Replies

Don't know, don't care. Since he got his first one as a small child, I suspect his mom provided them a copy of the long form. But whatever he showed them was good enough to get the passport.

Yes it would be interesting to see what was presented and what it says and if it actually matches the alleged COLB, which has still not been proven authentic nor sufficient to be presented for a passport.

So... you admit here that the seal was visible after all?

It was barely visible in one of the scans, but not enough to prove it was a first-generation scan of an official COLB. The scan is just as consistent with a fraudulent document.

I hope you remember that Polarik actually had to use a pencil to highlight the seal on his comparison certificate because it also was too faint to obviously see when it was scanned. Hmmmm... might that have something to with seals being hard to see when scanned on a flatbed scanner? Maybe?

Sorry, but I'm not convinced Polarik wasn't actually part of the Obama deflection team. I pointed out how some of his conclusions didn't stand up to scrutiny and he somehow managed to come up with evidence out of nowhere to counter the flaws that I pointed out. It was just a little too convenient to be real.

The problem with your explanation is that the "standardized race categories" of which you speak have nothing to do with birth certificates.

This is false: "Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and 'other nonwhite.'" "A comparison of the race designation in matched sets of birth certificates and census records from the 1950 registration completeness test indicates very high agreement for white persons and Negroes." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf see page 231.

Hawaii has already explained that they allow parents to self report their own race. And in 1961, Obama Senior actually was an African.

I think it's possible. Again my point was that your example didn't invalidate what national requirements are. Hawaii may not have complied in 1961, but there were standard categories that were supposed to be used.

"Yes it would be interesting to see what was presented and what it says and if it actually matches the alleged COLB, which has still not been proven authentic nor sufficient to be presented for a passport."

Well... you're not quite correct on that one. You forget that the State Department filed a formal response in the Strunk case in which they testified under penalty of perjury that the COLB presented by Obama absolutely is sufficient to prove his citizenship status. They also declared him a "natural born citizen," and as we are all aware, they're in the position to know.

"It was barely visible in one of the scans, but not enough to prove it was a first-generation scan of an official COLB. The scan is just as consistent with a fraudulent document."

You keep trying to distract from the admission here by waving your hands at nonsense. Who cares if it was first or second or fifth generation scan? The bottom line is that the raised seal is visible on the originally released scanned images. It always was.

"Sorry, but I'm not convinced Polarik wasn't actually part of the Obama deflection team."

Well, after he was exposed as a total fake and fraud, no wonder you suspect him. But of course, he is the source of the whole "COLB is a forgery" meme. I get the biggest kick out of how Birther lies never die, even when it's demonstrated that they are wrong and their original source was a liar.

"A comparison of the race designation in matched sets of birth certificates and census records from the 1950 registration completeness test indicates very high agreement for white persons and Negroes."

What does that have to do with it? In the first place, that's comparing birth certificates to census records, not to the CDC reporting results. In the second place, that's talking about 1950... a time when its not even clear the Public Health Service collected demographics from birth certificates at all..

Would a BC that said "black" or "colored" be considered "agreement" with a category of "negro" on the census records? Would "African?" I know what I'd be willing to bet. How about you?

So, you remain here in error. The standardization of reporting categories to the CDC did not require anywhere that those standards be used on birth certificates.

"Again my point was that your example didn't invalidate what national requirements are. Hawaii may not have complied in 1961, but there were standard categories that were supposed to be used."

And again, you are talking about completely different things. There were national standards for reporting. But to this very day, there are still not national standards for birth certificates.