Go here (if you have not already been):

http://thevalleytruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/the-supreme-court-and-obamas-birth-certificate/

for an[other] interesting and apparently well-thought bit of banter on the matter.

As far as Mr. Walden’s dismissal of the ‘search for the missing birth certificate’ as heading down so many useless rabbit trails (for lack of a simpler/ kinder way to say it), I find his subtle acceptance (admiration? surely not…) for what may have been a
“Gramscian Strategy” a little frustrating, if not disturbing (?).

If that is all it was/ is/ has been, and there truly is nothing more to this birth certificate debacle than a ‘successful’ effort to confuse ‘the oBama opposition’, the electorate at large, then it presents a potentially even more sinister facet of who oBama and his ‘team’ really are.

For those that did not follow the hyperlink located in paragrph three of the good Mr. Walden’s original post, or who are otherwise unaware of who/ what Mr. Anthony Gramsci was- for a Presidential Candidate to engage in outright
subversion and deploy tactics that weaken if not undermine the credibility and stature of the office he is hoping to be elected to… Then he MUST be interested in a certain flavor of ‘change’ that even A. Gramsci himslef would be averse to.

And, this ‘my friends’ is truly disconcerting.

Then it’s just as well that they used it instead as a description of his father. Who was an African—as in from Africa.

In the 60′s, the word “NEGRO”, or “COLORED” was used. Looks like the person that forged the document let his own personal (liberal) politically correct posture get in the way of an accurate forgery.

Or it could be that the person who initially took down the information in 1961 wrote down the accurate information for Barack Obama, Sr.

I didn’t vote for Obama (nor did I vote for McCain), but I am endlessly entertained by these conspiracy scenarios, lawsuits, and legions of amateur document examiners all checking the “kerning”. Please keep it going. I haven’t enjoyed an electoral season quite this much in all my 28 years.

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama — because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a “Certification of Live Birth” — must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date “filed by registrar”, the certified DeCosta document provides the date “accepted by the registrar.” The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.
Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama’s birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother’s youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a “natural born citizen.” Even if he were naturalized later — and there is no evidence that he was — he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and — if forgery or misrepresentation were involved — he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to “tough out” the allegations about his “birth certificate” or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.
But until the certified paper birth document is produced — either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state — the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President according to the Constitution

Please note that this is the statement from DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino;
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,”
Notice that she says that there is an original there but she is not saying what is ON that original.

Here is an image of a 1963 Hawaiin long form, typewritten vault copy of a birth certificate;

http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

Notice on section 7c. there is a space to put your County, State OR Foriegn Country that you were born in. Back in the 60′s it was very legal to actually be born someplace else, even another conutry, and still recieve an Hawaiin BC.

So, with that being said, when and until, Mr. Obama shows this particular document to a panel of judges and forensic specialists, I, for one, will not accept that he is Constitutionally able to sit in the Oval Office as my President. He and the DNC have had since August to produce this document and have failed to do so.

The Constituion, the one that our forefathers have bled and died for is to be upheld “the Constitution’s criteria for presidential eligibility are not ‘suggestions’ but instead are mandatory requirements.”

He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” —Samuel Adams

The matter of Hawaii denying WND access to Obama’s ‘sealed’ birth record is easily put to rest. The Governor’s office denied Obama’s records were sealed. At the same time, Hawaii state law prevents state officials handing out birth records to just anyone. Subsequent to the Corsi article and on hearing the Hawaii government’s denial, additional requests were made by various interests (including major news media) and denied on the same basis as the WND denial. So, while technically correct that the record is not sealed (there is no court injunction sealing it, Obama can request and get copies), it is, nonetheless, generally unavailable. This is confuting a legal term (courts sealing birth records in cases like adoption) with a straightforward complaint; indulging in semantics. As far as the general public is concerned, Obama’s birth record is off limits; which was the point Corsi made. Taking this further is whether, in the case of elected officials, we need some better mechanism of public accountability to assure us the person we elect meets the requirements spelled out for the office they seek. Certainly, that is something inadequately addressed under current practice as demonstrated by this election. As Presidential elections are governed by each state, the states are the keepers of their own birth records, and it is the states who make the rules under which candidates are allowed on ballots. Therefore, maybe there should be a provision requiring certification be made by each state’s board of elections including proof of birth prior to placing candidates names on ballots to avoid a repeat of such manipulation in future.