I really don’t understand why this is still an issue here on FR. I’ve selected a sample of people from this thread who seem to be on both sides of the issue to comment on, what I believe are the facts of the situation.
1. Barack claims to be born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. He claims to have provided an electronic version of the original birth certificate (not the original or a photocopy of the original).
3. Hawaii was a state by 1961.
4. Perhaps most importantly, the State of Hawaii has confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for him, but have prevented anyone but his immediate family from seeing it.
Now, given #2, any issues that arise that claim to show the copy BO has provided on his website is not a copy of an original because it doesn’t have the proper “seal” or because the borders along the certificate aren’t “genuine” seem to be a red herring. This is because it’s an electronic version of the original. It wasn’t claimed to be a copy of the original or the original itself, but again, an electronic version of the original, so it’s perfectly understandable that it wouldn’t bear an embossed seal, or the boarders along the certificate might not be the same as an original.
However, even beyond that, given #4, we (apparently) *know* that the State of Hawaii has a BC for a one “Barack Hussein Obama”, at the time he claims to have been born there, so, given that alone, isn’t it reasonable to assume that he was born there? I mean, what else can we go on at this point?
That he’s assumed the identity of someone named “Barack Hussein Obama” all these years? That’s the only thing left that would seem to call into question his (basic) Constitutional qualification to be president.
Unless someone can explain to me how these two issues (especially #4) aren’t germane to the issue, then I really think it’s time to let this go, before it spins wildly out of control into some kind of nutter conspiracy theory like those about 9/11, making us all look like a bunch of “right wing nuts”.
1. His mother was 16 and in Kenya already.
2. That was his adoptive birth certificate.
3. Ok, you get one point.
4.They said they had a record of birth, not a U.S. birth certificate. He could have been born on the moon, and they'd still have the same paperwork.
All he has to do is show his bonafide certificate. McCain did. Why can't he? Is that too much to ask? It's a piece of cake.
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, never said that the BC on file said that Barak Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii, did she?
In case of adoption, Hawaiian law allows the adoptive parents to be listed as the birth parents, and further, in the case of adoption of foreign born children specifically allows the BC to reflect Hawaiian birth!
So saying that an "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures" is on file says nothing as to the location of birth.
A child born in Bangladesh and adopted in Hawaii, by Hawaiians would have his original Bangladeshi birth certificate on file (and sealed by court order as part of the adoption proceedings) in accordance with Hawaiian law, and could have an available (not sealed by court order) COLB-of-record that shows his adoptive parents as his birth parents, and his location of birth as in Hawaii.
IF she has seen 0bama's real birth certificate, on file in accordance with Hawaiian law, and she neglects to mention that it shows a place of birth outside the US...
THEN she is using a partial truth to make the foulest kind of lie, a half truth.
That she didn't say “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate showing Honolulu as his place of birth on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” might be a perfectly innocent omission on her part.
OTOH, it's precisely how a pathological liar or a politician parses the 'truth' to tell a lie.