New Hampshire lawmakers question Obama’s citizenship

Washington Times ^ | 1/9/12 | Dave Boyer

[bitt]

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. Our future candidate is already damaged goods.

Don’t know what the GOP candidates are thinking, but they’re doing the devil’s work.

I’d sure hate to see the opportunity for a Sec. of State John Bolton go by the wayside... :)

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s all you’re doing is stretching imagination to ridiculous lengths. The signatures were proved to be shopped in and that pretty much makes the whole thing totally phony.

I do not seem to be able to make my point comprehensible to you. Let me try again.

MY birth certificate has a signature on it from the Doctor that Delivered me. Yes, all birth certificates do, but on mine, the signature was added SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT! Now I just so happen to have my ORIGINAL birth certificate, and I can tell that the signatures are the same. After I was Adopted, the state CREATED a new birth certificate, and they ADDED a signature to it from the doctor AFTER THE FACT.

A State may add signatures to a birth certificate if that is what the judge ordered. Yes, Obama's document is Phoney in that it is not the original, but it is also legitimate because the state is ALLOWED to create fake birth documents for adopted children.

[JohnnyP]

If this was on the up and up (for an adoption), the state would have created a new one for him from scratch.

Instead, someone forged one using BITS AND PIECES from other documents trying to make it look like a 1961 original.

[DiogenesLamp]

If this was on the up and up (for an adoption), the state would have created a new one for him from scratch.

Instead, someone forged one using BITS AND PIECES from other documents trying to make it look like a 1961 original.

MINE looks like an original from the time of my birth. THAT IS THE POINT. Replacement birth certificates are ALWAYS supposed to look like they are original, because many parents do not want their children to learn that they are adopted.

[JohnnyP]

Yours is a legitimate replacement.

Obama’s is made from bits and pieces. No reason for that other than attempting a forgery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yours is a legitimate replacement.

Obama’s is made from bits and pieces. No reason for that other than attempting a forgery.

MINE is made from bits and pieces. Two of the signatures on it (The Doctor and the State Registrar) were taken from the original document, but the rest of it was fabricated 6 years later.

I think Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in 1965, and in 1971 his grandparents acquired custody of him, and THEY also adopted him. I think sometime later, (possibly when he started campaigning for President) he got a court to issue him a new birth certificate, which Hawaii DOH created out of bits and pieces. They sent him the file of it without knowing that it contained the evidence of their pasting it together.

I think Obama has a legitimate "Replacement birth certificate" which was created by order of a court in Hawaii. It is NOT an original, but it is a LEGAL document, obtained in a LEGAL manner.

While it may be good enough for most uses, it is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to get on the ballot, in my opinion. For that we need to see an ORIGINAL birth certificate.

[TigersEye]

I am not talking about the doctor's signature. I am talking about the registrar's signature which would have to be the registrar when the new version was created and actually signed not cut&pasted in.

Not to mention that the other signatures (which I wasn't referring to before) were pieced together. They weren't even complete cut&pastes of the old signatures.

[TigersEye]

They sent him the file of it without knowing that it contained the evidence of their pasting it together.

Which means it's not even a document. They might use parts of an original to make an adoption BC like you're talking about but it would have to be printed out on paper and signed and stamped, at the time of its origin, to be a real document like yours.