Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I had a discussion with a friend over this and here is what was said.

The document that clearly says 2011 is titled 'hawaii-longform-enhanced" or something like that. In other words, it's been "enhanced". I would like to see the original before it was enhanced.

From what I understand, if you were born in Hawaii and are willing to wait and maybe pay more, you can get a copy of your own original birth certificate. My guess is that Obama COULD write or visit the Hawaii DOH and get a long form. But when people write in to get a "birth certificate" they are issued a short form. It's the default. It's the one everyone gets when they order a "birth certificate", unless they are willing to go through a few hoops to get the long form. So, the 2011 document is probably real.

But irrelevant.

The point being that the short form is valid. Obama has already shared with the world his proof of eligibility. No matter how many people want to know the details of his birth in Hawaii, he is not obligated to show additional proof above and beyond what the federal government accepts as proof. End of story.

By the way. Don't forget that Arizona issues the short form JUST as Hawaii does.




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

That long from birth certificate is very suspicious. I’m not saying it couldn’t be real, but I have many doubts about its authenticity.

Remember that previously a black and white version was posted on that website (thepostemail), with no seal, signature or date.

It’s only more recently that the one with Alvin Onaka’s signature and the Mar 15 2011 stamp showed up. If you look at the bigger pic of that certificate you can clearly see that boxes of the form don’t line up with the paper. And Onaka’s signature and date stamp are on the front.

On Obama’s certificate Onaka’s stamp and date are on the back.

I think what was probably done was, they got a certification of live birth just like Obama did, from March 2011, and they put the form of that black and white version on the back of a certification of live birth. That would explain why Onaka’s stamp is on the front of the supposedly long form birth certificate, and the boxes don’t line up with the paper. Because they did it themselves, not the state of Hawaii.

Most likely if you’d flip that supposedly long form birth certificate over you’d have a certification of live birth, like the one Obama has presented, from March 2011.

Notice that when they posted Alan Booth’s certification of live birth they cropped the lower part of the certificate, presumably to hide Onaka’s signature and date stamp that in all likelihood matches with this supposedly long form birth certificate.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I agree it is suspicious. It may or may not be genuine. My point is that it's irrelevant when addressing Obama's citizenship or short form birth certificate. It doesn't matter WHO can get a long form. It's irrelevant that Obama could probably get one. He's the freaking president, after all.

Obama has proven his citizenship. Period.

Stories like these just serve to distract from that actual point. They serve to move the goalposts. And I'm in a real mood to keep the goalposts from moving any more. I'm done addressing the geometric progression of fallout issues that generated from the rumor that Obama's middle name was Mohammad.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by userid1
 


It appears to me that the POSt&Fail has 'scrubbed' their images on these two links. Both seem to have the photoshopped version.

I'll have to have a look to see if anyone kept a copy of the original, because I didn't.
edit on 21/4/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)


Both do appear to be up and working and show the discrepency.

Mine - www.thepostemail.com...

Other - www.thepostemail.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
reply to post by userid1
 


Sorry - maybe I'm missing something or maybe the links are taking me somewhere different, but in both certificates like BenevolentHeretic has posted, all I can see are clearly 2004 & 2011 as stated. I don't see any detectable alterations.


See my post above - the links are there and working. The same document is imaged, and was presented on two different days (4/10 & 4/14) and their stamped dates look significantly different. Again, import them into a viewer, increase image view to 400% - then compare the two. They don't look similar at all.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Of course the authenticity of that supposedly long form birth certificate means nothing in regards to Obama’s certificate.

I only addressed that supposedly long form certificate because the birthers took it at face value, as proof that Obama, and the Hawaiian authorities were lying, that you couldn’t ordinarily get a long form certificate. But the certificate, its characteristics and previous versions of it that were floating around, raise questions about its authenticity.

In sum, a certificate checked by multiple fact checking organizations, confirmed as legit by the state of Hawaii, is unquestionably fake to the birthers. The digital image of a certificate, posted on a website, verified by zero organizations, and confirmed by no one in the state of Hawaii, unquestionably means it’s legit and Obama and the state are lying and there’s a massive conspiracy.

Just another demonstration of the birther double standards and confirmation bias.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


I agree completely. I addressed the willingness of birthers to believe without ANY proof or scrutiny here. It's amazing how quickly they'll believe anything that serves the birther agenda.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Interview with Govorner Brewer



Sean: What was the final straw that made you veto those two bills, the birther bill and the guns on campus bill?

Brewer: "I think that you have to take into consideration: Does it cost money? Are they able to be enacted? What purpose does it serve? Is it a huge distraction to where the state is going?"

Sean: You used that word 'distraction'. Did you feel like the birther bill would basically put AZ in another bad national spotlight? The butt of national jokes?

Brewer: "First let me say this, I don't think that the birther bill would have ever passed dept of justice. it would have not went any further and in the meantime, there would have been all this controversy going on. And I happen to believe that giving the responsibility to a partisan person to determine whether that person's gonna be on a ballot or not is just too much."


I agree with her. This bill was a HUGE waste of time and energy and taxpayer money. And would never have gone anywhere. This is a federal issue and must be handled at the federal level.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Today I was watching NatGeo's "Journey to the Edge of the Universe", and when they went through the asteroid belt, the narrator ( Alec Baldwin, I think) said that the asteroids were the "birth certificate" of our planets. I almost fell out of my chair. Birth certificate? Would that be the long or the short form? Does that mean that the birth certificate was fast leaving the Solar System with the speed of light, never to be found? Or that maybe the birth certificate was on one of those asteroids and maybe one day would fall to earth and then we will know the truth?





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join