Spider March 28, 2012 at 03:17 Permalink

    James, I’m afraid ehancock1, or ellen, as she called herself at my place is a troll who’s been assigned to debunk blogposts on the subject of Obama’s birth certificate – her first comment here is a copy and paste job – she left exactly the same one at my place!

    There’s a problem with my comment system which has developed since I posted on this birth certificate and which I’m trying to get sorted out at the moment – all of the previous comments on all of my posts have disappeared and there are only four new comments, (yours is one of them), showing on my blogpost about this – also these new comments have not gone to my moderation page at JS-Kit…… so I’ll email you a screenshot of her comment from my comment moderation page and you’ll see for yourself that it’s identical.

    I’d imagine that all the other “comments” she left here on your post are also copy and paste jobs – they all stink of typical Lefty script adherence to me!

  20. ehancock1 March 28, 2012 at 19:27 Permalink

    Re: “Malihi had been gung ho in his denial of Obama’s attorney and in the space of a few days, he suddenly becomes compliant? Whatever would make a man do that? ”

    Answer: The realization that Obama was born in Hawaii, and must have been born in Hawaii due to the overwhelming evidence.

    And the realization that the birther witnesses who appeared before him were lying.

    I’m not assigned by anyone. I post on my own in order to show any fair-minded people who visit this site that the facts are very clear that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the birther “experts” who have made claims about Obama’s birth certificate have not shown that they are real experts, and CERTAINLY have not shown that they are impartial experts.

    IF you do not want opposing views, and the facts, to be posted–then do not allow comments.

  21. Barking Spider March 28, 2012 at 20:21 Permalink

    @ehancock

    No blogger I know has any problem with opposing views – but Lefty trolls who’ve been assigned to invade and detract from comment threads with copious amounts of copy and paste “stock comments” are a whole different ball game!

  22. ehancock1 March 28, 2012 at 20:41 Permalink

    I have not been assigned, and I post only the facts.

    If you cannot reply to the facts, readers will gradually learn the truth. The truth is that Obama was really truly born in Hawaii, and has proven it overwhelmingly. (The birth certificate, the confirmation of the officials, the birth notices in the newspaper, even a witness who recalls writing home about Obama’s birth–to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a child being born to a woman named Stanley.)

    Birthers, however, keep posting forged birth certificates from Kenya. Obama cannot have been born in Kenya without a US travel document and without proof in Kenya that his mother actually was in Kenya in 1961, and with the birth certificate from Hawaii showing that he was born there. Yet birthers keep on posting. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review all call birthers crazy.

  23. James Higham March 28, 2012 at 20:48 Permalink

    Answer: The realization that Obama was born in Hawaii, and must have been born in Hawaii due to the overwhelming evidence.

    And the realization that the birther witnesses who appeared before him were lying.

    That is unmitigated rubbish and you know it. More than that, it’s mischievous and unfounded. There is no reason for a debunker to lie – there’s every reason for one accused to lie. The most you can accuse the witnesses of is lack of care in the evidence but that still doesn’t answer all the questions I’ve raised.

    You have singularly failed to explain his pathetic comments about “Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request,” as reason for not ordering the default to be entered. If someone doesn’t turn up, he is entered automatically – it has zero to do with other issues and you know it very well. You left that unaddressed.

    You’ve failed to address any of the curly questions and have instead pasted swathes of extraneous material only tangentially pertaining to the questions I raised, in an attempt to swamp the dialogue and put people off.

    When I can devote the time soon, I’ll take what you wrote piece by piece.

    IF you do not want opposing views, and the facts, to be posted–then do not allow comments.

    And what exactly was the above? Even that was disingenuous, contrary to what I actually did and certainly not “opposing views”. There are no opposing views in this. There is one view – Obama’s and his detractors are attempting to show it is lies. They have no counter views of their own.

    Right, I’ll close this off for now but when I return to it, I’ll reopen comments of course.