Posted on 03/01/2012 1:50:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
I just finished Watching Sheriff Arpaio's press conference. The Sheriff's posse has concluded that the document was created on a computer and is therefore a forgery.
I will once again point out that if Obama was adopted, he would get a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate, but it will in fact have been created by the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii at the Direction of an Hawaiian State Judge.
"The Obama was Adopted" theory addresses the "forgery" issue head on, and precludes it from being a crime. In my opinion, this is the simplest explanation for the fact that Obama's document looks cobbled together, and that Hawaii is tacitly confirming it as legitimate.
I will further add, (for those who have not already been so informed) that *I* was adopted, and *I* have a birth certificate which was created six years after I was born, and is in fact a replacement birth certificate that lists my new last name, new parent's names, etc.
This theory ties up a lot of the loose ends neatly (not all of them) and it doesn't involve believing that the Hawaiian government is involved in a criminal "conspiracy." I urge people to consider this idea before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved with producing this document has committed a criminal act.
That was easy.
Drivel.
Back then unmarried pregnant girls were sent away before they began to "show." And they didn't have many cameras in Kenya.
ML/NJ
You ought to know better. Because I don't consider any of the stuff presented (so far) as proof that someone else is the mother, doesn't mean I haven't looked into this issue quite a lot. References to "anna" in the "Philippines" and assertions that Stanley Ann never went by the name "ann" or "anna" (Contradicted by her Aunt in Arkansas), assertions that the Kenyan Grandmother said this or that, etc. are so incredibly trivial as to constitute nothing in the way of proof. They have the weight of a feather as far as evidence goes, and that is just my opinion.
Unless of course you are an Obama plant, then just go away.
How does suggesting that a replacement birth certificate created by a court order make me an Obama "plant"? From my perspective, it pushes the most salient point of the issue.
We have yet to see real proof he was born *IN* Hawaii.
Can you and I not agree that this is true?
Seems to me then that no matter how much trouble it is the state of Hawaii -- with Obama's approval -- could produce the actual 1961 (1971 or whatever) document. Seems to me that it would solve a lot of problems and be worth the effort.
Sheriff Joe said it's a forgery -- so just release the real thing.
All we are saying♩♪♫
is give release a chance♩♪♫
I remember people saying that it's all a trap. An October 2012 surprise will be the real document and all the "birthers" will be proved to be total fools, Obama will win by carrying all 57 states and . . . .
Well it ain't going to happen .. they overplayed their hand with this shenanigan -- BTW the news conference said that they have the name of a person "of interest" who could be or know who done it.
And this is my opinion as well. The genetic resemblance is too strong to ignore in my opinion.
No argument from me.
I am not discounting this theory. I am still waiting for evidence regarding it one way or the other. It does not conflict with what I know of the facts.
“From age 10 to age 18, Obama was in the legal custody of Catholic Social Services of CT (Explains his CT SSN). His grandmother was appointed as his guardian. After he turned 18, he naturalized as a US citizen.”
Quit spewing this phony bullcrap. There is no proof whatsoever of your claim which you made a few weeks ago and seems like the claim originates with you.
Put up some documentation, links or proof of your theory or STFU about your personal wet dreams.
Sheriff Joe laid a pretty convincing case today, I suggest you take off your rose colored glasses or just make your way over to DU where you would be more welcomed.
Get a clue. As Rush said, “dumb people are too dumb to know it.”
Do you really believe that the State of Hawaii would allow an 18 year old girl that is married to a foreign student to adopt a child when neither of them had any income, and weren’t even living together?
I would say that just about anything you can come up with as documentary alternate proof has already been thoroughly vetted. These trained investigators are not pikers and have resources that you do not, that none of us have.
Obama himself had spent nearly 2 million dollars in obscuring the true facts of his documentation, in travel expenses and legal fees , before the DOJ took over the task from Obama’s private funding using his campaign chest ( yes he did get permission from the Federal Election Commission to spend the money to obscure his birth facts.
The fact is that we do not know who Obama really is, we have only a documentary construct of who Obama wants US ALL to think who he is.And your theory of adoption results only in further obscuration. Its time to get to clarity on the defacto ( not dejure) situs of Obama's birth, and his parentage, as well as his subsequent travels under both his Indonesian and US Passports.
If you do not see the constitutional necessity of the initiative undertaken by the Arizona Cold Case investigators, my conclusion is the same as Freeper Jarofants:
You are a newbie TROLL who seeks only to further muddy the waters of the issue, rather than to clarify them.
It has no such indication. I looked at it very closely to see if there was anything that said it was a replacement birth certificate.
This confounded me for a bit, because the document has a stamped seal from the state attesting to it's veracity, and I couldn't figure out how they could assert it was accurate when I knew for a fact that it wasn't. (I have always known I was adopted. I remember the judge asking me if I wanted to take the name of my new daddy.)
They get around this problem with clever wording. The Stamp says this:
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office.
It IMPLIES that it is a copy of the "Original". It does not SAY that it is a copy of the Original. It SAYS, the "Original" "is on file in this office."
I guess that is why they have clever lawyers writing the wording. The idea is to not let adopted children become aware that they were adopted.
About the only chance of it mattering would be in some future history book, if there is truth to the fraud...perhaps they will tell the tale.
As Ronald Reagan once said: "The Democrats have a good plan if you only expect to live for the next five years."
I consider doing things for the benefit of history to be a worthwhile endeavor. Getting at the truth, no matter how belated, may help avoid this kind of mess in the future.
Of course, the question is, would it be obvious that Zero's BC is an amended BC?
Here's a case where it was obvious even to a creature as fascistically stupid as a Floriduh civil servant:
http://73adoptee.blogspot.com/2008/10/adoptee-denied-drivers-license-in.html
It doesn’t make him look good.
You are right. He is attempting to mislead the public regardless how you slice it.
What about the Selective Service Card Forgery and fake SS numbers.
I make no claims regarding those. On the face of it, it looks like his political base cooked that crap up for him.
My sources are *ME*. My sister. My Other Sister. We were all adopted at the same time.
Perhaps your state did things differently from mine?
If you think so, read my response. Then poke a hole in it.
“ONce again”
Well, if you did it once why are you doing it again, just to be annoying about it or are you just arrogant and think we must adopt your opinions and you will keep posting this until we do?
I think it is more likely that Stanley Ann was sent to live with either Aunt Eleanor Birkebeile (in Either Canada,(from 1959-?) or Northeast Washington (sometime after 1959)) or perhaps Uncle Ralph Dunham in North West Washington. Canadian Hospitals were apparently free in 1961, and they had one in White Rock Canada. (Right on the border with Blaine Washington, one of Aunt Eleanor's known residences.)
The Kenyan theory just doesn't make sense to me. Barack Sr. would have to have more money than can be discovered from his correspondence, and Stanley Ann would have to be an even bigger idiot. Showing up in North West Washington two weeks after birth implies she was there all along.
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.