Friend sent this to me....not sure of the author, and I know it's very well in line with other posts we've read here, but this guy does an excellent job of pointing out the REAL issues in the birth certificate....
"Yesterday the White House supposedly released the president's original birth certificate.
Here's the problem: I offend just about everyone. It's not my intention to offend anyone, but it's unavoidable at times. I occasionally point out where the Republican party has failed the country. While this makes Democrats happy, it also offends Republicans.
I also point out where the Democrat party has failed the country. While this makes Republicans happy, it also offends Democrats.
So by offending Democrats and Republicans at one time or another, I manage to offend over 95% of the population. Again, that's not my intent, it's just the nature of having to talk about financial topics. The actions of government affect all things financial, and you can't be thorough in examining financial matters without considering government impact. And government is primarily composed of the two parties mentioned above.
I ask you to please don't take offense if your particular party is in the line of fire on any particular day. Believe me, there will be plenty of instances when the opposing party will be in my crosshairs.
There are some good things within each party. And there are plenty of bad things within each party as well. I often talk about how those bad things will harm our wealth. Neither party has a monopoly on bad things. I simply want to deal with the bad in both parties to enhance our wealth and for the betterment of the country.
I am not pro-Republican, nor am I pro-Democrat. I am pro-Constitution, pro-honesty, pro-personal freedom, pro-personal rights, pro-accountability, and many more.
My goal is not to offend anyone. My goal is to cut through the BS and deal with reality. So please don't take offense. These are real issues that must be dealt with, and discussed.
Now, yesterday Karl Denniger explained how the document that was released to the public was tampered with. A friend, who is a tech guy, also downloaded the document directly from the White House and confirmed that the document that was released to the public had been played with in Illustrator.
He offered a simple explanation: What if someone on the White House IT team wanted to practice his Illustrator skills and simply grabbed the nearest document to practice on, which happened to be the birth certificate. Then, when the decision was made to release it to the public, the person who did so grabbed the copy that the other IT employee had been playing with.
Maybe there is a genuine, un-altered birth certificate, and it was merely an accident that an altered copy was released to the public.
Plausible. Not likely, but conceivably it could have happened as my tech guy proposed. Maybe releasing a birth certificate that had clearly been tampered with was just an accident.
So I got to thinking and digging a little further. It is very important, especially in financial matters, to have an open mind and investigate without preconceived notions.
I don't know where the President was born, nor do I have an opinion. I merely have a lot of questions, and I know that if he WASN'T born in the U.S. it could be a trigger to greatly amplify our current economic crisis.
So let me point out a couple more things about the document that was released yesterday.
The document lists the President's father's birthplace as Kenya. But Kenya didn't officially become Kenya until December 12, 1963. The President was born in 1961. Would his birth certificate list a country that wasn't officially a country? You can see the date that Kenya became a country in the right hand column in this Wikipedia entry:
[link to en.wikipedia.org
Before that date, the land was officially British East Africa Protectorate, or simply British East Africa:
[link to en.wikipedia.org
It was also referred to as Kenya Colony, or the Protectorate of Kenya:
[link to en.wikipedia.org
Was it referred to simply as "Kenya?" Yes, in this map of Africa from 1950:
[link to www.ngmapcollection.com
It is conceivable that Kenya was put on the birth certificate instead of the official "British East Africa Protectorate" or even "British East Africa." I would think at a minimum, it would say "Colony of Kenya," since that is how it was described in 1961.
Simply putting Kenya is conceivable, but it does cause me to go: Hmmmmm.
Now here's another issue with the document that is far more of a dilemma. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". I find that INCREDIBLY odd.
If you want to know more about that hospital, here is a page on its website that describes its background:
[link to www.kapiolani.org
Notice that Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, which is the hospital in question that is listed on the President's birth certificate, didn't even exist in 1961. It didn't come into existence until 1978. Before then, there were two hospitals, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital and Kapi‘olani Maternity Home.
The hospital's OWN WEBSITE says that those two hospitals merged in 1978 to become the one single hospital that is listed on the document the White House released as being the official birth certificate.
How in the world, in 1961, could anyone have known that 17 years later, a merger between two hospitals was going to happen, and list the yet-to-be-formed hospital on the President's birth certificate?"
I don't have an answer to that, and I'm not sure that anyone does.
The possible economic implications are just as monumental as the Constitutional ones.