Trump: I Have Investigators in Hawaii...'They Cannot Believe What They're Finding'

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's some help for you (why I bother, Goddess only knows): When you think you have come upon some earth-shattering birther news, check out this place:
Obama Conspiracy Theories | Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud

It's your one stop shop to prevent yourself from looking like a further idiot.

All the birther conspiracies, in one place, nicely organized and searchable:

Start with this one: Date Filed v. Date Accepted (Update 3!) | Obama Conspiracy Theories

Factcheck.org ? Factcheck is run by the Anneburg group the same group obama was a board member of. Try again.


From your first link do you have proof the BC you used was accepted by the State Registrar?

Oh and by the way wha about the post before? No comment on it?

Why is the Certificate number of a child born a day later and filed 3 day's later come before the child who was born a day earlier?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

So Japanese was a race in Hawaii before the politically correct years of the 1980s.
Thank you.

I was waiting on that whats the date of the birth certificate? it's not the 60's is it? it is however closer to the 80's however both BC are still dated the same date of 11/01

 

[paperview]

BigReb: <---- Absolutely no capacity to learn.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are legitimate questions regarding many 'mysterious' facts of Obama's past and I don't fault anybody for being curious and wondering about and researching them. If that makes them (or me) a 'birther' then so be it.

But for me the 'birthers' are those that manufacture 'evidence' and are absolutely convinced that the President is a Kenyan or a Muslim or whatever when there remain only questions about that but no verifiable proof.

There are legitimate questions, however, when you do have discrepancies in testimony of claimed eye witnesses and in the the newspaper accounts and the fact that the President chooses not to produce evidence that could clear it all up in an instant. Giving a document to two personally friendly sources to 'verify' but not allowing anybody else to see it doesn't increase the confidence level. The same goes with the lack of ANY school or college transcripts or records, no passport information, no verifiable work experience record, etc. and the President doesn't do himself any favors in the rumor mill when he chooses to keep all of that so tightly under lock and key.

There are less legitimate questions surrounding the buildings damaged and destroyed at 9/11 but I don't fault anybody for being curious and wondering about and researching that either. I do consider the 'truthers' those that are convinced President Bush or somebody else in the government blew up the buildings when there is no verifiable or credible evidence of that.

Wondering, being curious, researching, checking the facts is not being a conspiracy theorist. Not be willing to even discuss it or see what is there, however, could be considered brainwashed devotion that will often be misplaced.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

So Japanese was a race in Hawaii before the politically correct years of the 1980s.
Thank you.

I was waiting on that whats the date of the birth certificate? it's not the 60's is it? it is however closer to the 80's however both BC are still dated the same date of 11/01

I pontificate that before the 1980s the common usage was Yellow or Oriental. That settles it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So Japanese was a race in Hawaii before the politically correct years of the 1980s.
Thank you.

I was waiting on that whats the date of the birth certificate? it's not the 60's is it? it is however closer to the 80's however both BC are still dated the same date of 11/01

I pontificate that before the 1980s the common usage was Yellow or Oriental. That settles it.

Again both still have the same rev. dated of 11/01

 

[edthecynic]

I was waiting on that whats the date of the birth certificate? it's not the 60's is it? it is however closer to the 80's however both BC are still dated the same date of 11/01

I pontificate that before the 1980s the common usage was Yellow or Oriental. That settles it.

Again both still have the same rev. dated of 11/01

So you are now saying that African is a valid race because they both have a rev date of 11/01.
Thank you again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb: <---- Absolutely no capacity to learn.

Speak for yourself.

OH and I ask again

Why is the Certificate number of a child born a day later and filed 3 day's later come before the child who was born a day earlier?
And I will also add the baby had a twin sister born four minutes later. Guess what her Certificate number was 151-61-10638

Again here's obamas

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I pontificate that before the 1980s the common usage was Yellow or Oriental. That settles it.

Again both still have the same rev. dated of 11/01

So you are now saying that African is a valid race because they both have a rev date of 11/01.
Thank you again.

Which came first 2001 or 1961?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are legitimate questions regarding many 'mysterious' facts of Obama's past and I don't fault anybody for being curious and wondering about and researching them. If that makes them (or me) a 'birther' then so be it.

But for me the 'birthers' are those that manufacture 'evidence' and are absolutely convinced that the President is a Kenyan or a Muslim or whatever when there remain only questions about that but no verifiable proof.

There are legitimate questions, however, when you do have discrepancies in testimony of claimed eye witnesses and in the the newspaper accounts and the fact that the President chooses not to produce evidence that could clear it all up in an instant. Giving a document to two personally friendly sources to 'verify' but not allowing anybody else to see it doesn't increase the confidence level. The same goes with the lack of ANY school or college transcripts or records, no passport information, no verifiable work experience record, etc. and the President doesn't do himself any favors in the rumor mill when he chooses to keep all of that so tightly under lock and key.

There are less legitimate questions surrounding the buildings damaged and destroyed at 9/11 but I don't fault anybody for being curious and wondering about and researching that either. I do consider the 'truthers' those that are convinced President Bush or somebody else in the government blew up the buildings when there is no verifiable or credible evidence of that.

Wondering, being curious, researching, checking the facts is not being a conspiracy theorist. Not be willing to even discuss it or see what is there, however, could be considered brainwashed devotion that will often be misplaced.

Worth repeating^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[edthecynic]

Again both still have the same rev. dated of 11/01

So you are now saying that African is a valid race because they both have a rev date of 11/01.
Thank you again.

Which came first 2001 or 1961?

Which came first 2001 or 1977?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you are now saying that African is a valid race because they both have a rev date of 11/01.
Thank you again.

Which came first 2001 or 1961?

Which came first 2001 or 1977?

Don't be stupid.
Both BC are dated rev. 11/01 neither are before the 80's the documents were revised in 2001 Japanese is a race identifer in 2001 just as African is a race identifier in 2001 not in the 1960's Your mission was to produce a document that used african as a racial identifier before the 80's you haven't because these two documents were revised in 2001 which comes after the 80's

 

[candycorn]

this birth certificate issue brought up from Trump is just another smokescreen like 9/11 is just so he and the elite can get our attention away from the real crisis they have planned for us in the next couple of years.

At last...some sanity is injected into the conversation!

You know that things have really gone off the rails when 9/11 inside nutjob sounds more reasonable than the birfers!

Boy ,you've got that right!

How much you wanna bet...and I know he's on 80 message boards and I SWEAR to you that I have no foreknowledge of this; none whatsoever.

But...I'll bet you a $5 donation to USMB that this dipshit is talking about this "www.endofamericaXX.com" shit you've heard about on the radio as the "real crisis".

I'm going to donate anyway to USMB but I swear, every thing this monkey hears advertised is the "next big thing".

 

[candycorn]

So...

At what point do you think your life went off the rails?

When you started worrying about Bush's ducking of military service or the sequencing numbers of Hawaii birth certificates?

 

[edthecynic]

Which came first 2001 or 1961?

Which came first 2001 or 1977?

Don't be stupid.
Both BC are dated rev. 11/01 neither are before the 80's the documents were revised in 2001 Japanese is a race identifer in 2001 just as African is a race identifier in 2001 not in the 1960's Your mission was to produce a document that used african as a racial identifier before the 80's you haven't because these two documents were revised in 2001 which comes after the 80's

Not so fast there Slick!

YOU were the one who claimed that the rev 11/01 BC Obama released was a fake because it gave African as a race, because Black or Negro was the common usage in 1961. Now you say African IS a valid race on the Obama 11/01 BC.
Mission Accomplished!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...

At what point do you think your life went off the rails?

When you started worrying about Bush's ducking of military service or the sequencing numbers of Hawaii birth certificates?

Bush is gone
You don't find it odd that a child's certificate number who was born a day earlier comes after the certificate number of two children born the next day?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which came first 2001 or 1977?

Don't be stupid.
Both BC are dated rev. 11/01 neither are before the 80's the documents were revised in 2001 Japanese is a race identifer in 2001 just as African is a race identifier in 2001 not in the 1960's Your mission was to produce a document that used african as a racial identifier before the 80's you haven't because these two documents were revised in 2001 which comes after the 80's

Not so fast there Slick!

YOU were the one who claimed that the rev 11/01 BC Obama released was a fake because it gave African as a race, because Black or Negro was the common usage in 1961. Now you say African IS a valid race on the Obama 11/01 BC.
Mission Accomplished!

I have never said African was not a valid race in 2001. I said it was not used as a racial identifier in the 60's. Try again sport.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So...

At what point do you think your life went off the rails?

When you started worrying about Bush's ducking of military service or the sequencing numbers of Hawaii birth certificates?

So why would the certificate numbers be out of sequence?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...

At what point do you think your life went off the rails?

When you started worrying about Bush's ducking of military service or the sequencing numbers of Hawaii birth certificates?

So why would the certificate numbers be out of sequence?

Candycorn will try an argue that obama's birth was filed after the two children born the day after he was born. But on obama's BC it shows it was filed on the 8th of Aug and the two other babies were filed on the 11th of Aug in the same year.

 

[edthecynic]

Why is that in every image of differant BC you can see the notory seal but not in obamas?

A seal like this one??

Thing about that birth certificate back in the 60's African was not a race.

Don't be stupid.
Both BC are dated rev. 11/01 neither are before the 80's the documents were revised in 2001 Japanese is a race identifer in 2001 just as African is a race identifier in 2001 not in the 1960's Your mission was to produce a document that used african as a racial identifier before the 80's you haven't because these two documents were revised in 2001 which comes after the 80's

Not so fast there Slick!

YOU were the one who claimed that the rev 11/01 BC Obama released was a fake because it gave African as a race, because Black or Negro was the common usage in 1961. Now you say African IS a valid race on the Obama 11/01 BC.
Mission Accomplished!

I have never said African was not a valid race in 2001. I said it was not used as a racial identifier in the 60's. Try again sport.

Busted, sucker!

There you are attacking the rev 11/01 BC because it listed African as race!!!!!!!!!