Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator: Obama's Birth Certificate Cannot Survive Judicial Scrutiny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsuZLZkZmK0&feature=player_embedded ^

[OUTKAST]

Internet now debating--- Did Zullo rely on 1968 codes, instead of 1961 codes.

[Graewoulf]

On a lighter note, maybe First Bitch Michelle could come out with a line of her Perfumes using that secretive name?

No telling how sales could increase once the Liberal Agenda Media catches wind of it.

There might even be a fast and furious pre-election sale. You just never know - - - .

[Common Sense 101]

Sheriff Joe’s Lead Investigator: Obama’s Birth Certificate Cannot Survive Judicial Scrutiny

It’s survived just fine so far... If this “government by the people” can not have standing to bring this fraud to light in court, how can it ever be scrutinized by that very same judiciary?

[philman_36]

Did Zullo rely on 1968 codes, instead of 1961 codes.
Maybe this is sending people in the wrong direction...

In Hawaii in 1961, there were three different birth certificates

(See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)

Distract people by getting them to look "forward" instead of backwards as they should.

[Chewbarkah]

Please explain, or give a link to something that explains, what you are referring to. (The youtube Klein/Zullo interview had no discussion of 1968 v 1961 codes.)

[freekitty]

His handlers already know who he is. Why do you think we got MCCain and Romney?

[RummyChick]

Google it. You will find it.

The other side is claiming the page he copied is exactly the same as the one in 1968.
The codes in 1961 were different .

[BenLurkin]

“Cannot Survive Judicial Scrutiny”

Yeah, well...they said the same thing about Obamacare

[philman_36]

@ VITAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961 VOLUME I- NATALITY SECTION 5- NATALITY (page 5-7) Race and color
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."
The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.
In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used.

[RummyChick]

In other words- 1968
9 equals not stated

1961
It is nonwhite.

Thus, Zullo used 1968 info.

[TNoldman]

ping bho nbc

[philman_36]

No matter which one was used, '61 or '68, there should have been a "2" in the field.
African shouldn't be there no matter what the "Doc" thinks. It's by race, not nationality.

[philman_36]

See 31.

[philman_36]

While I can't find a "Nativity of Father" section from the good Doc, I can find a "Nativity of Mother" section.
Now, if they're the same "1- Native, 2 - Foreign, 3 - Not Stated" I see a "2" by the name of the Father.

Or does that "2" mean "Illegitimate" from page 7 of 12?
Not a whole lot of choices to pick from on that "2" next to "Kenya, East Africa".

[rolling_stone]

so that discusses births, not race of parents...where on the BC does it show race of child?

[philman_36]

...where on the BC does it show race of child?
Hmmmm...very good point. It doesn't show the race of the child. Even Fig. 5-1 from January 1, 1956 doesn't have a place for it.

I know that the race of the child is determined by the race of the parents so, given your point, the codes must be the means to extrapolate the race of the child based upon the race of the parents.

Does that make sense?

[philman_36]

A 1 parent and another 1 parent gives a "1" "white" baby by 1961 terminology.
A 1 parent and a 2 parent would give...well... With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. ...a 2 "nonwhite" Negro baby.

Nothing else is possible as far as I can tell.
"Other nonwhite" (the "9" in dispute) would be someone already of mixed race.

[OUTKAST]

CaLl for Freepers Reinforcements

Freepers need to show these Obots what the truth is.
They are lying and confusing people that are now inquiring about this.

http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Zullo-Aaron-Klein-Show/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/TxEMZ0INM4DVHI/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299

[philman_36]

Freepers need to show these Obots what the truth is.

You want me to go wallow in the ditch?

[freebird5850]

bflr!

[edge919]

The “Doc’s” doc comes from an agency that didn’t exist until 1963. It’s not a very credible source of information. It also doesn’t jibe with the 1960 and 1961 Natality Reports which used different classifications for race than what appears on the Doc’s doc.