Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Team Arpaio: We Have Two 1961 Hawaiian Birth Certificates That List Negro Not African
Mike Zullo ^ | 6-20-2013

Posted on 06/20/2013 2:58:17 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Sheriff Arpaio's lead investigator Mike Zullo just concluded a new interview this afternoon at 3:30pm central time and revealed that he will get Congressional movement on Obama's fraudulent documents after their summer break. He also revealed that they have in possession two Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 that reveal that the term 'Negro' was used for black babies instead of the term 'African'.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: 0botbs; afterbirfturds; afterbirtherbs; anydaynow; birftards; birthcertificate; birtherbs; birthers; bs; certifigate; congress; corruption; democrats; electionfraud; fraud; herecometheobots; koldkasekops; krazyobotkrap; mediabias; mikezullo; naturalborncitizen; obama; obotsaretrolls; obotspaidtodisrupt; sheriffjoearpaio; stuned; stunedhisbeeber; teaparty; zerobotusedcrap; zullosusedcars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 461-462 next last
To: edge919

In other words, you can’t produce anything to back up your claim.


241 posted on 06/22/2013 11:00:57 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

That is a bold deceit, but still just a deceit. You are trying desperately to establish what you want readers to think is ‘the truth’ but it is in fact and by the posted evidence only an agglomeration of your fabrications so it can never be ‘the truth’.


242 posted on 06/22/2013 11:12:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Odd how you can’t name and demonstrate one single “fabrication” I have ever produced.

Unlike the Cold Case Posse, who CLEARLY fabricated their fraudulent evidence. And the PROOF of that is available for all to see.

Thank you for playing.

Jerk.


243 posted on 06/22/2013 11:23:47 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I really should know better than to bother having a discussion with you.

Stop being a drama queen. You clearly ignored the comments I posted and what I was originally responding too, and you brought up a bunch irrelevant nonsense on your own.

Stanley Armour isn't standing behind any Union Workers, they are in the back row, the coloured men are a Captain, an Officer and THREE CREW IN FRONT.

It doesn't matter. You're trying to arguing irrelevant minutia. Again, the issue I'm addressing is whether the Dunhams felt like there was a stigma involved in any such associations. This picture shows there wasn't.

Who said anything about stigma?

x, who brought it up in posts No. 121 and 176. That's what I've been responding to, before you blundered into the converstaion.

The only stigma anyone might have felt from being called a NEGRO was the man who appears insisted on being classified as AFRICAN.

There's no evidence that Barack Sr. insisted on any such thing.

I'm not interested in what Stanley Armour might have thought. There's no evidence he ever set eyes on the kenyan student, other than the myth of ‘Dreams’ - and that silly photograph that appears to have been taken on a Dock, does nothing to place them together anytime, anywhere.

And again, it doesn't matter if he set eyes on "the kenyan." The issue was whether the Dunhams would have listed Barack Sr. as African to avoid a stigma, and CLEARLY, from that picture, Stanley Armour Dunham is not concerned about any stigma from associating with anyone.

244 posted on 06/22/2013 11:26:52 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
In other words, you can’t produce anything to back up your claim.

No, the claim that can't be backed up is that the alleged instruction manual was used to classify births in 1961. The 1961 Natality Report shows otherwise. It's posted at the CDC website. The racial classifications in that report are not the same as the alleged coding manual.

245 posted on 06/22/2013 11:28:51 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: edge919
...And again, it doesn't matter if he set eyes on "the kenyan." The issue was whether the Dunhams would have listed Barack Sr. as African to avoid a stigma, and CLEARLY, from that picture, Stanley Armour Dunham is not concerned about any stigma from associating with anyone.

I concede your point, because it isn't the parents of the mother who declare the contents of a birth certificate, it's the parents themselves. We are to take it that (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama signed the document.

But if you are going to use that 'on the dock' image to show that Stanley Armour had nothing against appearing in the company of 'negro' people, you need to have some idea who those people are.

Some appear to be from the Nachmanoff groups, there's Dave and Robert Robillard, and Marda - and the asian woman is a graduate of the U of HI from class of 1959. There's an unidentified young woman standing very closely to the central character, there's a captain and an officer, three young crew members squatting, and a row of union workers in the background. Plus a couple of unidentified white men and another asian woman who appears to have been added. How you can establish what Stanley Armour felt about coloured people from that collection, escapes me. It only works if the central character was the kenyan student, and that possibility has just about been eliminated.

The captain, the officer and the crew - he would have had no choice over, if he was meeting some asian couple he knew on a dock in the 70's. Must have been someone who warranted a welcome committee.

246 posted on 06/23/2013 12:01:28 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: edge919

And btw, don’t bother to reply, I’m sick of being called a drama queen, it’s boring and predictable coming from you.


247 posted on 06/23/2013 12:05:49 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: edge919
No, the claim that can't be backed up is that the alleged instruction manual was used to classify births in 1961.

It says right on the manual that it was for classifying births that took place in 1961, doofus.

As for "alleged," it's obvious that it's the real and correct manual. Aside from which, IT WAS PRODUCED BY A FREEPER.

The 1961 Natality Report shows otherwise. It's posted at the CDC website. The racial classifications in that report are not the same as the alleged coding manual.

A link to the report, Sherlock. And the exact page number on which your alleged conflict is to be found and can be confirmed.

Otherwise, you claim is bulls**t.

248 posted on 06/23/2013 12:08:51 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I concede your point, because it isn't the parents of the mother who declare the contents of a birth certificate, it's the parents themselves. We are to take it that (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama signed the document.

The contents are declared by whoever has knowledge of the birth. The mother could have just easily been sedated through the entire birth and signed the certificate after it was filled out. Or it could have been filled out by the grandmother or anyone. The signature is not particularly compelling since part of the signature was parenthetically augmented. There is as much evidence of photoshop on that document as there is on any of the photos.

But if you are going to use that 'on the dock' image to show that Stanley Armour had nothing against appearing in the company of 'negro' people, you need to have some idea who those people are.

It doesn't really matter. A stigma is a stigma, and anyone who really had problems with such "stigmas" would go out his way to avoid being photographed with anyone he was uncomfortable being around. This is a group photo that clearly wasn't carefully posed, but was most likely based on where people were standing at the time someone decided to take the picture, which means Stanley was already near people he should have been trying to avoid. The idea that his feelings can only be established by the "central character" is nonsense.

249 posted on 06/23/2013 12:14:55 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It says right on the manual that it was for classifying births that took place in 1961, doofus.

And I'm telling you one more time, so that it will sink in. The classifications do not jibe with the 1961 natality report. You can bleep and blurt all you want, but this is a problem you cannot explain away.

250 posted on 06/23/2013 12:18:00 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: edge919
And I'm telling you one more time, so that it will sink in. The classifications do not jibe with the 1961 natality report. You can bleep and blurt all you want, but this is a problem you cannot explain away.

No, it isn't.

It's COMPLETE AND UTTER BULL****.

You can't produce ANY CONFLICT WHATSOEVER with a 1961 natality report.

251 posted on 06/23/2013 6:28:01 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Just because you make some BULL**** claim: (”The classifications do not jibe with the 1961 natality report”) doesn’t make it true.

Have you never heard of a little thing called SHOW ME THE DAMN EVIDENCE?

If you make a statement, you need to BACK IT UP. Just as I’ve done.

Doofus.


252 posted on 06/23/2013 6:29:55 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

The Birth Certificate was part of their divorce decree and there were witnesses that saw it.


253 posted on 06/23/2013 7:39:09 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

“...there were witnesses that saw it.”

Do tell.

Names? Affidavits?


254 posted on 06/23/2013 9:51:11 AM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
Here is some more information and links
I have several witnesses, that have proven to me that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya.

First witness, Barack Hussein Obama II himself:
The above artice is also found at FreedomsPhoenix.com.
They have a great spoof Birth Certificate you just gotta' see.
Also view the video at Proof Obama Admits He Was Born In Kenya.


Second witnesses, his mother and father, indirectly through their divorce papers. I believe that "indeterminate person" probably SAW the Obama Dunham Divorce Documents BEFORE Page 11 disappeared and viewed the Kenyan Birth Cerfiticate,
thereby telling Ed Hale
The Obama Dunham Divorce Documents are viewable at this location.
There's a great assumption of the time lime at at link.

Third witness, is Barack Hussein Obama II's grandmother,Sarah Hussein Obama:
View the video Barack Obama - Born in Kenya II at Youtube.com.
Watch and LISTEN to the video BARACK OBAMA - BORN IN KENYA - The Documentary - STUNNING!
and prove it to yourself.
Also watch Affidavit and Tape-Proof Obama Born in Kenya.

The fourth witness, Tim Adams,
(It is now confirmed by Hawaii that Tim Adams did indeed work as a senior elections clerk in 2008)The Fifth witness, Michelle Obama.
The Sixth Witness, Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego:
The Seventh Witness, James Orengo (the Kenyan Parliament Minister of Lands):

Also an outstanding video to watch,


Case CLOSED!!!


So, there you go.

255 posted on 06/23/2013 10:10:53 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

LOL, you make a post fabricating your own fabrication. What a maroon, an obamaroid maroon at that!


256 posted on 06/23/2013 10:32:02 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

The three posting in defense of little barry bastard boy are all 2010 sign ons, and not that far apart for sign on dates. Their feverish efforts here are a strong hint their little barry bastard boy is scared that his fraudulent life is about to be exposed.


257 posted on 06/23/2013 10:47:02 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
"Odd how you can’t name and demonstrate one single “fabrication” I have ever produced." Jeff 'knight in service to little barry bastard boy' Winston

Revealing that you try to twist what I posted and obliquely accuse me of not posting any of your deceptive posts ... I'm not in the business of repeating your lies, asshat. Your post is an open exhibit of your fabricating, your twisted deception techniques!

258 posted on 06/23/2013 10:51:08 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Maybe they didn't think of themselves as "Negroes" either.

In any case, grandma may not have thought the same way as grandpa.

259 posted on 06/23/2013 10:58:12 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Satan aways eats his own.


260 posted on 06/23/2013 11:03:34 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 461-462 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson