From the article: “One thing that remains unclear is whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked.”
Why would there be a question of whether or not he would be allowed to see his original certificate unless he was officially adopted? I don’t know if this still holds true, but when a child was adopted they were not able to see the original birth certificate. So if Obama doesn’t have a copy of the original and he was adopted, he wouldn’t be able to get a copy of the original, just the new amended copy. Does this sound right or am I way off in this thinking? If he could only get the amended version, that’s not what he would want to show everyone.
And when Gov. Lingle said his certificate was sealed, was she just stating a fact due to adoption or did she have the certificate sealed?
Obama said he found his Birth Certificate and Vaccination records when he was writing one of his memoirs.
The short form he put out last summer doesn't say anything about being amended, nor does it list Lolo Soetoro as the dad, which it presumably would, had Soetoro adopted him.
And when Gov. Lingle said his certificate was sealed, was she just stating a fact due to adoption or did she have the certificate sealed?
That story was a World Nut Daily canard. There was no need for the governor to "seal" the certificate, since it's already sealed by Hawaiian law.
I guess my response goes along with this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2302965/posts
but based on the comment from the article referenced in this posting. Links the 2 together.
Excellent point.