Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Thanks for posting the quote from $inator $hrill.
It seems like the Clintoons are planting Claymore mines for the Oreo to set off before or after the convention.
Also I've just been toying with the Birth Cert per Tech dude's instructions as best I understand them, and I have to take a pass on any proof that the name has been discovered. It may be just a presentation skills issue, but I could not duplicate a fixed result.
Doesn’t answer the question of how obama qualified for a US passport.
You are the one with the law enforcement background (Fourth generation native New Yorker. Former Law Enforcement in the city.)
Tell me how,did obama get a US passport?
Rilly??? A google search for images of BHO's BC doesn't yield any actual images of his BC either.
A couple weeks ago the same search terms gave over half a million hits, mostly actual images of his BC.
Down the memory hole.
google is fully totally in the tank for Obama.
I am not the one making allegations. I am asking a ridiculously basic question. Nobody here, including you, has provided an answer.
Yes. Nicely played.
Listing Gaza as Georgia.
The plausible deniability reminds me of the clinton donations from The American Muslim Museum Association....
I’m with you on the name. Not because I tried to replicate- I have no skills in photoshop etc...but it just doesn’t “click” for me.
It gets very distracting when reading both sides of this debate when the personal beliefs and desires of the examiners get in the way of discovering the facts.
Frankly, I was put off by the Las Vegas trip challenge by techdude. I’m from the “time and place for everything” school- so maybe I’m taking it too seriously. However- this is the presidency we’re discussing and to trivialize it this way seemed too Dialing for Dollars..
One thing does seem clear- something about BHO’s birth circumstances is mysterious and murky and the facts are not apparent.
Staying tuned :)
I’m not good with graphics software, so I’ve not even tried to duplicate it. I saw someone else on the FR thread say they were able to do it.
Especially with a little terrorism in the mix.
A couple juicy terrorist incidents to report and not only won't there won't be any oxygen for the BC story, they will be vast quantities of hand wringing and cries of racism against anything that might possibly have anything to do with Obama having any peripheral connections to not being a Natural Born American.
I don’t know what he used. I do know that a birth certificate is NOT needed to get a passport. Null and Void has posted the link to the state site repeatedly telling of the procedure to obtain one without a birth certificate.
Also, a family passport can be used per this post:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
In the comments by a poster named muzhik:
Obama may never have had to produce his birth certificate to get a passport. As a baby, he would have been included in his mother’s passport as a “family passport”. Whoever took her application may not have required her baby’s BC — it’s the ‘60s, she’s white, the daddy’s black, and it’s not like the kid will ever run for president. Sloppy by today’s standards, but not necessarily by the standards of the time.
After that, it’s just a matter of keeping the passport renewed. When he turned 14, Obama would have gotten his own passport, using the “family” passport as proof of citizenship. If he kept his passport renewed, he never would have needed to produce a certified birth certificate.
Still, the direct answer to your question is nobody knows. We don't know. Why do you ask?
A “certificate of no record”, and a DS10A filed by an older relative saying that he was born in the US suffices.
See the State Department’s own web site.
No birth certificate required. Even in the post 9/11, ID theft world of now...
I do not think it is stupid to question Obama on ANYTHING. Especially after finding out about The ReverendWright.
NOTE: 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 that some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
A Delayed Birth Certificate filed more than one year after your birth may be acceptable if it:
If you do NOT have a previous U.S. passport or a certified birth certificate, you will need:
Issued by the State with your name, date of birth, which years were searched for a birth record and that there is no birth certificate on file for you.
NOTES: These documents must be early public records showing the date and place of birth, preferably created within the first five years of your life. You may also submit an Affidavit of Birth, form DS-10, from an older blood relative, i.e., a parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, who has personal knowledge of your birth. It must be notarized or have the seal and signature of the acceptance agent.
======================================================
Why do I get the feeling I’m dealing with a cheap NY City Lawyer, which I don’t believe you are.
Don’t play games. That is below, who you are.
All I know about passports is based on what we have sent in to get two passports and the info posted on State’s passport site, which I have posted here at one time.
So play your games with someone else or have the balls to say what you really mean.
He's been a PITA for a long time. Always seems to end up on the left side of issues, IIRC...
Thank you!
*shrug*
I’ve learned through bitter experience that a doubter won’t even click on a link to anything that threatens their world view.
“He comes out with this very emphatic constitutional reference, using the self-satisfied tone of one who knows he’s nailed it... then seems to catch himself, glances down and to the side to pick up another thought to cover the too-revealing comment.”
Let me stipulate that WJC is a slimey horn-dog. That said, I think you are reading too much into his remark. It appears to me that the reporter asked him whether he thought Obama was qualified to serve as president; the self-satisfied smirk came from Clinton’s finding a way to duck the question while seeming to answer it. Implicitly his answer amounted to: “Obama is technically qualified (because the Constitution says so), but the PEOPLE decide who would be the better president. There’s now 2 choices (Obama and McCain).” Of these 2, Clinton believes Obama should win.
The sneakiness of his answer lies in that a) he never provides his personal opinion of whether Obama is qualified in more than a pure technical sense; b) he frames the answer as being a choice between Obama and McCain (and hence never has to even implicitly address whether Obama is more qualified than HRC or whether SHE “should” have won the
nomination/presidency; and c) he’s left enough ambiguity about “should” that some will interpret it as WJC’s endorsement of Obama as the better candidate while others will interpret it as I believe Clinton intended it: in light of the conditions specified—i.e., that the people will choose—Obama “should” (i.e., is likely to) win. I think it is a forecast/speculation, NOT a normative statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.