Obama's COLB was "filed", someone else's was "accepted". Does that imply anything?

Posted Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm

The picture of Barack Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" ("COLB") includes a line with "Date Filed by Registrar".

However, another COLB from someone named Patricia Decosta has "Date Accepted by Registrar" (bolding added; image here; that link is only provided for the image at that page, not the rest of that page).

While the second was apparently obtained in 2002, both appear to be using the same form: "OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01)LASER". Does the fact that Obama's COLB says "Filed" and Decosta's says "Accepted" mean anything? Did they just change the language between 2002 and 2007 (or 2008)? Or, is there some difference in the underlying data or how it was handled? That might be a good thing to ask someone at the Vital Records office in Hawaii.

Tags: 
obama citizenship

Comments

AOK (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 00:06

Ann Coulter thinks you people are nuts. It's time to call it quits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQr2a4vqqg

Hahahaha (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 01:52

The link to Patricia Decosta's "Certification of Live Birth" is a bust. It has "Date Accepted by State Registrar" as being "May 27, 1930". You goofball, that would be impossibe! Hawaii wasn't even a state until 1959.

Leave it to Beaner (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 04:02

What is wrong with asking for something irrefutable? Much like when you two (above) came out of the closet, Obama needs to come out, but with some proof instead. Only then will this go away.

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 04:36

Yes anyone who looks into this understands what obama is, but most will not do that.

Mike James (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 22:52

People ask why doesn't Obama simply provide his birth certificate. It is because he is hiding something. He is never going to produce it (at least voluntarily). The only hope of getting to the truth is asking questions exactly like this one (what is the signigicance of "filed" versus "accepted.") These kinds of questions should have to be answered by the officials. It has nothing to do with anyone's privacy. These officials have 2 responsibilites: one is the privacy of individual's information, but the second is the integrity of the Hawaii official documents. We, the public, have the right and expectation that birth ceritifcates and other official documents are not fraudulent. What is the point of having all of these elaborate security measures if they don't tell the end user how to discern a fraudulent COLB from an authentic COLB? If Okuba and her boss know that the Obama COLB does not contain accurate information, and they do not expose it as fraudulent, they should go to jail. That is exactly their job, to expose fraudulent birth certificates. Whethere it is some farm worker from Central America, or whether it is the President of the United States.

kiri (not verified)

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 22:59

You do not understand--the birthers' issue is whether Obama is a "natural born" citizen, not just any old citizen. However, anyone born by Caesarean is obviously not "naturally born". The birthers favor wide-hipped women with a large birth canal, so those of you "unnaturally born" are ineligible to become President.

Leave it to Beaner (not verified)

Wed, 07/29/2009 - 14:45

Kiri? Have you met Fred?