Hillary, you magnificent b****!
2. In the lower left section, Decosta’s document says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” and Obama’s says “Date Filed By Registrar.” If they were both produced on the same form, why is the language different?
________________________
Birth certificates are not filed by a registrar. Rather, they are filed with the office of the registrar (by the hospital.)
Also, is not one’s college application part of the public record subject to FOIA?
Doubt it. Obama's only a few years older than I am.
I registered at the Post Office. I doubt that I'd brought a birth certificate with me. More likely, I just filled out a form.
“2. Wikipedia says that “Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Are there records of his birth at that hospital? I have seen references that there are not, but have not researched further. “
AS I’ve posted here many times, the Obama site states that he was born in Queens Hospital in Honolulu. So again there is a discrepancy and need to provide the birth records NOT just a BC at this point.
Wouldn’t Hillary have dropped this little tidbit earlier in the campaign?
For the above point, and the lack of a Seal, lack of fold markes, etc, there is a plausible possibility:
Obama wanted to produce the birth info, he didn't want to wait 4-6 weeks. Probably everyone who works in Hawaii gov't is a democrat. Obama asked his Hawaii campaign staff to go and get it. Someone in the campaign staff knew someone who worked at the relavent agency... that person quickly printed the thing out and gave it to the staff member in violation of policy.
I am not saying I have any reason to believe this is the case, just that it would explain a whole host of issues.
I have, in my possession, three versions of my Birth Certificate, all from the same source, The Cook County Clerk.
The oldest is a photo copy of the “Original Certificate of Birth” which is filled in, by hand. It lists not only my mother's and fathers names, but their address and occupation at the time of my birth. It also has the signature of the doctor that delivered me.
It also indicates how many children my mother had given birth to and how many still births, if any, prior to my birth.
There is much more detailed information on it.
During the 1980s I needed a copy of my Birth Certificate and I was sent a Certification of Birth, printed by a computer on a pre-printed form.
The third version, obtained in 1997 also is printed by computer on a pre-printed form.
The last two versions have the bare information, similar to Obama’s. The pre-printed forms have different designs on the safety paper and the borders are slightly different.
All three versions have raised seals and are signed by the County Clerk. All are valid legal documents even though they are different.
What we really need to see is Obama’s Original Certificate of Birth, which may not exist anymore.
I was told that the original Certificate of Birth was lost in the flood that occurred in Chicago downtown around 1990.
Jeff, have you seen this one? Lot's of good questions here.
Why are you still wasting time on this horse s**t?
Obama is a natural-born US citizen, beyond doubt, and there are lots of other things you could be doing if you want to see him defeated.
FWIW, the "faint date" appears to be printed on the back side of the paper; reversing the image, it reads "JUN 6 2007" pretty clearly.
And a more serious reply.
A comment after the article at No Quarters which might bear investigating:
“The real way to know whether Obama was born in Kenya is to look at his mom’s passport record or Kenya’s records for foreign visitors entering/leaving the country around August.”
Yes it does.
Actually, it would be an electric date stamp that works similar to an electric stapler. Slide the document in a slot and either press a button to stamp it of it could operate automatically.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Senate Document No. 108-17 (2002)
"QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 100 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 101 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’ 102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 104 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ‘‘case or controversy’’—as well as how it might decide it—can only be speculated about."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2004; main reference page
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf ; Executive Branch section (cited text found at pages 456 and 457)
From the above, whether or not Obama was, in fact, born outside the national territory of the United States (including its military facilities), he is a "natural born citizen" in the ordinary understanding of the term as discussed in the Senate document cited above. However, as it indirectly concedes, the issue has never had to be decided before. Since it equally applies to both candidates, the "case or controversy" may arise no matter who is elected. (McCain was born in a U.S. military facility in the then Panama Canal Zone. Although in his case both parents were U.S. citizens.)
For those who want to pursue the Kenya angle, there is a required report called "The Report of Birth Abroad of a United States Citizen" (FS-240). Here is a link to the State Department manual on the process:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86801.pdf.
This report has to be filed in person by the U.S. citizen parent (Obama's mother). It is a public document and would be available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Have at it.
Now, if a FS-240 for Obama being born in Kenya turns up, then the Hawaii birth story is a lie and the birth certificate is a fake. Without danger of overstatement, that would be: 1) a really big deal to the public, and 2) great news for the junior Senator from New York.
As for the mysterious faint black marking on the document:
7. Both documents appear to show in the lower center region a faint date, such as the kind produced by a standard ink-pad stamp purchased in any office supply store. I cannot make out the dates. Maybe this is supposed to be the date that the certification was approved, or mailed? When does Obama claim that he “received” this document?”
If you save a copy of the image and then blow it up with a photo editor, the date appears to be Jun 6 2007 in REVERSE. The ink has apparently leaked through from the back side of the certificate. This is probably an internal management marking recording the date the copy was typed/printed out in Hawaii.
I’m waiting for some young enterprising reporter to bring this up today or tomorrow.
Obama is casually answering questions with the press corps assigned to his campaign when a young female reporter brings up a subject that clearly unnerves the candidate.
Reporter: Mr. Obama, there’s been some talk that your Birth Certificate re-produced online by Daily Kos is a fake and that you’re covering up something regarding your birth history and perhaps your pedigree. Any comments?
Obama: No not really. Huh...Everything is out there and ...huh...huh...transparent. I’ve got nothing to hide if that’s what you’re ...huh...thinking.
Reporter: Don’t you agree that this could be an issue perhaps a smoking gun if you don’t address it now?
Obama: (clearly pissed) Address what, Young Lady? My birth history has been well documented in a number of publications including my own autobio.
REporter: Wikipedia says you were born in Kapiolani Medical Center but other sites linked to your site and the Senate lists Queens Hospital. What hospital were you born at?
Obama: Huh...I think I see where you’re going with this. ...huh...No one ...huh...has ever brought this up in the numerous campaigns ...huh...that I’ve had. ...huh...huh...If you think you’re going to Swiftboat me on this you’re wrong.
Reporter: Your grandmother in Kenya has said that you were born in Kenya, is this true?
(Obama turns his back and exits “swiftly”)
From another thread, I can understand not wanting to release vital statistics about a person, but it must be in Hawaii's own interest to expose a forgery being passed around as an authentic Hawaiian document. Hawaii should owe no obligation to a person named on a forged document. It is Hawaii's responsibility as a government to expose a fraud done in their name and protect the legitimacy of its legal documents for its own citizens' sake.
It's time for Hawaii to make a statement about the authenticity of this document.
-PJ
