Posted on 07/28/2009 2:49:13 PM PDT by trueamerica
Birth Certificates from Hawaii:
151-61-10637 born on Aug. 5, 1961 at 2:12PM
151-61-10638 born on Aug. 5, 1961 at 2:17PM
Link:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/assets/gif/M1139416728.GIF
Obama's:
151-1961-010641 born on Aug. 4, 1961 at 7:24PM
Link:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
The number on Obama's certificate is HIGHER than the other two, even though he was born BEFORE the other two.
Interesting...maybe the hospital did not know about his birth until AFTER the other births...
Full article:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345/Hawaii+officials+confirm+Obama%E2%80%99s+original+birth+certificate+still+exists
Awesome post trueamerica! This is why I love bloggers! They do the job of the media.
Do they have their papers on film.
If they do, does anyone know anyone that lives in Hawaii that can research his birth announcement with his birth date.
Now that’s a real copy of a birth certificate.
In 1961 the Dunhams lived on Kamehameha Avenue, while Obama Sr. lived on 11th Avenue. The Lefforge family, including their 3 children under the age of seven were residing at the luxury home listed on Obamas newly found birth announcement 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.
It is highly improbable that the Lefforges would move an African 25 year old male and his pregnant teenage girlfriend into their home. Why would anyone want unemployed college students and a newborn baby living in their family home with their own three young children?
And since the Mr. Lefforge died 10 days prior to the appearance of the birth announcement that listed his address, we cant ask him. But we do know that the next door neighbors testify that Obama, his mama, and his papa never lived there. What a tangled web of lies...
those aren’t birth certificates
Because it took Ann Dunham a couple days to get from Kenya to Hawaii to register his birth...
Yes/sarc, he just created a MySpace apparently - at age 94/can’t make this stuff up - everyone else is...lol
http://www.myspace.com/486411514
Just to play devil’s advocate it could be that the hospitals each got a number of birth certificates to fill out, say from 151-61-10601 to 151-61-10640 for one hospital and from 151-61-10641 to 151-61-10680 for the next.
Good job.
But, I hear from the Information Czar that this story is dead.
Its time to move on. Anyway, thats what I hear.
BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before the local registrar of the district. It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parents signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate. (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parents claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a drivers license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a drivers license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the 60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.
Bookmark & BTTT !!
I’m not sure this is something to get hyped about.
In fact, I’d expect numbers being slightly out of sequence for this sort of thing.
Reason being -2 Scenarios.
Scenario 1- The certificates were issued in sequence from a single central location. Certificates would be prepared as the “data” from hospitals, doctors’ offices, etc. were received and “processed” at this location.
In this scenario the sequential number may be indicative only of an approximate time when a birth occurred and subsequently processed.
Scenario 2- Batches of sequentially numbered certificates are distributed to authorized agents for completion as they deliver babies. Just like how license plates, inspection stickers, etc. are distributed and dispensed, today.
In this scenario, 2 babies delivered seconds apart at different locations could have significantly different numbers just by nature of how “batches” were assigned and distributed. Also in this scenario, only numerical sequences within a specific batch would hold any sembelence of chronological order according to birth times.
Any of you people ever work in a government office before? Stacks of paper, overflowing in-trays, mixed up filing clerks, confused mail rooms, coffee breaks, sick leave, temp employees, etc. I would say the order of numbers assigned vs chronology of actual births bears only “rough” correlation, if any.
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.