Posted on 08/16/2010 7:09:21 AM PDT by LorenC
I don't understand the question. What makes you think that there's an amendment on page 51?
Correction. Just saw a new biometric issue of the passport. The Sex is on the far right side, just off the screen of their shot. Still wonder why they blurred out date of issue though
Why would any of us be the slightest bit surprised that BHO caters to his supporters but tries to screw with his opposition?
Yes, but the fraudulant documents were from PUERTO RICO. There's no evidence there's a systematic problem with Hawaian BC's.
Are there people out there with documents that they have acquired with that fraudulent birth certificate, a simple yes or no will suffice.
Yes, fraudulant PUERTO RICAN birth certificates.
If the Federal Government is pointing this out, is this a lie?
No. Just irrelevant to obama.
It has nothing to do with “birther” logic, just logic.
Okay, let's look at your argument and see how logical it is:
1. A bunch of non-citizens got passports using fake Puerto Rican birth cirtificates.
2. Obama's passport says he was born in Hawaii, not Puerto Rico.
3. Therefore it's likely Obama obtained his passport using a fake BC.
That syllogism is logical only to a birhter. To every sane person, it's illogical. Hence the term "birther logic."
Nonsense. A passport can only obtained with a document that constitutes legal proof of birth place. Ergo, the passport, itself based on a document that constitutes legal proof, is itself legal proof.
And no, a long form birth certificate is not the only document that suffices as legal proof of birth place. The short-form COLB, images of which were posted on line, is just as good.
If the passport lists a location within the USA as the birth place, then yes.
So if they knew the request had come from a so-called ‘birther,’ Obama wouldn’t show his paspport either?? Is that what you’re clumsily suggesting??
That simply isn't true.
The list I offered is a fair representation of the groups, according to many birthers, who are purposely remaining silent. The reasons vary depending on which group is "avoiding" the issue.
It is the explanation offered for the question as to why no credible conservatives take up the birther cause. (If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wouldn't a respected conservative legal foundation be speaking out?)
As far as all the other birther machinations...I've never believed the Supreme Court would get anywhere near declaring a President ineligible so long after an election, so that leaves impeachment. Birthers need to make their case to elected representatives and hope for the best. So far, almost all of the ones campaigning are running away from the issue because they know it will cost them votes.
Possibly.
The BHO camp might have done so regardless of the requester. If only because they know full well that it wouldn’t satisfy the ‘birthers’ and would only serve to chum the waters.
Yes, I do.
And again, why not just release the original birth certificate and be done with this entire incredible mess?
Two reasons 1) it is unncessary to prove his eligbility and 2) it wouldn’t satisfy the brithers even if he did release it.
1) Yes it is necessary to prove his eligibility — it is exactly what is necessary to prove his eligibility.
2) It would indeed satisfied 99% of the people you so disparagingly referred to.
A passport is not a long form birth certificate. A passport can be obtained without showing a long form birth certificate.
This means that this passport merely documents an assertion of Obama’s birthplace.
Proof of place-of-birth comes from a long-form birth certificate.
This isn’t very difficult.
Very well said.
I change my question to “why is the date of issue blurred out?” — as my previous question was answered twice above.
How do you figure?
2) It would indeed satisfied 99% of the people you so disparagingly referred to.
LOL. No it wouldn't. If he showed, you poeple whould claim it was a fake. Then you'd say the Hawaii Department of health can't be trusted and are in on the conspiracy.
And as if that weren't enough, you double down on the argument that he's ineligible because of his father wasn't a US citizen.
Is there a different standard for the President than everyone else? Anyone can accuse him of anything, and he is guilty until he proves himself innocent?
He provided everything that was asked of him at the time. Birthers are asking for a do-over.
That is as nutty as Code Pink continually trying to arrest Karl Rove for the crimes they believe he committed.
State election ballots can be challenged on the basis of eligibility by voters. This isn’t a matter of ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence,’ but simply proving eligibility. You’re kids aren’t ‘guilty’ if they can’t prove they’re the right age to be in Little League, yet they are asked all the time for proof of age via legitimate, verifiable birth certificates. It should be no different for lying politicians to prove they’re eligible.
Nope, didn't watch it. Didn't need to.
All that passport proves is that within the last couple of years, the Kenyan shows up on film which, I'll grant, was not a certainty.
So this passport is just another feint to the left. The real question is: Barry, what does your college-years passport look like?
Birthers are accusing him of fraud, and are demanding he re-qualify.
So yes, he is being accused of criminal activity.
Really? So videos and threads with titles like "It's the conspiracy, Stupid!" don't intimate that people really think there's a huge conspiracy?
Not now they can't. That was all decided. We can't do it over just because we don't like the decision.
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.