Birth Certificate Vs. Certification Of Live Birth

(First published in July 2009)

We just did a story bringing to light how the U.S. Army revoked the orders of a Major scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan after he filed a lawsuit claiming that the deployment would be illegal due to the fact that Barack Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate, therefore he has not proven his eligibility to be Commander-In-Chief.

To say that we started a firestorm would be putting it mildly.

We had our fair share of rational responses, as well as the usual off-topic comments, accusations of being right-wing nuts, etc.
As well as a few that were too obscene to put into print.

It turns out that our theory that the document presented by Obama appears to be homemade has some support, in that it seems that there is a difference between a “Certification of Live Birth” as opposed to a “Certificate of Live Birth.”


Our friend Pamela at Atlas Shrugs also presents a compelling case that the document presented as proof that Obama is a natural-born American citizen is indeed a forgery.

And for you Obamanites who claim that there is no difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, we, as well as the State of Hawaii, would have to disagree with you.


Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

Everybody get that?

As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.

How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?

Of course the fact that Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution is not something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.

Forget Obama's Birth Certificate,What Else Is he Hiding?

That's an issue that may never be settled to anyone's satisfaction.

How about asking Obama about some of these things?:

His kindergarten records
Punahou school records
Occidental College records
Columbia University records
Columbia thesis
Harvard Law School records
Harvard Law Review articles
Recordsfrom the University of Chicago
His passport
His medical records
Hisfiles from his years as an Illinois state senator
Illinois State Bar Association records
And his adoption records.

Why Mr. President are you hiding all of these things.
These actions seem strange coming fro a man who promised us "the most transparent administration in history."