Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Team Arpaio: We Have Two 1961 Hawaiian Birth Certificates That List Negro Not African
Mike Zullo ^ | 6-20-2013

Posted on 06/20/2013 2:58:17 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 461-462 next last
To: edge919
Only for births that occurred AFTER Obama was born, and that's if it's even authentic.

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.

221 posted on 06/22/2013 10:09:33 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

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.


222 posted on 06/22/2013 10:09:53 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
There's only one person in this saga who would have objected to being called a negro.

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.

223 posted on 06/22/2013 10:10:36 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
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.

My purpose is simply the truth.

224 posted on 06/22/2013 10:11:02 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Is that such a foreign concept that you can’t grasp it?


225 posted on 06/22/2013 10:11:40 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It doesn't give any "effective" date.

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.

226 posted on 06/22/2013 10:12:28 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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.

227 posted on 06/22/2013 10:16:33 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

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?


228 posted on 06/22/2013 10:20:36 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Okay. Well, it's obvious that the classification of data for births occuring in 1961 had not yet taken place, then.

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.

229 posted on 06/22/2013 10:21:40 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Stanley Armour, if that's really him, and it does appear to be...is standing there with a bunch of what look like Union workers, a few people who resemble some of the guests at the Nachmanoffs from 1961, (only they look somewhat older) and an asian woman who we have identified as a graduate from the U of HI in 1959, and she also looks older than her graduation photo. (From the U of HI YearbOok, access to which you need to pay and join up) There's no way of knowing who the central character is.

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.

230 posted on 06/22/2013 10:27:36 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: edge919
...because we already have evidence that Barack Sr. did not self-identify his race as African on other documents.

Show me. When was he ever asked?

231 posted on 06/22/2013 10:29:30 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

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??


232 posted on 06/22/2013 10:31:44 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

On his immigration records.


233 posted on 06/22/2013 10:32:40 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: edge919

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.


234 posted on 06/22/2013 10:39:11 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
you sound like a broken record stuck on one error which you insist on calling a lie. Do you have anything else to offer?

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.

235 posted on 06/22/2013 10:39:17 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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.

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.

236 posted on 06/22/2013 10:42:22 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
You saw where he wrote NEGRO on his immigration records?

No, I saw where he never self-identified as African as I've already said.

237 posted on 06/22/2013 10:44:11 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
You or anyone else can LOOK IT UP.

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.

238 posted on 06/22/2013 10:45:41 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I really should know better than to bother having a discussion with you. Stanley Armour isn't standing behind any Union Workers, they are in the back row, the coloured men are a Captain, an Officer and THREE CREW IN FRONT. Who said anything about stigma? I didn't. The only stigma anyone might have felt from being called a NEGRO was the man who appears insisted on being classified as AFRICAN.

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.

239 posted on 06/22/2013 10:46:38 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: edge919
...No, I saw where he never self-identified as African as I've already said.

MIGHT THAT BE BECAUSE THE QUESTION NEVER AROSE?

240 posted on 06/22/2013 10:50:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 461-462 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson