Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?

Blogtownhall ^ | 6/20/08 | Polark

[BossLady]

I see you were in the Army....that should be good enough for any ol' passport or the presidency ;)

(I was born at Ft. Benning :)

[Plutarch]

I have a friend who was born in HI and I compared her COB to this one - it was/is identical, all the way down the the anomalies the author notices. And yes, the seal is in black/white and hers has the authentication stamp on the back, in blue, which is identical.

Well then, please take a photograph of both sides, (covering any personally identifying information), upload the photograph, and post it here! This whole kerfuffle is due entirely to the absence of a comparison HI Certificate of Birth, and you would be doing the Nation a tremendous service if you posted that COB!

[muawiyah]

There's an earlier post on this thread discussing what the certification of live birth looks like per a phone call and FAX (probably email attachment) of the current document.

You need to read all the posts to catch this stuff.

Sorry, my point on African was that it was used and I have seen it used ~ in the 1960s and even earlier. I think some individuals got it in their mind that the term "African American" was used, but the baby daddy actually came from Africa and was not an American.

Too bad Obama's mom is dead or we could ask her about the day the nurse came to get the information eh.

It's crashing lightning around here so bye bye.

[JLS]

I don’t need to read anything. I did not say anything about disortion of the document. That was the originator of the thread. You need to link to me if you have information that answers my question. If someone answered it they should have pinged me.

Again it is NONE of your business what we discuss in this thread.

[Fishrrman]

“Are we trying to say that the Obama document is a fraudulent production that misrepresents facts?”

From your lips to America’s ears.

Let me ask you this:
If there were no need to “misrepresent” any “facts” on the ORIGINAL birth certificate, then why the great reluctance to share the ORIGINAL one with us?

Why must it be kept hidden?

Aside to those who would contend that the true original may no longer exist, having been committed to microfiche:
If THAT is the case, again, why not just release a copy of the microfiched record?

Something is being “kept hid” here.
What is it?

- John

[esquirette]

Whoa.

And another baseless apochryphal unfounded anecdotal theory is destroyed.

[Bluebird Singing]

“My birth certificate has a II on it. My son is III.”

My point is: was there a II on your birth certificate, or was it a Jr. at the time of your birth? Supposedly the correct way of doing it is when your son came along and was given the same name, then you would become II and he would be III.

I’m curious as to why Obama had a II on this record of birth that’s being discussed. But if you say that you were given a II at the time of your birth, then maybe it’s a common thing to do.

[Fishrrman]

“Obama has not been chosen by the Electoral College as President-Elect. Until he is, his citizenship and birth status is of no legal significance whatsoever.”

Good point.

How about AFTER he has been chosen as President-Elect?

- John

[Blood of Tyrants]

In 1961 an African neighbor in a white neighborhood would not have been tolerated and he would have been called nigger, regardless of his nationality, here in the south. That is the way things stood in 1961.

[Fishrrman]

“Besides, State Department issued him a passport. If this is the document Obama showed them, and their highly skilled document examiners accepted it, then it’s OK.”

Just a thought here, doesn’t mean anything.

WHEN was Mr. Obama issued his passport?

Before or AFTER he had been elected to the Senate?

I wonder if - insofar as sitting senators are concerned - they even bothered to ask him to provide a birth certificate?

- John

[x]

In 1961 an African neighbor in a white neighborhood would not have been tolerated and he would have been called nigger, regardless of his nationality, here in the south. That is the way things stood in 1961.

In Hawaii (where Whites were a minority) it might have been different, more like things are (I hope) now.

[trisham]

Another HUGE blunder. In 1961 “African” was not a “race”. His father would have been listed as “black”, possibly “Negro” and maybe even “colored”. The person who reproduces them at request DOES NOT change any data for political correctness as that would be falsifying official government documents.

*****************

Agreed.

[Aurorales]

I really feel the need to repost this. (I am sorry I am replying to your specific post. It was the closest post I found that was on topic.)

I have an original Hawaiian BC from 1968. (I know that Obama’s document is not original)

The “race” of the baby or parents was not asked or documented on the Birth Certificate. My Father tells me he was not asked either, while giving the info for the BC.

My sister was born in Hawaii 4 years earlier, and she tells me it is not on her BC either.

So again I ask, why would this info be on his replacement?
My answer is this is not a real document and the info was added to this to show that he always was considered African American. There probably is a document somewhere, which lists him as some other race.
I know it doesn’t matter, but it obviously matters to someone responsible for producing this document.

[muawiyah]

Let's see ~ there's this picture of Obamasama dressed up in what you call "Moslem clothes", and you ask when he got a passport.

I shouldn't even bother trying to answer that one.

[muawiyah]

pissant, this is the wierdest response I’ve seen in days. Does this JLS person think we are some kind of Mr. Answer Man board or what.

[Flashlight]

Obama has not been chosen by the Electoral College as President-Elect. Until he is, his citizenship and birth status is of no legal significance whatsoever.

maybe in theory, but if you use your imagination I bet you can come up with several possible valid legal challenges that could be made long before the electoral college votes are counted.

For example, right now Obama gets Secret Service protection paid for by the taxpayers. President Bush, or the head of the Treasury Dept., could attempt to subpeona the birth certificate from Obama to prove he's a legal presidential candidate deserving of the protection.

Also, state election officials would have the right (I think) to have Obama prove his eligibility before they allowed his name on the ballot in their state.

I'm not saying that Obama coudn't fight these attempts and even win, but I think there are some valid legal questions to consider.

[Jim Noble]

could attempt to subpeona the birth certificate from Obama to prove he's a legal presidential candidate deserving of the protection.

There's no such thing as a "legal" Presidential candidate. "Running for President" has no constitutional existence.

Also, state election officials would have the right (I think) to have Obama prove his eligibility before they allowed his name on the ballot in their state.

Obama won't be on the ballot in any state. US citizens will be running for the positions of electors for President and Vice President. If you could prove that an elector pledged to Obama did not meet the criteria for the position, you could take THAT to a court.

But before the electoral college meets, these candidates have no actual legal existence.

[Flashlight]

There's no such thing as a "legal" Presidential candidate.

by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security identifies who he considers "major candidates," and they are entitled to protection 120 days before the election. I could see the Secret Service requiring a named candidate to prove he's eligible to the presidency (what I meant by "legal") in order to continue receiving protection.

"Running for President" has no constitutional existence.

No, but it can still be recognized as existing by federal law in the case of Secret Service protection. "having no constitutional existence" doesn't necessarily mean "unconstitutional."

Obama won't be on the ballot in any state..., etc...

Technically true, but the party's nominee's name is always on the ballot along with the party's name. I don't know why election officials in Michigan, for example, couldn't refuse to display Obama's name next to the "Democratic Party" spot on the ballot, if he couldn't prove his eligibility to the presidency.