Not saying these were faked in 61...The mother just happen to be out the country visiting the father family in 61 when she gives birth, she goes back to Hawaii and recorded the birth again normal and no big deal...normally...
But years later when Obama starts playing with the idea of running for President, this technical question of Natural Born status President of the United States must first pop up for him... and so being the lawyer he starts playing this game of not quite telling the whole truth "parsing words"... and has dug himself a hole he can not get out of... he just keeps giving oblique evidence that do not answer a simple straight question... where were you born....
He's yet to proved the the simplest thing to provide (see picture below)... if he was born in Hawaii he got one on file sitting in a stated recodes vault..and he can get a photo copy for a few bucks an a stamp
I thought this was all bull for the longest time... but when someone will not provide a simple answer to a simplequestion the you got to wonder
Pictured below is the simple answer to the simple question... why can we get this simple answer from Obama?
Comparable dates in the same column match: August 5, for example, right above the Obama “family.”
The image that you linked to has the title “Certificate of Live Birth” at the top. Is this different from a birth certificate?
What I want to know is why the few BC’s from Hawaii I have seen alway start their file number with “151”?
I'm hearing this more and more, especially from non-political types who tend to want to steer clear of controversial issues. Surprisingly, a good number of Obama supporters are coming to the same uncomfortable conclusion. It's a matter of simple logic.
It's a real problem for Obama, and I think that's why we're seeing this sudden, in-concert pushback from mainstream media, when standing orders previously were to ignore it.