Replies

They never said they had his birth CERTIFICATE. They said they had a record of birth, but never said where that birth had occurred.

It's perfectly legal to get papers saying a child had been born. This and a legitimate U.S. birth certificate are two different things.

I don't understand this distinction at all. A "record of birth" is not the same as a "birth certificate"?

What does this mean? That every state in the union has a "record of birth" for everyone born in every other state? IOW, why would a state have a "record of birth" for someone not born in the state?

I don't understand this distinction at all. A "record of birth" is not the same as a "birth certificate"?

Lets say I was an illegal immigrant who gave birth on my way to the American border. I carried the baby into the hospital and asked for a birth certificate. Because there is no record of the birth, I'd get a birth record - not a certificate. The hospital cannot automatically hand out U.S. birth certificates to anyone who just walks in with a baby.

I don't understand this distinction at all. A "record of birth" is not the same as a "birth certificate"?

If you have been following this, It explains the difference between "Date Accepted by Registrar" versus "Date Filed by Registrar", on a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB).

"Date File by Registrar" is what's stated on Obama's COLB.

And 'Date Filed by Registrar' probably means that the birth was not recorded in a Hawaiian hospital or other official channels that document births in Hawaii. It just means means that Hawaii acknowledges the birth of the baby.

If his mother was in Kenya when he was born and then a few days later came to Hawaii with a certificate from Kenya, she would simply state that she needed to register his birth as she was a citizen and could not travel before his birth.

Hawaii would file the original papers and they would enter the pertinent data into their database from which they print the copies of 'Birth Certificates' on demand. Printing out the information in their abbreviated database says nothing of the original papers issued possibly in Kenya. Hawaii would say that they have his birth documents on file which is true and it omits that those documents originated in Kenya.

Why is it important? Imagine if 2 or 3 years from now it is discovered that he was not eligible to be POTUS - All signatures on all legislation he signed would be void. Could you imagine trying to roll back several years of legislation?

I guess his statements of being 'citizens of the world' are particularly fitting in his case - US, Brit, Kenyan, Indonesian all rolled in one... Mindboggleing!

I say, show us the proof or hit the road Jack, Barry, Barack, or whoever you are!