A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Diogenes]

But isn't that where the whole theory falls apart. If the theory is to stand then the argument is that Obama would rather be perceived as:

Having a communist mentor and a foreign Muslim father.

... than...

Having a communist American father.

Again, the later seems more electable than the former especially since the former also puts into question his legitimacy. So, why the deception? Just for giggles I really wish I understood the theory.

I am not trying to explain why Barack did this or that. I am simply going where they evidence takes me. The Evidence leads away from Barack Sr. . There may be an eventual explanation for the why. In the meantime, I am accustomed to people doing all sorts of silly and irrational things in their lives.

I don't know, motive is usually a pretty important part of investigatin'. Too important to blow off, IMHO.

So, what motive? What is the cover up of? What name was on the original? Frank Davis'? None?

Motive is important? Fine. Why not produce the original right from the beginning? I would say that in order to guess the motive, you'd have to be privy to information that you don't have. Perhaps he didn't want scrutiny of the possibility that he's an illegitimate child. Perhaps he didn't think the American people would want to elect a confirmed ba****d.

I don't know what name is on the original. It very well could list Barack as the Father. My Birth "certified" certificate lists a father that is not correct. Keep in mind, It is Just a piece of paper with writing on it.
It's only value as proof is the trustworthiness of the issuing authority. When it can be demonstrated that they will intentionally give you false information while certifying it as correct, why should you consider them trustworthy?

Apart from that, without DNA testing (Which they didn't have in 1961) How the H3ll would a bureaucrat know who the father is? They have to rely on the word of the Mother. (Did you notice Barack Obama Sr's birth date is Wrong on Obama's "Long form" Birth certificate? You would think that the man would know what year he was born. )

[bcglorf]

Why not produce the original right from the beginning?

Because there are some, like yourself, who would immediately have responded by saying something like:
It is Just a piece of paper with writing on it.
It's only value as proof is the trustworthiness of the issuing authority.

As I said, it' wouldn't be good enough.

Did you notice Barack Obama Sr's birth date is Wrong on Obama's "Long form" Birth certificate?

I can't actually find anywhere that lists Sr's birth date on Obama's birth certificate. It only lists his age, which does seem to add up right.

[Diogenes]

Notice the peculiarity of the Local Registrar vs the State Registrar Date received?

Nope, it's just your insanity coming full circle again on you.

The image your giving has the following dates:
Local Registrar Date: March 27, 1967
State Registrar Date: April 5, 1961

Now, I'm guessing the the March 27, 1967 is a typo and is supposed to be 1961. But, that doesn't matter anyways.

It is NOT a typo, and it DOES Matter. It proves my point if you have the intellect to grasp it. (a possibility which I regard as increasingly unlikely with every comment from you.)

Try again. Explain the discrepancy which is NOT a mistake, and NOT a typo.

If Obama's Original birth certificate claims a non American as his Father, he's automatically out on that basis alone.

If your right, then there should be no argument. He's laid claim to the long form certificate presented and every politician in the nation seems to have accepted that. If the evidence on the form invalidates him, the conspiracy to avoid/deny it is deep indeed. Even the Republicans are in on it.

Do you always regard it as a "conspiracy" when a bunch of Ignorant people agree on something about which they are all wrong? In such situations I always deferred to the old axiom:
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

I suspect instead that the father Obama 'claims' on the long form certificate either was in fact an American citizen at that time, or that being born on American soil to an American mother is enough for natural born citizen status. Either way, you haven't exactly instilled enough confidence in me to take your opinion over my own, let alone the collectively agreed upon opinion of virtually every legal expert and political opponent that Obama is faced with.

Whatever the facts are, they are not either/or. They are actual and objective. At the moment, i'm convinced that Obama's Father is not Barack Obama Sr. I am convinced that his father is indeed an American, and he therefore meets the requirements of "natural born citizen" as I understand them.

I am not going to bore you with the research i've done regarding the meaning and origin of the term "Natural Born Citizen", but as far as i'm concerned, the term only applies to citizens which do not have a divided loyalty of any sort. Dual citizens cannot be "natural born citizens." You may believe what you wish in this regard.

[bcglorf]

Try again. Explain the discrepancy which is NOT a mistake, and NOT a typo.

Explain the fact it's dated months before Obama was born first...

It not being Obama's certificate I fail to see the relevance of the document anyways. Unless your repeating your belief that not even Obama's original birth certificate would be enough for you. After all, his long form as presented matches the copy you yourself advocated for before declaring that if Obama just presented that it would be enough. But it wasn't, and nothing ever will or could be, although a picture of a naked woman resembling his mother would be nice and might promote him from non-citizen to citizen B454749D.

[TallDave]

Colonel Mustard, in the Study, with the Lead Pipe.

[Diogenes]

Why not produce the original right from the beginning?

Because there are some, like yourself, who would immediately have responded by saying something like:
It is Just a piece of paper with writing on it.
It's only value as proof is the trustworthiness of the issuing authority.

As I said, it' wouldn't be good enough.

You've got the chronology out of sequence. Suspicion didn't fall till AFTER all the games got played. Once suspicion is aroused that someone is playing games, why shouldn't they have a more difficult burden of proof? Even the Legal system disregards testimony when a witness has been demonstrated to be a liar.

There was no legitimate reason anyone would have tried to get past their critics by producing that stub of a birth record. He tried to get by without producing anything at all, yet the criticism became too loud. John McCain didn't hesitate to produce his complete birth Certificate, and he did it quickly and didn't argue about it.

On the other hand, Obama tries to sneak past, and after weeks of delay, finally produces this rump document that doesn't even have a signature from a witness, then tries to tell us that's all we need to know. He Acted like he was hiding something, so everyone naturally assumed he WAS hiding something.

Cats run, Dogs Chase. It's that simple.

Did you notice Barack Obama Sr's birth date is Wrong on Obama's "Long form" Birth certificate?

I can't actually find anywhere that lists Sr's birth date on Obama's birth certificate. It only lists his age, which does seem to add up right.

Oh, well that's different. A Man can't help it if he doesn't remember his own age, right? I forget i'm two years older than I am all the time.

On his immigration application he said he was born June 18, 1934. Let's see, 1961-1934 = 27.


27, 25, what's the difference right?



Yeah, Wikipedia apparently got it wrong.

[Diogenes]

Colonel Mustard, in the Study, with the Lead Pipe.

It is closer to this than you might think!


Read Edgar Allan Poe's "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" for an idea of what figuring this stuff out feels like.

[Ivy Matt]

Do you always regard it as a "conspiracy" when a bunch of Ignorant people agree on something about which they are all wrong?

I don't—at least, not in the conventional modern meaning of the word.

[bcglorf]

Right.

You again accept immigration papers anonymously posted on the internet as certified, accurate and true.

sigh.

How about the document you posted claiming the dates made no sense. Any comments as to why the dates where both long before Obama was actually born? Presumably because it wasn't his birth certificate, but is somehow also still relevant? Probably as evidence that not even the long form birth certificate like your previous example is good enough anymore as you had previously claimed it would be.

Right, that's ok because you didn't honestly intend to move the bar but it took so long for the bar to be met that you had no choice despite your best intentions.

[Diogenes]

Try again. Explain the discrepancy which is NOT a mistake, and NOT a typo.

Explain the fact it's dated months before Obama was born first...

It not being Obama's certificate I fail to see the relevance of the document anyways.

I'm beginning to think you cannot comprehend the relevance. Not because you aren't smart enough, but because it causes a cognitive dissonance for you to think this way.

I consider it very relevant. Perhaps someone else can figure it out even if you cannot?

Anyone else? Why is there such a discrepancy on an official birth certificate?

Unless your repeating your belief that not even Obama's original birth certificate would be enough for you. After all, his long form as presented matches the copy you yourself advocated for before declaring that if Obama just presented that it would be enough. But it wasn't, and nothing ever will or could be, although a picture of a naked woman resembling his mother would be nice and might promote him from non-citizen to citizen B454749D.

I don't think he has presented it. As i've mentioned, birth certificates of that period contain the words "a true and correct copy of the original record on file...."

Here, take a look.

What he HAS presented looks like an image from a Record book. It does NOT look like an original 1961 birth certificate. Other people have managed to get their Original Records from this time period, and they LOOK like an Original birth certificate from this time period. His does not.

It may contain all truthful information. (As far as Hawaii knew.) Or it may have been Amended. I don't know what the story is, and I no longer care.

[Ivy Matt]

Now suppose you got see another little bit.





Whoa! How can the filing dates between Local And State Registrars be so out of whack? A lot of birth certificates don't even show you the Local Registrar. This discrepancy wouldn't even have been noticeable on one such as that.


So, how to explain it? Did someone make a mistake?

Adoption at age six?

[Diogenes]

Right.

You again accept immigration papers anonymously posted on the internet as certified, accurate and true.

sigh.

Now who's denying the veracity of records! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

They are not posted anonymously. There are several identified people who have posted them. The link I gave came from a British Newspaper. You know how to use google right? If WHO posted them is a concern for you, then go find a copy from someone who isn't anonymous. It will say the same thing anyway.


I must say, that is a pretty pathetic comeback. Surely you can do better than "How do we know the Immigration records aren't fake?"

I'll give your own answer back to you. Because they came from a government agency! That's why!

How about the document you posted claiming the dates made no sense. Any comments as to why the dates where both long before Obama was actually born? Presumably because it wasn't his birth certificate, but is somehow also still relevant? Probably as evidence that not even the long form birth certificate like your previous example is good enough anymore as you had previously claimed it would be.

Right, that's ok because you didn't honestly intend to move the bar but it took so long for the bar to be met that you had no choice despite your best intentions.

You are going to have to make your point clearer. I simply don't comprehend what you are trying to say here.


The previously posted snippet of a birth certificate is not a mistake. It comes off a certified document with an official state seal on it. As I mentioned, if it didn't have a line for "Local registrar" you wouldn't even be able to tell there was something odd about it.

[Diogenes]

Now suppose you got see another little bit.





Whoa! How can the filing dates between Local And State Registrars be so out of whack? A lot of birth certificates don't even show you the Local Registrar. This discrepancy wouldn't even have been noticeable on one such as that.


So, how to explain it? Did someone make a mistake?

Adoption at age six?

Yes. Absolutely right. Now could you tell that if it didn't have the "Local Registrar" box?

Another thing. How could the Delivery Doctor have signed it if the birth was in 1961, while the document itself is from 1967? Did they send him the new birth certificate to sign, or did they simply copy his signature and CLAIM he signed it? If they sent him the new birth certificate to sign, what would they have done if they couldn't locate him 6 years later?

Would they LIE about it? Hmmm??????

[ladajo]

At a minimum, there is "scandal", and maybe the political handlers felt that adding drama to a perceivable communist insurgency background if avoidable was worth it.

The argument would be that Obama's mom got pregnant late Oct of 1960 or early Nov, 1960. She was 17. Age of consent in HI at the time was apparently 14. Whatever.
She got pregnant, obviously out of wedlock, as admitted by all, parentage of the boy arguable, and then rushed a marraige. Ooops. Obama Sr was already married. Not to worry, its not like they were living together anyway.

In all this, Ann jumped in and out of school, to include going to UofW IMMEDIATELY after Jr.'s birth.

All in all, she was a challenged young girl. Some argue that Frank Davis was the dad, and it could be so. Some Argue Malcolm X, less likely IMHO, but, it COULD be. Some argue that Obama Sr. is dad. Could be as well.
The only way to know for sure is DNA testing. And I am pretty darn sure that it will not happen.

I've seen the photos of "mom", and I think there is more than a good chance it is her, and a good chance they were taken in 1960 (which could well mean somebody was a minor...), and they were taken before she had a kid, possibly early in the pregnancy. I also agree that there is a chance that Ann bumped uglies with Frank Davis, especially if the pics are genuine.

So where does all this leave us? Obama had an interesting possibly somewhat stressing unstable childhood. He has documented lifelong influence from admitted insurgents and communist/socialist bent individuals (some of noted prominence). He is not the first democrat of note with issues such as these. He is the American President. He will not be the American President forever. That is the beauty of it, they get at most two shots at the job.
I did not vote for him, and I think it will be interesting to see what he does on his way out with pardons and whatnot. If it is not this term, then next. I firmly believe the pardons process is an oft overlooked true tell of a President's inner mind. Who knows, maybe Obama will pardon his mother for being such a shmuck when she was young.

Colonel Mustard, in the Study, with the Lead Pipe. The analagy is hilarious. ROTFL.

[bcglorf]

Now suppose you got see another little bit.





Whoa! How can the filing dates between Local And State Registrars be so out of whack? A lot of birth certificates don't even show you the Local Registrar. This discrepancy wouldn't even have been noticeable on one such as that.


So, how to explain it? Did someone make a mistake?

Adoption at age six?

Yes. Absolutely right. Now could you tell that if it didn't have the "Local Registrar" box?

Another thing. How could the Delivery Doctor have signed it if the birth was in 1961, while the document itself is from 1967? Did they send him the new birth certificate to sign, or did they simply copy his signature and CLAIM he signed it? If they sent him the new birth certificate to sign, what would they have done if they couldn't locate him 6 years later?

Would they LIE about it? Hmmm??????

You are going to have to make your point clearer.

I was getting ahead of you and jumping straight to your point. Presumably you've given a sample of your own adoptive birth certificate. You are using it to declare that Obama's long form certificate, even if a 100% accurate and valid document, is inadequate because it lacks the evidence from yours to rule out adoption.

That is to say, you are now claiming the long form document you previously gave as an example is not good enough, despite your claiming that it would be. You are claiming that the long form you gave as an example of what was adequate, in fact never was.

You demanded the release of a document, and then declared not good enough when it was with such emphasis as to prove it never actually would have been good enough.

For your finale, you have the nerve to ask why Obama just won't come out and show yet another different document and end all this. It never ends.....