The only data on a birth certificate that is relevant to Article II, Section 1 eligibility is the place of birth and the date of birth. Any candidate can use a driver’s license, a passport, a birth certificate or other forms of ID to establish that data.
The birth mother’s home address is irrelevant. It has never been raised as an issue in more than 220 lawsuits concerning Obama’s eligibility.
If Stanley Ann Dunham listed an incorrect home address, that’s on her, it does not invalidate the birth certificate. Its a BIRTH certificate not a birth mother’s home address certificate.
Someone would need to prove to Triers of Fact that the place of birth and/or the date of birth are incorrect and no one has been able to do that over the past 8 years.
> The only data on a birth certificate that is relevant to Article II, Section 1 eligibility is the place of birth and the date of birth.
So says you.
Bladedeblahdedeblah. You will gabble anything to avoid answering a simple question. It’s a psychotic world you live in, divorced not merely from reality but also from sanity.
Stanley Ann did not give a mistaken address. She had no HI address at that time, and a forged BC is the ONLY evidence to suggest she was there at all.
Try hard to collect your scattered wits, supposing you have any. Here is a simple question. Try to answer more sanely than you did the previous time.
Namely, the National Archive records for foreign arrivals to HI for the wk of Obama’s [supposed] birth are missing. All the rest of the records are there, intact. WHY, if the nativity narrative of ‘born in HI’ is true, would it be necessary to destroy those particular records?
She didn’t list an incorrect address. She listed her parents address. The 1961 Polk City Directories proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Nothing mysterious or sinister about it.