Posted on 03/25/2011 2:06:37 PM PDT by RobinMasters
It’s bad SQL programming if you’re getting duplicate information.
butter,
If the original Obado record had a DOB (or filing or whatever) outside the scope of records being queried, then it wouldn’t be in the result set (printed data.)
Example:
Query where DOB = 1960 - 1964 (or 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964)
Original Obado: DOB = 1959
Duplicate Obado: DOB = 1960.
If the query had multiple conditions (selection criteria) and the original Obado did not meet ALL of the conditions, then it wouldn’t be in the result set.
Example:
Query where DOB = 1960 - 1964 and Status = Filed
Original Obado: DOB = 1960, Status = Amended (or Filed or Sealed)
Duplicate Obado: DOB = 1960, Status = Filed
The result set always depends on what, specifically, the DBA (or software) queried and from where it was queried.
Whoops. (or Filed or Sealed) should say (or Pending or Sealed)
The President determines who gets what security level. I suspect all members of Congress are automatically cleared to TS without any background check. You cannot have the President making decisions, and refusing to allow Congress to see anything based on clearances. You certainly cannot have a sitting President briefing one candidate but refusing the information to the other.
TS is the top level. After that, you go to compartmentalized information, where your need to know affects what you can see.
You could be correct. Someone could have messed with the data in the tables where both Mae Obado and Barrack Obama share the sane unique identifier key or owner ID. Unique identifiers are to keep data in rows or columns in data tables with one owner even if the data is the same as other owners. Like two people with the same name. To keep data separate in data bases is called referential integrity. Someone could have changed the name from Mae Obado to Barack Obama but the programming still flagged the two listings as the same or duplicates because the two names share the same owner ID(s).
Obama was briefed NOT because he passed even the most basic security clearance evaluation—he couldn’t, and I speak from experience—but because there was a good chance he would become POTUS. It’s untenable to have a POTUS completely in the dark about national security issues, so CIA briefings are routine/the rule, once the field thins out and it’s possible to say, ‘One of these individuals will beyond all doubt be the next POTUS’.
Jamese, this has been explained to you before. When you repeat false information (i.e.: when you cite a briefing as evidence that Obama cleared some type of security clearance hurdle—which he did not and could not) you indicate that you are either dense or shamefully dishonest. I don’t know which it is. If you are too thick to comprehend this, then I apologize for accusing you of lying. If you do understand it but repeat the lie anyway, then shame on you.
Contrary to what you may have been indoctrinated with, integrity matters. Continual lying on FR doesn’t strengthen your point; it singles you out as a liar, pure and simple. Honesty, by contrast, matters not only now but in the eternal scheme of things. I hope and pray you can get to the point where personal integrity maters more to you than repeating the same lies over and over and over. We shall see.
Pending BC’s are not allowed to have a BC#, according to the HDOH rules. For something to be a duplicate, wouldn’t it have to have the same BC#?
There are multiple entries for the same person in the birth indices that are not listed as duplicates. Sometimes the full middle name is given and sometimes just an initial, but they are unique enough names that they have to be the same person and yet are not called duplicate records. How would you foresee that happening? They wouldn’t have filed 2 different birth certificates, presumably, so you would think they would have the same BC#. Would you presume that to be a duplicate a record must have the same BC# and name?
A record being amended wouldn’t result in another BC# and name combination so I wouldn’t think an amendment would create a “duplicate”, although in the case where one record has the full middle name and the other just an initial, one of those records must be an amended record and the other the original, which must be how they keep track of amendments to a name. If the amendment to a name is done within the first 6 months it doesn’t alter the legal validity of the BC. If the amendment was to something besides the name it wouldn’t result in a different name/BC# combination. It should just result in an “amended” status for that name/BC# combination. Right?
An adoption would result in a different name so that wouldn’t create a duplicate.
When a COHB was converted to a late BC the COHB was made defunct and kept in an evidence file for the late BC but a COHB would have had a different number than a late BC; the numbering system was totally different for COHB’s.
Legitimation might result in a duplicate if the father acknowledged paternity and the child was given the father’s last name even though the parents were not married, but that situation is not supposed to be detectable so something is screwed up if it is showing all the legitimated or sex change BC’s as duplicates rather than having the newly-created BC appear as the original as required by law.
From what you know, should sealed records show up in the standard birth index that is made public? For instance, if there’s been an adoption and the original birth certificate is sealed, should that birth name appear in the standard birth index that the public can access? If a name like that showed up would that mean that what was printed out was a special printing that allowed sealed records to be displayed? Would that be a violation of law if the public is not supposed to be able to see any HDOH record that an adoption occurred?
You can "hear it" in his book...Dad was black as pitch, Mom was as white as....
I think he also says that he "CHOSE" to operate as a black....
He's a mulatto. Momma was white...
See Jefferson heirs for how this sham works.
I think in the scope of things, it is being born of and raised by AMERICANS CITIZENS LOYAL TO THE USA was the criteria when the Constitution was written.
Shoot. I should have included all of you in the ping to this one too.
It seems like it isn’t enough to be called a “duplicate” if 2 records have the same BC#. It seems like it has to be the unique BC#/name combination because entries that are clearly the same person but one with a middle initial and the other with the full middle name show up as two distinct records in the printout.
For there to be a duplicate a record had to be created using the same name/BC# combination, which means there had to be 2 different listings for the same birth certificate.
Maybe an important question would be how the word “Duplicate” gets in front of a person’s first name in a list. Is that something that gets permanently attached to that record when it is created, or does the computer flag duplicates as it prints them out for a particular list? But that doesn’t make sense, because there wasn’t any duplicate record for Mae Obado in this list; that’s the problem. The addition of “Duplicate” as though it was the first name of Ms Obado must be a permanent addition that was created when the duplicate record was created. Does that sound right? Would that be part of the actual name field for Ms Obado on that record, or is that a flag that just appears where the name field is?
These are things I’d really like to find out.
I just don’t see how that would be a big deal, since we all already know his mother was white.
And I just thought of something else. The BC doesn’t list a race for the child, only for the parents.
If a middle name is changed to a middle initial (or vice versa) the original and the amended record are listed as 2 different records in the printout, presumably because they are a different name/BC# combination.
That being the case, would it be reasonable to think that if a record has “amended” as its status it is an amendment of something besides a name?
I guess my thoughts are...what did he “advertise” over the years?? Black or white or both?? His book “Dreams of My Father” practically renounces his mother.
But to refuse to show a long-form birth certificate because it would show his mother as white, which has always been known, when he has already shown a COLB that he claims is authentic that says that anyway?
It just doesn’t make sense to me. For it to be something he would be too “embarrassed” to show it would have to be something besides what is already on the COLB he presented, which he was not too “embarrassed” to present. The only stuff that shows up on a standard long-form that’s not on a COLB has to do with the occupations of the parents, where they resided, whether it was a multiple birth, and the certifying signatures.
Unless what is on his COLB is actually different than what is on his long-form, what would “embarrass” him would have to be one of those things. Why would he be “embarrassed” by any of those things?
Didn’t watch Letterman. Any more discussion of the bc from Trump?
When Obama is found to be ineligible, because he Lied about himself & his
past ******* This is “Treason” !!!********
Then everything he instituted will be disallowed!!
Obama’s VP, his Cabinet, his Czars, & all laws including (ObamaCare) & all
appointments including
(Supreme Court) are “invalid”!!
Presidency will have to go to John Boehner
Speaker of the House ... That’s why Pelosi wanted to hold onto her
speakership ... so; she thought when she “rated” on Obama, she would be
President “Not” Biden because he was complicit with Obama’s cover-up...
Well
Pelosi was the “enabler” who got Obama installed as as Democratic Nominee by
“Lying” about his Constitutional eligibility!!
Biden was complicit with Obama’s Treason & Fraud!!!
**************************
Keep pushing Donald Trump!! Expose these Treasonous Lies of Obama!!
***********************************
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.