Posted on 06/12/2008 3:10:54 PM PDT by Oyarsa
How true. How true.
Because an auto is more valuable than Obama?
Seriously, see my post #111.
I’m sorry, but after 47 years there is no fold or wrinkle, or crease!!! That thing looks like it was issued yesterdy!
I don’t think I can buy this.
Yes, but there was some status attached to being African or West Indian or Cuban or American Indian rather than an ordinary US Negro.
As you said, one could be "African" without being a "Negro," and that "race" on one's official papers might make for a better future.
Kenya didn't become independent until 1963 or 1964, depending on how one defines "independent," so "Kenyan" wouldn't have been an often-heard term.
There was a Kenya Colony from 1920, but most people, if they thought of that part of the world at all, probably still called it British East Africa. The coins still said that, and you'd see the pink blotch on the map and not the individual units that made it up.
It also wasn't clear in 1961 whether the parts of British East Africa would become independent separately, or stick together (as Tanganyika and Zanzibar did to form Tanzania).
No one’s trying to say the document above is the actual birth certificate issued at the time of this birth. It is a certified copy, issued on the date it was requested (or very shortly thereafter). I happen to have a copy of my original birth certificate, because that’s what they gave people when I needed it for my driver’s license. I couldn’t get that now — what I would get is similar to what’s above. Also, I recently got married, and the marriage certificate I got from the County Clerk’s office, just about three weeks after I got married, was nothing like the actual marriage license that I got ahead of time and was signed by the minister.
Not printed, typed.
I downloaded the image from KOS and blew it up in photoshop.
sure looks funny around the letters. the green lines kinda disappear by the letters and looks like artifacts around the letters also.
has any one else looked?
Chances are this is the amended one. That’s why this is useless for other that what it is. This is just proof of age.
That’s a good point — why is the certificate # blacked out??
It’s not like it would be sensitive personal info like his Social Security #. Is there anything you could do with the Certification # from a birth certificate - you’d have to present the embossed certified form itself for anything like a passport or I-9 form for employment. I don’t know of any criminal activities that would be aided by that # but then I don’t pretend to know anything first-hand about the criminal world, typical scams by Democrats, etc.
Still, it does seem at least curious that the # is blanked out — either someone just did it automatically (but a Presidential candidate releases all kinds of sensitive personal info, why is that singled out for deletion?) or as you say it suggests they are using someone else’s certificate and inserting Barry’s info.
What’s the deal here?
But that is not a Birth Certificate, only a Certification of Birth. Not the same thing. Think of it as the "short form". It really certifies that there is a birth certificate on file.
But that is not a Birth Certificate, only a Certification of Birth. Not the same thing. Think of it as the "short form". It really certifies that there is a birth certificate on file.
Why would someone who wasn’t American be identified as a “black American”, “Afro-American” or “African American”?
Also, I am looking at application for this focus group in my building, and under Ethnicity the choices are: Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African, Other.
We are haggling out the details. Something ain't on the up-and-up here, that is obvious.
The Obama campaign is in misdirection mode, they present an actual official substitute for proof of birth, and allude -- strongly allude, that is the misdirection -- that it answers any questions about the actual 1961 birth certificate.
Hooray for FR!
The deal is that you could verify the exact information on this document with that #, hence it’s blacked out.
I agree with you.
But if the State of Hawaii did not ask for the race of the baby or parents in the 60’s, why would it be on the newly issued document?
My son has a Hawaii birth certificate from 1988, and his does not ask for the baby’s nor the parents race.
Seems to me, the state of Hawaii is not in the habit of asking the race for important documents.
Agreed.
We need to see an original Hawaiian BC from 1961 to know for sure. However, chances are that if his father wasn’t at the hospital at the birth, it probably shows ‘white’, since his mother was. I’m betting that is what they are trying to ‘hide.’
I don't know. I've never seen a Hawaiian birth certificate before. Have you?
In 1961 Martin Luther King would have been using the word. Later than that in fact. He used it many times, in his "I Have a Dream" speech, for example.
SOMEBODY JUST CALL THE HAWAII REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ASK THEM TO REVIEW THIS THREAD......
Why doesn’t somebody contact the Hawaii Republican party at their email address and ask what a legitimate Birth Certificate looked like in 1961.
They can also tell us or show us what the form looks like in when the copy posted on the KOS site looked like.
I’m at work so I can’t email or call right now.
Here is the contact information. The Gov of Hawaii is a Republican.
Call us at
(808) 593-8180
http://www.gophawaii.com/index.html
So Barium Hussein Obama has “Reverse Michael Jackson Syndrome”?
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.