Tag Archives: General

Debunking the 'Birthers' So Called "Birth Certificate" From Kenya

Posted on by
1

So called Kenyan "Birth Certificate"

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.

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?

Eighth, 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.

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.

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.

All in all.... the Kenyan one is the fake.  Not the Hawaiian one.

More detailed debunking.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Questioning Mukasey Isn't Fair?

Posted on by
Reply
Bush:  "I believe that the questions he's been asked are unfair; he's not been read into a program -- he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he has not been briefed."
Isn't that the point of the hearings?  To ask him questions?  Learn his views?  See if the rest of the country wants him as Attorney General?
"Q Judge Mukasey is experienced in terrorism trials, he's been around. Why is it wrong for him -- or why will you not let him say whether he thinks that waterboarding is illegal torture? THE PRESIDENT: He has not been read in -- first of all, let me put this in perspective. The Congress did pass a law, the Detainee Detention Act [sic], that I signed into law. The techniques we use informed that law and members of the Senate and House -- select members of the Senate and House, both parties, have been briefed on the law. Secondly, he doesn't know whether we use that technique or not."
Use of  "water-boarding" has been confirmed in use.  It's a technique we picked up from the Spanish Inquisition, Pol Pot, and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.  We KNOW what's involved.  It's been described, re-enacted on television, photos from previous wars, etc.  If that isn't enough for him to make a decision, and he's trust-worthy enough to be considered for Attorney General, give him clearance and let him see the papers he needs so that he can form an opinion and answer the question.  It's not that difficult.  The only reason for the current arguement is so he doesn't have to say if he approves or not and can defend the status quo, which would fail to get him approved by the Senate.  They don't want the status quo.  They want honesty, openness, and NO TORTURE.  It's not the huge request the administration makes it out to be. But since he can't answer it, how about someone who is cleared and briefed answer the question?
Q What is your own view about waterboarding? THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to talk about techniques.
Oh.............

Popularity: 1% [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]