Birth cover up

First thing first, I believe Obama, being a child of an American citizen, has a legitimate angle to be president of the US. Second thing, he already is president of the US. However, I find the following tibits from a circulating email interesting as they suggests a cover up of sort.

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 aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except for 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

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://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”)?

Democratic Party & the poor

My first political eye opener was about 13 years ago. I was in an Eastern city taxi cab when I started a conversation with the driver. What he told me forever changed how I view the political system and voters. His belief was that welfare result, if not its intention, was to keep poor people down as virtual slaves. How? By making people dependent on another (in this case the government) you take away their pride and integrity as independent souls. And in doing so subvert their future to make them even more dependent by making it more lucrative to be on welfare than to work for minimum wage.
After thinking on that for sometimes, I came to agree that it was better to be poor and independent than to be dependent on anyone else for your livelihood. I am not sure why this wasn't more obvious to me and everybody. When we are old enough to leave our parents house, we do so to make something of ourselves, even if things may not be as easy as when we lived at home. And ultimately, what is the gap between economic dependency and slavery other than ownership?
While I am not suggesting that the Democratic party perpetuate a welfare state intentionally to keep the poor and disenfranchised beholden to the Democratic party politically, the result never the less remain just that. The poor and disenfranchised remain a core voting block for the Democratic party.
Yesterday I chanced across this video at the Anchoress which in essence voice a similar cry against dependency.

Feminism

The recent campaign of Hillary Clinton and the current campaign for Sarah Palin has brought the topic of feminism to the forefront for me. I have been amazed at the responses, predominantly from the left, and from a surprising percentage of women, on what they believe feminism is about.

I have always thought that feminism was about supporting a woman's right to become what ever she wants to be. Women should be doctors (over 51% of medical students are now women), lawyers, soldiers, athletes, politicians, and whatever else she desires. And to be a feminist is to support these opportunities for yourself as a woman and for other women.

Apparently I am wrong. According to the left, including leftist women, all it takes to be a feminist is to be a woman who is pro-choice.

Despite becoming the first woman governor of Alaska by running against a corrupt old-boys network, she should not be considered a feminist.
Despite trippling state funds for troubled teens, including pregnant teenagers.
Despite increasing state funds for special needs children to make it easier for their care givers (we all know which sex the care givers tend to be).
Despite advocating abstinence and contraception education.
Nope, she is not a feminist at all. Haven't made anything of herself. Haven't supported other women either.

The left is trapped by their own hypocisy.

Free Speech

Certainly the right to political free speech should be protected and respected. Columbia University uses this plank to stand on in its invitation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hitler can only exemplify the foolishness of those who believe ideas and dialogues can mollify those bent on violence and persecution.

While i will respect the right of the Devil to talk, i would be damn stupid to invite him to talk.