Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
(CNN) The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.
The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.
"The Obama Public Relations machine decided today was the crucial day to release the recently cooked up Certificate of Live Birth betting its unveiling will influence enough members of the Oklahoma House to have second thoughts about the necessity of such a bill."
Any news on the Oklahoma vote?
Fascinating. Thank you.
Thanks, Brown Deer.
Is it necessarily significant that the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham on the Social Security card differs from the one on the latest COLB?
(How do we verify the Social Security card? We need a "gold standard" for something.)
Cheers!
Great post.
I am quite familiar with the birth hospital scenario thank you very much. What I was responding to is this ridiculous claim that Kapi'olani was not the official name of the hosp in 1961, when in fact it had been debunked waaaaaay back when. To say that Kapi'olaqni wasn't the official name of that hosp would mean that the Nordyke's and all other certs from 1961 that state Kapi'olani are ALL forgeries.
FYI...Queens was the birth hosp cited up to & until mid Nov 2008, right after the election & prior to the Dec 2008 electoral college vote, NOT July 2009
Just go with that, since that must obviously be the case. It makes far more sense that multiple COLB's have been forged to manufacture the birth story of Obama than it is to accept that the hospital just might have been called "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" in 1961.
She was completing her degree while he had been called back to Indonesia. I learned in on the intertubes.
I do not believe on thing about this cert. It clearly is just another less than credible forgery for the lap dog media to use to get their messiah reelected, but also to usurp A2 qualifications for ALL future presidential elections. With that said, there are enough abnormalities to this birth cert without interjecting ones that had already been debunked. Frankly I don’t care where the “WON” was born, as he was a British citizen at borth and that fact alone disqualified him.
As an attorney, I have to listen to two or more sides of nearly every story. Proving an intentional lie is harder than you might think. I judge a lie to have happened only when I can show by either hard evidence or irresistible inference that the teller knew what they were saying was false. Otherwise, most people believe what they’re saying when they say it, even if on occasion they are wrong. That does not make them liars.
For example, the HDOH employee testified to what he believed to be common knowledge in the department that the long form birth certificate did not exist. In court, to prove that to be a lie, you would have to come up with credible evidence he did not believe his own words, such as written or oral testimony from coworkers that he had personally inspected the long form or positively knew by other means it existed, and yet said otherwise. No such evidence of deliberate falsehood exists in the public record. Therefore, at face value, his testimony stands as a true expression of his belief, whether accurate or not.
A further clarification might even make his claim to honesty stronger, as the document released today is self-identified as an abstract, meaning it purports to be derivative from a more original document, with more information than the COLB, but less information than the document exactly as filed in 1961, hence an abstract. If he could testify that he was speaking of that primary, 1961 original, or an exact facsimile thereof, then he could still maintain there is no such document, and there would be no evidence released to the public, including today’s document, which could make that out to be a deliberate lie.
Furthermore, inasmuch as the primary, original birth certificate, exactly as filed in 1961, is still not available to the public, it would be impossible to judge those as liars who sincerely believe there would be contrary information between that and the COLB. There is simply no way to determine either the truth or falsity of such a statement.
So, like the lawyer on the radio says, you have no case. Put in another quarter and try again.
The hard facts that support what I’ve concluded are
1) “Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8”, which gives the required procedure of the local registrars on Oahu collecting BC’s submitted to them for a week and then submitting them to the HDOH’s office. This was important for the hospitals to observe because the law required all births to be registered within a week after the birth.
2) All but one of the non-Obama Kapiolani long-forms within the past 75 years that are available on the web (I believe there are about 6 or 7) showing a Friday submittal to the state registrar, and
3) The one that doesn’t show a Friday submittal showing a Thursday submittal after Friday fell on Christmas Eve with offices closed and the next Friday was going to be closed also for New Year’s Eve. So the BC was submitted on the Thursday between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve even though it was almost a couple weeks old by then, because if they waited for the next Friday those BC’s would have sat in the office for 3 weeks before getting to the state registrar’s office. If there hadn’t been a Friday routine, I’d expect them to catch up on Friday work that had been missed by doing it the following Monday, as soon as offices were open.
I believe this was a hospital routine and not just the routine of the local registrar because the BC’s were almost always signed by the doctor the same day as they were submitted to the local and state registrar. So the hospital didn’t keep a steady stream of BC’s coming in to the registrar’s office all week long, but kept them until the day they were to be submitted, had the doctors sign them, and then sent them to the registrar - like all the paperwork would be done on that one day as a simple, order-keeping routine that was only upset when that day of the week happened to be a state or national holiday.
But even if it wasn’t a hospital routine - even if the hospitals DID have a constant stream of BC’s going to the local registrar, what mattered for numbering purposes was the date that the HDOH received the BC’s and gave them a number - which Okubo says is what the “date filed” refers to.
Are you saying that Texas birth certificates have no raised seal on them? How do they protect against forgeries? How does a person know whether a Texas vital record is just a Photoshop?
Oh, my!
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
That's what Vattel wrote. You know, the legal treatise that was read and referenced during the Federal Convention itself.
What does that translate into?
By the way, I'm sure you know that Vattel was "celebrated" as a "genius" in the colonies more than a decade before the Declaration of Independence and more than 2 decades prior to the Constitution was written.
You belittle Law of Nations....you belittle the founders, framers and learned colonists.
I look forward to your translation.
Can you tell what the exact words are on that registrar’s stamp?
Well, it’s a good thing they’re not treating Obama’s records any differently than anybody else’s...
Especially revealing that they do this now, when a document that has been published by the registrant no longer has any privacy exemption to disclosure. It’s almost as if they are admitting that what they have in their file is not the same thing as what Obama published, which would then be a public record - since they have to particularly double-protect what they have so nobody can see it.
But if Onaka is worried about who has access to the BC, the bigger issue is who all has had access to the computerized record of that certificate. How many hackers could have gotten in and changed BC#’s between different records? Or how many people within the system could have accessed and/or altered the records - like Obama’s passport file was accessed 3 different times with somebody at a higher level specifically disabling the security protocols to allow the breaches?
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.