The end-all be-all USMB Obama Birth Poll

[bigrebnc1775]

See Post #11.


>>>>

WW what's your gut tell you ?

OK that's not fair. Now you are asking for my opinion and not a discussion of the law.

This is my opinion. It may not be based on "facts", it's not based on polls and I don't plan on trying to "prove" anything.

With those boundaries, here is what my gut tells me.


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

Elections are decided by the middle 20% of the voting demographic. 40% are going to vote Democratic no matter who they put on the ballot. 40% of Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter who they put on the ballot. Elections are actually decided by the 10% left of center and 10% right of center who vote.

The DNC groomed Obama to run for President long before the 2008 election cycle. You can go back to 2004 and the Democratic Convention where he delivered the keynote speech. Nationally the man was unknown and he hadn't been elected to any federal office. The Dem's new it was going to be tough to unseat a sitting President and at that time Bush II was doing well after 9/11 and with a good economy.

Fast forward to 2008 and you have a different situation. The economy was beginning to go downhill, Bush II couldn't run again because of term limits and the field was wide open. With the downturn in the economy, Bush bailouts, the protracted war people were not that happy with Republicans in general. On the Dem side it was pretty clear it was going to be Clinton or Obama emerging from the primaries. The DNC machine got Obama elected to the Senate which gave him some credibility on the national level and you had Clinton that carpetbagged a Senate seat out of New York. Either was going to be a win/win from the Dem side. Either they were going to be nominating the first Woman candidate with a chance at the White House or the first black candidate. Either way they were drooling of the prospect of capturing a significant portion of either the female or black demographic. The Republican field was split and never really coalesced behind one strong candidate. McCain won the split field kind of by default. None of the social conservatives were that attractive to ignite the right of center needed to win the general election. So we had a choice, McCain who had a least a shot by being able to play to the middle after the primaries or a way far right social conservative that might win the primary but wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the general election because of the demographic factor and after having Bush II in office for 8-years.

So with that said we are now in the general election period in 2008. Obama continually tracks high in the polls. He was ever in any real danger. Polling showed that the birth certificate issue was not playing a big factor in how people were deciding on who they were going to vote for so he saw no real advantage to justifying a response to the issue.

My gut felling is that he has both a COLB from Hawaii and a Long Form Birth Certificate which could be brought out at any time. My gut feeling is that he was "holding them in reserve". If the issue ever really took off and gained national attention, he could have resolved it in a day. So why didn't he? Political advantage. If the right focused on the birth certificate issue they would appear to be attacking him personally instead of his policies. That type of politics doesn't sit well with a lot of people. So his plan was to let it simmer, simmer, simmer - if it ever came to a boil - produce the documents. At that point he could then play the victim card and garner a lot of sympathy from moderates who he would need to win the election. Moderates (even right of center moderates) would see the birther issue as dirty politics being played by Republicans and McCain would be painted with that brush even if he wasn't behind it. Especially since he would have produced the needed documents by this time. Obama was in a great place, ignore the issue and keep it in the fringe wacko conspiracy realm or address the issue (once it was important enough) and gain sympathy votes. Win/Win.

Same situation basically applies now going into the 2012 cycle. If he releases it when he doesn't need to, he wastes political capitol that he can use against his opponent. However if he keeps it close to the vest, he can release it at an opportune time - associating his opponent in the media as a tool of wacko right wing elements and conspiracy theorist out to get him personally because they can't defeat him on the issues.

My gut says he was probably born in Hawaii. The degree of collaboration to include a Republican Governor of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Department of Health for it not to be "leaked" that a birth certificate isn't present is simply to much to believe. Just look at these threads. People make stupid claims about what is on his birth certificate (Religion, Race, etc.) when that information isn't even on birth certificates. Some spend pages arguing about google maps and whether there is one house or two at an address that has nothing to do with Obama. People choose to ignore the clear law at the time and claim he lost his citizenship when his mother took him to Indonesia. That he MUST have traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan because it was closed to US Citizens, again a truly false idea.

My gut says that he has the documents he needs and will use them at a time most beneficial to him where he can paint all Republicans in the worst light and give him the best shot at reelection.

If we are going to beat Obama we have to do it on the issues if we are going to win the hearts and minds of the people. We have to nail him on bailouts, we have to nail him on TARP I and TARP II, we have to nail him on ObamaCare, we have to nail him on massive government spending and expansion. If we are going to win we have to focus on Jobs, controlling Spending, and smaller government.

I'm in these threads shooting down the birthers (no offense intended) because they will latch onto some really silly shit sometimes. They refuse to acknowledge common sense, they refuse to acknowledge the laws at the time, they refuse to acknowledge anything except for their obsession with Obama shouldn't have won in 2008. Birthers will latch on to anything they think will advance an anti-Obama agenda including duping members of the military into disobeying lawful orders. They advise a sympathetic Army Lieutenant Colonel to make a stupid video, disobey military orders, and sacrifice his career while they collect money on web-sites from the true believers and an honorable man who they duped is now sitting in the Ft. Leavenworth stockade. They will advance some pie-in-the-sky idea that the entire operation of the government since January 20th, 2009 is somehow null and void without considering the catastrophe that would entail. No government expenditures would be authorized by law. The people would "owe" the government back any money received. Government contracts would be defaulted. The Government would have defaulted on out debt. Military members overseas would have acted without the color of law and would then be eligible for trial as murders and for war crimes. Anyone convicted in a federal court could petition for a mistrial and for wrongful prosecution because of not having a government. The list goes on. Some are simply delusional on the issue.

Well it's time to move beyond 2008 and focus on defeating him in 2012 and it's time to keep something silly like this from ever becoming an issue again by working towards well crafted laws (which the Arizona bill was not) that will require ALL candidates for elective office to submit documented evidence they meet the qualifications for the office they seek and establish that the Secretary of State can verify with another State the authenticity of such documents issued under the Seal of another State.


That's what my gut tells me.



>>>>

I'm in these threads shooting down the birthers (no offense intended) because they will latch onto some really silly shit sometimes. They refuse to acknowledge common sense, they refuse to acknowledge the laws at the time, they refuse to acknowledge anything except for their obsession with Obama shouldn't have won in 2008. Birthers will latch on to anything they think will advance an anti-Obama agenda including duping members of the military into disobeying lawful orders.

OK Mr. common sense why does obama produce a document that shows it was not accepted by the 1961 state registrar?

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK Mr. common sense why does obama produce a document that shows it was not accepted by the 1961 state registrar?

Thanks BR, you showed up right on queue.


>>>>

 

[Liberty]

I'd laugh hard if some Obama Admin guy secretly tapes Obama say something like "Well, of course I was born in Kenya!" and then releasing it. I wonder what would happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK Mr. common sense why does obama produce a document that shows it was not accepted by the 1961 state registrar?

Thanks BR, you showed up right on queue.


>>>>

I'm asking a honest legitimate question anyone who can actually use the word common sense in their post should be able to figure out where the BC is at that shows obama's BC was accepted by the state registrar of 1961.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK Mr. common sense why does obama produce a document that shows it was not accepted by the 1961 state registrar?

Thanks BR, you showed up right on queue.


>>>>

I'm asking a honest legitimate question anyone who can actually use the word common sense in their post should be able to figure out where the BC is at that shows obama's BC was accepted by the state registrar of 1961.

Because "date accepted" isn't the information that needs to be on a COLB and that document requirements change over time. At some point in the past, COLB's probably all listed Date Accepted, however now the Federal government requires that birth documents used for passport purposes must show the date filed with the registrars office occurred within one year of birth. Since it was a programming change in the computer and not a modification of the form layout, not updating the revision number makes perfect sense. I manage and built a form database for my government entity. I've changed print requirements and since it didn't change the fundamental layout of the form we updated the software without needing a new revision date.

"A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."

First Time Applicants​

When would that change have occurred? Unknown. You could call and ask the DOH of Hawaii. But the fact that the document should comply with federal regulations so that it can be used for passport purposes - ya, that makes sense.

But of course the idea that it prints out the needed information for proof of citizenship for passports will just become part of the conspiracy now.




What would be interesting to find out is if all COLB's printed since at least 2007 use date filed v. date accepted. If they all use date filed now, then you have your answer. The ones you have used in your side by side were probably printed prior to the change required under federal regulations.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks BR, you showed up right on queue.


>>>>

I'm asking a honest legitimate question anyone who can actually use the word common sense in their post should be able to figure out where the BC is at that shows obama's BC was accepted by the state registrar of 1961.

Because "date accepted" isn't the information that needs to be on a COLB and that document requirements change over time. At some pint in the past, COLB's probably all listed Date Accepted, however now the Federal government requires that birth documents used for passport purposes must show the date filed with the registrars office occurred within one year of birth.

"A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."

First Time Applicants​

When would that change have occurred? Unknown. You could call and ask the DOH of Hawaii. But the fact that the document should comply with federal regulations so that it can be used for passport purposes - ya, that makes sense.



>>>>

>>>>

Because "date accepted" isn't the information that needs to be on a COLB and that document requirements change over time.

It's needed to prove that it isn't a fraudulent document
You have three documents dated revised 11/01 one is dated 1930 one is dated 1977 and obama's dated 1961

On the long form BC you have two signiture spaces and dates one for filed date and one for accepted by state registrar date. 8/07/61 being the filed date and 8/11/61 being the accepted by state registrar date.

Do you now see the problem I am talking about?

 

[WorldWatcher]

"A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."

First Time Applicants​

It's needed to prove that it isn't a fraudulent document

No it's not as "Date Filed" is now required by the United States Department of State as being one of the data fields.


If you have a problem with that, talk to the feds.


Again instead of relying on undated images, lets see what Hawaii is printing on newer COLB's that conform to passport specifications.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."

First Time Applicants​

It's needed to prove that it isn't a fraudulent document
You have three documents dated revised 11/01 one is dated 1930 one is dated 1977 and obama's dated 1961

On the long form BC you have two signiture spaces and dates one for filed date and one for accepted by state registrar date. 8/07/61 being the filed date and 8/11/61 being the accepted by state registrar date.

Do you now see the problem I am talking about?

No it's not as "Date Filed" is now required by the United States Department of State as being one of the data fields.


If you have a problem with that, talk to the feds.


>>>>

Your deletion of a portion of my post tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject.
It gives proof that it is a verified document verified that it was accepted by the state registrar of 1961 until it's shown it is a fraudulent document.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your deletion of a portion of my post tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject.
It gives proof that it is a verified document verified that it was accepted by the state registrar of 1961 until it's shown it is a fraudulent document.

Your posting of old image that to not conform to current passport specifications tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject. We know Obama's (supposed) COLB was printed in 2007 because of the certification stamp.

We know that the United States Department of State requires "Date Filed" to be on current birth documents to prove citizenship.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.




You asked a question, I researched it and provided you with an answer based on federal requirements. Even federal requirements aren't good enough for you. Which is the type of silly shit I was talking about in the long post.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have three documents dated revised 11/01 one is dated 1930 one is dated 1977 and obama's dated 1961

On the long form BC you have two signiture spaces and dates one for filed date and one for accepted by state registrar date. 8/07/61 being the filed date and 8/11/61 being the accepted by state registrar date.

Do you now see the problem I am talking about?
Your deletion of a portion of my post tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject.
It gives proof that it is a verified document verified that it was accepted by the state registrar of 1961 until it's shown it is a fraudulent document.

Your posting of old image that to not conform to current passport specifications tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject. We know Obama's (supposed) COLB was printed in 2007 because of the certification stamp.

We know that the United States Department of State requires "Date Filed" to be on current birth documents to prove citizenship.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.




You asked a question, I researched it and provided you with an answer based on federal requirements. Even federal requirements aren't good enough for you. Which is the type of silly shit I was talking about in the long post.


>>>>

At least I am honest enough not to delete a portion of your post to hide wht I am arguing against.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.

Take a look at the three BC's side by side view again. All three are date revised 11/01 It doesn't matter what they do now the dates that concern me are 11/01 1930 1961 and 1977
Since the 1930 BC and the 1977 BC has an accepted by state registrar date should the 1961 also have that?

 

[Montrovant]

See Post #11.


>>>>

WW what's your gut tell you ?

OK that's not fair. Now you are asking for my opinion and not a discussion of the law.

This is my opinion. It may not be based on "facts", it's not based on polls and I don't plan on trying to "prove" anything.

With those boundaries, here is what my gut tells me.


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

Elections are decided by the middle 20% of the voting demographic. 40% are going to vote Democratic no matter who they put on the ballot. 40% of Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter who they put on the ballot. Elections are actually decided by the 10% left of center and 10% right of center who vote.

The DNC groomed Obama to run for President long before the 2008 election cycle. You can go back to 2004 and the Democratic Convention where he delivered the keynote speech. Nationally the man was unknown and he hadn't been elected to any federal office. The Dem's new it was going to be tough to unseat a sitting President and at that time Bush II was doing well after 9/11 and with a good economy.

Fast forward to 2008 and you have a different situation. The economy was beginning to go downhill, Bush II couldn't run again because of term limits and the field was wide open. With the downturn in the economy, Bush bailouts, the protracted war people were not that happy with Republicans in general. On the Dem side it was pretty clear it was going to be Clinton or Obama emerging from the primaries. The DNC machine got Obama elected to the Senate which gave him some credibility on the national level and you had Clinton that carpetbagged a Senate seat out of New York. Either was going to be a win/win from the Dem side. Either they were going to be nominating the first Woman candidate with a chance at the White House or the first black candidate. Either way they were drooling of the prospect of capturing a significant portion of either the female or black demographic. The Republican field was split and never really coalesced behind one strong candidate. McCain won the split field kind of by default. None of the social conservatives were that attractive to ignite the right of center needed to win the general election. So we had a choice, McCain who had a least a shot by being able to play to the middle after the primaries or a way far right social conservative that might win the primary but wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the general election because of the demographic factor and after having Bush II in office for 8-years.

So with that said we are now in the general election period in 2008. Obama continually tracks high in the polls. He was ever in any real danger. Polling showed that the birth certificate issue was not playing a big factor in how people were deciding on who they were going to vote for so he saw no real advantage to justifying a response to the issue.

My gut felling is that he has both a COLB from Hawaii and a Long Form Birth Certificate which could be brought out at any time. My gut feeling is that he was "holding them in reserve". If the issue ever really took off and gained national attention, he could have resolved it in a day. So why didn't he? Political advantage. If the right focused on the birth certificate issue they would appear to be attacking him personally instead of his policies. That type of politics doesn't sit well with a lot of people. So his plan was to let it simmer, simmer, simmer - if it ever came to a boil - produce the documents. At that point he could then play the victim card and garner a lot of sympathy from moderates who he would need to win the election. Moderates (even right of center moderates) would see the birther issue as dirty politics being played by Republicans and McCain would be painted with that brush even if he wasn't behind it. Especially since he would have produced the needed documents by this time. Obama was in a great place, ignore the issue and keep it in the fringe wacko conspiracy realm or address the issue (once it was important enough) and gain sympathy votes. Win/Win.

Same situation basically applies now going into the 2012 cycle. If he releases it when he doesn't need to, he wastes political capitol that he can use against his opponent. However if he keeps it close to the vest, he can release it at an opportune time - associating his opponent in the media as a tool of wacko right wing elements and conspiracy theorist out to get him personally because they can't defeat him on the issues.

My gut says he was probably born in Hawaii. The degree of collaboration to include a Republican Governor of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Department of Health for it not to be "leaked" that a birth certificate isn't present is simply to much to believe. Just look at these threads. People make stupid claims about what is on his birth certificate (Religion, Race, etc.) when that information isn't even on birth certificates. Some spend pages arguing about Google maps and whether there is one house or two at an address that has nothing to do with Obama. People choose to ignore the clear law at the time and claim he lost his citizenship when his mother took him to Indonesia. That he MUST have traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan because it was closed to US Citizens, again a truly false idea. Hell just yesterday someone claimed in the OP that Obama's birth certificate is a hoax because they didn't have computers in 1961 so his birth couldn't be recorded in a computer - I kid you not.

My gut says that he has the documents he needs and will use them at a time most beneficial to him where he can paint all Republicans in the worst light and give him the best shot at reelection.

If we are going to beat Obama we have to do it on the issues if we are going to win the hearts and minds of the people. We have to nail him on bailouts, we have to nail him on TARP I and TARP II, we have to nail him on ObamaCare, we have to nail him on massive government spending and expansion. If we are going to win we have to focus on Jobs, controlling Spending, and smaller government.

I'm in these threads shooting down the birthers (no offense intended) because they will latch onto some really silly shit sometimes. They refuse to acknowledge common sense, they refuse to acknowledge the laws at the time, they refuse to acknowledge anything except for their obsession with Obama shouldn't have won in 2008. Birthers will latch on to anything they think will advance an anti-Obama agenda including duping members of the military into disobeying lawful orders. They advise a sympathetic Army Lieutenant Colonel to make a stupid video, disobey military orders, and sacrifice his career while they collect money on web-sites from the true believers and an honorable man who they duped is now sitting in the Ft. Leavenworth stockade. They will advance some pie-in-the-sky idea that the entire operation of the government since January 20th, 2009 is somehow null and void without considering the catastrophe that would entail. No government expenditures would be authorized by law. The people would "owe" the government back any money received. Government contracts would be defaulted. The Government would have defaulted on our debt. Military members overseas would have acted without the color of law and would then be eligible for trial as murders and for war crimes. Anyone convicted in a federal court could petition for a mistrial and for wrongful prosecution because of not having a government. The list goes on. Some are simply delusional on the issue.

Well it's time to move beyond 2008 and focus on defeating him in 2012 and it's time to keep something silly like this from ever becoming an issue again by working towards well crafted laws (which the Arizona bill was not) that will require ALL candidates for elective office to submit documented evidence they meet the qualifications for the office they seek and establish that the Secretary of State can verify with another State the authenticity of such documents issued under the Seal of another State.


That's what my gut tells me.



>>>>

Damn, have to spread rep around or I'd hit you for this post.

 

[QUENTIN]

We were born in the same hospital in Honolulu, though more than a decade apart.

His birth certificate looks exactly like the one my parents kept and I've always had a copy of. I don't even know what the long-form one looks like.

I've seen not a shred of compelling evidence to suggest he wasn't born there. At Punahou he was known as a kama'aina ("child of the Islands," used at places like that to mean someone born there whether they're Hawaiian or not), so if there was some grand conspiracy it goes back to when he was 10 and long before there'd be any reason for it.

Some people who don't like him jumped on some offhand comment of his grandmother's and have run with it as they would any excuse to discredit him no matter how silly or pathetic. I don't like him, but I don't need to pretend he's not a citizen to justify why I think he's a bad president.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We were born in the same hospital in Honolulu, though more than a decade apart.

His birth certificate looks exactly like the one my parents kept and I've always had a copy of. I don't even know what the long-form one looks like.

I've seen not a shred of compelling evidence to suggest he wasn't born there. At Punahou he was known as as a kama'aina ("child of the Islands," used at places like that to mean someone born there whether they're Hawaiian or not), so if there was some grand conspiracy it goes back to when he was 10 and long before there'd be any reason for it.

Some people who don't like him jumped on some offhand comment of his grandmother's and have run with it as they would any excuse to discredit him no matter how silly or pathetic. I don't like him, but I don't need to pretend he's not a citizen to justify why I think he's a bad president.

yell yada yada yada, and it's all bullshit.^^^^^^^^^^

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To the 6 who voted

I have done research, and it points to him being born in Hawaii.

I would love to see your research. and see what information I may have over looked

 

[WorldWatcher]

You have three documents dated revised 11/01 one is dated 1930 one is dated 1977 and obama's dated 1961

On the long form BC you have two signiture spaces and dates one for filed date and one for accepted by state registrar date. 8/07/61 being the filed date and 8/11/61 being the accepted by state registrar date.

Do you now see the problem I am talking about?
Your deletion of a portion of my post tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject.
It gives proof that it is a verified document verified that it was accepted by the state registrar of 1961 until it's shown it is a fraudulent document.

Your posting of old image that to not conform to current passport specifications tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject. We know Obama's (supposed) COLB was printed in 2007 because of the certification stamp.

We know that the United States Department of State requires "Date Filed" to be on current birth documents to prove citizenship.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.




You asked a question, I researched it and provided you with an answer based on federal requirements. Even federal requirements aren't good enough for you. Which is the type of silly shit I was talking about in the long post.


>>>>

At least I am honest enough not to delete a portion of your post to hide wht I am arguing against.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.

Take a look at the three BC's side by side view again. All three are date revised 11/01 It doesn't matter what they do now the dates that concern me are 11/01 1930 1961 and 1977
Since the 1930 BC and the 1977 BC has an accepted by state registrar date should the 1961 also have that?[/QUOTE]

And two of the three do not comply with current federal requirements from the United States Department of State for proving citizenship as part of obtaining a passport.

You need to show when those birth certificates were issued. At some point after 9/11 the feds started requiring date filed to be supplied. Two of the three appear to have been generated prior to that date.

If you have some examples of COLB's printed AFTER 2007, then you might have something. Until then you are just blindly repeating a talking point that his been disproved because one of the three complies with current requirements.

Exactly the point I made in that long post, thanks for providing supporting evidence.




>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your posting of old image that to not conform to current passport specifications tells me you do not want to have an honest discussion on the subject. We know Obama's (supposed) COLB was printed in 2007 because of the certification stamp.

We know that the United States Department of State requires "Date Filed" to be on current birth documents to prove citizenship.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.




You asked a question, I researched it and provided you with an answer based on federal requirements. Even federal requirements aren't good enough for you. Which is the type of silly shit I was talking about in the long post.


>>>>

At least I am honest enough not to delete a portion of your post to hide wht I am arguing against.

If you want an honest discussion then you should show that COLB's printed since then don't contain the required information, not continue to rely on images of old(er) documents.

Take a look at the three BC's side by side view again. All three are date revised 11/01 It doesn't matter what they do now the dates that concern me are 11/01 1930 1961 and 1977
Since the 1930 BC and the 1977 BC has an accepted by state registrar date should the 1961 also have that?

And two of the three do not comply with current federal requirements from the United States Department of State for proving citizenship as part of obtaining a passport.

You need to show when those birth certificates were issued. At some point after 9/11 the feds started requiring date filed to be supplied. Two of the three appear to have been generated prior to that date.

If you have some examples of COLB's printed AFTER 2007, then you might have something. Until then you are just blindly repeating a talking point that his been disproved because one of the three complies with current requirements.

Exactly the point I made in that long post, thanks for providing supporting evidence.




>>>>[/QUOTE]

And two of the three do not comply with current federal requirements from the United States Department of State for proving citizenship as part of obtaining a passport.

so a 1930 revised 11/01 and a 1977 revied 11/01 do not meet the requirements but a 1961 revised 11/01 does? Now how does that work?

You need to show when those birth certificates were issued. At some point after 9/11 the feds started requiring date filed to be supplied. Two of the three appear to have been generated prior to that date.

If you have some examples of COLB's printed AFTER 2007, then you might have something. Until then you are just blindly repeating a talking point that his been disproved because one of the three complies with current requirements.

When they were issued? would the date of birth be the issuing date? You are really despreate. You can't explain why a 1930 revised 11/01 and a 1977 revied 11/01 does have the accepted by state registrar but a 1961 revised 11/01 does not. Why is 196 so special? why was the department of health so lazy in 1961 that they missed putting ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR on that document? No wait they did put a filing date on the document. So I guess that concealed the lazy part. Must be something else.

The only thing those three have in common is the were revised on the same date. of 11/01

 

[slukasiewski]

The lone Republican in the Hawaii State Senate told a radio interviewer today he believes "the real issue" stopping Barack Obama from releasing his long-form birth certificate is something the president has to hide, perhaps even the name of his actual birth father.

Hmmmmmm.......

Me smells something fishy here.

Perhaps Obama should simply man up - like Donald Trump did - and cough up his freaking birth certificate.

Thoughts?
Comments?

Hawaii senator questions Obama's true birth father

 

[skookerasbil]

Wonder how the public is going to react when it is revealed his parents were CIA???

 

[georgephillip]

"My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released.

"If it were just the birth certificate, that would be one thing, but it's his school records, it's employment records. … Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?"

Hawaii senator questions Obama's true birth father

Who is providing the alleged "millions of dollars in legal fees?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wonder how the public is going to react when it is revealed his parents were CIA???

Interesting but I doubt it.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is probably the result of one of these sexual encounters. From all outward appearances it would appear that Stanley Anne Durham was passed around certain radical types like Frank Marshall and Barack Obama Senior. It is very likely that no one knows who is the real father of Barack Obama. Not even the President-elect.

At the time of his birth, or shortly afterwards, someone inside the Intell community decided to take the unwanted baby - born of Intell intrigue - and use that child for the ultimate infiltration. And that is why we don't know anything about Barack Hussein Obama. He has been wiped clean. He is the ultimate cut out.

Obama's Mother A CIA Cut-Out