The end-all be-all USMB Obama Birth Poll

[R.D.]

What, there's no option for "I believe he was born in Kenya, but support him because I believe in his policies?" I guess the assumption is that only people who already don't support him believe he was born in Kenya.

That would be the "I don't care that he is dishonst and played
me for a fool he was born in Kenya but is still da man" option

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

The "revised" date applys to the form and not the underlying data printed on the form.


See many, many moons ago man invented these things call computers. Computers run by a combination of "hardware" and "software". Now there are all different kinds of computers. There are relatively inexpensive personal computers and larger, more expensive business computers that can run enterprise level applications where they can store, retrieve and quickly process hugh amounts of data. Over the years big organizations transferred paper storage to the much more efficient electronic storage so that they could tell the computer systems to print some of that information on paper.

There are times that there needs to be a change to the print functions that the computer system outputs. The change in printing doesn't impact form layout, so a revision number is not changed - it's still the same form. But when the underlying data to be changed is different these godlike human called programmers, they change the software and issue what are called "patches" or "upgrades" to the application. These "patches" or "upgrades" replace the old instructions in the application with new instructions.

Once the new instructions are installed, the form may retrieve different information from the underlying database to be printed. Sometimes the requirements for the form change, for example, maybe the Federal Government used to accept date accepted when someone uses the form to apply for a passport. But one day these nasty radical Muslims decided to fly airplanes into important public buildings, so the federal government decides at some point after that that they want "date filed" information instead. They tell the states, the state tells the departments, the department tells the manager, the manager tells the supervisor, the supervisor tells the programmer. The programmer patches the system so instead of printing one date from the stored information, it prints another date instead. One that complies with the new requirement.

And that's how it works.

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?

That is what is unknown about the examples you continue to use.

would the date of birth be the issuing date?

You are being silly now right?

But here let me spell it out. The date of birth is the date of birth, the issuing date is the - well - date it was issued. They are not the same thing.

You are really despreate.

Not in the least. I'm the one that has shown that the federal requirements for a COLB contain "date filed".

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.

I already have, it a federal requirement. You on the other hand have not shown when your 1930 and 1977 certificates were issued as that date determines whether they are in compliance with federal requirements. If your 1930 and 1977 examples ordered their COLB's now, they would state "date filled" to comply with federal regulations.

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?

It's not a function of what happended in 1961, it's a function of what the federal government has been requiring since at least 2007. The information that was transferred to computers from the 1961 documents is stored in the computer, the federal government is now requiring date filled.

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

The form was revised 11/1 that does not mean the data printed on the form could not be changed to comply with federal regulations to comply with requirements issued by the United States Department of State for passport requirements to prove citizenship.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

The "revised" date applys to the form and not the underlying data printed on the form.


See many, many moons ago man invented these things call computers. Computers run by a combination of "hardware" and "software". Now there are all different kinds of computers. There are relatively inexpensive personal computers and larger, more expensive business computers that can run enterprise level applications where they can store, retrieve and quickly process hugh amounts of data. Over the years big organizations transferred paper storage to the much more efficient electronic storage so that they could tell the computer systems to print some of that information on paper.

There are times that there needs to be a change to the print functions that the computer system outputs. The change in printing doesn't impact form layout, so a revision number is not changed - it's still the same form. But when the underlying data to be changed is different these godlike human called programmers, they change the software and issue what are called "patches" or "upgrades" to the application. These "patches" or "upgrades" replace the old instructions in the application with new instructions.

Once the new instructions are installed, the form may retrieve different information from the underlying database to be printed. Sometimes the requirements for the form change, for example, maybe the Federal Government used to accept date accepted when someone uses the form to apply for a passport. But one day these nasty radical Muslims decided to fly airplanes into important public buildings, so the federal government decides at some point after that that they want "date filed" information instead. They tell the states, the state tells the departments, the department tells the manager, the manager tells the supervisor, the supervisor tells the programmer. The programmer patches the system so instead of printing one date from the stored information, it prints another date instead. One that complies with the new requirement.

And that's how it works.

When they were issued?

That is what is unknown about the examples you continue to use.




You are being silly now right?

But here let me spell it out. The date of birth is the date of birth, the issuing date is the - well - date it was issued. They are not the same thing.



Not in the least. I'm the one that has shown that the federal requirements for a COLB contain "date filed".




I already have, it a federal requirement. You on the other hand have not shown when your 1930 and 1977 certificates were issued as that date determines whether they are in compliance with federal requirements. If your 1930 and 1977 examples ordered their COLB's now, they would state "date filled" to comply with federal regulations.

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?

It's not a function of what happended in 1961, it's a function of what the federal government has been requiring since at least 2007. The information that was transferred to computers from the 1961 documents is stored in the computer, the federal government is now requiring date filled.

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

The form was revised 11/1 that does not mean the data printed on the form could not be changed to comply with federal regulations to comply with requirements issued by the United States Department of State for passport requirements to prove citizenship.


>>>>

let's cut through all your bull shit. I also provided a long form BC dated aug 5 1961 it has a filed date and a accepted date that proves that I am correct.

I already have, it a federal requirement. You on the other hand have not shown when your 1930 and 1977 certificates were issued as that date determines whether they are in compliance with federal requirements. If your 1930 and 1977 examples ordered their COLB's now, they would state "date filled" to comply with federal regulations.

No it wouldn't because on my grand sons BC it says Accepted by state registrar oct. 27 2008. And yes he was born in Hawaii.

and to answer your question here's a more recent hawaii BC that has accepted by state registrar

 

[rightwinger]

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

Obama's birth certificate has been produced and certified. Trumps has not

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So according to tim adams obama doesn't have a long formBC and was born outside the united states but is still an American citizen?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZBpWl1wo4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Tim Adams, former Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu, Says Barack Obama was Not Born in Hawaii[/ame]

 

[Two Thumbs]

Guess what folks!

It doesn't matter where Obama was born.

A YUP.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he was born a U.S. citizen no matter where he was born.

The whole discussion is idiotic!

Actually no.

His father was not a citizen.

If you are going to use country of birth as the sole source of citizen ship, then obama, at best has dual citizenship, and not eligable, at worst he's a citizen of his fathers country.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What a painfull read.

For those of you that think the Long Form is not proof, contact your county clerks office and get a "BC" sent to you.

It will say "Proof of Life" on or near the top.

why?

B/c the originals are produced at the, or near, time of your birth. Everything else is an official copy.

No one, not even the Pres, can get the only original left in the Clerks office.

so all you dimwits demanding to see tha actual BC are shit outta luck.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a painfull read.

For those of you that think the Long Form is not proof, contact your county clerks office and get a "BC" sent to you.

It will say "Proof of Life" on or near the top.

why?

B/c the originals are produced at the, or near, time of your birth. Everything else is an official copy.

No one, not even the Pres, can get the only original left in the Clerks office.

so all you dimwits demanding to see tha actual BC are shit outta luck.

hawaii still does issue a copy of the original long form BC.

 

[konradv]

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

His BC has been on-line forever and Hawaii certified it. If there's a birth-father discrepency, that's his private business. He was born in Hawaii, as newspapers also attested, and his mother was a citizen. Sounds like case-closed to me.

 

[VaYank5150]

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

I wonder just how many of these assholes know that the crucial voting block in electing the next POTUS doesn't give a rat's ass about these birther morans and would prefer our elected officials concentrate on the economy and jobs?

 

[Two Thumbs]

What a painfull read.

For those of you that think the Long Form is not proof, contact your county clerks office and get a "BC" sent to you.

It will say "Proof of Life" on or near the top.

why?

B/c the originals are produced at the, or near, time of your birth. Everything else is an official copy.

No one, not even the Pres, can get the only original left in the Clerks office.

so all you dimwits demanding to see tha actual BC are shit outta luck.

hawaii still does issue a copy of the original long form BC.

That's b/c it's a proof of life.

Seriously, try to get an actual birth cert from your county of birth. It will say proof of life.

It's the only thing you can legally get.

 

[Ravi]

I bet he doesn't have a physical birth father! His mother was probably impregnated by God, just like the Virgin Mary.

 

[konradv]

I bet he doesn't have a physical birth father! His mother was probably impregnated by God, just like the Virgin Mary.

Is that why Rush keeps calling him "The Messiah"? Maybe the man DOES know more than ordinary humans!!!

 

[Ravi]

Guess what folks!

It doesn't matter where Obama was born.

A YUP.

His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he was born a U.S. citizen no matter where he was born.

The whole discussion is idiotic!

Not true.

Under the current law (8 USC §1401) if a person born outside the United States to one parent who is a United States Citizen and one who is an alien, the citizen parent must have been a citizen for 5 years prior to the birth, 2 of which must be after reaching the age of 14.

At the time of Obama's birth, the applicable section of the United States Code was written under the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1952 (Section 301). At the time the requirement was to have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which had to be after the age of 14. Stanley Dunham was born November 29, 1942, Barrack Obama was born August 4, 1961. Stanley Dunham couldn't pass citizenship to an offspring born outside US territory until her 19th birthday which was on November 29, 1961. Obama was born 3-months shy of that mark. So if his birth had been outside the territory or the United States, no he wouldn't have been a citizen at birth.


Not making a claim either way on where Obama was born. Just pointing out a factual error in the law.




United States Code: Title 8,1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | LII / Legal Information Institute
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1


>>>>

That's interesting but I don't think you are explaining it properly. What was, was. What is, is. If the requirements NOW say one thing then Obama is a citizen because of his mother's citizenship...no matter what the law or rule was in the past.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a painfull read.

For those of you that think the Long Form is not proof, contact your county clerks office and get a "BC" sent to you.

It will say "Proof of Life" on or near the top.

why?

B/c the originals are produced at the, or near, time of your birth. Everything else is an official copy.

No one, not even the Pres, can get the only original left in the Clerks office.

so all you dimwits demanding to see tha actual BC are shit outta luck.

hawaii still does issue a copy of the original long form BC.

That's b/c it's a proof of life.

Seriously, try to get an actual birth cert from your county of birth. It will say proof of life.

It's the only thing you can legally get.

Here's a Hawaiian long form BC dated 1961

Where does it say proof of life.

 

[Two Thumbs]

hawaii still does issue a copy of the original long form BC.

That's b/c it's a proof of life.

Seriously, try to get an actual birth cert from your county of birth. It will say proof of life.

It's the only thing you can legally get.

Here's a Hawaiian long form BC dated 1961

Where does it say proof of life.

touche, I used the wrong wording.

Can you show me where is says Birth Certificate?

and one more

Any chance the forms have changed in 50 years?

 

[Cal]

Those original birth records typically include additional birth details, such as the hospital and delivering doctor, said Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state's former health director who twice looked at and publicly confirmed Obama's original long-form birth records.

But those documents are state government property that can't be released to anyone, even the president himself, said Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the state attorney general. Obama would be able to inspect his birth records if he visited the Health Department in person, but original records of live birth are never released, he said. [...] Before Obama's campaign released his certification of live birth in 2008, he or someone with a tangible interest had to make a written request and pay a $10 fee to receive it, Okubo said. Wisch also said Obama obtained a copy of his own certification of live birth and publicly released it.

The Associated Press: In Hawaii, accessing some Obama birth info is easy

Obama asked for his BC - he got the COLB. Whataa ya want him to do?

You guys are so fucking retarded. But keep it up .. It just helps the Liberals keep the "crazy" label on you.

 

[Ravi]

The Associated Press: In Hawaii, accessing some Obama birth info is easy

Obviously FORGED!

Look at the name above, who would name their kid Duplicate???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's b/c it's a proof of life.

Seriously, try to get an actual birth cert from your county of birth. It will say proof of life.

It's the only thing you can legally get.

Here's a Hawaiian long form BC dated 1961

Where does it say proof of life.

touche, I used the wrong wording.

Can you show me where is says Birth Certificate?

and one more

Any chance the forms have changed in 50 years?

Could they have changed in the last 50 years you ask?
Here you go judge for yourself

The question is was the document obama has an approved BC for the year 1961 in the year 1961? If it wasn't how can it be today? OH thats right because the democratic control state of Hawai in 2007 said so. Now how is that an acceptable action for you?

 

[Sallow]

There is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to run for President. None. Nadda.

Which leaves it to Federal Government to decide who is eligible and who is not.

They made their decision. It's final.

So these threads are exercises in mental masturbation and borderline racism.