Skip to comments.Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
Posted on 07/28/2009 7:34:23 PM PDT by pissant
Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.
The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.
The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.
As WND reported yesterday, Hawaii's director of health responded to the growing controversy over the White House's refusal to release Obama's original long-form birth certificate by issuing a statement about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping the Posse!
Haven’t read it yet but it sounds like it’s gonna be good!
Pissant - why does the long-form still say “Certificate of Live Birth?”
A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi’olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.
Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"
CNN said this story was dead. LOL!
Lou Dobbs (bless this patriot) did not get the memo.
Just so that nobody gets confused: the order of the certificates means nothing. The numbers are only there for unique identification. One stack of them would be at one hospital or office, and another would be at another hospital or office, meaning that each would turn in the certificates out of order. Surely there are some missing as well.
However, the birth certificate, if produced, still wouldn’t resolve allegations that his citizenship was renounced.
He got the memo. He just round-filed it.
Clearing the Smoke on Obamas Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigators June 10 Report
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the natural born citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons.
(a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
This certificate is a short form.
Welcome to FR.
Just waiting for the ruling by a certain U.S. District judge(a Marine) in Santa Ana, CA in “Cook vs. Obama”
“Mr. Presdent, I need to see your Birth Certificate”
Darn...I missed that gem of a thread entirely today...lol
Good work Freepers!
The distinction is not “Birth Certificate” vs. “Certificate of Live Birth”, but the latter vs. “CertificatION of Live Birth”. The former is the original document (or a photocopy/microfiche/digital scan of said original) - the document itself, for you to see. The latter is a printout with a stamp and seal on it that essentially says: “This information is what the actual document contains. Trust us...”
The media is working overtime to make this go away, never seen them work so hard to discredit a story
LOL! If Fox is smart - they should snap up Lou. CNN pisses off Lou then they will lose a lot of viewers.
I bet Lou could double his numbers on Fox and smash that phony The Leprechaun aka BOR(e) in the ratings.
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.