Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AN 'ORIGINAL' LONG FORM BC WITH NO EMBOSSED STATE SEAL ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oshcDV8I0KQ ^

Posted on 04/28/2011 4:34:08 PM PDT by rocco55

How is it that the "original" long form birth certificate recently issued by the White House has no State Seal anywhere on the image ? Every 'real' long form document from the State of HI during this period exhibits this seal except this new arrival (and boy, does it ever look new, as in "hot off the press"). As would be expected, both Nordyke twins have this embossed circular seal but ironically, there is not even a faint indication of one anywhere on the White House image. IMHO, this should be the FIRST point of order when questioning the veracity of this image.

Second would be the word "African" in the 'race of father' field. There may be an outside chance that the Hawaiian official specifically chose to use that word because the father was a student from another country, but during this period, the generally accepted term would most assuredly be "Negro" (possibly "Black"). Unfortunately, in order to make a case for this argument, one would need another birth certificate from this period of a child with at least one black parent, which has yet to surface.

Thirdly, the Nordyke twins' Registrar is not consistent with Mr. Obama's. It is true that the 'UKLLEE' signature is on other original long form certificates from this era, but not on Kapiolani Hospital forms. One would expect that children born within one day of each other in the same hospital with the same staff would have the same Registrar.

Fourthly, the County and State field entries on Mr. Obama's document varies from those on the Nordyke docs. His has "Honolulu, Hawaii" and theirs has "Honolulu, Oahu". This may appear like a minor point, but because these children were born within ONE DAY of each other, the forms should be virtually identical with respect to the entries made in these respective fields.

The fact that the curvature of the lines on the left side of Mr. Obama's new document are inconsistent with the green basket-weave lines is not a point of concern as this is evident on other original documents from this period. I have a copy of another 1962 long form with this identical characteristic.

Many have claimed that the White House altered the documents they purportedly received from the State of HI and I personally do not know if this is a fraudulent document or not, but if it is, wouldn't Alvin Onaka be taking a large risk having his name stamped at the bottom ? Although I personally do NOT trust the current administration, I haven't heard anyone comment on Mr. Onaka's liability.

Just a few thoughts. Thank you.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; officialbcrelease
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: Hotlanta Mike

“The 14th Amendment was intended to deal specifically with citizenship status of former slaves in the aftermath of their emancipation.”

Well, that sure in curious view of the 14th Amendment.

In other words, you are saying that the Due Process Clause only applied to former slaves?

It seems you also believe that the Equal Protection Clause only applied to former slaves?

And thus you must also believe that the Citizenship Clause only applied to former slaves and that that all African Americans born after the passage of the 14th Amendment are bound by Dred Scott?


61 posted on 04/29/2011 10:20:28 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Isn't it more plausible to argue that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment was intended to ensure that the citizenship rights of former slaves were the same as everyone else? In other words, that it not only established citizenship laws for former slaves, but also confirmed that those were the same rules for citizenship applicable to everyone else?

If you're born in the U.S., you're a natural born citizen rather than a naturalized

62 posted on 04/29/2011 10:25:00 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin; Hotlanta Mike

“Isn’t it more plausible to argue that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment was intended to ensure that the citizenship rights of former slaves were the same as everyone else?”

Not sure I would go that far, as Hotlanta Mike, who I have no reason to be believe is not one of the nation’s premier Constitutional scholars, has stated the the 14th Amendment “specifically” applied only to former slaves and no one else.

So therefore, all the people in the United States who are alive today and who were not held in slavery prior to emancipation are not covered by the 14th Amendment.


63 posted on 04/29/2011 10:37:25 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]



Getting fed all the news at Free Republic?
Haven't donated yet?
Please consider it

Give whatever you can
Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10

Lazamataz is fading away!

64 posted on 04/29/2011 10:55:56 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SwankyC

“you nutjob birthers”


65 posted on 04/29/2011 12:49:04 PM PDT by the anti-liberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

I’d consider that one a fact - so sue me. Are you a nutjob?


66 posted on 04/29/2011 1:14:04 PM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC
Consider: name calling puts you squarely in the same category as preschool children at recess.

I've been away for a long while and, having returned - likely only momentarily - I'm amazed at the level of childish behavior displayed here by, presumably, adults.

67 posted on 04/29/2011 4:33:02 PM PDT by the anti-liberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC

I don’t have to wager anything. The issue isn’t ‘dead.’ Whether or not congress grows a pair and impeaches him over any of a number of issues (which ARE open and shut) is not the point. The BC issue is an albatross of his own making and we’ll keep it hung around his neck whether or not the rest of the conservative wing like it. Freedom of thought and all that ya know...

The ‘birther’ issue never was ‘solely’ about where he was born or his father’s place of birth for that matter. It includes the sealing of all his other records from the public as well. They (these issues) are all tied together. If nothing else, it keeps people wondering and asking the questions the MSM and congress refuse to ask. If they keep asking them, and they are, the issue doesn’t go away and that means fewer votes for him in 2012. A ‘win’ for us either way.

And again, we’ll keep it hung around his neck whether or not the rest of the conservative wing like it. We don’t particularly care. It’s not like we need, or want anyone’s permission. You do your thing, we’ll do ours. We know how to walk and chew gum simultaneously.


68 posted on 04/29/2011 6:48:08 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
The issue isn’t ‘dead.’

For you people I guess. But to anyone that had a shred of doubt on the left - yep it sho' is.

The BC issue is an albatross of his own making and we’ll keep it hung around his neck

How exactly? So far he's made you people look like idiots. You've been railing for two years about there is no BC. Now he shows it and .... you moved the goal post - giving the left the justification to call you right-wing morons and the right the justification to call you useful idiots of the left.

If they keep asking them, and they are, the issue doesn’t go away and that means fewer votes for him in 2012. A ‘win’ for us either way.

Yup, it happened exactly that way when those questions were asked before he was elected the first time too.

The issue was dead in 2008. Now you're just aiding and abetting the left.

69 posted on 04/30/2011 3:34:34 PM PDT by SwankyC (Can man rule himself?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

I know you are but what am I?


70 posted on 04/30/2011 3:35:53 PM PDT by SwankyC (Can man rule himself?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson