“I’m sure you realize, then, that they innocently invalidated the document by doing that. “
That’s fine. They are not applying for a passport, and Obama used an original or paper copy to do so. All I am saying is that taking a valid birth cert. and blacking out the numbers doesn not make it a ‘forgery’.
“Even if the document is not a forgery, it is invalidated as a legal document.” It’s a campaign released piece of information is all.
As mentioned much earlier in the thread, Obama needed a passport many years ago, and his passport required the proof of place of birth.
It’s an absurdity to think his public bio says born in Honolulu Hawaii if his passport does not. Thus his passport says the same and was based on same information as presented by the campaign.
I agree that there is a slim chance this is a forgery, my argument has been that the claims thus far have not proven it. This looks like a case of some people *wanting* it to be a forgery and grasping at whatever straws there are to ‘prove it’. A blacked out cert # is one such straw - it proves nothing really.
If you keep repeting a lie, it doesn't stop being a lie.
The State Department will issue a passport with a "Statement of No Record" and a DS-10A from an older blood relative claiming they were born somewhere in the USofA.
Anyone with the ability to click a mouse can go to the State Department's own web site and verify this for themselves. Even you could do it.
So, they get a "Statement of No Record" and a DS-10A saying he was born in Honolulu. Per their own rules this is (barely) sufficient documentation to issue a Passport.
What do you suppose the State Department will put as his place of birth? They have a document that commie mommy Stanley Ann filed that claims he was born in Honolulu, and nothing to suggest anything to the contrary.
Think hard. (Hint: it won't be Akron OH)...
It does prove one thing -- it was unnecessary for the campaign to black out the number, but they did so anyway. If they were being totally forthcoming, they would not have altered the document. I am under no obligation to accept an invalidated document as proof of anything (nor should the campaign expect me to do so), regardless of whether circumstantial evidence leads one to agree with the contents of the invalidated document. If they are so sure of the validity of the information, then it behooves them to make available the unaltered document, both front and back, yet they do not.
-PJ
Isn't Obama responsible for the content of his own smear-fighting website?