Obama to Show Birth Certificate

[idb]

Here is a BC for a birth in 1907
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...tyPhotos/Keala Hardesty birth certificate.jpg
Note the father's race.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big reb is a big zero.

candy corn is of no substance

Candy corn is made primarily from sugar, corn syrup, artificial coloring, flavoring and binders.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is a BC for a birth in 1907
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...tyPhotos/Keala Hardesty birth certificate.jpg
Note the father's race.

Hawaii wasn't a state in 1907 think about that for a second

 

[idb]

Here is a BC for a birth in 1907
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...tyPhotos/Keala Hardesty birth certificate.jpg
Note the father's race.

Hawaii wasn't a state in 1907 think about that for a second

Hmmm...interesting, but it was an annexed territory of the USA...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dude I could careless what you post you have been defending the African racial identifier this whole ******* thread, and now you say that hasn't been your claim. **** you I know exactly what you have been defending and what you have claimed. Either produce a document from 1961 federal or state government that used African as a racial identifier. If not shut the **** up.

Depends on what you mean by "defending the African racial identifier", your incorrect claim is that because it wasn't on an official government list, that it could not have possibly been used on a Hawaiian birth certificate. It's true I disagree with that position because race on birth certificates is self-identified and is not restricted to some government list.

This position is supported by documents that YOU supplied in multiple threads that show "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" as a racial identifier and they are not on a government list either. To date you have provided no government racial identifier list which has listed those options for use on birth certificates.



So, if birth certificates are restricted to only those items that appear on some government list applicable to birth certificates you need to provide such a list that shows "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" as restricted values for Hawaii. If you can't supply a list supporting your position, then you have in fact inadvertently supported the position that race is self identified.

I can understand why you are getting so upset, it's kind of embarrassing to supply the information that disproves your own position. Probably why you are resorting to being insulting and using childish profanity.


>>>>

produce a document from 1961 federal or state government that used African as a racial identifier or shut the **** up.

Why would I, as I've shown, I've not claimed that birth certificates in the State of Hawaii only allow limited choices to some governmental list. My position is that "race" is self identified by the parent(s), as such it is perfectly logical for a Kenyan to write down "African" because that is what he has been taught to put on forms for race.

This idea of a restricted list is your position not mine, so when are you going to show the official government list that allowed "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" which were on documents that YOU have posted?

So when are you going to prove your own premise?


*************************************


Why would I even think of "shutting the **** up". You've been hoisted with your own petard and make yourself look bad. All I have to do is keep pointing out your hypocritical refusal to support the document that YOU provided and life is good.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is a BC for a birth in 1907
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...tyPhotos/Keala Hardesty birth certificate.jpg
Note the father's race.

Hawaii wasn't a state in 1907 think about that for a second

Hmmm...interesting, but it was an annexed territory of the USA...

Not a state in 1907 plus if you look at he fine print at the bottom it says something about being revised.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Depends on what you mean by "defending the African racial identifier", your incorrect claim is that because it wasn't on an official government list, that it could not have possibly been used on a Hawaiian birth certificate. It's true I disagree with that position because race on birth certificates is self-identified and is not restricted to some government list.

This position is supported by documents that YOU supplied in multiple threads that show "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" as a racial identifier and they are not on a government list either. To date you have provided no government racial identifier list which has listed those options for use on birth certificates.



So, if birth certificates are restricted to only those items that appear on some government list applicable to birth certificates you need to provide such a list that shows "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" as restricted values for Hawaii. If you can't supply a list supporting your position, then you have in fact inadvertently supported the position that race is self identified.

I can understand why you are getting so upset, it's kind of embarrassing to supply the information that disproves your own position. Probably why you are resorting to being insulting and using childish profanity.


>>>>

produce a document from 1961 federal or state government that used African as a racial identifier or shut the **** up.

Why would I, as I've shown, I've not claimed that birth certificates in the State of Hawaii only allow limited choices to some governmental list. My position is that "race" is self identified by the parent(s), as such it is perfectly logical for a Kenyan to write down "African" because that is what he has been taught to put on forms for race.

This idea of a restricted list is your position not mine, so when are you going to show the official government list that allowed "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" which were on documents that YOU have posted?

So when are you going to prove your own premise?


*************************************


Why would I even think of "shutting the **** up". You've been hoisted with your own petard and make yourself look bad. All I have to do is keep pointing out your hypocritical refusal to support the document that YOU provided and life is good.


>>>>

Horseshit nothing more to say, I hate people who post like you. the whole thread you were arguing Hawaii would have accepted African as a racial identifier in 1961, but now it isn't your argument. **** off.

 

[idb]

Hawaii wasn't a state in 1907 think about that for a second

Hmmm...interesting, but it was an annexed territory of the USA...

Not a state in 1907 plus if you look at he fine print at the bottom it says something about being revised.

Sure, but it says in the big print that it is a 'true copy of the record on file...'.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmm...interesting, but it was an annexed territory of the USA...

Not a state in 1907 plus if you look at he fine print at the bottom it says something about being revised.

Sure, but it says in the big print that it is a 'true copy of the record on file...'.

and it also says revised and 1907 was not a state. What color is American anyway?

 

[WorldWatcher]

produce a document from 1961 federal or state government that used African as a racial identifier or shut the **** up.

Why would I, as I've shown, I've not claimed that birth certificates in the State of Hawaii only allow limited choices to some governmental list. My position is that "race" is self identified by the parent(s), as such it is perfectly logical for a Kenyan to write down "African" because that is what he has been taught to put on forms for race.

This idea of a restricted list is your position not mine, so when are you going to show the official government list that allowed "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" which were on documents that YOU have posted?

So when are you going to prove your own premise?


*************************************


Why would I even think of "shutting the **** up". You've been hoisted with your own petard and make yourself look bad. All I have to do is keep pointing out your hypocritical refusal to support the document that YOU provided and life is good.


>>>>

Horseshit nothing more to say, I hate people who post like you. the whole thread you were arguing Hawaii would have accepted African as a racial identifier in 1961, but now it isn't your argument. **** off.

Actually that is factually incorrect, my argument has been and is that Hawaii would have accepted "African" as a racial identifier, just like they accepted "English", "German", "Korean" and "Portuguese" based on parent(s) self identification.

Your position has been that "African" was not on a list somewhere and so would not have been accepted. Yet you have failed to provide proof that...

1. Such a list existed for the State of Hawaii in regards to birth certificates.

2. That a government employee would reject self identification if a value not on this mythical list were provided by parent(s)

3. That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid.​

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why would I, as I've shown, I've not claimed that birth certificates in the State of Hawaii only allow limited choices to some governmental list. My position is that "race" is self identified by the parent(s), as such it is perfectly logical for a Kenyan to write down "African" because that is what he has been taught to put on forms for race.

This idea of a restricted list is your position not mine, so when are you going to show the official government list that allowed "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" which were on documents that YOU have posted?

So when are you going to prove your own premise?


*************************************


Why would I even think of "shutting the **** up". You've been hoisted with your own petard and make yourself look bad. All I have to do is keep pointing out your hypocritical refusal to support the document that YOU provided and life is good.


>>>>

Horseshit nothing more to say, I hate people who post like you. the whole thread you were arguing Hawaii would have accepted African as a racial identifier in 1961, but now it isn't your argument. **** off.

Actually that is factually incorrect, my argument has been and is that Hawaii would have accepted "African" as a racial identifier, just like they accepted "English", "German", "Korean" and "Portuguese" based on parent(s) self identification.

Your position has been that "African" was not on a list somewhere and so would not have been accepted. Yet you have failed to provide proof that...

1. Such a list existed for the State of Hawaii in regards to birth certificates.

2. That a government employee would reject self identification if a value not on this mythical list were provided by parent(s)

3. That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid.​

>>>>

horseshit stop dancing. Hawaii would not have accepted African because it wasn't the prescribe racial identifier at the time, for blacks. If so produce the government document that says it would?

That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid

You saw the list that was posted because you replied to it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMXaTktUfA]YouTube - Martin Luther King, Jr.: I Have a Dream[/ame]

No mention of African

 

[WorldWatcher]

Horseshit nothing more to say, I hate people who post like you. the whole thread you were arguing Hawaii would have accepted African as a racial identifier in 1961, but now it isn't your argument. **** off.

Actually that is factually incorrect, my argument has been and is that Hawaii would have accepted "African" as a racial identifier, just like they accepted "English", "German", "Korean" and "Portuguese" based on parent(s) self identification.

Your position has been that "African" was not on a list somewhere and so would not have been accepted. Yet you have failed to provide proof that...

1. Such a list existed for the State of Hawaii in regards to birth certificates.

2. That a government employee would reject self identification if a value not on this mythical list were provided by parent(s)

3. That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid.​

>>>>

horseshit stop dancing. Hawaii would not have accepted African because it wasn't the prescribe racial identifier at the time, for blacks. If so produce the government document that says it would?

Hawaii did accept "African" as a racial identifier at the time, it's on his birth certificate.

Produce the list that allows "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" - should be on the same list if on exists.

That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid

You saw the list that was posted because you replied to it.[/QUOTE]

Why yes I did, it didn't include "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" either. Since those were racial identifiers used on a birth document that YOU provided, it shows that birth documents were not restricted to that federal government listing.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually that is factually incorrect, my argument has been and is that Hawaii would have accepted "African" as a racial identifier, just like they accepted "English", "German", "Korean" and "Portuguese" based on parent(s) self identification.

Your position has been that "African" was not on a list somewhere and so would not have been accepted. Yet you have failed to provide proof that...

1. Such a list existed for the State of Hawaii in regards to birth certificates.

2. That a government employee would reject self identification if a value not on this mythical list were provided by parent(s)

3. That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid.​

>>>>

horseshit stop dancing. Hawaii would not have accepted African because it wasn't the prescribe racial identifier at the time, for blacks. If so produce the government document that says it would?

Hawaii did accept "African" as a racial identifier at the time, it's on his birth certificate.

Produce the list that allows "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" - should be on the same list if on exists.

That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid

You saw the list that was posted because you replied to it.

Why yes I did, it didn't include "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" either. Since those were racial identifiers used on a birth document that YOU provided, it shows that birth documents were not restricted to that federal government listing.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.



>>>>[/QUOTE]

revised document 11/01 is not 1961 try again chump.

 

[WorldWatcher]

horseshit stop dancing. Hawaii would not have accepted African because it wasn't the prescribe racial identifier at the time, for blacks. If so produce the government document that says it would?

Hawaii did accept "African" as a racial identifier at the time, it's on his birth certificate.

Produce the list that allows "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" - should be on the same list if on exists.

That this mythical list DID NOT include "African" but DID INCLUDE "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" since that was on a document you provided and touted as valid

You saw the list that was posted because you replied to it.

Why yes I did, it didn't include "English", "German", "Korean", and "Portuguese" either. Since those were racial identifiers used on a birth document that YOU provided, it shows that birth documents were not restricted to that federal government listing.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.



>>>>

revised document 11/01 is not 1961 try again chump.

Where is the revision date of 11/01? Don't see it.



>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

This is all academic.

If something was going to be done about him, it should have been done before he won the primary.

I think an amendment to the constitution needs to be voted on stating that if a presidential candidate cannot pass a full background check, if he cannot obtain the highest security clearance we have, then it doesn't matter if he meets all of the other requirements set forth.

Our simple and easily thwarted constitutional requirements were drafted in a time when patriotism may have been less of a question for native born citizens. Perhaps not, but these days it is a serious issue and a constant security risk.

These days our kids are being taught to hate this country and anyone they associate with, ie Williams Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rev. Louis Farakhan, his friendship with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and numerous others in Obama's case, should have disqualified him. Political correctness may have prevented us from placing him under investigation or acting on it when it was discovered he received campaign funds from terrorists and Palestinians.

Also, receiving contributions through the internet should be illegal because the sources cannot be identified with any certainty. This will assure that Obama doesn't get his billion dollars from outside the US, putting him on the same playing field as everyone else.

 

[idb]

Bigrednec, this isn't even an issue any more since Obama 'trumped' all the birther nutcases with the certificate they have claimed didn't exist, or that it showed that he was a member of Al Qaeda or some such nonsense.
You and your fellow cult members should be lining up to apologise to the man, and all the others that you've accused of telling lies.
Where are the websites like www.we_are_very_sorry_mr_president.com ?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Am I understanding this right? A document is 'revised', therefore all the information on that document also gets 'revised' to fit with current definitions? That doesn't even make any sense.

Is the argument "Because 'African' wasn't an official or unofficial racial identifier in 1961 and when they revised the forms in 2001 (or whenever) someone screwed up, typed in 'African' and therefore the document is fake"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Am I understanding this right? A document is 'revised', therefore all the information on that document also gets 'revised' to fit with current definitions? That doesn't even make any sense.

Is the argument "Because 'African' wasn't an official or unofficial racial identifier in 1961 and when they revised the forms in 2001 (or whenever) someone screwed up, typed in 'African' and therefore the document is fake"?

That appears to be his new strategy. Since the layout of the COLB form may have been updated in 2001, all historical data displayed on the form is false.

Of course there is no revision date on the Long Form and it contains the same information.

Silly isn't it.


>>>>

 

[idb]

Am I understanding this right? A document is 'revised', therefore all the information on that document also gets 'revised' to fit with current definitions? That doesn't even make any sense.

Is the argument "Because 'African' wasn't an official or unofficial racial identifier in 1961 and when they revised the forms in 2001 (or whenever) someone screwed up, typed in 'African' and therefore the document is fake"?

That's as good a theory as any others I've seen.