Posted on 06/12/2008 8:37:30 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
Please don't post any more about his citizenship. He is a legal citizen of the U.S. and is legally eligible for the Presidency.
“Does anyone know why the birth certificate says revised 11/01 on the bottom left corner?”
Great question! also I think there may perhaps be NO deeprooted question of his American citizenship in general terms but of the “natural born” kind needed to become President is still to be proven - or even shown.
Hope this doesn’t get me banned but it’s a question and situation being looked at carefully in various places. Not everyone is as convinced of the eligibility as FR appers to be.
Thanks for the ping!
I remember somebody saying it was because his mother was not a citizen.
But .. I didn’t think that mattered.
His mother is/was a citizen. He is too, but apparently NOT a “naturally born” one required - pre-requisite - to be Prez. - which is the point in question.
There were preconditions to meet that standard in those days that no longer exist.
The 11/01 is the date that Hawaii revised the form.
I read both threads and I saw that someone posted the HRS 338-13 thru 19 statutes regarding this Certification of Live Birth as opposed to an actual Certificate of Birth from the State of Hawaii. But I found the following on another board and thought I would share:
a) The official seal of the department of health
shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches
in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there
shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the
curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words
“STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion
shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be
the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents,
which has long been recognized as a universal symbol
of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an
indentation, which shall separate it from the words
“DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For
illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of
the official seal is attached at the end of this
section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department
of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a
part of this section.
(b) The official seal of the department of
health shall be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify commissions of
appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,
certificates, and other formal official documents on
which the official seal has been customarily used or
is appropriate to be used, as the director of health
may determine on a case-by-case basis.
(c) The seal of the department of health may
also be reproduced, in either an enlarged or a reduced
size, on official stationery, reports, certificates,
equipment, supplies, uniform insignia, and other
objects and items to be used or produced by the
department of health, but the reproduction and use of
the seal shall always be subject to the exclusive
control of the director of health.
[Eff 2/14/2005 ] (Auth: HRS §§321-9, 91-2) (Imp:
This “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” stamp or embossed seal is missing. Some posters claiming to have one of these documents state that the stamp is on the back. That’s nice. This is security or safety paper for government use documents. You have all noticed that the backwards date stamp “Jun 6 2007” has bled through from the back - one of the security features. A stamped Health Dept. seal certification, pen signature, or “I certify that this is a true document...” stamp would bleed through to the frontin the same way. An embossed seal impressed into the paper would show up on any copy or scan as deformities in the paper, the background, or white space leaving a notable if perhaps undecipherable ring.
This is inadequate as a document. You are correct to follow this line. If he has nothing to hide, why the lack of transparency? Passportgate? Mr. Obama is not at all above answering to just this type of legitimate question - it DOES matter. He does not need to put it on the web, but he needs to prove his “natural birth” meeting the requirements of law.
If Jesus Christ got cruicified
bambiboy can get made fun of.
Strange, believe I was the first to post that here three times right after Free Republic came back up the other day.
I have looked and relooked at ‘my’ copy of that B.C., have enlarged it many times and [I have excellent eyes] I can’t make out anything saying ‘revised’ at the bottom left!
Perhaps another copy has been posted??
McCain Meets Privately with Fr. Pavone - Says Constitutional Right to Life Applies to Unborn
Post #476 above. Lower left reads: OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) Laser
That’s what they are talking about. The form was revised in November 2001.
Many debunkers have tried to claim that the word “Certification” at the top or the words at the bottom including “prima facie evidence” are adequate to consider this document “certified”. That is false. All of those words were simply generated by a printer and are meaningless without some official certification.
JMO
OK, thanks for the info. I’m not going to get into it since the Mods declaired it a ‘settled issue’.
kudos! great post.
BC can be provided quite easily. Why has it not been released in original form?
Back when Mitt Romney’s father’s citizenship was challenged and when John McCain’s was challenged, I googled the law on citizenship.
It defines natural born for us. That is also the proper way for it to be done. The US Congress long, long ago determined that children born overseas even to one citizen, mother or father, was him/herself also a natural born citizen.
Everyone except his angry wife.
“Does anyone know why the birth certificate says revised 11/01 on the bottom left corner?”
I think it means that the FORM was last revised in Nov. 2001. But that underscores the fact that this particular copy of the certificate was apparently not printed until after that date.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Now, if he had been born outside the US to a single US citizen parent, then based on when he was born (because this law changed 4 or 5 times in the 20th century), certain rules apply, basically revolving around how old the single US citizen parent was and how long they had resided in the US propr to the birth of the child.
In that case, there may be a problem with Obama.
But, until it is proven that he was born outside the US, then his birth in Hawaii in 1961 qqualifies him.
Good, keep us posted!
It's working pretty well for mexico, appears to be alive and well under the next presidency, and doesn't seem to require dual citizenship.
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.