Posted on 08/16/2010 7:09:21 AM PDT by LorenC
Last week on the White House's YouTube channel, they answered a question from the mailbag and showed this:
Date of Birth: 04 Aug 1961
Place of Birth: Hawaii, U.S.A.
So what do you expect the conspiratorial response to this will be? That it's a fake passport? That the U.S. Passport office is in on the conspiracy? That YouTube videos aren't admissible in court, and thus this should simply be ignored and not acknowledged as evidence at all? That there's not an uninterrupted shot of the trip advisor unlocking the safe, taking out the folder, and pulling out and opening the passport, and thus they aren't convinced that the passport seen was actually in the folder?
Or maybe just a mix of all of the above, plus whatever other special pleading they can think of.
No Little League I know lets you get away with posting redacted jpgs on a website.
It’s not a matter of doing it over. Much of the information proving Obama is a fraud only surfaced after the election. The timing doesn’t relieve Obama of a positive burden to prove his eligibility.
A bizarre thing to show on YouTube.
A bizarre thing to show on YouTube.
Haven’t there been tons of questions about his original birth certificate on YOUTUBE??
IN SUMMARY, it could be very well possible, that Obama obtained his first passport by lying and in those day there a birth cert was not required, and he has been reissued a passport all these years...
A bc was, indeed, required to get a passport back in the old days when I got mine.
You’re kidding, right?
You’re kidding, right?
Haven’t there been tons of questions about his original birth certificate on YOUTUBE??
So you’re thinking a June 2007 abstract IS Obama’s ‘original’ birth certificate. You might be right. He may not have had a birth record prior to that.
So you’re thinking a June 2007 abstract IS Obama’s ‘original’ birth certificate. You might be right. He may not have had a birth record prior to that.
The statute defines a “birth certificate” as follows:
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record and produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a Federal, State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act specifically mandates three categories of minimum standards for vital registration, including standards on (1) the certification of birth certificates and the use of safety paper, (2) proof and verification of identity as a condition of issuance of a birth certificate, and (3) processing of birth certificate applications to prevent fraud.
It will be interesting to see if Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin is granted discovery or subpoena power for Obama’s “birth certificate” and whether the state of Hawaii sends a COLB or a fascimile of the original. I can’t wait!
You have a knack for trying to baffle your way out of a question with volume rather than directly addressing the point. The subject is Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate, not what passes for a legal birth certificate. You said they would refer any questions about the ORIGINAL to an alleged June 2007 abstract. Either you think he has no other birth certificate prior to June 2007 or you know that it would be a deflection to refer anyone asking about the ORIGINAL to look at the jpg on the FTS site. Do you understand now??
Secondly, a USSC decision is needed to clarify the meaning of "natural born citizen." Until, either of these are satisfied, he is alleged to have committed one of the biggest frauds in the history of the world.
When it comes to proving eligibility, all that matters is whether it is legal, not whether it is the original.
In many states, the registrar keeps the original and only abstracts can be requested and distributed. Does it matter? Not to any court, Federal agency, or sane people in general. But it does matter to birthers, who obviously can't be counted in the last group.
McCain never released his birth certificate to the public. And no, that image on the internet you think is his BC isn't. His lawyers explicitly denied its authenticity.
On the other hand, Obama allowed photos to be taken of his certification of live birth, and for those photos to be made publicly available. Contrary to birther myth, this COLB is just as good as an original birth certificate for the purpose of proving place of birth.
In fact, he has engaged in guilty behavior by refusing to produce the document and fighting doing so in various courts.
He has done nothing of the sort. He produced a document suffices to prove his place of birth. That you are not satisfied with the document is not his concern.
If you are correct, I stand corrected on McCain. I saw a post here last year, that's what I recalled.
The rest is mere piddle. Until he shows the original and we have a court ruling, your blowing smoke for him.
You have a knack for trying to baffle your way out of a question with volume rather than directly addressing the point. The subject is Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate, not what passes for a legal birth certificate. You said they would refer any questions about the ORIGINAL to an alleged June 2007 abstract. Either you think he has no other birth certificate prior to June 2007 or you know that it would be a deflection to refer anyone asking about the ORIGINAL to look at the jpg on the FTS site. Do you understand now??
In light of the fact that officials of the state of Hawaii from the Governor to the Attorney General to the Director ot Health to the Registrar of Vital Statistics to the Director of Communications for the state Health Department have gone out of their way to verify and authenticate that Obama’s birth in Hawaii occurred on August 4, 1961, do you believe that a long form birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II released by the state of Hawaii under Obama’s authority will be a valid and true representation of the facts of his birth?
He has no such obligation. Not a legal one anyway. The timing does matter because the election is over. The electors voted, the Congress certified it and Obama was sworn in. It's done.
And let's not forget that any positive obligation he had prior to all that, he met. He was after all listed on every ballot, and won. So I don't know what obligation is imagined that he failed to meet.
The courts, the state of Hawaii, and every Federal agency that requires proof of citizenship disagree.
You either see the original or you don’t. I don’t give a rat’s a— who disagrees. By your comment, I take it that Hawaii hasn’t seen the original. Interesting.
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.