Posted on 06/20/2013 2:58:17 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
That's not what it says.
It says for births in 1961.
It doesn't give any "effective" date.
Therefore, when it says it applies to births that took place in 1961, THAT MEANS ALL BIRTHS THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1961.
Just when do you think the feds recorded the vital statistics for births that happened in 1961?
I'll give you a clue: From what I understand, they were boxed up by the states and shipped to the feds on microfilm.
Do you think... maybe... the beginning of 1962?
It is still not consistent with the 1961 Natality Report.
You keep saying this. Prove it, or admit you're just making stuff up.
You’ve lost me. All I can see is venom for the Cold Case Posse and none for the total disgusting fraud...I must be missing your purpose.
Sorry, but this is speculation, and it's irrelevant speculation because we already have evidence that Barack Sr. did not self-identify his race as African on other documents.
My purpose is simply the truth.
Is that such a foreign concept that you can’t grasp it?
Nonsense. The effective date is the revised date. Such a document could not be used to classify anything that occurred prior to that revised date. Nobody was going to back through eight months worth of data and reclassify it based on a new revision. The government is inefficient, yes, but not that stupid.
Okay. Well, it's obvious that the classification of data for births occuring in 1961 had not yet taken place, then.
In any event, the government stored data regarding births BY YEAR. And ALL OF THE BIRTHS IN A PARTICULAR YEAR USED THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS, AND WAS STORED TOGETHER.
So let THAT sink in.
What it means is that THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT OBAMA'S BIRTH WAS CLASSIFIED BY THE FEDS USING ANY OTHER SPECIFICATIONS THAN THE ONES PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL THAT SAYS IT APPLIES TO BIRTHS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 1961.
And what THAT means, once again, is that ARPAIO'S POSSE FLAT-OUT LIED.
And what THAT means, once again, is that ARPAIO’S POSSE FLAT-OUT LIED.
you sound like a broken record stuck on one error which you insist on calling a lie. Do you have anything else to offer?
Except that we have a Natality Report from 1961 that shows how such births were actually classified. That report uses classifications that are not reflected by the alleged coding manual. That's a problem that YOU cannot get around. You can bleep and blurt all you want about an alleged coding manual, but the report shows that the manual was irrelevant.
BUT IT IS HIS FACE. ONLY HIS FACE IS FROM THE AIRPORT IMAGE OF 1970/71. SO STOP USING THAT IMAGE AS AN EXAMPLE OF STANLEY ARMOUR BEING ANYWHERE NEAR THE KENYAN AFRICAN-NEGRO. IT'S TOTALLY WORTHLESS.
So even if it was the kenyan you were looking at in that image, it would be from THE 1970-1971 VISIT. And the five coloured men are evidentially Captain, Officer and three crew.
Show me. When was he ever asked?
Why are you ignoring what I’m actually writing?? I’m addressing the false excuse about there being some sort of stigma that Dunham was avoiding. It doesn’t matter if Barack Sr’s face was photoshopped onto the picture. If Dunham was worried about a social stigma, he wouldn’t be in the picture at all. Why stand directly behind so-called “Union workers” for a photograph?? And why would they be in the photograph if they’re just workers??
On his immigration records.
You saw where he wrote NEGRO on his immigration records?
Show me. I would believe KENYAN. I would believe AFRICAN. But NEGRO would take a little longer...I’ll sit here and wait and when you find it, I’ll cheerfully eat my last hat.
If you say you have in your possession Manual A, and it says B, and it doesn't, and you present stuff from somewhere else and claim you got it from Manual A, that isn't an "error." It's a LIE.
And if it were anybody else, making any other claim, you would readily and immediately admit the fact.
In this case, you call it an "error," because you happen to like the claim.
That's not honest.
No, it is a FACT, JACK, that ALL of the births recorded in the same year were recorded using the SAME SPECIFICATIONS.
You or anyone else can LOOK IT UP.
And you keep making this assertion. I've asked you to prove it.
You don't. You keep asserting it as a fact, without any proof or evidence whatsoever.
IF YOU HAVE THIS SUPPOSED NATALITY REPORT, THEN PRODUCE IT.
Otherwise, it's just more BS from another stupid birther.
No, I saw where he never self-identified as African as I've already said.
I did look it up. That's why I said the alleged manual does NOT jibe with the Natality Report. This is a problem for you and every other fogger.
I'm not interested in what Stanley Armour might have thought. There's no evidence he ever set eyes on the kenyan student, other than the myth of ‘Dreams’ - and that silly photograph that appears to have been taken on a Dock, does nothing to place them together anytime, anywhere.
MIGHT THAT BE BECAUSE THE QUESTION NEVER AROSE?
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.