Posted on 04/23/2011 4:26:06 PM PDT by TommyDale
Snopes' Certification of Live Birth shows supposedly issued in August, 1961 but the Revision date is 11/01. What is REALLY interesting is the light blue time stamp that reveals the actual date of issuance as Jun 6 2007. See the picture for the highlighted area showing the time stamp from the back side where it bleeds through. Hold it up to a mirror and you can see the date!
(Excerpt) Read more at msgboard.snopes.com ...
You've made that obvious for months. LOL BuckeyeTexan the 0bot joke.
And there it is. Game over. You lose. You can’t defend your position or refute the evidence so you resort to personal attacks.
Thanks for playing.
My point was (to whoever I was responding to) that just because it says African next to race it does not mean the father was born in Africa.
And my example to him (whoever it was) is that if they were meaning "African" to be their nationality that there is no nation called Africa.
So, I told them they should compare to other documents from Hawaii during the same year with another Birth Certificate of another black person born in Hawaii and see if they also use "African" as the race.
>> a “reasonable” person would examine the actual evidence presented
In a given context, yes, the evidence is contradictory, but if you rearrange a few things, it’s not.
The ‘birthers’ aren’t fighting the details, they’re fighting the obstruction.
Hawaii is not any state
. And they know it and are proud of it.
In 1961, they were far ahead of the mainland in the area of racial standards. Honolulu, Hawaii was not Bombingham, Alabama.
You think so. LOL In your world credibility is left out of your logic. What a goof! Haaaaaaa You really have become a joke around here.
Would you like to bet the 2013-2016 administration on whether Hawaii can back up the FactCheck.org CoLB?
Betting against the Hawaii DoH a losing hand!
You still haven’t come up with a document from another nation, or anywhere, that lists “African” as race as you stated.
A reasonable persons doesn’t throw ‘credibility’ out the window. That is almost a textbook definition of irrational.
LOL Sure, and black Africans know who Bull Connors was and care a whit about America’s race relations. One thing that strikes you almost immediately when you meet a black African is how little they are concerned about their color or what anyone thinks about it.
Yes, a ‘reasonable’ person is patient and keeps an open mind.
Regardless of the finality, the obstruction is pretty #ed up. And, no damn Republican would get away with this crap.
That is a meaningless bet. It informs us of nothing in the present. It changes nothing about the past and would have no affect on the future. It doesn’t even do anything to reinforce either of our opinions.
No kidding. So, under your logic, Barak Sr.'s race should be Kenyan, not African.
In any case, it is neither here nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Barack Obama is eligible.
Wrong, any evidence of fraud on the COLB contributes to the overall evidence that Obama is not eligible for office.
You set great store by the Advertiser, I see.
Great store????? Maybe you could try this again.
The only reason I cited the story (which I didn't read — I can't be bothered to decipher pictures of text sized for dial-up connections) was to support the fact that BHO, Sr. created a minor sensation in 1961 Honolulu by his mere presence.
So the backstory about him being from Africa was irrelevant or that he was going to go to Harvard??? All you've shown is that a geographical description was used in a headline.
How would knocking up a white floozy affect how he thought of himself racially?
Are you drinking?? Your questions are getting more and more bizarre. He was allegedly MARRIED to the floozy. How is this relevant to how Barak Sr. would have self-identified his racial classification??
It's clear he thought of himself as an up and coming hotshot in the soon-to-be independent Kenya. That's why he returned to Kenya after his studies: he wanted to be a big fish in a little pond (Kenya), not a little fish in a big pond (the United States).
Right, so now you're undermining your earlier idea that he would identify himself as African.
It's not clear they ever lived at the address in the birth announcements.
That was what my point was in mentioning his St. Louis Heights residence. Thanks for reinforcing that.
The property was owned by a UH faculty member. There is a cottage in the backyard. That's probably where they intended to raise little Barry together. However, around the time of Barry's birth, his parents' relationship fell apart for reasons unknown, and she took off for Seattle with little Barry, leaving him to continue on to his degree at UH.
She may have been gone for months and delivered the baby elsewhere before taking off for Seattle. There's no reliable documentation to put in her Hawaii at all after February 1961.
I thought the question was whether a Hawaiian official would have pushed back if BHO, Sr. said he wanted his race listed as African on the BC. BHO, Sr. probably hadn't heard of Bull Connor (although I think we can assume he knew British attitudes towards their Kenyan wards and also of American slavery). No doubt, the Hawaiian official was far more enlightened on such questions than his mainland counterpart in Bombingham (where Condoleeza grew up) would have been!
One thing that strikes you almost immediately when you meet a black African is how little they are concerned about their color or what anyone thinks about it.
Which is the correct attitude!
Neither of which qualities is applicable to birthers. They're easily frustrated and resort to personal attacks when presented with evidence that counters or destroys their narrative. They demand evidence and then refuse to examine it unless it comes from someone within their group who subscribes to their narrative.
We can all pretend that "credibility" was the issue up thread but everybody knows that if a birther had presented direct links to the same documents, birthers would have not only examined them but also assimilated them into their narrative.
But because I posted it ... forget about it. Yeah, that's reasonable.
Trademark birfer blithering: make it up as you go along.
Either he was born in Honolulu or he wasn't. Given all that's transpired, and the various statements of Hawaiian officials, despite the privacy law, under which, arguably, they should have been saying nothing, I'd have to bet he was actually born in Honolulu. That leaves Emmerich! (Your only remaining refuge, given you refuse to focus on the substantive reasons to oppose Obama).
Just wondering if you had any follow up on that missile. You were so convinced it happened. I want to know if you have any evidence yet? Is that too much to ask? You want BC evidence, I want missile evidence.
LOL
Waaah, call the mod.
Birthers still have no proof, never have, never will, they continue to bring the party down to the fringe level.
Little history lesson for you. It was out of the bowels of the Hillry "I be destined to be the first woman president" campaign, that BIRTHED the 'birthers'. You really think she dreamed this up to make the GOP the fringe level....
Cyn, Tigerseye was one of the stalwart conspiracy theorists that was absolutely convinced that someone fired a missile at LA in November. A missile that never hit anywhere, was never observed north or south of where the guy in the helicopter filmed it, etc. And that “missile” just happened to be a MD-11 going from Honolulu to Ontario.
Basically, he moves from nutjob conspiracy to nutjob conspiracy. He doesn’t have the common sense to think first.
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.