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.
The original is the original. Abstract is not that which it is an abstract of. In fact, some guy regularly posts a list of Obama’s school, passport, records etc. Presidential candidates should open all of this information so we know who they are.
You have the option of asking candidates to show that they meet constitutional requirements. Instead of trying to correct me, how about writing a letter to the president and asking him to open his files, since he hasn’t done so yet.
You have the option of asking candidates to show that they meet constitutional requirements. Instead of trying to correct me, how about writing a letter to the president and asking him to open his files, since he hasn’t done so yet.
Thank you Rahm. LOL!
A legitimate actual long form birth certificate will do.
What is he hiding?
YES! thats all I was trying to say; years ago, documentation was real laid back , and once a passport was issued on whatever meager documentaion, a napkin with a signature or whatever , then that form became a breader document for all future reissues, you don't have to show a birth cert to have future reissues.
But I know for sure social security DOES require a birth cert for a reissue, as the law changed the late 80s or ealry 90s, and I had to go to immigration with my spouce and obtain naturalization papers that took months BUT also know for a fact tha a reissue of a passport does not require a birth cert, and here I am called a liar by others, even though I have posted here before, and not much on this issue, so I dont have a dog in the race and it matters not to me if flat eathers want to say what they want about things, but that dont change my story,,, I know from personal experience that in the 60s 70s and 80s, government documents could be applied for with little to no real documentaion, and if it were to be a passport, it would have been reissued since that time, no questions asked.
Thank you Rahm. LOL!
YES! thats all I was trying to say; years ago, documentation was real laid back , and once a passport was issued on whatever meager documentaion, a napkin with a signature or whatever , then that form became a breader document for all future reissues, you don’t have to show a birth cert to have future reissues.
But I know for sure social security DOES require a birth cert for a reissue, as the law changed the late 80s or ealry 90s, and I had to go to immigration with my spouce and obtain naturalization papers that took months BUT also know for a fact tha a reissue of a passport does not require a birth cert, and here I am called a liar by others, even though I have posted here before, and not much on this issue, so I dont have a dog in the race and it matters not to me if flat eathers want to say what they want about things, but that dont change my story,,, I know from personal experience that in the 60s 70s and 80s, government documents could be applied for with little to no real documentaion, and if it were to be a passport, it would have been reissued since that time, no questions asked.
they’re getting cute...
this is the Presidential passport - let’s see the senate one they had to go fishing for.... and the pahkeestan one, too.
That would be where the passport was issued. Mine is from a U.S. Consulate.
And something else is goofy about it I see. It says "see page 51" because their is an amendment or other note to the passport. In a normal passport it should be only 25 pages long.
Mine has 25 pages counting the back cover page.
Dissonant indeed as this passport proves nothing to where Obama was really born or that he is an natural born citizen and is a typical LorenC misdirection post.
Pointing out serious problems with the authenticity of Obama's alleged COLB isn't excuse making; just a matter of being smart and not gullible.
Sorry, but this is probably one of the dumbest things ever posted here. Unbelievable.
This was covered upthread. To recap:
- The passport office issues 52-page passports for frequent travelers.
- Page 51 is for endorsements, not amendments.
- What page 51 says is "The Bearer is the President of the United States." It's shown at the two-minute mark of the video.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is your reading comprehension on the fritz? Because here's what I wrote originally: "No one suggested that the mere fact of having a Kenyan daddy made him ineligible until November 2008."
My comprehension is just fine, thank you. Let me rephrase your statement if I might. "No one suggested that the mere fact of having a Kenyan daddy made Obama a Kenyan citizen at birth (which would have made him ineligible to become the President of the United States) until November 2008." Is that what you are trying to say?
None of you "Anti-Birthers" have yet to suggest a cogent reason why if daddy was a Kenyan, then why isn't the son a Kenyan? Point is, you're not allowed to see any more information than the rest of us. You can speculate that Obama at some point renounced his Kenyan citizenship, but you can't point to any document that would suggest that. You ignore the fact that no one has seen his long form birth certificate and ignore the fact that the purported "fact checked" Certificate of Live Birth has only been seen on-line. You ignore that many of Obama's records are sealed. You ignore the Hawaiian elections clerk that said Hawaii had no birth certificate on file, either long or short form, for Obama. You ignore that over half of Americans doubt Obama's birth story. You ignore the fact that any hospital in Hawaii has actually admitted to being the hospital that Obama was born in.
You anti-birthers are so smart, tell me, if having an American mother and a Kenyan father doesn't make Obama a dual citizen, then what does? And if Obama was a dual citizen at birth, where did the Kenyan half go and when did it go?
LOL. When you said what OB would do before the next election, what else could I say?
No, that's not. What I'm saying was summed up pretty well in my last paragraph:
Feel free to browse old FreeRepublic threads from before November 2008. The "certifigate" tag makes this easy. You'll find no shortage of threads spinning wild tales about Obama's secret Kenyan birth, or Obama's secret Indonesian adoption, or even Obama's secret daddy being Malcolm X. But what you WON'T find is threads of Freepers preaching "natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents." Not in June 2008, and certainly not earlier than that. For some reason, that definition only suddenly got discovered right as Obama was actually elected.
You’re wrong, I have made that case from the beginning as well as pointing out that Obama claims to be a citizen of the world based upon his many allegiances to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia, and lastly the US.
Well, duh. If my enemies were going around making a lunatic spectacle of themselves, I'd keep it stirred up, too.
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.