Posted on 04/27/2011 7:24:09 AM PDT by SonsOfLibertyII
No reason to rush and make knee jerk reactions lets have a couple document experts examine the original first just to confirm and verify. By failing to release it when it initially became an issue, anything now produced merits much more intense scrutiny. Obama’s people have had over 3 years to FORGE 336 characters/certificate marks. Even for a D student you can do a bang up job if you have available a free 3 days per letter to work on forging a document.
As others have said, so because this was released this means their must be a original on file in Hawaii. so let us see the original on the books in Hawaii not a document generated from 2011. In a court of law this is some evidence of what the facts of his real birth are, yet its legitimate to require more given his Grandmother said she witnessed the birth in Kenya and the initial stonewalling of information by Obama. Anything now produced merits much more intense scrutiny.
I would suspect the original phony COLB released used the word African instead of Negro. In 1961 Negro was politically correct. In 2011 African is politically correct. Once the COLB was released with the word African on it, they had to keep using that word. Why would a document based on a 1961 long form say African?
Note African is not a race it represents a geographical area of the world. Egypt is in Africa. The race of the Egyptians is by and large Caucasian. The races of the world are, Negro, Caucasian, and Mongoloid. The race of the Chinese is not Chinese, but is Mongoloid as are American Indians.
In 1961 the polite terminology for a black man was Negro or colored. To use the word black would have been insulting. The use of the word African in 1961 would have also been an insult. By referring to the place of origin, it was an insinuation that they really did not belong here. In the "late 60s and early 70s with the advent of Black Pride, the word black became acceptable and the word Negro and colored became insulting.
Why is the word African on that Document.
A very good summary of theorists no matter the issue. Thank you.
I have tried your suggestion and tried Smilu or Smilun or Smilur
Still nothing...
Also, the Nordyke twins were born the day after Obama. Shouldn’t the certificate numbers be after Obamas’as well? Well, they’re not!
How could they be destroyed when it is another forgery? The cerificate number is out of sequence, how does that happen?
Notice the shaded area on the left side of the certificate? The Stamp date April 25, 2011 shows that the State registrar testifies that it is a true copy of the original on record
If I open the long form PDF in Acrobat Pro, examine document properties, and select deleted and cropped material I get the following:
http://i56.tinypic.com/9u3di1.jpg
The signatures appear to have been added later.
Give it a rest. This is the real thing.
We need to figure out how we let the MSM turn a legitimate concern that “We know nothing about this guy” into “Born in Kenya!!!11!!”
Yep. With so much time and a million bucks spent to hide it, we’ll never get a straight answer at this point. Let’s just work on getting a REAL candidate for the GOP who can get rid of the whole Leftist Administration by 2012. And don’t let the MSM pick our candidate for us.
Maybe Obama is older than he says he is????
U.S. President Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Obama, Sr. President Obama was age 48 at the time of his inauguration as President of the United States.
Hawaii officially became the 50th state in the United States of America on August 21, 1959, but the actual vote took place on March 12, 1959.
Hawaii Becomes the 50th State
The Issues Debated About Allowed the Islands Into the Union
Mar 12, 2009 Jim Rada
Hawaii officially became the 50th state in the United States of America on August 21, 1959, but the actual vote took place on March 12, 1959.
Despite opposition from Southern Democrats, Hawaii’s 58-year bid to move from territory to statehood ended successfully as Hawaii became to the first island state in the U.S. and its 585,000 residents became citizens.
Debate About Hawaiian Statehood
With the entrance of Alaska into the United States at the 49th state in January 1959, the outlook for Hawaii to follow soon improved. However, it was not without some contention.
Hawaii had once been an independent kingdom of 20 islands. It was annexed into the United States in 1898 and became a territory in 1900.
During the debate about whether Hawaii should become a state or not, four questions apparently arose according to newspaper reports of the time.
Was Hawaii Too Communist?
The biggest worry seemed to be that allowing Hawaii to become a state would allow Communist-controlled legislators to become members of the U.S. government.
Communists were said to control the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union in Hawaii. This union held a lot of political power in the territory because it essentially controlled the island’s economy.
“Granting statehood, they say, would be like inviting soviet agents to sit in the U.S. Congress,” UPI reported in an analysis of the situation.
Other people pointed to the fact that politicians opposed to the union had been elected in the territory so the union’s control was not total. Also, the state constitution would prohibit Communist’s from holding office.
The Race Issue
Another issue that was raised was that some people believed that the state was too different culturally and racially to be a good match with the mainland United States.
In 1959, the population of Hawaii was 35 percent Japanese, 25 percent Caucasian, 18 percent Hawaiian, 12 percent Filipini, 6 percent Chinese and 4 percent mixed or other races.
“They claim the racial objections stems from the feat of Southern politicians that Hawaiian congress men would vote for integration legislation,” UPI reported.
Was Hawaii a Practical Choice For A State?
Some opponents argued that with Hawaii being more than 2,000 miles away from the mainland United States, it simply wasn’t practical to be considered as a state.
Others argued that with modern transportation and communications being in Hawaii wouldn’t be that much different from being at distant points on the mainland.
“Hawaiians receive news of world events just as fast as any mainlander does. Statehood backers also point out that when California was admitted to the Union, a traveler to Washington had to go through hundreds of miles of hostile Indian territory or travel 13,355 miles around Cape Horn,” UPI reported in its analysis.
Fairness to Other States
The final argument used against Hawaii statehood was that it wouldn’t be fair to larger states. The basis of this argument was that adding two senators from a small state would dilute the political power of the more-populous states in the United States Senate. Also, admitting Hawaii had no benefit like acquiring the natural resources of Alaska did when that state was admitted.
On the other hand, it was noted that if Hawaii was admitted five other states would be smaller in population.
“Backers argue that creating the 50th state would strengthen U. S diplomacy and status in the Far East. Accepting an area containing such a variety of Asian races would effectively demonstrate democracy in action,” UPI reported.
The pros to admission outweighed the negatives and Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959.
http://www.suite101.com/content/hawaii-becomes-the-50th-state-a102069?template=article_print.cfm
I did find a David Sinclair originally licensed as an MD in 1960 (license # MD-1064) which expired in 1990 and not renewed.....
It’s a copy of the original released recently.
They are not going to release the original to the public; it must be copied.
I am sympathetic to the birther ideas, but it’s time to drop it.
Regardless, we would just have Biden instead. And frankly, there just isn’t evidence to support the idea he is foreign-born.
It’s a copy of the original released recently.
They are not going to release the original to the public; it must be copied.
I am sympathetic to the birther ideas, but it’s time to drop it.
Regardless, we would just have Biden instead. And frankly, there just isn’t evidence to support the idea he is foreign-born.
If The Donald does not make a big stink about this, it means he's a stalking-horse for Hussein, meant to inoculate him from further birth certificate inquiries.
The security paper has been added as a background image. Any novice photoshop user can see that. Notice in the curve of the document to the left the security paper pattern doesn’t follow the curve of document.
Think of all the blogs and websites that will lose traffic.
So he is Native born. BFD. He is not confirmed to not be Natural born.
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.