Obama Birth Certificate; 'Document allegedly obtained in Kenya sent to every member of Congress'

reply to post by cindyremains


How can another country other then the one you were born in be your homeland? If you move to another country and say you were born in america,but this other country is your homeland,doent really make a whole lotta sense. America is the country you were born in,if you immigrated from another country then and only then is the other country your homeland. It might be your great grandpappies homeland but not your mom and dads if they were born here. So in conclusion your homeland is where you were born,not where someone else came from.

reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.


Tell that to the Irish.
Why do Americans celebrate St. Patricks day?
Lot's of people think of their ancestral homeland, are interested in it, relate to it and strongly identify with it.
Easy huh?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by texastig

 

I thought of that, and I could believe it of Bill, but Hillary really seemed perturbed by the fact that she couldn't beat Obama. I just don't believe that she was in on some scheme to elect Obama.

Line of succession for the Presidency: Yes, the Secretary of State is IN THOSE LINES! She may have been upset because she was forced to 'take a dive'.

Originally posted by RightyRight

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by dereks

 

Oh, come on, it has been clearly established that this isn't the full birth certificate.

You wouldn't even get a driving license with a partial birth certificate.

Can you please explain what you mean by not a full birth certificate? Two different posters posted what a current HI birth certificate should look like. They look like Obamas but when I asked if there was any dispute, you did not speak up. Can you show what a FULL one should looke like?

Can you also provide some evidence to your claim about the license? I actually looked and it would seem that you are not correct.Honolulu.gov

Do you have something that says otherwise?

Originally posted by RightyRight

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by dereks

 

Oh, come on, it has been clearly established that this isn't the full birth certificate.

You wouldn't even get a driving license with a partial birth certificate.

Can you please explain what you mean by not a full birth certificate? Two different posters posted what a current HI birth certificate should look like. They look like Obamas but when I asked if there was any dispute, you did not speak up. Can you show what a FULL one should looke like?

Can you also provide some evidence to your claim about the license? I actually looked and it would seem that you are not correct.Honolulu.gov

Do you have something that says otherwise?

Here's what a Long Form Hawaiian Birth Certificate (not a Certification of Live Birth) looks like, I might add it shows;
1. The hospital the birth took place
2. The delivering doctor

All that a Certification of Live Birth provides is a live birth anywhere in the world.

www.thepostemail.com...

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I don't think anybody is claiming it is a forgery. We are only claiming that it is simple to get without actually being born in the state.

Plenty of people have claimed it to be a forgery.
They did so the day it came out.

Also it is not simple to get unless it belongs to you, and it will still accurately state where you were born. It says he was born in Hawaii, if he wasn't it would say so.

This is backed up by the Hawaiian officials.

Again, comparing it to a copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1961 to disprove its validity is erroneous at best or simply due to misinformation.

He won't ever get a copy of a birth certificate that looks like that now.
No one will. They no longer provide that format.

Unless he still has his 49 year old copy, he has the only computer generated proof they will give him

I'm not getting into the semantics of calling it a Certificate of Live Birth as opposed to a Birth Certificate when the State of Hawaii says they are the same thing.

What exactly is an invalid birth certificate anyway?
How did he get one?

Birthers have no argument, just speculation and ignorance of the reality that Vital Records in the State of Hawaii have said it is valid.

- Lee

Actually no, it's missing the following to be a legal Birth Certificate:
1. Hospital where birth took place
2. Doctor who delivered the baby
I find it humorous, the one's who call the people seeking the information "Birthers" does that make those name callers "Anti-Birthers"?

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

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 parent’s 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 parent’s 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 driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s 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.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

logisticsmonster.com...

Originally posted by lee anoma
You sure you want to use him as a factual source?

He says this whole thing is a joke perpetrated by fear-mongers and the Right.

I already asked you once if you're reading my posts. I have to ask again because you're either not reading them, or not comprehending them. Here's what I said about Adams, does this sound like I'm using him as a factual source?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm skeptical of anything anybody says without proof, including Adams.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Has this guy been debunked? I'm not saying I believe him but if Obama would just produce the certificate of live birth it would put an end to his lies if that's what they are.

That's an interesting interview you posted. In the wnd article and in the interview he says that he thinks Obama was born outside the country, but the only basis I've seen for that is that he wasn't born in either Kapiolani or Queens medical center. So I don't get how he's coming to the out of the country conclusion based on that, what if there was a birth at a house in Hawaii with a midwife, that could be in Hawaii.

And he does conclude that Obama is eligible to be president in spite of the fact that he was born outside the country. So his comments really muddy up the waters. Is any of what he says true? I don't know, that's why I asked and it's also why it would be nice if Obama provided his long form to prove Adams wrong about there being no long form birth certificate.

Actually he sounds pretty supportive of Obama to me in that interview.

Originally posted by Reign02
And I thought this whole "birther" crap was over with and proven to be a bunch of bull. So why is this getting posted again?

Because sadly you have not tried hard enough to deny their freedom of speech.

I am sure if you try hard enough and get some like minded ppl together you
can silence these ppl who are not true citizens of the fatherland.

LOL

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by Reign02
And I thought this whole "birther" crap was over with and proven to be a bunch of bull. So why is this getting posted again?

Because sadly you have not tried hard enough to deny their freedom of speech.

I am sure if you try hard enough and get some like minded ppl together you
can silence these ppl who are not true citizens of the fatherland.

LOL

Wait, who was 'silenced'?

which fatherland? Germany?

Wait...

OBAMA was born in KENYA?!?!?!?

Who says????????????

i wonder if the people who buy all this distraction about Obama ever pause to think about the SOURCE of all these nonsensical distractions and the motive behind them?

Nawww.... best to just embrace your ignorance...

Originally posted by justadood
i wonder if the people who buy all this distraction about Obama ever pause to think about the SOURCE of all these nonsensical distractions and the motive behind them?

Nawww.... best to just embrace your ignorance...

***********
LOL and vice versa. Yet I won't stoop and call you ignorant.

In keeping with the thread topic looks as if the "non-existent" doctor has been found.

The father she is referring to is the doctor who's listed on this Kenyan BC to have delivered Obama. The one for
whom Obama's supporters have claimed never to have existed, hence, the birth certificate in their eyes was a fraud.
The daughter happens to be a Judge.

> "I have forgiven you," she says is the message she has for the killer of Dr James Ang'awa.

Kenya: You Are Forgiven, Judge Tells Her Father's Killer

allafrica.com...

Originally posted by DABIGRAGU

Originally posted by justadood
i wonder if the people who buy all this distraction about Obama ever pause to think about the SOURCE of all these nonsensical distractions and the motive behind them?

Nawww.... best to just embrace your ignorance...

***********
LOL and vice versa. Yet I won't stoop and call you ignorant.

Excellent.

Thank you for emphasizing my point so well.

reply to post by snowen20


And that is where you are absolutely wrong. If indeed, this is true; our Constitution states that he can NOT serve as a President of the United States of America.

No Court can argue this, and no Supreme Court would support this, if it were indeed, fact.

LCD's? Nah. Impeachment....Indeed.

Again...if this is truly the case. If not, we're back to the same old thing on where this dipshiat was born.

Hopefully for all of our sakes, this is true, and we can get this moron out of office, as he has done NOTHING for the good of the people.

Best, and God Bless.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
No it isn't. Not without further verification. The "certification" can be obtained in a variety of ways that are easily manipulated. As I said before. Even today, it would be fairly easy to be born out of the country and still obtain an Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.

I tend to agree with Benevolent Heretic that if anyone today got a Hawaii birth certification that was born outside the country, the certification would show their country of birth.

However, I'm not so sure if that was the case in 1961, as discussed starting at around 4 minutes and 13 seconds in this video:

A Question of Eligibility Part 2


"at the time, 1961, Hawaii as you know was just...1959 was a state. So Hawaii was allowing people to come in and register births without necessarily having the proof or documentation that subsequently would be required."

That's an interesting claim, and I don't know if it's true or not but I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed light on that claim. A good witness to discuss this would be someone who worked in the vital records office around 1961 but I've never seen such a person interviewed. I don't know if there was any attitude among officials working in the vital records office but some of the things mentioned in this official apology to Hawaii from 1993 make me wonder:

www.hawaii-nation.org...

Whereas, on August 21,1959, Hawaii became the 50th State of the United States; ....

SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.

The Congress -
...
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii ...

(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people

The admitted need to reconcile admits there were some ill feelings. Could any such feelings be manifested in not requiring the same kind of documentation shortly after the new statehood in 1959 that might be required today? It's an interesting question, and I personally have doubts that the standards then for verification of where a birth took place were as high in 1961 as they are today, meaning a disgruntled native Hawaiian working at a vital records office might have followed birthplace verification procedures much more loosely than they would today.

I want to know that the proper protocol was followed to verify this certificate was done, and is on file, and will be made public at some point.

How can that be such a controversial request?

If you keep watching that video on the question of eligibility, it actually raises the question about what the proper protocol is. And while I don't know if I can believe other things Tim Adams says, I do agree with him that the verification protocol and process needs to be reviewed, and made more clear with clearer responsibilities assigned. So that is the one thing I hope will come out of all this, since we're never going to get to see the long form certificate, if there even is one.

I have mixed feelings about that video as I'm not a fan of Orly Taitz but I am a fan of Alan Keyes and they interview both of them and many more. And there are some partisan snipes thrown in there that frankly I could live without. They do give a reason why Hillary Clinton stopped asking questions about Barack Obama's eligibility, so people who were asking about that might be interested in seeing the explanation.

Good luck on your research!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However, I'm not so sure if that was the case in 1961,

What case? What law? The fact you are unsure does not cut it. I can say the same for the last 43 presidents we had, I am 'unsure' they were vetted correctly. I can say I am unsure about so many things but the fact is there are very few people out there that can personally account or witness these things.

A Question of Eligibility Part 2

What was the point of the video? It essentially repeated the same things you and others have been saying on this thread, so whats the point? 'Obamas turning the country into a socialist one' 'Wheres his birth certificate', why do you have to post us the video that essentially parrots the exact same things you and others have been saying?

"at the time, 1961, Hawaii as you know was just...1959 was a state.

Hawaii became a state in 1959 and? You are being incredibly vague on the point here from your reference. Are you refering to a law? a specific process? Care to reference it?

I don't know if it's true

And this helps what?

I read the link to the apology towards native Hawaiians and there is nothing of relevance to Obama's eligibility that I can see. Again I find you to be vague in the point you are trying to make.

They do give a reason why Hillary Clinton stopped asking questions

Earlier on you were insisting to us that this conspiracy can be logical with out the need of involve government officials and yet you keep on coming right back to the possibility that government officials know.

Originally posted by DABIGRAGU
Actually no, it's missing the following to be a legal Birth Certificate:
1. Hospital where birth took place
2. Doctor who delivered the baby
I find it humorous, the one's who call the people seeking the information "Birthers" does that make those name callers "Anti-Birthers"?

It doesn't need those things to be valid.
Whoever told you it did lied to you.

That information isn't printed on any recent computer generated short-form birth documents in Hawaii.
It isn't even on mine.

As I already posted:

FORMAT CHANGED

The standard "Certification of Live Birth" that Hawai'i health officials now issue — and was posted on Obama's campaign Web site — has less information than was required on the "Certificate of Live Birth" that Eleanor Nordyke was issued for each of her twin daughters on Aug. 5, 1961.

The modern-day birth certificates issued to anyone seeking their Hawaii birth records have spaces for the names and races of the parents, as well as information such as the time of birth.

Nordyke's 1961 birth certificates required much more information, such as the ages, occupations and birthplaces of the babies' parents.

Honolulu advertiser

So is it valid?
Let's ask the people that actually work with Vital Records in Hawaii:

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate."
- Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson, Janice Okubo

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

USA Today

Sorry.
I'll take their word over yours.

- Lee

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm skeptical of anything anybody says without proof, including Adams.

Yes, I read that.

Still you put in him your argument as a person in a official capacity that could cast doubt on the validity of Obamas' claims of being born in Hawaii. This guy did a complete 180 on just about everything they claim he believed in and in fact sided with Obama in this whole issue.

You could do a little research if you are ever in doubt. It's part of the good debate process you appreciate. People who bring up Tim Adams as a possible source of validity to cast doubt in this debate do the same thing as those who bring up Billy Meier to possibly validate new UFO information.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And he does conclude that Obama is eligible to be president in spite of the fact that he was born outside the country.

He claims that he was told (second-hand information) from an anonymous source that he had no long-form, but concluded that since he has a certificate, it was verified by the State of Hawaii, and accepted by Congress, he clearly must be a U.S. citizen.

His deductive reasoning is at least simple and sound in that respect.
He doesn't know for sure whether Obama has a long-form or not, since he didn't have personal access to it.
He doesn't know where Obama could have been born either.

He chose to go with the facts, and not the rumor.

That or everyone in the U.S. Government has somehow decided to lie for him.
It seems highly unlikely and far-fetched.

Actually he sounds pretty supportive of Obama to me in that interview.

Not only that, he slams the Birther movement as being bigoted and irrationally mislead by a group with political agendas. He says there is NO super Obama conspiracy at all and Obama is a U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.

It's really not best to even add him to the debate as someone with anything credible to add to the Birther side since he appears to go back and forth, or as he claimed, is being taken out of context to further the Birther agenda.

- Lee