Posted on 02/08/2010 12:11:59 PM PST by Faith
Sign up date - January 10, 2010!! Nuff said!! CO
#24 - your post there I completely agree with. CO
When you’re on the side of evil, I suppose you need not fear it.
Not a chance in hell that a suicide bomber visits the WH.
Thanks for posting the morph shot. Frightening, isn’t it?
Thanks for the link! Despite the boycott by the MSM, there are some great researchers investigating B.O. daily.
I always appreciate your comments. Thanks for all that you bring to the discussion of this crucial issue.
Again, everywhere is different.
What you might try is the state archives library. It should/maybe have index books for births. These are different from the local index books. These are printed and bound just like any regular book (not like a large deed book). They probably don’t have them for as recent as ‘61 but it might show you the numbering sequence HI used. Of course, as the previous poster said, the process changes over time.
If they don’t have ‘61 births, they should have the death indexes for that time which might give you an insight as to what the procedure was. Sorry, lots of ifs, ands, and buts.
Of course by this time the usurper will have had his own Sandypants Berger clear that place out.
Notice on their site the reference to HRS 93-1 to 93-5. If it’s not on the shelf, ask for it.
I still say you can get into the county courthouse or city vital records a heck of a lot easier than the state health department. Ya know, try a different courthouse to get the lay of the land.
Speaking of lay of the land. Walk (or google map it) the five blocks he walked every day from home to school and see if there’s any way he could have forgotten which hosptial he was supposedly born at. He couldn’t step out his front door to smoke a joint without falling headlong into the delivery room.
O - M - G! The newspaper doesn’t matter one iota. Fine if it is correct from the information provided. Fine if it’s a fake. The newspaper doesn’t acknowledge anything but that a boy was born. It doesn’t matter that the address is most likely false. It doesn’t matter if the Mr. and Mrs. Obama were married legally or not. It doesn’t matter if the dob was Aug. 4th or not. The newspaper is not a legal document. The newspaper is hearsay. The newspaper, just as a computer, doesn’t know anything other than what’s put into it. And as for breaking into the vault (most likely the unlocked back room, but whatever) that doesn’t matter either because if the paper had been switched or the microfilm reel had been switched (simply check the internet for which library has a copy), it wouldn’t have cost but a drop in the bucket from all the $$$$ that’s been spent on lawyers and mop up crews throughout the years.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/obamas-mop-up-m.html
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/nordyke-twins-newspaper-birth-announcement-found/
You have to look at the filing dates and the certificate numbers together to see the problem. Looking at them separately is apples and oranges.
Yes, I've seen it used interchangeably on their documents, but I'd ask them again to verify those terms so you'd have corroboration. Two statements are better than one. "Accepted" could mean when it arrived at their office rather than when it was actually "filed."
They also have the same voice and intonations. Very freaky. But if it were true, he’d be bragging about it and putting it on t-shirts.
The librarian was “very busy” for a week or so and when she came back she had suddenly found the Nordyke announcement in the Aug 16 edition of the Advertiser - 3 days after Obama’s announcement - where nobody had ever been able to find it before. Lucas Smith had said he looked in the birth announcements for 4 months after Obama’s and hadn’t been able to find the Nordykes. I’m wondering if anybody else had also looked. And specifically if anybody had gotten copies of the Aug 16th Advertiser birth announcements before December of 2009.
Bottom line, he’s not a NBC.
Definitely not a natural born citizen, definitely a crook, and possibly not even a US citizen.
But he’s got a LOT of accomplices all over the place.
Yep. That’s the bottom line.
If that is your blog, I am wondering if you ever received any more information regarding the newspaper microfiches for the month of August 1961 and some other stuff you were waiting confirmation of.
“You have to look at the filing dates and the certificate numbers together to see the problem. Looking at them separately is apples and oranges.”
I think my difficulty is in believing in an airtight conspiracy so vast that it encompasses successful forging of evidence at DOH and in who-knows-how-many copies of microfiche for 2 different newspapers. As we’ve seen in the first year of this administration, in many ways it is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. There have been gaffes aplenty, yet we’re to believe this same group has orchestrated a clever criminal conspiracy and cover-up that not one person has yet dared to breach?
Remember, all it would take is ONE dedicated librarian (e.g., a major research library such as University of Chicago) to check their copy of the fiches in question and demonstrate it is different than the forged versions appearing all over the Internet. Or just ONE conspirator who’d finally gotten sick of Obama and realized what a clown he was in terms of ineffectiveness and was willing to sell out to National Enquirer: how much do you think they would pay for bulletproof evidence that Obama had engaged in a criminal conspiracy to illegally engineer his way into office? This would make Watergate look like a molehill in comparison (since Nixon, however you might regard him, at least had been legally elected to the office he abused).
Bureaucracies are very far from well-oiled machines. Indeed, read Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision to see how close standard operating procedures of bureaucracies got us to becoming embroiled in a thermonuclear holocaust in 1962. If there were not independent corroboration via 2 different newspapers that reported the identical DOH-released list of names in August 1961, including Barack Obama’s, then I concur that all the timeline problems that have been cited might be much more problematic to explain. But any credible conspiracy theory has to explain not only how this was engineered within DOH (requiring perhaps only a handful of co-conspirators) but how they also managed to retroactively alter decades-old microfiches without detection.
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.